REVISITING THE METSAMOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
by Lilly Torosyan
December 7, 2012
The Soviet Union may have dissolved more than two decades ago, but
its nuclear legacy is still a matter of contention and controversy
in and among its former territories and their neighbors. One nuclear
power plant stands in the town of Metsamor, located 32 km. (20 miles)
west of Armenia’s capital, and about 76 km. (47 miles) east of Gyumri,
where a massive earthquake shook the city to ruin 24 years ago. The
town was built to house Metsamor workers. The aging power plant has
raised concerns by environmentalists and politicians from across the
globe, who argue that a massive nuclear disaster looms in the region.
The Armenian government, on the other hand, argues that the plant is
safe and economically beneficial for the country.
The Soviet Union may have dissolved more than two decades ago, but
its nuclear legacy is still a matter of contention and controversy
in and among its former territories and their neighbors.
The enormous jazzve-like towers of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant
have provided about 40 percent of Armenia’s electrical power since
their construction in 1976. Originally set to have expired in 2016,
the plant’s operation has been extended for an additional 10 years,
with approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Metsamor, built without primary containment structures, is one of
the five remaining Soviet nuclear reactors of its kind. According to
Marianne Lavelle and Josie Garthwaite of National Geographic News,
the other four are located in Russia and are all either past-or
close-to their original retirement ages.
Armenia’s plant, however, raises greater concern because it stands
on one of the world’s most earthquake-prone regions.
Armenia’s troubled energy situation
Metsamor was shut down following the devastating earthquake in
Gyumri in 1988. A massive energy shortage in the 1990’s, caused
by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, compounded with the trade
blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabagh War,
prompted the nation to search for alternative sources of energy.
Despite help from other nations, such as Russia and Iran, which
offered Armenia their electric energy, the funds were not enough to
invest in these alternative resources. With no feasible options to
consider, the government considered reopening the Metsamor facility,
to the disapproval of the European Union (EU) and the IAEA. Armenia
countered their concerns, arguing that it did not have the ability
to equip Metsamor to European standards, nor to consider alternative
energy sources. Approximately $70 million was needed to restart the
plant, and Russia assisted with providing the enriched uranium needed.
It is the only nuclear plant in the world that was restarted after
years of complete closure, in 1995.
Despite the EU’s disapproval of the extension, the United States has
agreed to assist Armenia in the safe operation of the facility for
another 10 years, stated U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Heffern,
at the Oct. 18 signing of the U.S.-Armenia memorandum on cooperation
in the energy sphere, as confirmed by the ARMESRI (Assistance to
Energy Sector of Armenia to Strengthen Energy Security and Regional
Integration) news site.
The chairperson of the Armenia State Nuclear Energy Control Committee,
Ashot Martirosian, initially argued that because the facility was
shut down for 6 years, and the reactors are repaired every 3-4years,
the 30-year life span of the plant could easily manage to produce
electricity until 2016. He later stated in an interview with
EurasiaNet.org that the concerns about the plant are exaggerated
because “the demands to shut down the functioning energy block only
because it is old are not grounded.” The millions of dollars spent on
making the plant safer to run are viewed as a remedy to the backlash
against the nuclear station.
Criticism from neighbors
In the aftermath of the earthquake-turned-tsunami and the Fukushima
nuclear disaster that shook Japan last March, the world began to
refocus its attention on the long-forgotten Cold War-era nuclear
reactors. After the earthquake in Van, Turkey, last October, many in
Turkey began to challenge Armenia’s desire to advance its nuclear
energy field. Questions resurfaced from those who argued that the
combination of a high-risk location and outdated technology, located
just 10 miles from the Turkish border, make Metsamor one of the most
dangerous nuclear power plants in the world.
Armenia’s neighbors argue that if Metsamor were to experience a
serious accident, Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan would be affected.
Although there has not been any serious effort from the Turkish or
Azerbaijani governments to force Armenia to shut down the plant, Ankara
has threatened to pursue more serious action. In January 2003, the
mayor of Kars, Naif Alibeyoglu, applied to the IAEA and the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR), demanding the closure of the facility.
Although the prospect of an alternative source for Armenia’s energy
need remains bleak, if by some chance the officials of Kars were
to cooperate with the Green Party and other European environmental
groups, there is a possibility that the ECHR would seriously consider
Alibeyoglu’s case, said Dr. Hatem Cabbarli, the president of the
Eurasia Safety and Strategy Research Center, in an op-ed for the
Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman.
Officials in Yerevan have all but ignored the criticism from their
neighbors, claiming its from a desire to weaken the Armenian economy
for easier geopolitical gains, particularly with the Nagorno-Karabagh
conflict still unresolved.
Notwithstanding, the Armenian government has made sure to routinely
downplay the safety concerns regarding the Metsamor plant, ensuring
that the facility is in good operating condition and can withstand
an earthquake measuring up to a 9.0 on the Richter scale, which they
argue is not likely.
To put the Turkish and Azerbaijani protests in perspective, Dr.
Cabbarli argued that it is necessary to discuss the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline that was constructed in 2005.
Although there were mass protests and rallies organized by Turkish
and Georgian environmentalists-with demands made to compensate the
residents of the region-Turkey did not close down the pipeline,
arguing that its economic incentives were far too great to be ignored.
Along this vein, Cabbarli points out that Turkish environmental groups
have not riled up in protest of Metsamor like they did against the
oil pipeline. They do not seem to realize the real risks posed by the
Metsamor plant to the environment and those living around the region.
Many who support the nuclear plant in Armenia find it curious how the
environmentalist groups of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and elsewhere
have reacted so differently to the two situations. Cabbarl said that
“while the effective measures taken by these same environmentalists
when it comes to preventing the pollution of the Bosporus should be
applauded, it is difficult to understand their silence when it comes
to the possible ‘second Chernobyl’ looming next door.”
Disputes intensify with new plant
Hrant Bagratyan, a former prime minister and current opposition
member in the Armenian Parliament, argues that the facility cannot
longer be operated. In an interview with EurasiaNet.org, he said that
“the metal of its reactor has already gotten thin,” and warned of
“a danger worse than Chernobyl one day.”
The Armenian government has approved a measure that will create a
new nuclear power station in a different region of the country. The
government, with the help of Russia, estimates the start date of
the $5 billion project for a 1000 MW unit to be 2014, although the
details have not yet been released to the public. A plan to add
another reactor unit at Metsamor next year was abruptly abandoned.
Proponents of the measure say that a new plant would meet Armenians’
demand for electricity, as well as skeptics’ safety concerns.
Although there has been no significant progress on the addition of
another power plant in the nation, Armenian environmentalists have
voiced their concerns over the ecological, as well as health, risks
the nuclear plants would pose. Safety measures can only do so much
to prevent large-scale disasters.
The chairman of the Green Union of Armenia, Hakob Sanasaryan, is one
of the most prominent voices of the anti-nuclear energy movement in
Armenia. “The longer the [Metsamor] reactor works, the more fragile it
becomes; it loses flexibility, and the accident risk increases.” He
says plant is located at the intersection of several major fault
mines. “According to some data, the main fault is just 500 meters
away from the reactor. This is extremely dangerous and totally goes
against all the norms of nuclear power plant construction.”
Sanasaryan believes the plant should have closed down in 2006-a view
that is vastly different than that of many political representatives
of the country, such as Martirosian, who argues that the generating
unit at the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant is operating at 92 percent
capacity, with 8 percent left in reserve to ensure safe operation.
Areg Galstyan, the Armenian deputy minister of energy and natural
resources, shares Martirosian’s opinion. “Of course it’s a second
generation of nuclear reactors and a Russian design, but these types
of reactors are very safe,” he said.
The general director of the plant, Gagik Markosyan, says the plant
is safer than ever. “At the time of the Spitak earthquake, I was
working here at the plant. Sure, the earthquake happened not far
away-it was catastrophic-but our nuclear power plant will continue
to work absolutely fine, at full power, both during and after the
earthquake,” he stated in an interview with Russia Today.
Despite what politicians and diplomats say, many Armenians see the
decision to prolonging Metsamor’s lifespan as symptomatic of the
general difficulty the government has had in tackling the country’s
persistent economic woes, especially unemployment and inflation.
Still, others cannot believe that the government would “play with
nuclear safety,” so to speak.
As the nation prepares for its presidential elections next year,
political disagreement on whether the plant should stay or be shut
down will only be heightened in the months to come.