More than 80 environmental and consumer organizations December 14 sent a letter to President Clinton and to the U.S. representative on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) urging them to stop funding for Ukraine's proposed K2/R4 atomic reactors. 67 of the groups were from the United States.
The letter was part of an international day of protest against the unnecessary and dangerous project. Demonstrations are expected in some 30 European cities on December 14, which marks the end of a controversial "public consultation" period intended by the EBRD to solicit public comment on its participation in the project.
The Clinton administration has supported construction of the new reactors as the price to pay for a permanent shutdown of the two remaining operable Chernobyl atomic reactors. But environmentalists and critics throughout Europe—and now the United States—have pointed out severe safety shortcomings in these "new," but Soviet-designed reactors. Opponents also have argued that the EBRD is required to support only least-cost energy projects. A blue-ribbon panel, including U.S. utility and nuclear experts Peter Bradford and David Freeman, concluded in 1997 that the K2/R4 project is decidedly not a least-cost energy strategy for Ukraine. But the EBRD commissioned a new study, by nuclear contractors Stone & Webster, which argues that the reactors are a least-cost energy alternative.
Said NIRS executive director Michael Mariotte, "The Stone & Webster study is faulty from beginning to end. It barely recognizes decommissioning costs—which in U.S. experience runs at about initial plant construction costs; it completely ignores radioactive waste storage costs, which may be the highest nuclear-related cost of all; and its estimate of construction costs will be met only if Ukraine doesn't plan on paying its construction workers."
Mariotte added, "We agree with President Clinton that permanently closing Chernobyl is of paramount importance. But there is little reason to believe that Ukraine will keep its promise to close Chernobyl if K/2 and R/4 are built—after all, what other nation would keep Chernobyl running at all? Further, it makes precious little sense to build two new unsafe reactors in highly-populated regions to replace two unsafe reactors in an abandoned region. And K2/R4 are decidedly unsafe—neither could be licensed in the U.S., or anywhere in the west."
"Instead of building the next nuclear accident waiting to happen, the EBRD and the U.S. should be helping Ukraine develop and implement renewable energy projects and especially new energy efficiency measures. Ukraine actually has plenty of electrical capacity, but it also is among the least energy efficient nations in the world. It would be much more cost-effective and a greater boon to its economy to help make Ukraine an energy efficient nation supported by new local energy efficiency industries," said Mariotte.
Background on K2/R4
Khmelnitski 2 and Rovno 4 are two partially-built, Soviet-designed 1000MW VVER nuclear units situated in northeast Ukraine. The construction of these reactors was stopped in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, in 1996, the Ukrainian government proposed a project to complete these reactors to replace two operational units at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which is to be closed down by 2000. Ukraine signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the G7 countries and the European Union in which the conditions for this deal are formulated.
The project is expected to cost $1.72 billion. The Ukrainian government has approached the EBRD for a loan of $190 million for the project. Once this loan is obtained, additional funding will come from Euratom, Russia and from Export Credit Agencies in Europe, Japan and the U.S.
The EBRD has been considering the loan for years, but seems hesitant to come up with the loan, as the project fails to meet many of the criteria the Bank has formulated for such projects. In 1997, an independent panel of the EBRD concluded that K2/R4 does not meet the EBRD economic criteria, in the sense that the project is not economic in terms of rate of return and is not a least cost solution for the problem of energy supply.
Safety problems
The project also poses many serious safety problems, most of which are due to structural flaws in the original Soviet design. The international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified these safety problems, which include an increased risk of fire due to improper cable layout, faulty steam generators, containment vessels that are susceptible to rupture, faulty control rods and poor and obsolete instrumentation and control. Despite the significance and importance of these safety problems, the project sponsor is not planning to complete all safety measures, and planning to solve some of the known safety problems only at the first refueling–after three years of reactor operation.
Poor public consultation
EBRD regulations require that the project sponsor, the Ukrainian state company Energoatom, undertake public hearings on the project, as arranged under the Convention on Environmental impact assessment in a Transboundary Context, (the Espoo convention). For this reason, a Public Participation Process started in August, with the objective of gathering input from the public on the environmental impact assessment. This process, which ends in mid-December, has been hampered from the very first day by many problems, mostly due to a lack of interest from the Energoatom. Decisions have, to a large extent, been carried out on a non-transparent basis, and information about the project has not been readily available. Project sponsors have been consistently uncooperative throughout the public participation process.
The Ukrainian government has little patience with any public opposition, which might weaken its efforts to complete the reactors and in some cases has actually attempted to silence opposition by using intimidation and physical threat. The Ukrainian Secret Service (the successor to the KGB) has harassed, interrogated and arrested without warrant persons who have openly campaigned against the project.
NIRS can place reporters in touch with European contacts on these issues. More information is available on NIRS' website: www.nirs.org