Institute for War and Peace Reporting
CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, No. 590
May 11, 2011
JAPAN QUAKE PROMPTS ARMENIAN NUCLEAR WORRIES
Authorities insist aging plant is earthquake-proof.
By Armen Poghosyan
The nuclear disaster in Japan has revived concerns about environmental
safety at the aging Metsamor power station in Armenia, a country which
suffered a massive earthquake in 1998.
Experts say they are all the more alarmed as the Armenian government
has been sparing with information about the plant and about disaster
contingency plans
`Japan was regarded as the world’s safest country in terms of seismic
protection and for surviving earthquakes and nuclear disasters. But
look what happened there,’ Inga Zarafyan, head of the environmental
group Ecolur, said.
The tsunami that was triggered by a huge earthquake off the coast of
Japan in March damaged water-cooling systems at a series of reactors
at the Fukushima-1 plant, causing overheating, explosions and
radioactive leaks.
The Metsamor plant, where the first reactor dates from 1979, was
closed following the Armenian earthquake of 1988, which came two years
after the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in Ukraine.
But with Armenia’s economy devastated by the quake, the conflict in
Nagorny Karabakh, and the economic collapse that followed the end of
the Soviet Union, energy shortages forced the authorities to reopen
Metsamor in 1995, and it now provides 40 per cent of the country’s
electricity.
The plant is due to be closed and replaced by a more modern power
station, but according to Zarafyan, the completion date for the new
facility is `unclear, even though many experts believe that the
reactors at Metsamor are already at the end of their working life, or
pretty much near the end’.
Zarafyan said little technical information was publicly available
about the pressurised water reactors used at Metsamor, especially
upgrades carried out since they were first built.
`We’re told that modernisation work has been carried out, but no
details have been made known, for example about what technologies were
employed in this process,’ she said. `We are assured that all is well
and that changes have been made, but words alone aren’t satisfactory.’
Vahram Petrosyan, head of the energy ministry’s Nuclear Power Research
Institute, said there was no reason to worry about nuclear safety.
`Armenia is constantly taking steps to ensure safety at the nuclear
power station meets the required standards,’ he said. `In addition,
there are International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] requirements for
security and modernisation. Armenia has fulfilled all aspects of IAEA
requirements.’
Petrosyan said the risk of damage caused by earthquakes was minimal.
`The Metsamor plant’s location was well chosen, as it has a thick
layer of basalt, meaning that the force of any earthquake is reduced
by about 1.5 points. That means that in this part of the country, the
chances of an earthquake of level eight or more are insignificant,’ he
said, referring to the 12-point MSK scale used in the former Soviet
Union to measure earthquake intensity. According to this scale,
widespread structural damage occurs only at level eight or above.
`If there is an earthquake that poses a threat to the facility, the
system will swiftly recognise this and send instructions for the
reactor to shut down,’ Petrosyan added. `All equipment are fitted with
modern Japanese dampers which will absorb the shock of a quake and
prevent major impact on the power station.’
Zarafyan is also concerned about the possible effects of a quake on
nuclear waste stored underground.
`We can’t send nuclear waste out of the country, since there is no
railway link with the outside world. The waste material is building up
here. Of course, it goes into a special storage facility, but it’s
underground. No one can say for sure what would happen to it if there
was an earthquake – whether there radiation would seep out through
underground water,’ she said.
Other analysts are concerned that current disaster response measures
would not be adequate if something did go wrong.
`The training to cope with these situations is in very poor shape in
Armenia’s schools. There’s virtually no public warning system for
natural or man-made catastrophes,’ Richard Giragosian, director of the
Yerevan-based Regional Studies Centre, said.
The ministry for emergencies insists a comprehensive disaster response
plan is in place and is updated regularly.
According to Hovhannes Yemishyan, who heads the ministry’s civil
defence office, `This plan sets out rules for rescue efforts and for
the state institutions that have to take specific steps. The
emergencies ministry will coordinate all this work, including civil
defence, evacuation, accommodation, monitoring and so on.’
Armen Poghosyan is a freelance journalist.