In August, the Turkish media outlet guvengazetesi.com.tr published an extensive article about the Armenian nuclear power plant under the title "The great threat from Armenia". A small part of the article was printed on the trilingual website ermenihaber.am (it operates in Armenian, Turkish, and Russian) under the headline "Turkish official claims the Metsamor nuclear power plant poses a threat to Turkey and Azerbaijan". That publication of Ermenihaber.am was also published by other Armenian mass media.

Taking into account the presence of a number of problematic claims in the article, Infocom sent a written request to The Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as Ministry) (the department responsible for the energy sector) and the Committee on Nuclear Safety Regulation of the Republic of Armenia as a watchdog of atomic energy) with a number of questions regarding their truthfulness and asking for clarifications.

The request was re-addressed from the Ministry to the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as ANPP), and the Committee on Nuclear Safety Regulation of the Republic of Armenia (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) noted that considering the volume and importance of the issues, in order to provide relevant information, it will be necessary to consider archival documents, which will require additional time. Having received the answers within the one-month period defined by the law, we can state that the statements and assumptions of the Turkish author do not correspond to reality.

The period of operation of the NPP has not ended but has been extended

Thus, at the beginning of the article, the author noted that the ANPP continues to be operated despite the expiration of its time. Apparently, he means the design period of operation. With the request to receive information, we asked to be told how much was the design period of the operation of the NPP, if it was over, and when and on what basis was the decision made to continue the operation.

According to the official answers, the power unit 2-nd of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant operates in Armenia, which was put into operation in 1980. 

The design (designated) operation lifetime was until September 2016, and before then it was planned to build a new nuclear power unit in Armenia, which, however, was postponed because of the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster and the global financial crisis. 

"With the stoppage of the operating Energy Block and the lack of primary fuel and energy resources - oil, gas, coal, as a result - Armenia could find itself in a critical situation because the ANPP produces around 38% of the electricity consumed in the country. Therefore, the RA government, with decision No. 461 of April 19, 2012, started the process aimed at extending the operation period of the station."

An appropriate program was developed and complex works were carried out (resource assessment, measures to increase safety, modifications, comprehensive instrumental research of devices, equipment, and systems, analysis, etc.), which substantiated the possibility of safe operation of the 2-nd power unit of the ANPP until September 2026. As a result, the Committee, after examining the performed works and supporting documents, allowed the extension of the operation period. According to the  Armenian Nuclear Power Plant, this decision corresponds to global practice, and the possibility of extending the operation period of nuclear power plants up to 60 years is practically achievable. 

"Currently, 85 power units put into operation in the 70s, which are 10 years older than the ANPP,  continue to work in the world," the answer says.

In the same context, the author also noted that Armenia violates the agreement signed with the European Union in 1999, according to which the NPP was to be closed before 2004. We were interested in whether it was ever planned to stop the operation of the NPP before 2004, whether there is or was such an agreement, and if so, what was the reason for that decision, what will happen next, and on what basis it was changed later.

In response, the Committee informed that in 1994, the leadership of the European Union, in a letter addressed to the President of Armenia, stated that in order to overcome the energy crisis created in Armenia, it would not object to the restart of the 2-nd power unit of the ANPP, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development would provide 50 million USD to the Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant for the construction of the 5th unit, with a condition that Armenia will take measures to stop the operation of the 2nd power unit of the ANPP before 2004. 

"The President of Armenia stated in a reply letter that Armenia will stop the operation of the 2nd power unit of the ANPP after commissioning a new power plant of the same capacity (providing a similar level of energy independence)."

Later on, the information on the results of continuing the safe operation of the power unit and the constant improvement of safety was provided to the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency (hereinafter IAEA), which made it possible to assess the safety level of the plant as average according to the global rating (14th place among 32 countries operating nuclear power plants). According to the assurance of the ANPP, there is currently an understanding among international organizations regarding the need to continue the operation of the Armenian NPP (in case of technical feasibility and safety justification) before building replacement nuclear capacities.

Speaking about the modernization of the NPP, the author wrote that about 400 experts from Belarus, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and other countries will participate in the maintenance work, and the ANPP will remain closed shut down for 141 days, after which it will be possible to operate it until 2036. We were interested in whether new modernization works are planned in the near future, or whether the website refers to the works of 2021, during which the work of the ANPP was stopped for 141 days.

According to the Committee, taking into account the mentioned 141 days, it can be assumed that it’s about the planned preventive repair of 2021.

"At that time, the need for a long-term shut-down arose for the introduction of large-scale measures (modifications) to increase the safety of the ANPP. Based on the performed works, the Committee allowed the further operation of the 2nd power unit of the ANPP, as already mentioned, until September 2026. However, safety enhancement works are continuous and accompany any nuclear power plant in operation," the Committee informed.

As for the year mentioned, 2036, it is noted in the strategic plan for the development of the energy sector of Armenia. With this, it is planned to operate the existing power unit until 2036 in case of safety justification. 

"By the way, the arrival and work of more than 400 specialists from a number of European countries at the ANPP is the best refutation of the author of the article's evaluation of the ANPP as the "world's most dangerous nuclear power plant", the ANPP noted, adding that after the commissioning of the plant in 2021, and after the completion of the repair and restoration works, the delegations of a number of international and national organizations conducted inspections at the ANPP, as a result of which they did not find any obstacles for the restart of the plant.

"It would not be possible to restart the ANPP without the approval of the  repair and restoration works results by the IAEA."

Since its construction, there have been no accidents at the NPP

The Turkish author also noted that many serious accidents have occurred at the ANPP since its construction. In the inquiry, we had asked to detail when, what kind of, and how many accidents happened at the ANPP, and if there were any, to mention the causes and consequences on the population and the environment.

The committee informed that there have never been any accidents at the ANPP. According to international and national legislation in the field of atomic energy use, an accident has a specific definition. Accordingly, an accident is a situation created during the operation of a nuclear power plant, during which there was a release of radioactive materials exceeding the limits of safe operation and (or) the spread of ionizing radiation. According to the relevant decision of the RA government, the accident is characterized by the initial accident, development paths, and consequences.

According to the committee, only incidents occurred during the operation of the ANPP, which were never higher than level 1 on the scale of the IAEA INES system. 

"Incidents are reported to the Committee, as well as to the IAEA, according to the established procedure. The information is also published in the "International Reporting System" database managed by the IAEA.

The ANPP also informed that the only serious accident that occurred during the entire operation can be considered the ignition of the cables of the 16th passage in the turbine workshop (engine hall) of power unit No. 1 (now out of operation). It happened on October 15, 1982. According to the international scale of nuclear power plant accidents, the given accident was assigned a level of "0", which means that it was a technical event that was not related to the nuclear plant and its work.

 "This event is not classified as an accident because there was no leak of radioactive materials outside the reactor workshop. The fire was extinguished, the damaged cables and individual elements were replaced, and the No. 1 power unit continued its normal operation until 1989 shut-down, after which that unit is not operated," the answer reads.

The Spitak earthquake of 1988 did not cause any negative consequences for the ANPP

The author of the article also claimed that although the ANPP is located about 100 km from the city of Spitak, it suffered great damage during the 1988 earthquake, created a risk of radioactive leakage, and was closed due to seismic vulnerability. We asked the relevant authorities to inform us whether there was a "danger of radioactive leakage" after the Spitak earthquake and whether the reason for the shutdown of the 1989 ANPP was the "great damage" suffered by the plant as a result of the Spitak earthquake. In case of a negative answer, we asked to clarify on what grounds the Council of Ministers of the USSR made such a decision.

According to the answer received from the ANPP, the Spitak earthquake did not cause any negative consequences for the ANPP. The equipment of the station registered shocks of up to 5.6 points on the Richter scale, while the protection limit, according to the same scale, was 6 points.

As it's known, the intensity of the earthquake was 7 points. 

"Both power units continued to work in normal operation mode at the time of the earthquake and after that, and as a result of further detailed inspection of the plant's equipment and building structures, no injuries were found. Therefore, the information about the radioactive leakage or the damage suffered by the Nuclear Power Plant is unfounded, because no system was damaged, and the existing radiation monitoring systems did not register any leakage."

However, against the background of the Chernobyl syndrome and the seismic shock of the Armenian population, the Council of Ministers of the USSR (on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR) decided to shut down power unit No. 1 on February 25, 1989, and power unit No. 2 on March 18. According to the Committee, it was an exclusively political decision.

In the same context, the author noted that even if there is no danger of an explosion in the ANPP, the way is still open for contamination and cancer in the region. Although he did not mention any official statistics of cancer cases, he nevertheless mentioned the alleged impact of the ANPP on Igdir, giving examples of the increase in cancer cases, the drying of vegetation, etc., which, according to the author, are thought-provoking. We asked to clarify how reasonable it is to associate this kind of negative consequences with nuclear power plants in general and the operation of the Armenian nuclear power plant in particular. We also asked to present how and with what frequency monitoring of the releases to environment is carried out at the NPP.

The committee noted that the claim was made without statistical data analysis or relevant references to the results of scientific research, which implies that it is the author's subjective assessment. Meanwhile, round-the-clock monitoring of the radiation situation is being carried out in the square of the ANPP and in the guarded area, the results of which prove that the parameters for evaluating the radiation situation there do not exceed the internationally defined standards. Therefore, according to the Committee, the negative impact of the ANPP on the environment during normal operation is practically absent. 

"In addition, within the framework of the convention "On Nuclear Safety" and joint convention "On Management of Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel", RA regularly submits national reports to the IAEA, which also mention the parameters of the radiation situation in the ANPP's site and in the monitored area. That's information, which is also available to Turkish specialists in the field. Professional platforms for professional discussions have been created by the IAEA, and similar issues have not been raised by any country, including Turkey, until now," the answer reads.

The ANPP also emphasized that if according to the author, the effect of the ANPP on their settlement, which is far enough away from the station, is so negative, then there should have been an oncological disaster in the nearby areas and in Armenia itself, considering the burnt desert. 

"However, fortunately, the objective picture is completely different. The saline soiled semi-desert, where the Armenian NPP was built, is currently mostly covered with gardens, vegetable gardens, and forest plantations."

The ANPP fully controls the activity of discharged technical water

The Turkish author wrote that the wastewater used for cooling the reactor is discharged into the Araks River and then into the Caspian Sea, therefore, the Metsamor NPP poses a serious threat to all the countries bordering the Caspian Sea. With the survey, we asked to reveal the authenticity of this statement, as well as to clarify the management of the water generated at the ANPP and, in case of discharge, their impact on the population and the environment.

The committee informed that this is absolute misinformation because they do not use wastewater for cooling the reactor. 

"Particularly, in the case of ANPP, the reactor is cooled by the water of the first circuit circulating in a closed system, which in turn its place is cooled by the water of the second circuit circulating in a closed system, and the latter is cooled by technical water (which is also a closed circulating system)."

The ANPP also detailed the management of discharges. Accordingly, the total activity of the technical water discharged from the ANPP is measured in special control tanks, and only if it does not exceed the specified amount, their discharge is allowed on the basis of a special environmental certificate, which presents the specific activity of the water, its volume, and other parameters.

"The discharge is carried out through a special pipeline to the treatment structures, and from there through a canal to the Black Water River. The activity of the discharged water is monitored in the pipeline at the exit point from the ANPP, at the exit point from the treatment structures, and at the point of discharge to the Black Water river. The average specific activity of discharged water and gases discharged into the atmosphere during the entire period of operation of the ANPP did not exceed 1% of the set normative values ​​(it is one hundred times less than the permitted values)."

The nuclear fuel and radioactive waste of the ANPP are stored exclusively in RA

The author noted that there are claims that Armenia sells radioactive waste to Georgia. He also mentioned that allegedly "during the occupation" the nuclear waste of the ANPP was buried in Karabakh. Although these claims are again not based on any exact source, we were interested in whether the practice of selling radioactive waste exists in general, and if not, is it possible that such waste was transported from Armenia to Georgia or to Artsakh for other purposes? Taking into account the requirements of the Law "On the Safe Use of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes", according to which the export of nuclear, radioactive materials, and radioactive waste from RA is prohibited (except for some cases), we asked to be informed about what is being done and where the radioactive waste of the ANPP is stored, and whether Armenia has the necessary infrastructure for recording and controlling the radioactive waste, if not, then in cooperation with which country is it implemented?

The Committee called the claims about burying and exporting the waste in Karabakh absolute misinformation, noting that the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste generated at the ANPP after independence are stored exclusively in the territory of the ANPP, and their management is carried out in accordance with national and international regulations, as well as guidelines, according to internal procedures and instructions.

 "Armenia has a number of obligations, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and all nuclear materials in Armenia are accounted for and under state control. On the basis of the agreement between Armenia and the IAEA on the application of guarantees related to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, IAEA inspectors regularly carry out inspections that document the fulfillment of the international obligations assumed by Armenia."

The ANPP added that radioactive waste is recorded and stored only on the territory of the ANPP, in special buildings, structures, separate squares, and landfills. The choice of site depends on the type of waste, liquid or solid, and the categories of the high, medium, or low activity. 

"The station is sufficiently equipped with the necessary equipment, devices, tools, and properly qualified personnel."

According to the ANPP, any contact with objects, tools, devices, and materials in the controlled zone (where radiation contamination is possible) is allowed only by special dose regulations, in which the permissible time of contact is fixed (according to the results of radiation monitoring). The removal of any material value from the controlled zone is carried out with special passes and in the presence of a certificate not exceeding the permissible level of radiation background. The procedure for removing material values ​​from the station, and even more so from RA, is stricter., in that case, the requirements submitted to the justification and purpose of the transfer are added. 

"For the export of those materials from Armenia, the radiation background of which exceeds the natural level (but is within the permissible limits), the agreement of the receiving country and the transit country are necessary ( the existence of a contract)", added the Armenian NPP.

The parallels between the Chernobyl NPP and the Armenian NPP are groundless, as they are unrelated projects

According to the author of the article, the Metsamor nuclear power plant, like Chernobyl, was built with the oldest Russian technologies, therefore, it is the most dangerous power plant left from Soviet times, and if an accident occurs, it will affect not only Turkiye and Azerbaijan but also all the surrounding countries, just like Chernobyl was the case. We asked whether the comparisons of the websites are reasonable, and if not, what are the essential differences between Metsamor and Chernobyl nuclear power plants.

According to the official answers, the parallels between the reactors of the Chernobyl NPP and the Armenian NPP are groundless, taking into account the fundamental difference in their structures. They are unrelated projects. The point is that the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is a single-circuit nuclear power plant of the boiling type, and the ANPP is a double-circuit nuclear power plant with a cooler under pressure. The essential difference is that if the steam operating the turbogenerator in a single-circuit nuclear power plant is radioactive, then in a double-circuit nuclear power plant it is not radioactive (the water of the first circuit, cooling the nuclear fuel, heats up and transfers this heat through the steam generator to the water of the second circuit without mixing with the latter, and the second the circuit water, turning into steam, works the turbogenerator).

The committee emphasized that using the words "oldest" and "most dangerous" when talking about nuclear power plants is the wrong approach because standards operating in the field are used to assess the safety of nuclear power plants, which represent certain numerical values.

Continuing the claims about the danger of the NPP, the website also wrote that the IAEA and the EU declared that it is the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the world. We asked if such an assessment was ever made by these structures.

According to the official answers, that statement is completely unfounded. The EU is a political structure, and such a claim has never been made by any official person, and the IAEA, being a structural unit of the United Nations, according to its charter, gives exclusively professional assessments and such an assessment regarding the 2nd power unit of the ANPP has never been made. 

According to the ANPP, this comparison is the same as accusing the IAEA and the EU of being biased and without any principles, because when assessing the Armenian NPP as "the most dangerous NPP in the world", a strict demand to stop it should have been immediately presented.

"The Armenian NPP is operated strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the IAEA, it regularly receives various missions from it, and performs many works based on the results of stress tests carried out by the IAEA and also by the EU. With the support (advisory, technical, financial) mentioned above, as well as other donor countries and organizations, continuous programs aimed at increasing safety and reliability are being implemented at the Armenian NPP. 

"Armenia fully fulfills its international obligations," it's stated in the answer.

The author also noted that on March 31, 1986, hundreds of people in a letter sent to the head of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, demanded to close the ANPP, that such a demand was also presented by prominent intellectuals and leaders of the independence movement in the process of independence of Armenia, as well as   Morris Rosen, former deputy general director of IAEA, who conducted an examination in Metsamor in 1995, also admitted that Metsamor's architectural project was not complete. If there is official information about these alleged cases, we asked them to be presented as well.

According to the official answers, the protests of public activists, especially during the collapse of Soviet Armenia, were of a politicized nature and were not based on any valid arguments. 

"In the late eighties of the last century, people were looking for an explanation for their dissatisfaction with the quality of life, and some believed that by stopping the ANPP, Nairit, and other "harmful" productions, Armenia would be freed from the tutelage of the USSR and gain the long-awaited independence. However, life showed the opposite, and already in 1993, the RA government's decision to  restart the work of power unit No. 2 of the ANPP was perceived with understanding and approval."

The Committee noted that after the restart of the 2nd power unit of the ANPP, an open operation policy is implemented, during which not only measures to increase the safety of the power unit but also working and scientific meetings organized at the ANPP, expert missions carried out by international structures are covered,  emergency exercises are conducted, etc.

"Even now, there is no public opinion aimed at stopping the operation of the 2nd power unit of the ANPP," the official response of the ANPP claims. 

It should also be noted that although there are regular announcements at the level of officials in Turkiye about the alleged danger of the Armenian NPP, in this case, the term "Turkish official" spread in the Armenian media is not correct, because the author of the article, Aydin Deniz, is not an official, but the head of the Igdir journalists' community. And even though the website Ermenihaber.am, which is a source for the Armenian mass media, mentioned "Turkish official" in the title, presented the author as the head of the mentioned structure in the publication.

Thus, the claims of the article published by the Turkish guvengazetesi.com.tr media, about the Armenian nuclear power plant, are groundless, unsubstantiated, and tend to misrepresent Armenia's proper fulfillment of its obligations under national and international legislation.