There are lots of drawbacks. Are there any positive sides?

There are no professional construction workers in Belarus having relevant experience in designing and constructing these crucial, complex and unsafe objects. There are no professionals who would be experienced in maintenance of NPPs. There are no radioactive waste storages. There are no own funds, Belarus may only rely on credits. There is a long list of various ‘contra’ arguments. A well-known economist, philosopher and environmentalist, President of the American Foundation on Economic Trends, Jeremy Rifkin reckoned that “in order to satisfy the world’s need in energy using nuclear energy, in the course of the following 50 years a new Nuclear Power Plant should be built every month. This means the number of NPPs would increase up to 2500. It is not realistic. The third industrial revolution is being impeded by the investments into the construction of NPPs. First of all, the renewable sources of energy should be developed.”

A. Lukashenko: “NPP is our rescue”

Academic Kapitsa called NPPs “nuclear bombs which provide with electricity”. Whether Belarus really needs it? That is not an issue under discussion already. A political decision on construction of a Nuclear Power Plant in Belarus with 2000 GWatt productive capacity has already been made. The terms of construction were identified: the first power generating unit would be launched in 2016, the second in 2018. The estimated cost of the project according to the assessment of the Ministry of Finances could reach four million US dollars.

Yet in December 2006 Aleksandr Lukashenko announced: “The issue of creation of our own nuclear energy becomes practically an unquestionable way of guaranteeing national security of Belarus… NPP is our rescue”. He made an observation that while Belarusian public is correctly informed about the situation in the energy sphere and the perspectives of the development of the country the people would accept this position of the authorities and would support it.

Aarhus Convention violations: no one asked people’s opinion

The majority of Belarusians are against the construction of a NPP, say the results of the survey held by independent sociologists in the end of October – beginning of November 2007. 47.7 % of those interviewed are against the construction, 32.5 % support the idea, 14.5 % have no opinion on the issue and the rest refused to answer.

How moral it is to make such decisions in Belarus without consulting with the population, which suffered severely from the Chernobyl Catastrophe in 1986?

A Russian expert of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Aleksandr Azharovsky expressed an opinion that Belarus violated the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. “In accordance with the Convention, nuclear stations are listed among the objects, subjects to the Aarhus Convention procedures. The part of the convention related to the public participation in decision making process at early stages was violated”.

The Director of the Belarusian Representation of the Ecological Foundation ISAR, Elena Layevskaya, says that the joint position of the Ministry of Environment and independent experts regarding public participation in the process of making decision on construction of a NPP has not yet been elaborated. “Since the decision regarding the construction of a NPP would concern all the population of Belarus, to comply with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, a Republican Referendum needs to be held”, thinks Mrs. Layevskaya. The expert plans to address the Secretariat of the Aarhus Convention to receive clarifications on this issue.

A so called Anti-Nuclear group is active in Gorki Region, where public is protesting against the construction of the Nuclear Power Plant, and it is collecting signatures against it and preparing a request to the Secretariat of the Convention to look into the matter.

The place for a NPP construction has not been identified yet

The final decision on where the NPP would be built and who would be responsible for construction has not been yet made.

So far there are three potential construction-grounds under consideration: Kukshinovskaya (Gorki Region of Mogilev Oblast), Ostrovetskaya (Grodno Oblast) and Krasnopolianskaya (Mogilev Oblast). The State Commission listed them in this order. All three grounds could be used as grounds for construction of a NPP, said the Deputy Minister of Energy Mr. Mikhail Mikhadiuk. Engineer and geological survey shows that there are no obstacles for construction of a NPP at the Kukshinovskaya ground, however there are cities near it: Gorki and Orsha; Krasnopolianskaya ground contains chalk deposits, and Ostrovetskaya’s ground seismicity is higher (7 points while the admissible level is 8 points), moreover, Vilnius is located 30 km away. At the moment all possibilities are being studied carefully, and comparative technical and economic surveys are ongoing.

Lots of ‘contras’, are there any ‘pros’?

There are no professional builders in Belarus having proper experience in designing and constructing these crucial, complex and unsafe objects. There are no professionals who would have the experience in maintenance of NPPs. There are no radioactive waste storages. There are no own funds, Belarus may only rely on credits. There is a long list of various ‘contra’ arguments.

With regard to the potential construction companies, the tender for the NPP construction has not been announced yet. According to the legislation, there is a strict requirement for announcing a tender however an Academic Aleksandr Mikhalevich says that other scenarios are possible in our country: “The decision is made by Aleksandr Lukashenko. The legislative framework sets a requirement for announcing a tender for construction. The only person, who could cancel the requirement for the announcement and to propose a different procedure, is the president of the country”.

Who would construct?

The Deputy Minister of Energy Mikhail Mikaduk believes that a Russian company “AtomStroyExport” would face fewer complexities in the process of the construction of the NPP. In order a French company Areva could take part in the construction it would have to receive a permission of the French President. Mr. Mikhaduk said that “there are certain ‘issues’ regarding the American side of the US-Japanese company Westinghouse-Toshiba, i.e. the political relations are taking wrong shape…”

The Deputy Head of the Department for External Economic Activities of the Scientific Research Institute in Nizhni Novgorod, Aleksandr Zagliadanov, says that French and Russian reactors differ in fuel costs: “Russian fuel would be cheaper for Belarus compared with the Western European”.

A Law on Use of Nuclear Power has already been adopted in view of the construction of a NPP

The exploitation period of the power generating units proposed for construction in Belarus is 60 years. The payback period is around 15 years. Therefore Belarusian NPP would have an economic effect only by 2035, not taking into account credit payments the country would have to make.

The international experience shows that the average cost of a NPP construction with 2000 GWatt capacity at grounds without proper infrastructure is around 8-12 million US dollars, said the First Vice-President “AtomStroyExport”, Aleksandr Gluhov. The Belarusian Finance Ministry underestimated the cost of the construction by 2-3 times.

On 24 June the Deputies of the Belarusian Parliament quickly adopted a Law on Use of Nuclear Power in view of the construction of a NPP (passed in second reading). While the Law was adopted there were no remarks except a replica by Deputy Olga Abramova, who said that she couldn’t find a concrete answer to the issue of nuclear wastes utilization.

Ludmila Korsak