Quote:

---

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine announced Tuesday that his nation has reached a deal on nuclear fuel deliveries with Westinghouse to reduce dependence on Russian supplies.

Russia's Foreign Ministry deplored the move as a "dangerous experiment that threatens safety and health of the Ukrainian citizens and peoples of Europe." It said nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. company doesn't quite fit Soviet-built nuclear reactors that Ukraine has.

---

Quote:

---

In a statement Tuesday, Westinghouse said it "has been working in the Ukrainian market since 2003, and brings diversification of suppliers, global best practices and technology to the Ukraine market. Westinghouse fuel is currently operating safely and efficiently at the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant without any defects in performance."

---

Quote:

---

Though nuclear engineers were skeptical of the pilot probe, the government of former president Viktor Yushchenko signed a deal in 2008 with Westinghouse on fuel rod supply, despite the fact that American nuclear fuel is significantly more expensive and technologically different: Russian nuclear fuel rods are hexagonal in section, while Americans produce fuel assemblies of square section.

This time a batch of 42 fuel assemblies was loaded into three reactors at the South Ukraine nuclear power plant for a standard three-year period of commercial operation.

When in 2012 the time came to replace the fuel assemblies, Ukrainian nuclear engineers found that Westinghouse assemblies deformed during exploitation and got stuck in the core.

Energoatom accused Westinghouse of producing poorly engineered assemblies, whereas Westinghouse countered, accusing the Ukrainian engineers of installing the rods badly.

After the incident the use of American nuclear fuel was banned in Ukraine fuel rods were returned to the producer ‘to get fixed’ and Russian experts were summoned to help with the repair of the equipment produced in the USSR. The Energoatom Company lost an estimated $175 million.

Similar problems with Westinghouse fuel assemblies occurred at a number of other USSR-constructed nuclear power plants: NPP Krško in Slovenia, NPP Loviisa in Finland and NPP Temelin in the Czech Republic. All these countries opted to return to time-proved fuel assemblies produced by Russia’s TVEL Company.

Now Ukraine appears to be ready to fall into the same trap twice. The coup-imposed Kiev regime has renewed the 2008 nuclear fuel deal till 2020, to replace 25 percent of the Russian-made fuel rods with an option to “provide more if needed,” reported the Associated Press in April - all this for the sole purpose of ‘diversifying’ supply..."

---

Quote:

---

In order to diversify nuclear fuel supplies, Energoatom started implementation of the Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Qualification Project (UNFQP) for VVER-1000 fuel. The Project assumed the use of US-manufactured fuel in the VVER-1000 following the selection of Westinghouse as a vendor on a tender basis. In 2005, South Ukraine's third unit was the country's first to use the six lead test assemblies supplied by Westinghouse, which were placed into the reactor core together with Russian fuel for a period of pilot operation. A reload batch of 42 fuel assemblies was provided by Westinghouse in mid-2009 for a three-year period of commercial operation at the unit with regular monitoring and reporting. In addition to the initial supply of fuel from Westinghouse, other aims of the project included the transfer of technology for the design of nuclear fuel. Under a 2008 contract, Westinghouse supplied a total of 630 fuel assemblies for South Ukraine 2 & 3 and Zaporozhe 5. However, these trials to 2011 were deemed unsuccessful, with Energoatom claiming that manufacturing defects in the fuel led to a lengthy unscheduled outage at two of the units, while Westinghouse said that errors had been made during fuel loading. In April 2014 Energoatom renewed the Westinghouse fuel contract to 2020. Each reactor has 163 fuel assemblies.

In June 2010, Energoatom signed a long-term fuel supply contract with Russia's TVEL for all 15 reactors. Earlier, Rosatom had offered a substantial discount to Ukraine if it signed up with TVEL for 20 years. In 2010, TVEL sold Ukraine nuclear fuel for $608 million (€449 million). Ukraine is TVEL's biggest foreign client, totaling 55% of its exports. Ukraine continues to depend on TVEL for VVER-440 fuel for Rovno 1&2.

Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia, on 11 April 2014 Ukraine extended its 2008 contract with Westinghouse for fuel supply through to 2020. This fuel will be fabricated at the Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB plant at Vasteras in Sweden. Westinghouse commented that "This new agreement for Westinghouse VVER fuel design testifies to the quality of our fuel design and demonstrates that it has, in fact, operated without issue at the South Ukraine nuclear power plant, as confirmed by extensive and recent joint Energoatom and Westinghouse inspections. This contract extension ...... will allow Energoatom to continue diversification of its fuel supply. We expect that ..... Westinghouse will grow its share of the Ukrainian nuclear fuel market.” Russian sources have since suggested that the Westinghouse VVER fuel is unlicensed and dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JONES:
I've heard Zaporizhzhya already had a few malfunctions and Ukraine's authorities concealing the facts. Obviously Ukraine's nuclear energy is in a very bad condition but using the unsuitable nuclear fuel is something absolutely reckless like putting something square into round holes. That could be a new Chernobyl and people already report about the rise of radiation level there. And here some info that could be useful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
... It was Russian fuel rods that were being used in the Ukraine when they suffered a meltdown at Chernobyl.

I entered into the discussion because you did what you always do. Suggest things on behalf of Russia. The title of the thread starts, OH NO!

---

Quote:

---

-SIGNYM
I responded to your post because you do what YOU always do: I posted something based on very specific information which you dismiss simply because you're too invested in your POV to learn otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Westinghouse suggested its fuel rods were removed incorrectly and this falls right in line with what was discovered at Chernobyl.

---

Quote:

---

That there was “systematic poor management” behind what happened within the Russian and Ukrainian nuclear program that caused that accident. Of course you posted that is was the fault of some inexperienced workers and not what the final determination was. It states in the video 43 minutes in that it was “systematic and poor management” that caused the problems at Chernobyl. As it turns out from watching the video you provided there is also a flaw in this type of reactors floors.

---

Quote:

---

The nuclear program throughout the Ukraine is in disarray and poor shape. This is a result of Russian tutelage yet you refer to them as the experts called in to help the Ukraine.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM

That the fuel rods in Chernobyl were inserted improperly?

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM
The "poor management" came about from a commitment to go ahead with the safety test even though it had been delayed past the more-experience shift,

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM
I'm not favoring Russia. Didn't I just link to a detailed explanation of the clusterfuck that was Chernobyl?

---

Quote:

---

Signy

Heaven protect us from the politicians who think that the physical world yields to political convenience.


About nuclear power in general:
It's true that nuclear power is implacable. You can't be 97% good with nuclear power and be safe. Even 99.99999% isn't good enough. Because that .00001% will roll around in due time and exact its payment.

But then - in the macro realm ALL the physical world is implacable. Gravity is implacable. The apple will inevitably fall to the earth (and the earth infinitesimally fall toward the apple) every time, without exception. So what makes nuclear power so exceptional? It's the consequence of error. If a small water wheel fails and gravity takes its toll - well, the water wheel is toast, but not much else. If a large hydro-turbine breaks free of its moorings, major death and destruction follow. If a nuclear plant fails, an entire region becomes uninhabitable.

Since we CAN'T guarantee 100% on anything we do - and WILL have failures on everything at some point - I wonder how people justify the risks of nuclear energy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jones:
I've heard Zaporizhzhya already had a few malfunctions and Ukraine's authorities concealing the facts. Obviously Ukraine's nuclear energy is in a very bad condition but using the unsuitable nuclear fuel is something absolutely reckless like putting something square into round holes. That could be a new Chernobyl and people already report about the rise of radiation level there. And here some info that could be useful,

---