Recent Kiev decision creates a risk of a new man-made nuclear accident in Europe. What precisely is the risk and what needs to be done to avoid it? Radio VR looks at it with Anton Khlopkov, Director of the Center for Energy and Security in Russia, and Christoph R. Hörstel from Germany, Government & Business Consultant, Publicist.
Speaking at a press-conference on the 24 of September, Mikhail Gashev, First Deputy Head of the State Inspectorate for Nuclear Regulation of Ukraine, said he had signed a number of contracts to supply nuclear fuel made by US Westinghouse company.
It is to be used in Soviet-model nuclear power reactors, which are not designed for that kind of fuel. Yuzhnoukrainsk nuclear power plant will receive a batch of Westinghouse fuel as early as December 2014, Mykhailo Hashev told reporters in Kiev.
According to Vladimir Kuznetsov, Professor at the Northern (Arctic) Federal University, "replacing Russian nuclear fuel with American fuel is an explosive idea of Ukraine's leadership. Europe may face three new Chernobyl disasters," the expert said.
Says Anton Khlopkov, Director of the Center for Energy and Security in Moscow, Russia:
“Ukraine is not the first country which is trying to use a Westinghouse —produced nuclear fuel for the Soviet-design reactors, the so-called VVER reactors. There was an experience in a few other countries: in Finland, in the Czech Republic. And there was also an attempt in Slovakia to supply a US company-origin fuel. And the performance of that fuel was not good enough.
And I should say that in the Czech Republic there even were some leaks of the fuel, which means that it creates challenges to the nuclear safety of the nuclear power plant. This is why, for example, the Czech Republic, at the nuclear plant Temelín, decided to stop using the US fuel two years before the contract with the Westinghouse has expired.
So, the problem is in the quality of the fuel. And during the last few years Westinghouse was partially supplying its fuel for the three nuclear power plants in Ukraine. And again, the conclusion form the technical authorities of Ukraine was quite negative, that the behavior of the fuel is unpredictable and it can cause some nuclear safety challenges, as well as it was in the case of the nuclear fuel at the Temelín nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic.
So, with all this information in mind, what could be the reason why would the Kiev authorities now decide to replace the fuel?
Anton Khlopkov: It goes without saying that it is a purely political decision. Ukraine would like to use Westinghouse-produced fuel for political reasons, rather than for some other ones. And I should also mention that there is another dimension to that problem. According to the data which is available, the Westinghouse-produced fuel is at least 20% more expensive than the Russian-origin fuel, the fuel which is supplied to this day by the TVEL company, which is a subsidiary of the Rosatom state nuclear corporation.
This means that if Ukraine actually starts replacing the Russian-origin fuel with the Westinghouse-produced fuel, every year it will cost at least $100 million extra. During the last two years Ukraine spent about $600 million to buy the Russian-origin fuel. I'm not sure that now Ukraine has the economic situation which allows them to pay extra $100 million just for political reasons.
So, I hope that this decision in Ukraine is not the final one and can be reviewed again, because this is about both: this is about safety and this is about economy of the country. And if the decision to use the US-origin fuel will be implemented, it can create additional problems in the Ukrainian economy, as well as create challenges to nuclear safety in that country.
And people in Ukraine remember well how important safety is, because Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which is shut down right now, actually is located on the territory of Ukraine.
Again, unfortunately, the experience, which the European countries had of using Westinghouse-origin fuel, is not widely publicized, though it is quite dramatic and should be further promoted among the public opinion.
It should be also kept in mind that this is not so much about the American technology, this is about safety and this is just because the technology of fuel production is very complex. The same is true with regards to the supply of the Russian-origin fuel to the US-design reactors. It is not the issue whether the Russian companies can or cannot supply the US-origin or Western-origin reactors with its own fuel. It takes a lot of time to produce a reliable fuel, if you are not the originator of that technology.
From that point of view, those experts who are against using the US-origin fuel in Ukraine, they are not so much against the Americans, they are against using the fuel which is not safe enough, which is not good enough for the reactors, because, they believe, it can damage not only the nuclear industry of Ukraine, but, we should be clear on that, if there is a new accident at the nuclear power plant after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, it can kill the whole nuclear industry. And many countries, including the Russian Federation, invested a lot into that technology and are dependent a lot on the nuclear power plants in electricity production.
Again, it goes without saying that the previous experience with that fuel demonstrated that it creates some safety challenges. Again, there is a number of examples what nuclear safety can mean and what outcome of that can be. I would not say for sure, that if the American fuel is there, there would be a new Fukushima.
But the whole principle of a nuclear power plant operation, in which safety is the first priority, is undermined by this Ukrainian choice, if it will be implemented, because it is not only about a political decision to change one fuel with another, but this is also an important financial decision, because Ukraine will have to pay more. The Westinghouse company does not produce as much fuel as Russia produces for their reactors, which means that if you produce more fuel of the same type, it will be cheaper than if you produce just some bit for a limited number of reactors.
And again, from that point of view this political decision in Ukraine, which looks like Ukraine would like to implement, can cost a lot not only to the nuclear industry of Ukraine, but to the budget of the country which faces huge problems these days.
Well, if Ukraine decides it can afford the financial cost, we definitely cannot afford the risk. So, I hope that the point you are making is going to be heard”.
The move obviously creates a new risk to nuclear security not only for Ukraine, or Russia, but also for much of Europe.
Says Christoph R. Hörstel, Government consultant and political analyst, based in Germany:
“What we have in a triple risk is: first, the reactors are very old, all of them are 20-30 years old; the second is that there is a risk that the war, taking place in Ukraine, might spill over into a region where such a power plant is situated; and the third is — it was recognized, though not very widely and also not very urgently — that when the nuclear material of the US company called Westinghouse was used, it turned out that it is not compatible and that these sticks were in fact bending under the pressure, and that immediately Ukraine turned to Russia and asked them – please, send us the old fuel material, because the new one doesn’t work.
And now they sign a contract. This is, of course, alarming. But I think it will take some time until this trick is through to the Western countries and, of course, we have a powerful industry interest now from the American side, and also from the European side that this doesn’t get too much notoriety.
But when we are talking about this kind of risk, it goes across the borders. And we all still remember Chernobyl. So, do you think that this time the international community could do anything to prevent this kind of development?
Christoph R. Hörstel: I would just remind you of what happened to the method of winning gas – fracking. In the past years, in 2011 we had a widespread unrest in the media on the occasion of this idea being vented that Germany might be included into the fracking areas. This was in 2011.
And now, in the present situation, when the relations with Russia deteriorating quickly because of Washington, we have a very interesting broadcast from the same type of public television in Germany saying that – well, fracking is just not so bad. So, we have a change of policies here, disregarding the security issues, poisoning issues, health issues and things like that due to the political issues. That is already a very bad precedent, but, of course, the nuclear issue tops it all.
True. Germany was one of the countries which showed most of uneasiness in Europe after the Fukushima disaster. But Fukushima is so much further away from Germany than Ukraine.
The Russian nuclear expert, Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov came to the official hearing of the German Parliament on March 19 this year. And he reported on massive security gaps at the Ukrainian nuclear power plants. And that was taken up with much interest. And what we have now, in fact, is a lot of hypocrisy and bigotry on the German and European side. They watch this contract being prepared, it comes to a signature and there is no protest. In fact, there is nothing at all. Zero reaction!
And that is a pure hypocrisy, because usually, if anything happens which touches the outer perimeter of anything related to security, we have a huge outcry in our media. And this thundering silence is really astonishing”.
