Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

119
economies. Economic chaos and hardship are obvious. Demands to generate net
hard currency, or minimize consumption of it, are intense. Poverty and inexperience
of reactor operators during this transition period has been cited as a safety issue.
I raise these questions not as a nuclear safety phobic but instead to put these
issues in context. Nuclear reactor safety issues cannot be considered in isolation
from other problems facing the newly independent countries in EE/CIS.
ee/cis nuclear safety in a broader context
Most Western reviews of EE/CIS reactors have been objective and professional.
However, to some extent, the specific priorities and interests of Western companies
and other institutions which can benefit from elaborate remediation programs, have
given the efforts an odor of "ambulance-chasing." Moreover, many Western parties
take the position that since the West will be suppljdng grants and loan guarantees
to CIS/EE, then the West has the right to dictate the way the assistance money will
be spent. Further, the reactor safety issues have been considered in isolation from
other major problems in the CIS/EE; assessments have not addressed priorities, and
relative risks, costs, and benefits of remediations proposed.
A successful Eissistance program for improving nuclear safety cannot be imposed;
it must be carefully and realistically integrated into the economic and energy plans
of each country and region. This must be done with the full cooperation of the receiving
governments, ministries and power plant personnel. Assistance should also
be specific to the dramatically varying needs of the individual republics. For example,
it is a widely held view that the RBMK reactors are so hopelessly unsafe that
only minimal assistance should be given to them. There is the mistaken belief that
such pronouncements and the withholding of assistance will somehow lead to the
early closure of these plants. This cannot and will not happen. This May in Karlsruhe,
Minatom's Victor Sidorenko, Deputy Minister for Nuclear Energy, outlined
Russia's hopes of achieving a 30-year life from its RBMK reactors. Consider the situation
of Lithuania: the two 1500 MW RBMK reactors at Ignalina (the largest reactors
in the world) supply greater than 50% of the country's electricity needs. With
no indigenous fuel resources and an economy which can support neither the construction
of alternative thermal power stations nor the importation of their fuel, Ignalina's
reactors will need to remain on-line, generating electricty for many years to
come. That is, they will operate with or without Western aid and assistance. The
situation is similar in Bulgaria where four of the first generation WER 440-230 reactors
are operating at Kozloduy. These reactors, generally considered to be nearly
as unsafe as the RBMKs, produce approximately 18% of the country's electricity.
Closure would impose severe hardships on the general population. Some experts
even predict that plant closures and the subsequent energy shortages, when combined
with the other economic woes of the region, could even enflame civil unrest.
How then should Western governments and industry proceed?
First, it should be clearly recognized by all parties that the nuclear safety issues
cannot be addressed in isolation from the other problems facing governments, at
both the national and local levels. Nuclear power generation facilities (and the related
infrastructure), represent major sources of electricity, heat, hard currency generation,
and employment. It is imperative to let CIS/EE governments know that
this dependency is recognized and understood. Aid must be given in a way to enable
the recipients to help themselves over the near- and long-term, not just to alleviate
certain real and imagined Western concerns about reactor safety.
Second, while recognizing the nationalism of these new republics, inter-regional
cooperation in the electricity and nuclear sectors must be strongly encouraged by
Western governments. Issues such as fuel manufacturing and waste management
are most certainly best organized on a regional basis, utilizing the supply channels
of the former Soviet Union. For example. Western governments and the nuclear industry
should discourage countries considering local memufacturing of nuclear fuel
which is almost certainly counter-productive to the best long-term interests of the
region overall. Construction of such new facilities cannot be of real benefit when
one recognizes the significant world over-capacity for nuclear fuel production.
Third, the entire energy infrastructure £md electricsd demand forecasts should be
factored into the plann^ safety improvement program. This means non-nuclear as
well as nuclear generation and the grid efficiencies. For example, losses in the grid
run in the region about 10%. These are losses in transmitting power from generating
plants to end uses. Clearly significant investment in improving the grid's efficiency
could enable many regions to much more seriously contemplate closing
unsafe or inefficient generation capacity. End use efficiencies should also be addressed.
Future generation capacity proposed by the West should also consider com-