Construction of a dry spent nuclear fuel storage facility (SNFSF-2) has started at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), as reported by the plant’s press service. According to it, US company Holtec International will act as the general contractor of the project, while two Ukrainian companies, YUTEM Engineering Ltd. and Ukrtransbud Inc., will build the storage facility. Back in August 2014, they signed a contract with Holtec International to do installation, construction, and launch work.
“Simultaneously, we are drafting working designs and getting the appropriate permissions, so that large-scale work on construction of the SNFSF-2 will restart as soon as mid-November. Meanwhile, October-December 2014 will see inspecting and testing of existing equipment, which was installed and mounted by the previous contractor of the SNFSF-2 project,” the press service of the Chornobyl NPP reported. The storage facility is scheduled to become operational in November 2015.
Let us recall that the SNFSF-2 is being built in the framework of the Chornobyl NPP decommissioning program. Creating such a facility is required by a provision of the international treaty signed on closing down the plant. It should also be noted that the program involves completing and modernizing existing storage facilities to improve their safety. All the processes of handling nuclear fuel rods, including receiving, unloading, cutting, drying, packing, sealing, and moving into long-term storage, will be fully automated.
What are the pros and cons of building the nuclear storage facility for Ukraine? Also, what pitfalls are likely to appear along this way? The Day put these questions to experts.
COMMENTARIES
Valerii BOROVYK, chairman of the New Energy of Ukraine Alliance:
“Definitely, the pros predominate in this project for Ukraine. Currently, we have to take spent nuclear fuel to Russia and pay a high price for its temporary storage there.
“Ukraine has suffered the largest ever nuclear accident, and this country still has areas contaminated by nuclear waste. We cannot escape this fact. It should be used to gain independence from Russia in the matter of nuclear waste handling. Should Russia say ‘no’ to continued cooperation tomorrow, what would we do with the waste? Is keeping it in open basins a right way to go?
“However, when building the nuclear storage facility, it is necessary to study all the possible risks and minimize them. For example, are they really intending to build it on the ground under the concrete walls? How dangerous is it? The second issue is the need to achieve a longer-term solution of the nuclear waste problem, going beyond 10 to 20 years. The third issue is whether the nuclear storage facility will be used to store nuclear waste from around the world. The answer, obviously, lies with the parliament, and not the executive branch.
“I do not think that now is the time to take responsibility and to keep nuclear waste from other countries here. In general, it is necessary to explore the legal framework regulating activities at such dangerous objects, and to make decisions based on that framework. In addition, it is important to invite independent experts who are not associated with the nuclear lobby of the US and France to help us determine the location and construction technology for this facility.”
Tetiana TYMOCHKO, chairwoman of the All-Ukrainian Ecological League:
“Construction of a centralized spent nuclear fuel storage facility is not a new issue. It was often raised over the past 10 years. This is due to the fact that the Russian State Duma passed a law in 2007 stipulating that starting in 2012, Russia would not allow importation of nuclear waste from other countries into its territory. Each country using Russian facilities was told in advance that it had to build its own nuclear waste storage facility. It started a discussion in Ukraine on how such a facility should look like. Environmental NGOs opposed the construction of storage facilities in the Chornobyl NPP Zone. It would cost billions of hryvnias from the state coffers to build a new nuclear facility which would destroy all prospects of development of that territory. However, each nuclear plant has a temporary nuclear waste storage facility. We offered to reconstruct and modernize them, to turn them into permanent plant-attached nuclear waste storage facilities. There are several reasons to prefer this option. Firstly, moving nuclear waste from the plant to the sole facility is a very dangerous process. It is difficult to ensure that technological requirements and executive discipline are observed during transportation. Secondly, there is a risk of terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, NPPs have all required conditions met, and they can be further improved. That is why we insist that constructing plant-attached nuclear waste storage facilities would be technologically and environmentally advantageous for Ukraine. What is being proposed now is just another attempt to spend public money completely outside the public control, for the government has not made public this project and held no professional, extensive discussion with the public, even though our league did initiate such discussions. The government, however, paid no attention to it. Now, Ukraine has no money even to conduct this construction effort. We sent a letter to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, proposing to hold a discussion on the construction project. I do not know at what stage this project is today. However, previous versions of the project that we could get hold of and study (despite the government never officially proposing to discuss these projects), showed that the projected capacity of the facility exceeded by several times the amount of nuclear waste that Ukraine will produce over the next 50 years. I am very alarmed by it, for extra capacity could encourage people to consider the possibility of storing nuclear waste there not only from Ukraine, but from other countries as well. It would be the worst outcome.”
