Russia's recent decision to launch a huge, highly questionable program to expand its nuclear-energy capacity demonstrates how little has changed since the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986. The West must try to dissuade the Yeltsin government from pursuing such a dangerous program, not only with words but financially ambitious deeds.
After Chernobyl's No. 4 RBMK reactor exploded, Moscow stopped building this design series because of well-founded concerns about the safety of 15 similar reactors scattered across the country. The Yeltsin government's decision in December, however, essentially ended the moratorium; Moscow apparently sees the path to its energy security linked with nuclear power.Moscow's plan allocates several trillion rubles (roughly $11 billion) through the year 2010 to build at least 30 nuclear reactors. Russian nuclear-energy officials estimate that the net increase in nuclear-generated energy output will be 3 percent - an insignificant gain for such a huge expenditure. This diversion of resources also has the potential of depriving the ailing oil and gas industries of capital.
The safety problems inherent in Soviet reactor design are the biggest cause for concern. The RBMK design used in Cher-no-byl lacks a containment structure to prevent the release of radioactivity in the event of an accident - a feature common in Western design. Fire and safety systems also are substandard. Indeed, there have been reports from nuclear power stations in Ukraine that operators had actually turned off some safety systems to boost electricity output. This tactic is the same taken in a test at the Chernobyl No. 4 reactor nearly seven years ago.
What is to be done? The United States already has taken several small steps, including a $25 million nuclear-reactor safety program being implemented by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. France and Germany also have made substantive efforts to improve nuclear safety. Global priorities will compete for dwindling resources, thus forcing a greater internationalization of the incipient nuclear assistance effort. In this regard, the Nuclear Safety Account approved by the so-called G-7 nations (the United States, Canada, Britain, Japan, Germany, France and Italy) in Bonn in late January is a positive step toward improving reactor safety in the former Soviet Union.
In addition, the following steps could be taken:
Prioritize immediately the most dangerous reactors for emergency assistance and closing within the year. More important, a feasible medium-term plan for their decommissioning must be developed.
Stop the purchase of Russian and Ukrainian nuclear-generated electricity by West European nations.
Empower the International Atomic Energy Agency politically and financially to lead the Western assistance effort. The IAEA has the institutional expertise to manage such a project and could reduce the waste and duplication inherent in large programs being implemented by several nations.
Encourage commercial investment in the natural energy resources of the former Soviet Union. Improved energy security for Russia is likely to ameliorate the energy situation in the former republics as well.
Only dedicated, coordinated action today can prevent the dismal headlines of a "Chernobyl II" tomorrow.