Chernobyl Closure--One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.

• Author: Kurykin, Serhiy
• Position: Brief Article

The infamous nuclear power plant (NPP) at Chernobyl is an especially dangerous facility, even if we use the criteria of the nuclear industry itself. The power plant's reactors (RBMK-type) were designed as dual-purpose installations. Production of weapons-grade plutonium was considered a more important function of the reactor than electricity generation. As a result, the reactor's design was inherently unreliable, incorporating at least 32 major faults, which could not be corrected by any modernization.

We may consider the sensational statement of Mr. Victor Brukhanov, the former director of Chernobyl NPP as major evidence. Speaking at a Ukraine Green Party press conference in Kiev on 4 December 2000, he confirmed the unreliable design of RBMK reactors. Analyzing the circumstances of the disaster, he stressed that the explosion of April 26, 1986 occurred in the course of the normal operation of the plant, and was not due to any unorthodox action on the part of the plant personnel nor to any other extraordinary events. This statement radically contradicts explanations which blamed the disaster on violations of operational safety on the part of plant personnel (although media sources actively disseminated these versions after the disaster).

The notorious "shelter" facility (the sarcophagus, covering the debris of the fourth power unit) at the plant is the second equally serious argument in favor of the closure of the plant. Nobody has adequate knowledge of the nature and outcome of the physical and chemical processes which are occurring inside the "sarcophagus." The behavior of the sarcophagus is therefore highly unpredictable. There is always some risk of accident, so the presence of operating reactors in close proximity to the shelter makes the threat and potential consequences of a new disaster substantially higher.

The decommissioning of Chernobyl could be considered a major success on the part of the international Green movement. This would be so, were it not accompanied by the stated intention of the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to provide Ukraine with loans (worth $1 .475 billion in total) for the completion of a second reactor unit at Khmelnitski and a fourth reactor unit at Rivne (Kh2/R4). These reactors are considered to be replacement generating capacity which should cover the gap caused by the decommissioning of Chernobyl. Thus, the international nuclear industry lobby, having made one step...