Serhiy PARASHYN: Nuclear Power Plant’s Priority is Safety

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.