Reactors
Chernobyl Status, April 1997



Introduction

The Chernobyl disaster has been described as 'the greatest technological catastrophe in human history'. The accident sent a shock wave around the world, causing the cancellation of nuclear power programmes in country after country and was a turning point for the world nuclear industry.

Eleven years later, we are beginning to see what the true impact of a nuclear accident can be. Millions of people are still affected, hundreds of thousands of people have still not returned to their homes and agricultural land is still restricted hundreds of miles from the scene of the accident.

Causes

Design Problems.

The RBMK's had a number of design flaws, the main four of which are:-

To date the reactors have not been made sufficiently safe and it is impossible for them to do so. The danger was graphically expressed by Hans Meyer, spokesman for the IAEA who told Reuters, on the opening day of the IAEA's Conference on RBMK reactors in Vienna on April 1st-3rd 1996 "The great danger of the RBMK reactors is that they can catch fire in a way other reactors cannot."

Despite this, the IAEA's Conference concluded with Viktor Siderenko, deputy minister at the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy, calling for increased technical assistance for the reactors costing between $100-150 million per reactor, compared to the present level of about $20 million.

Consequences

It has been estimated that, although different radionuclides were released, the total radioactivity of the material from Chernobyl was 200 times that of the combined releases from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, there is still ongoing discussion about the quantity of radioactive material released in 1986. Many of the official estimates at the time claimed that 50 million curies (excluding noble gases) were released. However, in 1995, the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations from the Nuclear Energy Agency released the results of further research on the source term which shows that, the release was about 140 million cures, three times the original estimate.

Contamination

In the former Soviet Union at least 9 million people have been effected by the accident; 2.5 million in Belarus; 3.5 million in Ukraine; and 3 million in Russia. In total over 160 000 Km2 are contaminated in the three republics.

Evacuation

In the three countries most affected (Belarus, Russia and Ukraine), at least 400 000 people were forced to leave their homes. Despite this massive evacuation there are an estimated 270 000 people still living in areas of such contamination that strict controls are required i.e. restrictions on the use of locally grown food.

Economic

The Belarus Government estimate the total economic damage caused between 1986-2015 would be (1992 June prices) $235 billion. In Ukraine, in 1995 the Ministry for Chernobyl needed 286.4 thousand billions of karbovanets ($2.3 billion), but received only one third of this. It is therefore possible to estimate that the total bill for those countries most effected will exceed $300 billion by 2015.

In the UK it is estimated that the total cost of compensation paid to farmers is £12 million ($18 million). Several other European countries suffered economic losses. In Germany, the Federal Government paid out 452 million DM. ($307 million), while in Austria, the government paid compensation for agricultural losses totalling 966 million Austrian schillings ($94 million)

Health.

Thyroid Cancers.

It is now widely accepted that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in a massive increase in thyroid cancers in the three countries most affected. Already, 680 cases of thyroid cancer have been recorded in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. Belarus has shown a 100 fold increase, from 0.3 per million in 1981-85 to 30.6 per million in 1991-94. Russia indicates a 10 fold increase form 0 cases in 1981-5 to 10 per million in 1991-91 and, Ukraine shows an approximate 7 fold increase from 0.5 cases per million in 1981-85 to 3.4 per million in 1991-94.

Other Health Effects

UNICEF has assessed national statistics (i.e. not just in contaminated areas) for Belarus, between 1990-1994 and has noted significant increases in many types of health disorders. For example problems of the nervous and sensory organs have increased by 43%; disorders of the digestive organs by 28%; and disorders of bone, muscle and the connective tissue system have increased by 62%; and malignant tumours by 38%.

The Ministry of Chernobyl in Ukraine, estimates that there is a doubling of morbidity between those living in contaminated and clean areas.

Liquidators

Liquidators is the term given to the 800 000 workers who were involved in putting out the fire and undertaking the immediate recovery work. Despite the high doses that many of the liquidators received, there has been no internationally co-ordinated study to investigate the health consequences of the accident.

According to the World Health Organisation, medical monitoring of some of the liquidators is already indicating growing morbidity and mortality rates amongst this group.

According to the Belarus Government, thyroid cancer has increased 4000%, diabetes 700%, diseases of blood organs 840% and some malignant tubes 160% as well as a general reduction in the functioning of the immune system.

Estimates by a major non-government organisation - the Chernobyl Union - indicate that in the Russian Federation alone, 10% of the liquidators are unable to maintain full-time employment, meanwhile the Russia Ministry for Civil Defence claim that 38% of liquidators suffer from some disease.

At their 1995 annual press conference the Ukrainian Ministry of Health states: "According to inter-ministerial expert councils the 805 (60%) of ACCP (liquidators) deaths only in 1993 were connected with Chernobyl NPP accident effects, and 532 (77%) - in 1994 respectively."

Sarcophagus

The Chernobyl Unit 4 post accident containment structure, more commonly known as the "sarcophagus" was completed in November 1986. The sarcophagus was built in extremely hazardous conditions in order to isolate and contain the remains of the damaged reactor which contains over 400kg of plutonium and more than 100 tons of nuclear fuel.

Designed to last 30 years, it now suffers from approximately 300 square yards of cracks and holes along with other weaknesses which have arisen due to both the speed of construction and the conditions under which it was built. The design of the sarcophagus did not allow for potential earthquake stresses and both Ukrainian and Western scientists say it could collapse in a severe earthquake releasing radioactive dust. In March 1996, the Ukrainian Environment Minister stated "There is a real danger that as a result of thermal chemical migration of nuclear fuel deep in the debris of the reactor of the fourth power unit, a critical concentration may arise that will lead to a speedy heating and a thermal blast", however, not all experts agree with this analysis.

There is still no consensus about what is the most appropriate form of action to reduce the risk of a large-scale release of radiation from the sarcophagus. In particular regarding the necessity and feasibility of removing the fuel containing radioactive material from inside the sarcophagus. However, it now appears that progress is being made and the G7 is proposing that a fund be established to enable the work to take place. It is expected that this $800 million project will be announced at the G7 Summit in Denver in June 1997.

Future of Chernobyl

In December 1995, the Government of Ukraine, signed with the European Union and the G7, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which sought the permanent closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000. The MOU contained over $3 billion in grants ($500 million) and loans for energy projects in Ukraine, including an approximately $1 billion loan for the completion of two part built Soviet designed VVER 1000 reactors, Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 4 (K2R4).

In January 1996, President Jacques Chirac asked the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to consider funding K2R4. A condition for the involvement of the EBRD in the completion of K2R4 is that it is part of the least cost plan. To assess this, the EBRD established an independent panel to review the economics of completion. This multinational panel has concluded that the completion of K2R4 is not economic and that "Completing these reactors would not represent the most productive use of $1bn or more of EBRD/EU funds at this time". Therefore the EBRD cannot, under the terms of it's Energy Policy, assist with financing of the reactors. However, there is still intense pressure on the EBRD to fund the project. The EBRD has repeatedly stated that it will make an announcement on its involvement at the end of April or beginning of May of this year.

The completion of K2R4 is only part of the MOU, with over $2 billion in non-nuclear energy loans being developed, which will compensate for the closure of Chernobyl. However, it is clear that industrial pressure, East and West, is pushing for the completion of the controversial project.

Solutions

In Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union there is a huge potential for removing the need nuclear power on the short term. However, this has not been realised partly because of continued investment of resources into nuclear power programmes. Instead, investment should be made into alternatives which are more beneficial to the countries' environment and economy. In particular investment should be focused towards.

1. Energy Efficiency This is a very important untapped resource available to all countries in the region. Conservative estimates show that at present, electricity consumption per unit of economic output is at least twice as high as that in OECD Europe. Moreover, since electricity use in the region has not decreased by as much as economic output, electricity intensity has actually increased in recent years.

One example that highlights the benefits of energy efficiency implementation is an analysis which was undertaken by the European Union energy centre in Kiev. In Ukraine there are thousand of boilers used in small scale district heating plants and power units in small factories. The EU analysis looked at a system using eight boilers. The test showed that the improved efficiency gained by overhauling the eight boilers led to savings of 412,000 m3/year of natural gas, and 55,000 kWh/year of electricity. This is just one example among tens of thousands in the region where money and energy is being wasted.

i. Retrofitting Existing Supply Capacity

In Ukraine between 1990 and 1995 electricity production dropped by 80 Twh or approximately 35%. During this period production in the nuclear sector remained constant, at about 70Twh. Therefore, the decline in production took place almost exclusively in fossil fuel plants. Since it can be assumed that the plants in operation in 1990 are still operating today, it would be possible to shut down 100% of the existing nuclear sector overnight if all existing non-nuclear plants were utilised.

ii. Construction of New Renewable Energy Sources

This has very obvious environmental and economic advantages over other new supply options. However, despite this little work has been undertaken to evaluate the full range of potentials in the region, with the exception of wind.

The potential for Wind Power in the region is enormous. In Ukraine, there is the potential for over 150 GW in the Sivash and Black sea areas, in comparison Chernobyl currently has 1GW of capacity.

The use of small scale hydro has the potential to produce 4 times more than the present capacity of operating power plants according to experts from the State Scientific Research, Design Construction Institute of Unorthodox Power Generation and Electric Engineering.

Conclusion.

Despite massive international concern over nuclear safety in CEE and the fSU and hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loans to the region, there has been little increase in safety and none of the "high risk" reactors have been permanently closed. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the money is going to the wrong programmes. Instead of investing in energy efficiency and alternatives, the majority of vital resources are being paid to western consultants and contractors to review nuclear safety.

The accident at Chernobyl has had a huge impact on the environment especially in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. In addition, it has had a negative impact on the health of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the clean-up and those who still live in heavily contaminated areas. Due to the long half life of many of the radio-nuclides released a huge area will remain contaminated for generations to come. International organisations, such as the IAEA and WHO continue to maintain that other than Thyroid cancers there are no negative physical health effects from Chernobyl. However, with the exception of Thyroid cancers no large scale international study has been completed which investigates health effects in high risk groups e.g. the Liquidators. Without adequate information it is impossible to draw firm conclusion.

Due to the serious risk of a second accident at Chernobyl it is essential that the station be closed immediately and because of the safety problems of the existing Sarcophagus it is necessary to take immediate action to secure it and begin preparation for the construction of a second structure. Both of these require urgent Western financial support to avoid another environment and ecological disaster.