BELARUS GEARING UP FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 000971

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/07/2016
TAGS: ENRG TRGY PARM MNUC BO
SUBJECT: BELARUS GEARING UP FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

REF: A. 05 MINSK 337


B. MINSK 640

Classified By: Charge Jonathan Moore for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
--------------


1. (C) The GOB continues to advocate the construction of a
nuclear power plant (NPP) in Belarus. Although a decision
has not officially been made, the state media's positive
propaganda indicates that Lukashenko plans to build an NPP
whether Belarusians agree or not. GOB officials maintain the
NPP would use the "latest technology"; press statements and
history strongly indicate that the NPP will likely be built
by Russians and Belarusians with locally produced (and
Russian) materials. Such plans do not set well with the
population, which continues to suffer from the consequences
of Chernobyl that the government has failed to fully address.
End summary.


2. (U) Authorities are continuing with plans to build a
2,000-megawatt water-cooled NPP in 2008-2015 (ref A).
Construction would take place in the Shklov or Krasnopolye
regions in the Mogilev Oblast and cost approximately USD
2.2-2.6 billion. Although planners stress that the GOB will
not make a final decision on an NPP without holding a public
discussion, independent newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP)
on August 24 reported that the initial stages of preparation
had already began at the Krasnopolye site, 100 kilometers
from the Russian border.

"Nuclear Power Only Alternative"
--------------


3. (U) Using state media as their mouthpiece, the authorities
and their scientists publicly support nuclear power as the
"only alternative" if Belarus truly wants to be less
dependent on foreign (Russian) energy. Advocates predict an
NPP would produce cheap energy (USD 0.16 per kilowatt hour),
save Belarus USD 300-400 million per year in energy
purchases, and account for 27-30 percent of Belarus' energy
usage by 2020. Currently, Belarus imports 85 percent of its
energy, costing Belarus USD 2 billion per year, and Russia
supplies 95 percent of energy imports. NPP advocates from
the GOB ministries, Belarusian National Academy of Sciences,
and nuclear research institute Sosny claim an NPP would
overcome an energy deficit otherwise expected to appear in

2010. Officials publicly promote an NPP as "ecologically
safer" and cheaper to operate than other energy resources,
and Lukashenko on August 3 considered an NPP the most
important factor in protecting Belarus' energy security.

"An NPP Is Completely Safe"
--------------


4. (U) Lukashenko on August 1 shrugged off NPP fears among
the population and stressed that the decision about an NPP
must be based on "sober" scientific and economic calculations
rather than on "radiation fears" and other phobias. He
stated that only state-of-the-art reliable technologies would
be used. On August 4, state owned newspaper Sovetskaya
Belarus assured its readers that NPP planners were following
a well-detailed plan, guidelines set by international
organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency,
and national requirements stricter than those in the United
States or Japan.

Who Will Build and Finance An NPP?
--------------


5. (U) The GOB maintains that only the best and appropriate
materials would be used to build an NPP, but public
statements and events indicate that Russia will be the
preferred source of materials and services. On July 13,
Belarus held talks with Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear
Energy (Rosatom) to develop legislative framework to develop
and plan an NPP in Belarus, though the MFA denied supplies of
NPP equipment were discussed. SB on August 4 opined that
cooperation with Russia would be "economically advantageous"
for Belarus, possibly leading to Russian financial credit for
construction. Although NPP planners claim that the potential
construction sites were chosen for their soil quality, SP did
not hide the fact that the sites in the Mogilev oblast were
chosen for their proximity to the Russian border, enabling
Belarus to use Smolensk NPP's infrastructure while developing
its own atomic energy program.

Concerns Among Many
--------------


6. (C) Twenty years after the Chernobyl tragedy, most
Belarusians have serious concerns about an NPP in Belarus.
A June IISEPS poll noted that 52 percent of those polled were
against atomic energy in Belarus. Professor at the National
Academy of Sciences and member of the Belarusian
intelligentsia Ivan Nikitchenko told Poloff that
Belarusian contractors would build the NPP with primarily
Russian materials. Nikitchenko suspected the GOB would
sacrifice the safety and reliability of Western materials and
know-how by purchasing materials and soliciting help from
their Russian business friends at inflated prices, making
them rich off the project's enormous financing and kickbacks.
Nikitchenko fears Russian suppliers will sell poor quality
materials or create a "shortage" of materials in order to
maximize profits, because according to Nikitchenko,
Russians'(and other (Belarusian) business people's) greed
outweighs their concerns for a safe NPP in Belarus.


7. (C) Nikitchenko's second fear is that the impatient
Lukashenko will demand the NPP be built in half the time,
sacrificing quality and safety in the process. As
Nikitchenko noted, construction of an NPP could end up like
the structurally unsound National Library (ref B) or the
forever under-repair Minsk ring road.

Comment
--------------


8. (C) Although GOB officials maintain that a decision on an
NPP has not been made, the state's aggressive media campaign
and the real threats of significantly higher prices for
Russian gas suggest Lukashenko has already given the green
light. The greatest concern for us is the level of
competence that would be observed in the construction of the
nuclear plant. Lukashenko has a habit of preferring
Belarusian and Russian goods over their higher quality
Western equivalents. He also tends to demand that his
massive social-economic projects are completed in half the
time technicians deem necessary. The idea of an NPP may be
premature for Belarus, a country whose government has yet to
fully and sincerely address the social, economic, and
health/psychological consequences of the Chernobyl tragedy.

Moore