Tweet
ARMENIA: FIGHT BREWS OVER IAEA'S THUMBS-UP APPRAISAL OF METSAMOR
by Marianna Grigoryan and Anahit Hayrapetyan
EurasiaNet.org
June 7 2011
NY
Often depicted as a disaster waiting to happen, Armenia's
35-year-old nuclear power station, Metsamor, has passed muster with
the International Atomic Energy Agency. But don't expect the debate
over the plant's safety standards to end any time soon.
Armenian environmentalists and some energy analysts are challenging the
IAEA's initial findings as a pro-forma evaluation that does nothing
to address the risks posed by Metsamor's age, geographical location,
outdated equipment and alleged lack of qualified staff.
"There is no industrial activity that does not pose any risk, but I
think the results of our inspection show that this risk [at Metsamor]
is acceptable," Gabor Vamos, the Hungarian head of the 11-member IAEA
Operational Safety Review Team for Armenia, told reporters on June
2 after a 17-day review of the nuclear power plant.
One prominent Armenian environmental activist, Hakob Sanasarian,
director of the Greens' Union of Armenia, called that assessment
ridiculous. "We didn't have any other expectations about the experts,"
Sanasarian said. "It would be naïve to think that they would declare
Metsamor is dangerous [since the IAEA supports the use of nuclear
energy]. Anyway, we will continue our fight. The nuclear power plant
is dangerous in terms of environmental, seismic and safety risks."
Aside from its age, critics like Sanasarian worry about the plant's
location; situated roughly 30 kilometers from Yerevan, it is built
in a landslide and seismic zone near residential areas and water
reservoirs. Officials downplay these concerns, asserting that the
nuclear power plant is "safe."
Metsamor's operational safety has long been a target of international
criticism. The European Union and United States have both pushed for
the development of energy alternatives to Metsamor, which provides
about 40 percent of Armenia's electricity. Next year, work will start
on a new unit at Metsamor; Russia has agreed to finance roughly 20
percent of the estimated $5 billion-$7.2 billion construction cost.
Optimism about plans for the new unit faded amid the international
outcry over the March meltdown at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power
plant. Later that month, the US magazine Foreign Policy ranked Metsamor
as one of the world's five most dangerous nuclear power plants.
Responding to expressions of concern, the Armenian government called
in the IAEA to perform an in-depth operational safety review. The
Armenian Ministry of Energy allowed EurasiaNet.org to photograph the
nuclear power plant only after the IAEA team's inspection.
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committee of Armenia Chairman
Ashot Martirosian told EurasiaNet.org that the IAEA experts' 14
recommendations and proposals are "confidential," but said that the
Committee expected that the final assessment of Metsamor's operational
risk would be "similar" to the Committee's own conclusion of no
operational risk. Inspection of the plant by local specialists will
continue until the end of the year, he added.
"These recommendations and proposals are not publicized yet, but
there is nothing extraordinary in them," Martirosian said. "These are
objective proposals, and work will be done in accordance with them."
For now, the IAEA team has identified the problem areas in general
terms: it has called for an improvement in daily equipment inspections
and plant maintenance and a need for observation of rules for equipment
use to guarantee the "safe and reliable functioning" of the plant. More
effective communication from plant management about "industrial safety
risks" and the use of "personal protective equipment" is also needed,
the IAEA found.
After the IAEA mulls comments from Armenia's State Nuclear Safety
Regulatory Committее, the international experts' final report will
be submitted to the Armenian government by September.
Regardless of what the IAEA finds, some experts, such as Slavik
Sargsian, chairman of the All-Armenian Association of Power
Specialists, will continue to have misgivings. On top of Metsamor's
other problems, the plant lacks a sufficient number of nuclear
power specialists since most of them left to work abroad in recent
years, Sarkisian alleged. The number of such specialists employed
at Metsamor is not known, but the plant's total work force has been
cited previously at some 1,200 employees.
"Several international experts conduct superficial studies and
say the level of risk is acceptable, but we have big problems
with specialists," Sargsian said. "Japan, a super-developed and
well-prepared country, faced a disaster. God forbid, if a hazardous
situation emerges at our plant, we have neither the capabilities nor
the specialists to fight back."
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committее Chairman Martirosian
countered that such criticism exaggerated Metsamor's actual risk. "If
the nuclear plant lacked specialists, it just wouldn't operate,"
he responded.
"The risk is always there, but we have no concerns in terms of safety,"
Martiosian said.
Editor's Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and editor of MediaLab.am. Anahit Hayrapetyan is a freelance
photojournalist also based in Yerevan.
by Marianna Grigoryan and Anahit Hayrapetyan
EurasiaNet.org
June 7 2011
NY
Often depicted as a disaster waiting to happen, Armenia's
35-year-old nuclear power station, Metsamor, has passed muster with
the International Atomic Energy Agency. But don't expect the debate
over the plant's safety standards to end any time soon.
Armenian environmentalists and some energy analysts are challenging the
IAEA's initial findings as a pro-forma evaluation that does nothing
to address the risks posed by Metsamor's age, geographical location,
outdated equipment and alleged lack of qualified staff.
"There is no industrial activity that does not pose any risk, but I
think the results of our inspection show that this risk [at Metsamor]
is acceptable," Gabor Vamos, the Hungarian head of the 11-member IAEA
Operational Safety Review Team for Armenia, told reporters on June
2 after a 17-day review of the nuclear power plant.
One prominent Armenian environmental activist, Hakob Sanasarian,
director of the Greens' Union of Armenia, called that assessment
ridiculous. "We didn't have any other expectations about the experts,"
Sanasarian said. "It would be naïve to think that they would declare
Metsamor is dangerous [since the IAEA supports the use of nuclear
energy]. Anyway, we will continue our fight. The nuclear power plant
is dangerous in terms of environmental, seismic and safety risks."
Aside from its age, critics like Sanasarian worry about the plant's
location; situated roughly 30 kilometers from Yerevan, it is built
in a landslide and seismic zone near residential areas and water
reservoirs. Officials downplay these concerns, asserting that the
nuclear power plant is "safe."
Metsamor's operational safety has long been a target of international
criticism. The European Union and United States have both pushed for
the development of energy alternatives to Metsamor, which provides
about 40 percent of Armenia's electricity. Next year, work will start
on a new unit at Metsamor; Russia has agreed to finance roughly 20
percent of the estimated $5 billion-$7.2 billion construction cost.
Optimism about plans for the new unit faded amid the international
outcry over the March meltdown at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power
plant. Later that month, the US magazine Foreign Policy ranked Metsamor
as one of the world's five most dangerous nuclear power plants.
Responding to expressions of concern, the Armenian government called
in the IAEA to perform an in-depth operational safety review. The
Armenian Ministry of Energy allowed EurasiaNet.org to photograph the
nuclear power plant only after the IAEA team's inspection.
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committee of Armenia Chairman
Ashot Martirosian told EurasiaNet.org that the IAEA experts' 14
recommendations and proposals are "confidential," but said that the
Committee expected that the final assessment of Metsamor's operational
risk would be "similar" to the Committee's own conclusion of no
operational risk. Inspection of the plant by local specialists will
continue until the end of the year, he added.
"These recommendations and proposals are not publicized yet, but
there is nothing extraordinary in them," Martirosian said. "These are
objective proposals, and work will be done in accordance with them."
For now, the IAEA team has identified the problem areas in general
terms: it has called for an improvement in daily equipment inspections
and plant maintenance and a need for observation of rules for equipment
use to guarantee the "safe and reliable functioning" of the plant. More
effective communication from plant management about "industrial safety
risks" and the use of "personal protective equipment" is also needed,
the IAEA found.
After the IAEA mulls comments from Armenia's State Nuclear Safety
Regulatory Committее, the international experts' final report will
be submitted to the Armenian government by September.
Regardless of what the IAEA finds, some experts, such as Slavik
Sargsian, chairman of the All-Armenian Association of Power
Specialists, will continue to have misgivings. On top of Metsamor's
other problems, the plant lacks a sufficient number of nuclear
power specialists since most of them left to work abroad in recent
years, Sarkisian alleged. The number of such specialists employed
at Metsamor is not known, but the plant's total work force has been
cited previously at some 1,200 employees.
"Several international experts conduct superficial studies and
say the level of risk is acceptable, but we have big problems
with specialists," Sargsian said. "Japan, a super-developed and
well-prepared country, faced a disaster. God forbid, if a hazardous
situation emerges at our plant, we have neither the capabilities nor
the specialists to fight back."
State Nuclear Safety Regulatory Committее Chairman Martirosian
countered that such criticism exaggerated Metsamor's actual risk. "If
the nuclear plant lacked specialists, it just wouldn't operate,"
he responded.
"The risk is always there, but we have no concerns in terms of safety,"
Martiosian said.
Editor's Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and editor of MediaLab.am. Anahit Hayrapetyan is a freelance
photojournalist also based in Yerevan.