Still dancing with the nuclear devil

May 11, 1994
Issue 

By John Hallam

Eight years after the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, the governments of Ukraine and Russia have opted to proceed with ambitious nuclear programs that they can't afford.

While studies done by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the areas affected by the accident say that any health effects are due to poor nutrition and so-called "radiophobia", there is no doubt from other sources that the health impact has already been substantial, and will continue literally for centuries.

Health and environmental organisations in the Ukraine are calling for fresh investigations. According to Friends of the Earth-Ukraine (Zeleny Zvit), only 30% of adults in the Ukraine could be called healthy, and only 27% of children. Zeleny Zvit says that the immediate radiation effects of the accident have already produced 32,571 deaths.

In 1993, the World Health Organisation reported an increase in thyroid cancers in children of up to 24 times.

In Belarus, nearly 2 million people in contaminated areas need "special attention", while breast cancer has increased dramatically. Belarus says that it needs $300-400 million for "clean" food and medical supplies by 1995.

In Russia, there has been a 25% increase in tumours and a 50% increase in cardiovascular problems since the disaster. Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from the disaster range from the ridiculous 31 immediate deaths still held to by the IAEA, to an admission by the British nuclear industry in 1991 that there would be around 40,000 early deaths, to an estimate of 500,000 by Professor John Gofman.

Estimates of the actual radioactivity released as a result of the explosion have been increased as a result of an investigation by Alexander Sich of MIT. According to Sich, while the IAEA considers that the accident released around 30-50million curies, the real figure was between 185 and 250 million.

The Ukraine has a special ministry to deal with the effects of Chernobyl, and spends more on this ministry than it does on its defence budget.

The ministry's program includes the relocation of people from contaminated areas, social security provisions for affected people, and a "long-term" decontamination program. According to Zeleny Zvit, about 130,000 people have been resettled. The Ukraine has tried to finance these operations by a 12% tax on all citizens, but those engaged in decontamination programs say it doesn't provide even half the money needed.

Yet both the Ukraine and Russia plan major expansions of their nuclear industries.

The Ukrainian parliament on October 21 not only repealed its August 1990 decision to close Chernobyl completely by the end of 1993, but lifted a ban on the construction of new plants.

The government argued that Chernobyl and new nuclear plants were needed in order to avoid the import of large quantities of natural gas and oil from Russia, which Ukraine cannot afford. However, Zeleny Zvit produced figures in a letter to President Kravchuk indicating that while the Ukraine produces 64 million Kw, it requires only 32 million, and economical use of existing energy was not being made.

The World Bank also argued in an unpublished report: "Shutting down the remaining Chernobyl units by the end of this year (1993) should not pose a threat of capacity shortages in the Ukraine provided the existing generation capacity of thermal plants is maintained".

When a moratorium on new nuclear construction was imposed in August 1990, Ukraine had six VVER units under construction. The government now wants to complete all six units by the end of the decade.

At present, only two units at the Chernobyl site — Chernobyl 1 and 3 — are operational. Unit 4 is entombed in the now crumbling sarcophagus, while unit 2 suffered a disastrous fire in its turbine room in 1991. It was a decision to attempt the re-start of unit 2 that prompted Georgyi Kopchinski, Ukraine's second most senior nuclear regulator, to quit. He said, "I don't understand their decision. The situation today is very similar to the situation in 1985-86 which led to the Chernobyl accident."

The Leningrad nuclear reactors have faced the prospect of shutdown because there is no money to pay for new fuel elements. In the Murmansk region, the Kola nuclear plants are owed millions of roubles by local industries. But the minister responsible, Viktor Mikhailov, has announced grandiose plans for expansion of Russia's nuclear capacity.

Russia has 29 nuclear plants that are, at least in theory, in operation. Six plants are officially under construction. A further 26 are "planned", including two 800 Mw fast breeders.

These plans are likely to run head-on into one obvious constraint: lack of money. At present, Russian nuclear power plants don't have cash to pay for personnel, spare parts or maintenance. Officials have said that reactor safety is being jeopardised by the need to divert resources to obtain bank loans to pay staff and do routine maintenance.

Less than half the electricity generated by Russian nuclear plants has been paid for. The grid organisations now owe Russia's reactor operators in excess of 100 billion roubles — about US$85 million. Lack of money has actually forced the temporary closure of the problem-plagued plants at Kola.

The Russian safety record for 1993 and the early part of '94 is far from reassuring. On February 16, 1994, the Russian Federal Nuclear and Radiation Authority issued a damning report, according to which 5500 inspections had picked up some 20,000 safety violations. Ten per cent of all nuclear workers failed tests of their safety knowledge.

The most serious safety problems so far have surfaced at the Kola plant in Murmansk. In February 1993, a blizzard knocked out the electricity supply to the four reactors there, as a result of which all four shut down. However, the loss of power caused the emergency coolant system of two of the four reactors to fail, and emergency backup systems also failed. What followed was panic and complete chaos in the control room, with the emergency power systems being started literally seconds before meltdown would have begun.

The "incident" was not reported to the regulatory authorities, and when it was finally passed on to the IAEA, it was rated a "zero" on the IAEA's International Nuclear Event Scale.

There has been growing concern about the safety of the world's two largest reactors, the 1500/1450Mw RBMK plants at Ignalina in Lithuania, now independent from Russia. It has been suggested that these two reactors are the most dangerous in the world, though there are perhaps plants in India that would vie for that dubious distinction.

At independence, Lithuania had no nuclear laws, no regulatory body and no indigenous nuclear industry. Since then Sweden has tried hard to help the Lithuanians with a variety of reactor safety projects of which the most important has probably been the inspection of welds in the top ends of the reactor fuel channels. An inspection of 1400-1600 welds in Ignalina's core uncovered 230 defective welds.

At Chernobyl, major problems are emerging with the structural integrity of the "sarcophagus" that covers the wrecked reactor. A competition for solutions to the long-term containment of the reactor ruins led to the suggestion of a number of sci-fi schemes by major French, German, British, Ukrainian and Russian engineering groups. While some or all of these schemes may work in theory, they must be able to continue working for the next 200-500 years, and the Ukraine has absolutely no money to pay for them.

Some structures inside the old sarcophagus — such as the reactor lid — are unstable, and may collapse at any time. The sarcophagus rests on major structural components of the reactor whose strength is not known. Water penetrating the bottom of the sarcophagus may gradually wash out the base of its foundations. There is a possibility that the roof may collapse, though that is considered "remote".
[John Hallam is uranium and nuclear power researcher for Friends of the Earth.]

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.