Tweet
EurasiaNet.org, NY
May 4 2011
Armenia: Metsamor Awaits IAEA Inspection
May 4, 2011 - 1:30pm, by Marianna Grigoryan
Officials in Armenia have long downplayed the potential threats posed
by the aging Metsamor nuclear power plant, not far from the capital
Yerevan. At the same time, the facility has been repeatedly ranked as
one of the world's most dangerous nuclear power stations. To reassure
a jittery international community in the wake of Japan's nuclear
troubles, the Armenian government has invited International Atomic
Energy Agency inspectors to subject the Metsamor plant to a `stress
test.'
The 12-person IAEA team is due to be in Armenia from May 15-June 1.
Thirty-five-year-old Metsamor, which supplies about 40 percent of
Armenia's energy needs, has long been a target for criticism. The
plant is supposed to be shut down after the construction of a new
facility in 2016, but, with five years still to go to decommissioning,
there is mounting pressure to ensure that no mishaps occur during this
twilight phase of operations.
The IAEA tests will attempt to determine how the nuclear plant would
respond to an earthquake or a tornado, said State Nuclear Safety
Regulatory Committee Chairperson Ashot Martirosian. Eager to downplay
possible doomsday scenarios, Martirosian underlined that the visit is
`standard practice.'
`Independent experts are being invited to give their expert opinion,'
he said. `After this, we will draw conclusions and introduce changes,
if necessary.'
Other international experts will review procedures -- ranging from
accident management to possible power failure. Metsamor management
will submit the findings to the State Nuclear Safety Regulatory
Committee by late September, Martirosian said.
In 1988, Metsamor was shut down in the wake of the 6.9-magnitude
earthquake at Spitak. Even so, many Armenian nuclear safety
specialists argue that the station is safer than Japan's stricken
Fukushima facility. Martirosian argued that, unlike Fukushima,
Metsamor's `two-loop steam cycle' could enable generators to release
steam into the air under high temperatures without also releasing
radioactive materials.
Some environmentalists, however, think such confidence is misplaced.
`The attitude toward nuclear power stations has changed across the
world,' commented Karine Danielian, a former minister of environmental
protection who now heads the non-governmental organization For
Sustainable Human Development. `Even if Japan, one of the most
progressive countries, is at risk, how can one consider our own
nuclear power station to be `safe'?'
Some of Armenia's neighbors have asked the same question, though the
identity of the country asking the question appears to follow
diplomatic fault lines. Strategic allies Turkey and Azerbaijan,
neither of which have diplomatic ties with Armenia, have called for
Metsamor to be shut down. Metsamor is located 16 kilometers from
Armenia's border with Turkey. Georgia and Iran, however, have not yet
issued such a statement.
Responding to international criticism, Armenian Energy and Natural
Resources Minister Armen Movsisian told Panorama.am that `We must not
take all these statements seriously.'
`We are open; anybody can come and see our nuclear power station. If
any problem occurred, the international agency [IAEA] would be the
first to ban its operation,' Movsisian said.
One environmental activist believes the concern about Metsamor's
continuing operations are justified. `How can we talk about security
if the nuclear plant is constructed in a seismic zone, and is located
in a densely populated settlement, instead of being 200 kilometers
away [the distance between Fukushima and Tokyo ` Ed] from residential
areas?' asked Hakob Sanasarian, chairman of the Greens Union of
Armenia. `It is constructed near an agricultural complex, a huge
artesian reservoir, near highways and the airport.'
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committее Chair Martirosian dismissed
Sanasarian's objections as groundless and `for show.'
`These declarations are not based on studies,' he asserted.
Citing studies dating back to the Soviet era, Danielian, former
environmental protection minister, also expressed misgivings. `As an
environmentalist, I understand the existing hazards, and as a citizen,
I realize we have no alternative option to the nuclear plant,'
Danielian said. `[W]e just have to hope that the international review
will give us an opportunity to exploit the nuclear power station
safely.'
Editor's note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and editor of MediaLab.am.
From: A. Papazian
May 4 2011
Armenia: Metsamor Awaits IAEA Inspection
May 4, 2011 - 1:30pm, by Marianna Grigoryan
Officials in Armenia have long downplayed the potential threats posed
by the aging Metsamor nuclear power plant, not far from the capital
Yerevan. At the same time, the facility has been repeatedly ranked as
one of the world's most dangerous nuclear power stations. To reassure
a jittery international community in the wake of Japan's nuclear
troubles, the Armenian government has invited International Atomic
Energy Agency inspectors to subject the Metsamor plant to a `stress
test.'
The 12-person IAEA team is due to be in Armenia from May 15-June 1.
Thirty-five-year-old Metsamor, which supplies about 40 percent of
Armenia's energy needs, has long been a target for criticism. The
plant is supposed to be shut down after the construction of a new
facility in 2016, but, with five years still to go to decommissioning,
there is mounting pressure to ensure that no mishaps occur during this
twilight phase of operations.
The IAEA tests will attempt to determine how the nuclear plant would
respond to an earthquake or a tornado, said State Nuclear Safety
Regulatory Committee Chairperson Ashot Martirosian. Eager to downplay
possible doomsday scenarios, Martirosian underlined that the visit is
`standard practice.'
`Independent experts are being invited to give their expert opinion,'
he said. `After this, we will draw conclusions and introduce changes,
if necessary.'
Other international experts will review procedures -- ranging from
accident management to possible power failure. Metsamor management
will submit the findings to the State Nuclear Safety Regulatory
Committee by late September, Martirosian said.
In 1988, Metsamor was shut down in the wake of the 6.9-magnitude
earthquake at Spitak. Even so, many Armenian nuclear safety
specialists argue that the station is safer than Japan's stricken
Fukushima facility. Martirosian argued that, unlike Fukushima,
Metsamor's `two-loop steam cycle' could enable generators to release
steam into the air under high temperatures without also releasing
radioactive materials.
Some environmentalists, however, think such confidence is misplaced.
`The attitude toward nuclear power stations has changed across the
world,' commented Karine Danielian, a former minister of environmental
protection who now heads the non-governmental organization For
Sustainable Human Development. `Even if Japan, one of the most
progressive countries, is at risk, how can one consider our own
nuclear power station to be `safe'?'
Some of Armenia's neighbors have asked the same question, though the
identity of the country asking the question appears to follow
diplomatic fault lines. Strategic allies Turkey and Azerbaijan,
neither of which have diplomatic ties with Armenia, have called for
Metsamor to be shut down. Metsamor is located 16 kilometers from
Armenia's border with Turkey. Georgia and Iran, however, have not yet
issued such a statement.
Responding to international criticism, Armenian Energy and Natural
Resources Minister Armen Movsisian told Panorama.am that `We must not
take all these statements seriously.'
`We are open; anybody can come and see our nuclear power station. If
any problem occurred, the international agency [IAEA] would be the
first to ban its operation,' Movsisian said.
One environmental activist believes the concern about Metsamor's
continuing operations are justified. `How can we talk about security
if the nuclear plant is constructed in a seismic zone, and is located
in a densely populated settlement, instead of being 200 kilometers
away [the distance between Fukushima and Tokyo ` Ed] from residential
areas?' asked Hakob Sanasarian, chairman of the Greens Union of
Armenia. `It is constructed near an agricultural complex, a huge
artesian reservoir, near highways and the airport.'
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committее Chair Martirosian dismissed
Sanasarian's objections as groundless and `for show.'
`These declarations are not based on studies,' he asserted.
Citing studies dating back to the Soviet era, Danielian, former
environmental protection minister, also expressed misgivings. `As an
environmentalist, I understand the existing hazards, and as a citizen,
I realize we have no alternative option to the nuclear plant,'
Danielian said. `[W]e just have to hope that the international review
will give us an opportunity to exploit the nuclear power station
safely.'
Editor's note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and editor of MediaLab.am.
From: A. Papazian