Armenian Atomic Dilemma

Aging nuclear power station is a vital source of energy for Armenia, but its
future is uncertain given its location on geological and political
faultlines.

By Kerob Sarkisian in Yerevan, Sophie Bukia in Tbilisi and Idrak Abbasov in
Baku (CRS No. 271, 26-Jan-05)

Its four giant cooling towers dominating the skyline outside Yerevan, the
Metsamor nuclear power station is a huge presence in Armenia – and a major
controversy outside it.
Armenians depend on the station for about 40 per cent of their electricity,
so most believe they cannot do without Metsamor – even bearing in mind the
potential risks from the earthquake-prone land it has stood on for three
decades.
“I have worked at the station for many years and I don’t think it is more
dangerous than any other in the world,” said Metsamor employee Araik
Ovsepian. “Of course, it would be better to live further away from it,
especially as they keep the nuclear waste on site. But I want to work in my
own [professional] field, and I need to feed my family.”
Constructed in 1976, the twin-reactor station sits near major geological
faultlines, one of which caused the Spitak earthquake that killed at least
25,000 people in 1988. Metsamor is also in one of Armenia’s most densely
populated areas. The capital Yerevan is 30 kilometres away.
Only one 440-megawatt reactor is running today, but the European Union says
that given the plant’s location and age and the need for its nuclear fuel to
travel by air, Metsamor should close down altogether. The plant, which is
managed by Russian electricity giant RAO UES, also gives rise to concerns in
the immediate region. The Turkish border is just 16 kilometres away, Iran’s
about 60 kilometres, and Azerbaijan and Georgia are less than 150 kilometres
away.
“God forbid that there should be an earthquake there. There would be a
catastrophe, and there would be radiation fallout within a radius of at
least 400 kilometres,” said Yetermishli Kurban, deputy director of
Azerbaijan’s Seismological Centre.
Georgian Green Party leader Giorgi Gachechiladze added, “According to
computer modelling done by our experts, if anything happens on the Armenian
plant’s territory, we’d have only eight hours to evacuate Tbilisi’s
population,”
Alvaro Antonian, the head of Armenia’s own National Seismic Protection
Service, said he couldn’t rule out the possibility of another major
earthquake before 2008 or 2010, it would happen in the south of the country,
relatively far away from Metsamor.
Armenian officials insist that Metsamor was specially built by Soviet
engineers to survive earthquakes of up to 8-9 on the Richter scale. And
although of a similar vintage, the VVER-440 reactor it uses is safer than
the type at Chernobyl, experts say.
During the 1988 earthquake, the nuclear plant withstood tremors measuring
five to six on the Richter scale. Both reactors at the plant were shut down
in the aftermath of that earthquake, but the second unit was restarted in
1995 because of the country’s dire need for energy.
While Metsamor was out of action, the country suffered electricity
rationing, economic decline and environmental damage as people felled trees
to get through the freezing winters.
“The tragedy was that many people left in winter, while those who stayed had
to warm themselves with firewood and other fuel. This led to deforestation
of Yerevan and the surrounding areas and reduction of the population by a
third,” said a report by the PA Consulting Group, which represents USAID in
Armenia.
The European Union argues that the risk of accidents or earthquakes is too
great, and that more effort must be made to find alternative power sources.
In June last year, the EU froze a grant of 100 million euros because of what
it said was the Armenian government’s slowness in fulfilling earlier
commitments to close the station.
One detail that worries the EU – which wants to see the closure of
Chernobyl-era power plants right across Europe – is Metsamor’s lack of a
secondary containment facility, a failsafe in case of radioactive spills.
Another problem is the need to fly in fuel on Russian planes through
Georgian airspace to Armenia. That “is the same as flying around a potential
nuclear bomb” said Alexis Louber, head of the EU delegation in Armenia, who
has been quoted as saying the plant poses “danger to the entire region”.
Metsamor general director Gagik Markosian said the flights, which pass over
Georgia, take place once a year.
However, Soso Kuchukhidze, in charge of nuclear energy matters at the
Georgian environment ministry, insisted that flights are made only once
every five years. and said he thought there was no danger.
“We know precisely when the fuel is to be transported and on what plane. The
fuel which is carried through Georgia’s airspace is totally harmless and
presents no danger whatsoever until it enters the reactor’s active zone and
the chain reaction begins. When passing through Georgian airspace, the fuel
is a normal substance emitting no radiation.”
Kuchukhidze said the last load was shifted in the summer of 2004, when two
planes transported about 32 tonnes of fuel.
Many Georgians appear poorly informed about the issue, which is rarely, if
ever discussed in the media.
Gachechiladze, the Green Party chairman, said he had never been told. “The
law says no sort of nuclear materials can be transported through Georgian
territory. We are not talking about ordinary fuel. It must be enriched
uranium, which is very dangerous..
“Those who allow it should be imprisoned. Can you imagine what will happen
if such a plane crashes?”
An additional worry is the waste material generated at Metsamor, said Akob
Sanasarian from the Union of Armenian Greens. The practice of burying the
waste on site – in facilities constructed with technical aid from French
firm Fromatom – “cannot be allowed from a security and ecological
standpoint,” he said.
But the main obstacle to shutting down Metsamor is that Armenia simply does
not have the natural resources or the money to find working alternatives.
Energy minister Armen Movsisian said it would cost one billion dollars to
stop the plant. “Negotiations with the [European] Commission are still
underway. Armenia is offering to identify what sources could become the
basis for building new, alternative capacities. But today, when we have no
financial means available, we cannot talk about the closure or any
timelines.”
One plan, which part of the EU grant was meant to help finance, is to lay a
gas pipeline from Iran. However, Movsisian said using gas to power
thermoelectric stations would result in higher electricity bills and have a
negative effect on the economy as a whole.
Electricity tariffs in Armenia are already double those in Russia, according
to RAO UES head Anatoly Chubais. Prices in Georgia are still higher.
Hydroelectric schemes are also limited by the lack of major water resources
in Armenia other than Lake Sevan, which is already suffering the effects of
Soviet-era ecological damage.
While some have even called for a new nuclear plant to be built, Armenian
and Russian experts believe that Metsamor can still function safely for at
least another 11 years.
Plant director Markosian said 35 million dollars had been spent on
improvements since the reopening of the reactor, and 22 million euros have
been provided under the EU’s TACIS programme. “The safety level at power
plant two has increased since 1995 compared with 1989 when the plant was
stopped. We can say with assurance that the safety of the plant has been
growing yearly.”
Markosian said that this second unit should be kept running to the end of
its 30-year service life. Taking into account the six-year period it was
switched off after the earthquake, that would be 2016. However, similar
Russian plants have seen their service life extended by another 15 years,
raising the possibility that Metsamor will stay in operation until 2031.
For neighbouring Georgia, the Metsamor debate is complex. Though some fear
potential disaster, Georgia has its own energy shortages and relies in part
on electricity that Armenia, thanks to Metsamor, is able to export.
Georgia buys between 100 and 150 megawatts of electricity daily from
Armenia – not from Metsamor, but from the Razdan thermoelectric power
station. Bur Georgian energy minister Nika Gilauri warns, “if the Armenian
nuclear power station stops, it will be impossible for Armenia to export
electricity to Georgia. Armenia will have available 400 megawatts less than
now,”
Despite its oil and gas resources, Azerbaijan also experiences electricity
shortages – particularly in the southern Nakhichivan autonomous region,
which is separated from the rest of the country by Armenian territory,
leaving it somewhat isolated ever since the war over Nagorny Karabakh in the
early Nineties.
Armenian energy ministry representative Levon Vardanian said at an
EU-sponsored conference in Baku last November that Yerevan was ready to
export electricity to Nakhichevan.
“We know that there are certain problems with electricity supplies in the
Nakhichivan Autonomous Republic, and we are prepared to cooperate with
Azerbaijan in restoring existing links,” Vardanian said. “Energy specialists
are always ready for cooperation and politicians must set aside the
problems.”
However, Azerbaijan’s deputy prime minister Abid Sharifov said there was no
chance of such cooperation as long as the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia remained unresolved.
“As long as there is no peace deal with Armenia, there can be no talk of
mutual links. They can come here to take part in conferences, but that does
not mean we want to begin some sort of links with them,” he said.
Kerob Sarkisian is a correspondent for Iravunk newspaper in Yerevan. Sophie
Bukia is a correspondent for 24 Hours newspaper in Tbilisi. Idrak Abbasov is
a correspondent for Ayna newspaper in Baku. All three journalists
participate in IWPR’s South Caucasus Network project.