Then come fuel and pay
The situation that has developed in Ukraine’s nuclear
power industry this winter alarms both society and experts. Oleksandr Hudyma,
chairman of the parliamentary fuel committee, asked the Prime Minister
for an urgent meeting to discuss the industry’s critical condition. UNIAN
reports that Mr. Hudyma’s letter requests suspension of cadre decisions
in the nuclear sector in general and the Enerhoatom National Energy Company
in particular. At the same time, the committee chairman notes that he has
“sufficient information and documents attesting to wrongdoing in the company
and violations by business structures whose managers claim important government
posts.” Mykhailo Brodsky, chairman of the Verkhovna Rada committee for
industrial policy and entrepreneurship, stated recently that the Finance
Ministry “has on more than one occasion established Enerhoatom’s arrears
on payments to the budget and business intermediaries receiving practically
interest-free foreign exchange loans subsequently used for purposes other
than those for which they were designated, thereby reaping excess profits.”
In fact, the situation with Enerhoatom has called forth a number of critical
responses in the media.
Serhiy PARASHIN, former manager of Chornobyl Nuclear
Power Station and now director of the Energy Industry and Information Sciences
XXI International Center, shared with The Day his views on the basic
reasons for today’s unprecedented crisis in the Ukrainian nuclear sector.
The Day: The situation with Enerhoatom has heated
up a great deal. The company’s debts exceed a billion and several power
units lack fuel, which makes things in the nation’s energy system even
worse. The scandal has already hit the newspapers. On February 7, for example,
Kievskie Vedomosti carried an article on the topic. What do you
think caused this crisis in the nuclear sector in the first place?
S. P. : First, about that article. One can agree
with it in principle. Second, what conclusions can one draw from the situation
that has of late been actively discussed by the press? Conclusion one:
the managers of nuclear power plants must once again be made responsible
for the situation at their stations.
This could be done under existing legislation by returning
the nuclear power plants the legal entity status, while preserving Enerhoatom.
This national energy company could be made a holding one under the circumstances,
controlling the corporate rights of the nuclear power stations as juridical
persons. That way each and every plant would assume full responsibility,
while Enerhoatom would discharge functions which none of the stations can
handle.
The next aspect following from the media discussion is
the absence of frankness and openness in Enerhoatom’s policy, considering
its annual money turnover of some $1.5 billion. A business entity of this
caliber, generating over 40% of the electricity for the entire economy
and national security, must be open to the general public. Such openness,
transparent plans published at the start of every year, along with summary
reports every six months and at the end of the year will help avoid all
those setbacks we are witnessing and suffering from, now that the company
keeps its secrets.
Openness, frankness, using tenders, all this is nothing
new. It is standard practice in any big company in any developed country.
In addition, I think that fighting the privatization which is underway
makes no sense. Sometime in the future, when we have willing investors,
all nuclear power plants will be privatized. This will not be done overnight,
yet we should start the process now. We have the required procedures and
training that will allow us to work with prospective investors.
The Day: How will privatization affect nuclear
plant efficiency and safety?
S. P. : The point of the matter is that privatization
will make it possible for every station to show more rapid progress. We
know that there comes a point where state ownership does not allow us to
acquire new quality.
The Day: Getting back to the article. You are
mentioned there as one of the managers fired for disloyalty toward Enerhoatom.
Is it true?
S. P. : That’s history now, and I’d rather return
to the subject. I think it’s important to set and state a certain goal.
Thus openness is fundamental. Such openness makes it possible for a large
number of people to become involved in the discussion. Yet when no topic
is offered for discussion and we can’t hear any different views, we see
only one question: is there enough fuel purchased? In general, fuel procurements
make up some 0.5% of a station’s priorities.
The Day: Yet this 0.5% attracts intent attention,
because it makes it possible to earn $200 million,
S. P. : Yes, people are appearing on the Ukrainian
market, wishing to operate for a long time. The nuclear energy sector is
a lasting one. We believe that every nuclear station should have a life
span of at least thirty years. In fact, forty year projects are being worked
out. To date, Ukraine’s nuclear power industry has operated for less than
half of its service life. In addition, money must be allocated for nuclear
safety every year.
In the West, for example, this comes to $10 million a year.
And this is the real guarantee that their nuclear power plants will work
long and quite safely. In the West, every nuclear power incident means
closing the station. Hence, avoiding incidents helps nuclear power stations
work longer.
The Day: How much has been invested in nuclear
plant safety recently?
S. P. : This is hard to say for someone no longer
with the company. I haven’t seen any such information in print. Getting
back to openness, I think that it is the most important thing. A safety
cost estimate should be published at the beginning of the year and show
the public throughout the year that money is channeled not only to the
payroll. The payroll is not the main thing. It is important to realize
that fuel and pay are not the station’s top priority. Safety and efficiency
are. Pay and fuel come next.
The Day: Where do you see a way out of the current
situation?
S. P. : The time is ripe for decisive steps and
these steps must be taken, namely making the state nuclear energy company,
first, safe; second, effective; and, third, prevent it from causing social
conflicts.
The Day: The West is pressuring to close Chornobyl.
Will it demand closure for other nuclear power plants after Chornobyl,
proceeding from safety considerations?
S. P. : The West has often made such demands. IAEA
held a nuclear safety conference last year when every safety convention
member state reported its domestic situation. Enough safety faults were
found with Ukraine, but the West has since shown a more moderate approach.
What they consider most important now is perhaps Chornobyl.
Yet once this issue is closed any other plant could take its place. Such
safety arrangements take time, a couple of years as a rule. Nothing can
be done quickly in the nuclear sector.
The Day: Is there anything that could be done
now?
S. P. : I am getting back to responsibility. When
we make a certain station responsible we know that its manager and the
entire team will do their best to keep safety the top priority.
If we relieve the manager of this responsibility and shift
it to Enerhoatom, a given station’s team will be concerned primarily about
their pay, social needs, with safety being pushed in the background. What
I have in mind is very important work being done every day but hardly noticeable.
No one demands this kind of work from any nuclear power stations, and this
constitutes a huge problem.
