Sorry, no graphic

Dukovany

City, Country
Dukovany, South Moravia, Czech Republic

Number & type of Reactors
4 X VVER 440/213

Net Electric Power as % in 92 of national total
1648 MWe
18%

Major population Centers in a 150 km radius and
total estimated population of 150 km r. region
Over 12 million including Brno, Praha, Linz, Wien, Bratislava (180 km from Budapest)

Date of commercial operation start up
or (if unfinished) date of construction start.
1985 (Unit 1), 1986 (Unit 2), 1986 (Unit 3), 1987 (Unit 4)

Operator/Builder
CEZ/EDU - operator; Skoda - supplier

Accidents and Dangers:

Dukovany has steadily rising tritium emissions, now at 90% of the permited limits; frequent fires (1991, 1994); increasing number of emergency shut-downs, caused by 'significant ageing of the devices’ despite being at only 1/3 of designed life-time. On average, Dukovany experiences more than one scram and about 2 other emergency system activations every year at each of 4 reactors.

Local Contact Group:

Hnutí DUHA (FoE Czech Republic)
Attn. Honza Beránek
Jakubské nám 7
60200 Brno, Czech Rep.
+42-5-4221-0438 (fax 0347)
hduha@ecn.apc.org

Key Arguments/History

Severe design problems have plagued the plant from start-up (i.e., control rod motors malfunctions, wrong connection of cables, failing emergency cooling system). The plant is directly sending radiological (tritium) and ‘classical’ wastes (up to 53 tons of different chemicals and salts through an outlet pipe every day) in to the Jihlava River which flow ultimately to the Danube. The river is so polluted that the plant has problems using its water for cooling towers and plans to move the outlet further downstream to intake cleaner water. Additional problems include: unusually high production of liquid rad-waste and strong suspicions that the plant negatively influences the weather in the region (abnormal decrease of precipitation). In the area of safety, Dukovany epitomizes negligence and recklessness in the area of nuclear safety. Problems include lack of safety devices (i.e., missing containment) as well as the wrong design of many other strategic parts (turbines endangering the reactor, low fire protection, weak emergency supply of electricity, high risk of reactor vessel embrittlement). The plant has a malfunctioning warning system and inadequate evacuation plans. In fact, the the state deputy officially admitted they have no money for it, serious lack of technical equipment and that the plan is based on unrealistic presumptions.

Alternatives:

On national level, the same options are available for Temelín, these include: Efficiency, potential to save 3000-5000 MW; Cogeneration, potential of 2000-3500 MW just by upgrading existing heating plants; Indepen-dent producers, 2300-3900 MW of unused potential capacity; Renewables, small-scale hydro (400-800 MW), wind (300 MW), biomass (300-600 MW); Decentralization of production and distribution: by decreasing the loss from 6.8 to 3.5 % Czech Republic can save about 300 MW.