On Dec 21, 2006, REGNUM federal news agency, official concern’s site ROSENERGOATOM.RU and ROSATOM.RU will organize an on-line conference of Director General of Rosenergoatom Sergey Obozov.

The topic is: “The Results of Rosenergoatom’s Activities in 2006 and the Development Prospects for 2007”

The press-conference will be held from: 1:00 PM till 2:00 PM Moscow time.

The questions will be received within a week before and on the day of the on-line conference on e-mail: news@rosatom.ru and on the conference page The conference will last for one hour while the participant will be answering the questions in the editorial office. The answers will be published on-line on ROSENERGOATOM.RU and the conference page for general access. The answers to the most urgent questions will become a basis for information reports.

ON-LINE CONFERENCE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROSENERGOATOM SERGEY OBOZOV

68 questions have been sent for the on-line conference of Director General of Rosenergoatom Sergey Obozov as of 1:00 PM Moscow time.

There are rumors that you are planning to build an NPP in Nizhniy Novgorod region. Our residents would like to know if it will be an NPP or not because we have no information about it – Oleg, Nizhniy Novogorod

All the answers to the questions “where will we build NPPs?” will be given in Mar 2007 when the Government will approve a plan for distribution of generating capacities with enclosed map of NPP projects.

As regards Nizhniy Novgorod, I have a personal attitude to this problem: I was born in Nizhniy Novgorod region. I would like to remind that, in its time, the Nizhniy Novgorod AtomEnergoProjekt considered three possible NPP sites in the region. In the early 80s there was a project to build a nuclear TPP in Gorky (present-day Nizhniy Novgorod). They said that the region was oriented towards industry and needed an NPP. But after the Chernobyl accident the project was suspended – even though almost $1bln had already been invested in it. Just one example of the attitude towards nuclear power engineering at those times: there is still an alcohol bottling shop in one of the unfinished buildings of Gorky NPP.

This year Sergey Kiriyenko received a letter from the governor of Nizhniy Novgorod region Valery Shantsev, who said that as of early 2006 the energy shortfall in the region was 2,000 MW and in the coming 5–7 years it may grow for as much.

Experts started talking about NPP project in Nizhniy Novgorod a month ago (among them Anatoly Chubais). When I visited the region on Nov 4 there was no such talk, now there is. But I would like to say once again that this problem will be solved in Mar 2007.

They say that it is dangerous to live near Kurchatov Institute. My friend heard that from doctors when she was pregnant but did not move and now her child has some congenital anomalies. The same is for Obninsk Institute in Kaluga region. How can you explain that? Are there any ways to get protected from radiation? – Yelena, Moscow
 
First of all: Kurchatov Institute is a structure of the Russian Academy of Science. What we do is just operating NPPs. I guarantee that there are no NPPs in Moscow. Second: there are special authorities who are responsible for assessing radiation risks. Today, such information would not be kept secret. A slightest deviation from the norm would cause a big scandal. Besides, anyone who wishes may take a special device and measure radiation near the institute.

Could you tell about the construction of the 2nd unit of Rostov NPP? — Vladimir Neushev
 
The situation is quite ambiguous. Our reaction can be divided into two parts: the reaction of an owner and the reaction of a person responsible for the final result. In fact, it is hard to delimit responsibility between us and the general contractor.

As an owner, we are clean. There are no problems with financing. All allocations are being made in full. All tender documents are available. There are some problems but they have nothing to do with the work process. The equipment deliveries – 1,400 units worth 13bln RUR in 2006 – are being carried according to the schedule. There were problems with the supply of GP-16, GP-29 and the complex supply of pipes, but we have solved them. The reactor vessel is already on the site.

As regards responsibility, we still have some problems. During his visit to the site on Nov 14 the head of Rosatom Sergey Kiriyenko gave a very bad mark to the project and we understand that he meant both the owner and the general contractor. It was a general mark. There are many objective reasons: the project price is fixed and very rigid, while the real prices of materials are growing much quicker than expected. We see that the general contractor cannot afford ensuring a competitive level of wages on the site. We see that the sub-contractors are lingering and waiting until their economic relations with the general contractor are improved. But nobody has changed the deadline for the launch of the project. In Oct we spent 108mln RUR, in Nov 134mln (77% of the plan) and in Dec we are planning to spend 200mln RUR. We are strengthening the management, names are being changed – this is an inevitable process. We in the headquarters are building a very rigid system of capital construction management.

At the Beloyarsk NPP BN-800 project the situation is better – probably because the monthly spending there is smaller than at Volgodonsk: in Nov it was only 112mln RUR but according to the plan (100.4%). In 2007 they will have to spend three times as much. This will be a serious test for machine building. They have not felt us yet. 2007–2009 will be a serious exam for them.

What new NP capacities are you planning to launch in the coming decade? Are you going to build additional units at Kalinin NPP? – Oleg Puzhalov, Tver

In Oct 2006 the Government approved a federal target program for the nuclear energy complex development till 2015. The program says that till 2015 we should build 10 new reactors and start 10 new projects. We are to finish the 2nd unit of Volgodonsk NPP, the 4th unit of Kalinin NPP and BN-800 reactor of Beloyarsk NPP. We are also to build 7 new units: 2 at Novovoronezh NPP-2, 3 at Leningrad NPP-2, 1 at Volgodonsk NPP and 1 at Kursk NPP. In 2015 we are to have 10 ongoing projects: 1 unit at Volgodonsk NPP, 1 at leningrad NPP-2, 3 at Kursk NPP-2, 4 at Smolensk NPP-2 and 1 at Kolsk NPP-2. However, the situation may change as the “road map” (generating capacities deployment plan — REGNUM) will be approved only in Mar 2007.

Are you going to meet with the public? To explain anything? We are constantly being scared by rumors about possible explosions while the Nuclear Energy Ministry is silent. They just say they have some plans and nothing more – Yelena Vasilyevna
Such meetings should have specific topics. On each NPP site we will organize all necessary measures: public discussions, examinations, hearings… We keep in touch with the Government, we attend all the roundtables we are invited to. We are not going to arrange meetings but we are ready for any constructive dialogue.

What prospects does Bilibinsk NPP have? – Andrey, Yaroslavl

Now that Bilibinsk NPP is working at 30% of its capacity, it is being subsidized by other NPPs. On the other hand, it is the basic generating capacity of Chukotka. The remaining capacities are worn out.

In Aug 2006 during a visit to Chukotka we discussed several development scenarios with the head of Rosatom Sergey Kiriyenko, the representative of the president to the Far East Region Kamil Iskhakov and the governor Roman Abramovich. Our key topic was: for how much should we prolong the service period of Bilibinka or should we also build a floating NPP?

The State Tariff Service has agreed to set an individual tariff for Bilibinsk NPP. There is a problem with subsidies for the region. We are negotiating for selling out electricity to gold miners. The possible resignation of Abramovich will complicate the situation: we wonder what will happen with our agreements.  But the representative of the president was also present when the agreements were made and he is still in office. So, whoever becomes the new governor of Chukotka, our cooperation will be continued.

Today, Bilibinks NPP is the first Rosenergoatom NPPs who has got Rostekhnadzor license for prolonging the service period of all of its 4 units: the first 3 units got a license for 5 years, the 4th unit for 10 years. I am sure that the good condition of the units will allow us to prolong their service periods for 15 years.

When will the real work for building new units at Novovoronezh NPP start? Where can the specialists wishing to get a job at the plant apply? Thanks! Good luck in your good deeds! — Yevgeny

According to the Federal target Program for the Nuclear Power Complex Development, the construction of the 1st unit of Novovoronezh NPP-2 will be started in 2007. As regards employment, you are welcome – you may apply to the personnel department of the plant: 8 (47364) — 7 33 74.

Would you advise young people to go into branch science despite all problems? — Anton

What policy the Federal Agency is going to carry out concerning the specialists working at the NPPs of the CIS countries but wishing to move for permanent residence in Russia and to continue their professional activities here? Can they hope for your support? –Yevgeny

Dear Mr. Obozov! One of the key obstacles to the effective implementation of the Federal Target Program is the lack of necessary personnel. How are you going to solve this problem? As an employee of a research institute, once a leading structure in construction, installation and operation of NP facilities, I know this sphere well – it lacks young specialists, professionals are going away, their average age has exceeded 60 – they are the Mohicans of the sphere, while the youth do not want and will not acquire their experience, learn and work for just 6,000–7,000 RUR a month. The training of a professional constructor or technologist takes no less than 5–6 years. Won’t this all lead to personnel crisis? – Viktor Prosvirin, Moscow

Personnel is our key resource. In Nov we specially met to discuss the problem of personnel training. Today the average age of NPP worker is over 40, almost 20% of the personnel are working pensioners and in some regions nuclear enterprises are non-competitive because of low wages. At the same time, in order to man all newly built reactors we will have to employ 7,520 more people by 2015 and even earlier. This is our strategy, while our “close-up action” is as follows: in 2007 we need 570 people, in 2008 – 680, in 2009 – 800. All universities of the country taken together graduate just 200 NPP operation specialists a year. And only 60% of them agree to work in the sphere. We have analyzed the situation and have understood that our key problems are wages, housing and social benefits.

This is how we are going to solve them: in the last four years we have improved the housing conditions of almost 1,500 families of nuclear power engineers. In 2007–2009 we are planning to build 1,900 more flats and have earmarked 2.5bln RUR to this end. Now that we are planning to start a large-scale construction of new reactors, we are developing temporary housing construction – in 3 years we have to build or buy almost 2,300 flats. We are also planning to implement a special program for young specialists — “Housing for the Youth.” Particularly, we are going to nullify mortgage credit pre-payment, to prolong mortgage credit period from 15 to 20–25 years and to ensure its partial repayment by NPPs. We are going to allocate 4.7bln RUR for corporate mortgage program in 2007–2008.

Concerning wages, we are going to raise them quicker than inflation grows. We are planning a 86% raise in average monthly wages in 2005–2010.
It’s a really painful question where to train young specialists. In the first half of 2007 we are going to start a program of cooperation with universities. It’s time to help universities to train NP engineers. We are going to help them both materially and by reviving the network of professional colleges. We will invite experienced tutors and will pay them as much as they got at NPPs. That’s what Rosenergoatom is going to do to attract youth.

Do you have or are you planning any benefits for territories hosting NPPs? What does an existing or constructed NPP give to a host region? – Alexander

This is a question for local and federal authorities. The benefits of NPP construction are as follows: each new reactor requires 3,000–4,000 new workers – not just gastarbeiters but highly-qualified specialists. NPP construction and NPP itself imply new jobs, new budgetary revenues, new infrastructure (roads, houses, etc). A strong contractor can also make charity for cathedrals, social facilities.

Mr. Obozov! As a resident of Chelyabinsk region, I am concerned for the problem of the Mayak production association and the problem of closed areas. What are you going to do in this direction? And one more question: you probably know that in some closed areas local strategic facilities work at very low capacity. What are you going to do to raise the capacity of such facilities? – Alexander

Let me answer the part of your question that concerns Rosenergoatom. I mean the construction of South Ural NPP. The political decision has already been passed, now we are searching for a site. This project would boost the whole economy of Chelyabinsk region: it means cement, concrete, armature…

Presently, Izhorsk Plant is the only enterprise in Russia that can produce VVER-1000 reactors – in fact, it can produce one such reactor a year. The basic and testing equipment of the plant was bought on the personal instruction of the premier of the Soviet Union Aleksey Kosygin, who said while visiting the plant in 1974: “Nuclear reactors must not be made on outdated equipment.” As a result, the country bought up-to-minute equipment. In 1986 under Director General Genady Shutkov, the plant launched a rolling mill – 5000. A state facility from the times of Peter I till 1991, Izhorsk Plant was sold to biologist Bendukidze, who broke up the single production complex into small enterprises. As a result, the plant has only two operative shops today. My question is: “Now that equipment has gone out of date, complex production technology has been destroyed: metallurgy belongs to UMP-Spetsstal,” Mill-5000 to Severstal; key specialists are retiring – the quality of VVER-1000 reactors cannot be high and, consequently, they cannot be safe.

1. How much are you planning to invest in Izhorsk Plant?
2. What equipment, mills, furnaces are you planning to install there?
3. What changes in the management structure of the plant are you planning to make? Rolling Mill 5000 belongs to Severstal – technical and engineering personnel of Izhorsk Plant

Dear personnel of Izhorsk Plant! Rosenergoatom is not going to install new furnaces, change the management structure and interfere in the affairs of your enterprise. What we are going to do is to order new reactors, pumps, turbines and generators. Under pessimistic scenario, starting from 2012 we are planning to launch two nuclear power units a year, under optimistic one – four units a year. Long-cycle production equipment is usually ordered 5 years before.

Today, Izhorsk Plant has received a specific order to produce a vessel for floating NTPP. On Dec 20 the director of the plant said that the plant had started the work. We are satisfied with how our cooperation has begun.

Good day. It’s not a secret that Magadan is a very good territory for mineral production. But it lacks energy and personnel – people cannot live here for long. Can the nuclear power sector solve this problem? – Konstantin Petriscjhev, Magadan

Concerning the inability of people to live in Magadan – you better address your question to climatologists and physiologists. You are right, Magadan has bad climate, it’s not Sochi…

As regards the electricity supply of northern or difficult  territories, I have already mentioned small-capacity floating NPPs. Theoretically, if there is a convenient bay in the Sea of Okhotsk, we can build such a plant there. For the moment we are planning such projects in Pevek and Viluchinsk. Magadan didn’t ask for one. The main thing is real demand – real players ready to buy electricity?
 
Recently mass media reported that Rosenergoatom and HyrdoOGK are planning a program for building pumped storage plants. Could you please tell what is the difference between pumped storage plants and ordinary water power plants and why is Rosenergoatom going to take part in this project (those plants are not nuclear, are they?)? – Andrey Sergeyevich, Cheboksary

Recently I visited Zagorsk PSP – the only pumped storage plant in Russia. In fact, this is not an independent generating business – they stop and start for 30 times a day. I visited a room where there were 6 storage pumps. Only 2 of them were working. Then they stopped. 5 minutes later one of them started rolling again. Of course, such electricity is three times more expensive than the one that gets to the market a day earlier. This is a system service rather than business. And we are ready to pay for such a service.

As potential investors we will consider the possibility of investing in Zagorsk PSP in Sept 2007 when the feasibility report will be ready. Simply we remember that in the West the share of PSP in big companies makes up 10%-12%.

The difference between PSP and WPP is that at night when electricity is cheap PSPs pump water upwards into reservoirs, while in the day they work like ordinary WPPs. PSP is something like “first-aid box” or reserve battery: it helps when electricity demand sharply grows. But they cannot work for a long time, they run out of water.

Dear Mr. Obozov! Could you please answer two questions. The local capacities of Arkhangelsk region work in full. In the 90s we planned to build an NPP, but didn’t. Is Rosatom planning such a project? Recently the regional youth ecological organization Etas sent an open letter to the governor. They expressed protest against the construction of floating NPPs in Severodvinsk. Their argument is that any NPP project inevitably emits radioactive iodine-131, xenon, krypton, tritium. The last Litvinenko-polonium case has shown how dangerous radioactive isotopes are for human organism. Are they right? – Natalya Popva, correspondent of Prava Severa (Arkhangelsk Region)

This has nothing to do with floating NPPs. They are not right. Russia has 50-year successful experience in operating such facilities. We are the only country who has a fleet of nuclear icebreakers. The US and Russia are the leaders in nuclear submarine building. We have long solved all safety problems at such facilities and we will use our experience when building small floating NPPs. The plant we are building will be as good as Kalashnikov rifle. 

I would like to point out once again: there has been no single emission at KLT-40 icebreaker reactors in the last 20 years. So, this talk is just speculations.

As regards the FNPP in Arkhangelsk region, on the one hand, the Arkhangelsk Regional Assembly has a special working group on the project, but, on the other, the governor is not interested in it. He said: “We rely on gas.” As soon as the local authorities show interest in the project, we will talk with them.

Now that there is a general scheme of energy facilities deployment till 2020 and a company “United Energy System of Russia,” it seems logical that Rosenergoatom should also join it (like thermal and water power facilities did). Do you consider this possibility after corporization? – Lyudmila Selivanovskaya, St. Petersburg

Your logic is right. Nuclear power engineering is a basic generation and it is like “a holy cow” – nobody dares to touch it. WPPs and especially Pumped Storage Plants are highly maneuverable capacities. We have studied the world experience in the sphere – everywhere in the world they have mixed – nuclear, water and thermal – generating capacities. We are the only country where there are two separate companies – Rosenergoatom, who has just 10 NPPs and 31 units and nothing else, and HydroOGK, who has 34 WPPs for the moment, will have 50 WPPs in the future and again nothing else. This is the primary result of the energy reforms. No single man has said that this is a sensible long-term decision. Perhaps, such merger is not for today, but is certainly for tomorrow.

I would like to ask Mr. Obozov: why aren’t they holding a campaign to clarify the involuntary (or sometimes voluntary) delusions of the “Greens” protesting against the development of the nuclear power industry? Particularly, nothing is said about HOSAP about the disastrous harm of wind power engineering – Vladimir Komarov, LNPP

Wind power engineering is not so highly developed in Russia to cause any harm. Economically, it is not a match to nuclear power engineering, in terms of its impact on human health – we could argue about it when out of duty.

If ecologists are against NPP construction in the regions (which is easy to understand considering Chernobyl), couldn’t we build NPPs in some remote, northern territories, beyond the Polar Circle, there is plenty of land there? Of course, this implies bigger transportation expenses, but we have Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod gas pipeline and it pays off. — Vladimir Lubenko, businessman

As I understand you are mostly interested in safety. I should note that Rosenergoatom also gives priority to safety. We have learned the lessons of Chernobyl. All our NPPs have been modernized and repeatedly tested by local, foreign specialists and IAEA experts. Russia has one of the highest NPP safety and licensing standards in the world. 40% of the money given for NPP construction is spent on security systems.

As regards NPP construction in polar territories, you have already answered your own question. It is not profitable to transmit electricity for over 500 km – the losses are big, the laying of such a long transmission line costs almost as much as the building of a NP unit ($1.5–2bln). If there are no big enterprises around (key consumers), we will have to build everything from “zero” (site, town for constructors, etc.) – this is like putting the cart before the horse. In terms of market economy, building a big NPP on a free territory is a mystification. Small NPPs are a different story: we can build them in existing northern towns and they will give light and heat to those areas. That’s exactly what our project is about – floating nuclear thermal power plants.
 
What are you going to do with the unfinished (constructed?) NPP in Agideli, Bashkortostan? — Dmitry

This plant has all chances for existence. It is on the “road map.” More specific information will be given after Mar 31, when the Government will approve it.

It is supposed that the share of nuclear power engineering in total energy balance will be no less than 25% by 2030. Why not more, say, 50%? – Sergey Turin, student

There are several obstacles. Energy generation must be balanced. It is not sensible to focus exclusively on water power engineering or exclusively on thermal power engineering. They are mutually complementary. The “basic load” is on NPPs. Due to their technological peculiarities, they ensure equal electricity production during the day. WPPs are seasonal: their work depends on water flows.

TPPs (coal and gas plants) help at peak hours (in the morning or at noon). In some regions, they are basic electricity producers, for example, in Ural 3/4 of electricity is produced by TPPs. But you know how gas prices are growing (they will triple in the coming three years) and today 1 KWh produced by gas TPP is 2–4 times more expensive than 1 KWh produced by NPP. The launch of 1 unit of NPP with a capacity of 1 GW allows to save up to 2.1bln c m of gas. And finally we have pumped storage plants – they are first-aid boxes – in case of unexpected stoppage or very high demand for electricity. But they can’t work for long. 

This is an ideal picture of energy balance. But the reality is far from the ideal. This picture does not include geo-thermal, wind and tide power plants. In Russia their share in the total balance is very small and they can hardly become basic capacities in the near future. Recently I visited a wind power plant near Olkiluoto NPP in Finland. One KWh of this plant costs twice as much as at NPP, while its plant ratio is 4 times lower – 22%. Besides, the plant emits low-frequency radiation that has a negative impact on nearby ecology. So, what I am saying is that it is not reasonable to stake on one capacity only.

There is one more problem: the low capacity of NPP equipment producers and constructors. Today mechanical plants cannot make more than 2 reactors a year – this includes export contracts – while after 2012 we will have to launch 2 units a year and, if the Government decides, even 4. Of course, we can buy reactors and turbines abroad – unless local producers offer us adequate solutions.

I would like to thank everybody who has taken part in the conference for their interest in the activities of Rosenergoatom and the nuclear power sector.

In conclusion I would like to congratulate all power engineers on their professional holiday.