Nuclear power plants in Central and Eastern Europe[1]
OPINION
Doc. 6759
3 February 1993
Rapporteur: Mr FLÜCKIGER, Switzerland, Radical Democrat
The majority of nuclear power stations in operation in Eastern Europe present a danger to the entire continent. There is reason to fear an accident similar in scope to the one in Chernobyl in 1986. It could occur at any moment, and we can be sure that the radioactive cloud in its wake will pay as little attention to international borders as seven years ago. In the face of a situation which can thus be qualified as a veritable powder keg, urgent measures are necessary. This is also the important message in the excellent report prepared by the Committee on Science and Technology (Doc. 6736).
The remedies to solve this problem are so costly as to be completely beyond the means of the countries in question. In order to meet the most pressing safety concerns of these installations, the countries of Western Europe must intensify their technological and economic assistance. And the entire international community will have to help out in compensating for the energy shortages that will be caused by the closing or the restoration of those plants which suffer the most acute problems.
The international evaluation of the true state of different nuclear plants, started in 1991, must be systematically pursued and accelerated, in particular through the expertise of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The expert's recommendations must be scrupulously respected, even if they conclude that a given plant may have to be closed down or undergo repair. The number of obsolete plants in the region that need to be closed immediately is estimated at between twenty-five and thirty. Another considerable environmental risk is posed by the processing of used nuclear fuel.
In order to palliate the effects on energy production from measures of the above kind, other sources of energy should be developed. In addition, the whole structure foreseen for the distribution of electric energy should be reviewed, building not least on the experiences of western countries. Finally, the costs resulting from the final or temporary closure of nuclear plants must be compensated at regional and national level with the help of international grants.
The countries directly concerned will have to take a number of accompanying measures such as:
- the raising to world levels of artificially low prices of energy, in particular oil, of which the countries of the former Soviet Union are still very large producers;
- a tangible reduction in the waste of energy;
- enhanced exports of oil and gas, in order to earn hard currency.
An example of the above is provided by the temporary closure of the second reactor at the Bulgarian nuclear plant of Kozlodoui. Situated on the Danube in north-western Bulgaria, some 200 km from Sofia, the Kozlodoui plant is considered by international experts as one of the most dangerous in the world.
The temporary closure was caused by, according to a spokesman of the plant, "a small leak of radioactive vapour" which, however, "did not pose any danger of radioactive pollution of the environment".
In 1991 the IAEA recommended closure of the entire plant, and in October the same year reactor No. 2 was indeed shut down by the Bulgarian authorities. Among the reasons for the recommended action were completely outdated equipment - poorly maintained by largely underqualified personnel acting without any outside checks - and an insufficient protective shield.
After a first series of repairs costing some 34 million dollars, the second reactor and two others (out of a total of six) were functioning up until the latest incident. Kozlodoui is responsible for between 30% and 40% of Bulgaria's consumption of electrically generated energy. In the winter, when temperatures may descend to - 15° C, the closing of the plant may therefore have very adverse consequences for the population. However, if it is not shut down, so as at least to permit the necessary repairs, a catastrophe of an entirely different order may well occur.
The reason why your Rapporteur mentions the Kozlodoui case is that it illustrates both the dilemma faced by the country concerned, in the present event a member state of the Council of Europe, and the international assistance required from, and in this instance also extended by, the international community.
In conclusion, the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development fully supports the report of the Committee on Science and Technology (Doc. 6736), subject to the following amendments to the draft recommendation [link to adopted text] contained therein:
- Insert the following sentence at the end of sub-paragraph 8.i:
"... Attention must also be paid to the environmental risks posed by the processing of used nuclear fuel."
- Insert the following new sub-paragraph after sub-paragraph 8.iii:
"The necessary improvement and the safety of nuclear power plants in Central and Eastern Europe also has important economic implications and consequences, and is related to the general energy supply situation. Council of Europe member States in a position to do so must extend every possible assistance for the achievement of this task, insuring proper co-ordination among them."
- Insert the following new paragraph after existing sub-paragraph 8.viii:
"Action by the Central and East European countries concerned: Countries in Central and Eastern Europe affected by closures of, or capacity reductions in, nuclear energy plants for safety reasons, should be encouraged to consider ways of improving the energy supply by:
. enhancing energy consumption efficiency, ie reducing waste;
. cease subsidising energy as soon as possible, notably by raising domestic prices to world market levels;
. stepping up the development of alternative energy supplies, such as oil, gas and hydro-power."
Reporting committee: Committee on Science and Technology.
Committee for opinion: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.
Reference to committee: Doc. 6563 and Reference No. 1769 of 7 February 1992.
Opinion: Unanimously approved by the committee on 2 February 1993.
[1]. See Doc. 6736.