EUROPEAN REVIEW

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06629851
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: September 27, 2017
• Case Number: F-2016-01084
• Publication Date: August 15, 1986

Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
Directorate of
Intelligence
MASTER FILE COPY
DO NOT UK GUT
OR MARK ON
-"Seeget_
(b)(3)
European Review
15 August 1986
TherreL
EUR ER 86-019
15 August 1986
Copy 457
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
li
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
--Seer4L,
Yugoslavia:
Prospects forNuclearPiwer
Development
The future of nuclear energy in Yugoslavia, once
bright, is now uncertain. Growing and unusually
broad-based antinuclear sentiment has forced
Belgrade to put on hold plans to build several nuclear
plants, including a $2.5 billion plant in Croatia on
which US and other foreign firms are bidding.
Chances are still better than even that the Croatian
plant ultimately will be approved. But the decision
probably will come only after lengthy study and could
cause further controversy among both the leadership
and the public
Current Status
Yugoslavia's nuclear power development program, in
particular, plans to build its second nuclear plant at
Prevlaka near the Croatian capital of Zagreb, has
been sidetracked but not derailed. Pronuclear forces,
previously virtually unchallenged, have suffered
serious setbacks. Several regional bodies have
eliminated or postponed commitments to nuclear
plants.
Moreover, the issue has been bucked up to the federal
level, where a special new commission reportedly has
been formed to reexamine nuclear power in the
context of the country's long-term energy
development plans. Premier Branko Mikulic and top
leadership bodies in recent weeks have indicated that
no plants will be approved until the government
finishes its study
Nonetheless, the program is far from dead. The
nuclear lobby remains a potent force, relatively few
top officials have rejected the nuclear option, and the
review of bids and other preliminary work for
Prevlaka is continuing. Mikulic has noted that one of
the purposes of the commission is to provide a cooling
off period. The complex series of agreements among
governmental and economic organizations to build the
plant also remain intact
Prevlaka was to be the first of a four-unit series of
1,000 megawatt plants�following the opening in
1982 of the country's first 664 megawatt plant built
15
The successful operation of the country's first
nuclear plant, built by Westinghouse in the
Slovenian town of Krsko is an arzument used by
nuclear proponents
Yugoalav Source C
by Westinghouse in Krsko, Slovenia�with the
possibility of an eventual seven to 11 plants
nationwide. The $2.5 billion Prevlaka plant was
planned to be built by a consortium of utilities from
Croatia, Slovenia, and possibly Vojvodina.
Construction was originally slated to begin in mid-
1988 with commercial output beginning in 1995, but
that timetable has continued to slip. Bidders include
firms from the United States, France, Great Britain,
West Germany, Canada, Japan, and the USSR.
Pronuclear Lobby
If Prevlaka is approved, it will be thanks to a hardcore
of pronuclear officials motivated by both conviction
and self-interest. They consist of scientists, academics,
and�even more vocally and visibly�regional and
federal energy officials, utility officials, and industrial
organizations producing power equipment. They tend
to draw their strength from three common arguments:
� Yugoslavia is an energy deficient and import
dependent country with no viable domestic long-
term energy alternatives to nuclear power.
EUR ER 86-019
15 August 1986
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
I II I
I Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
� The decision to develop nuclear power has been
legitimized through a series of accords between
regions, industries, and various layers of
government�in keeping with the country's
traditional system of economic decision making�
and verified through national economic programs
based on economic and scientific analysis.
� The successful operation of the Krsko plant
demonstrates the safety, reliability, and efficiency
of nuclear power.
Though recently thrown on the defensive, pronuclear
officials employ hard-hitting charges in rebutting
their critics. They argue that safety and
environmental concerns often have been used as a
smokescreen by groups motivated more by political or
economic interests. They maintain that those regions
not slated for nuclear plants, mostly in the poorer
south, are simply jealous or fearful that the country's
limited capital must by necessity be committed to
selected republics. They accuse opponents and the
press of spreading grossly inaccurate data concerning
cost and safety, trying to create an atmosphere of
hysteria.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that nuclear
advocates and their sympathizers may be more
numerous than their current visibility suggests.
Antinuclear activists continue to characterize them as
a strong and determined force. Few advocates have
been known to retract their commitment to nuclear
power in the face of the protest wave. And support for
increased energy supplies from any sources could
increase if a hard winter approaches and utility
companies resort to electricity brownouts.
Antinuclear Forces
The pronuclear lobby, however, faces a formidable
opponent in the form of unusually widespread
antinuclear sentiment. The breadth of opposition to
an established government policy such as nuclear
power in fact is unprecedented in recent years as is the
success of nuclear opponents in gaining a
reassessment of the energy program.
The antinuclear forces, though largely uncoordinated,
consist of a number of disparate groups with normally
unrelated interests. They include several regions that
have sufficient energy resources of their own, some
official youth organizations, parts of the scientific
community and the media, the public at large,
veterans, and apparently some circles within the
military.
Regardless of the latest furor, antinuclear agitation in
itself is nothing new and even has won some modest
victories. The decision to locate the current plant at
Prevlaka, for instance, came about only after plans to
build it on the Adriatic Coast near Zadar were upset
in 1979. Local officials maintained a reactor would
threaten the area's tourism industry. Opposition to
nuclear power was strong and growing even before the
Chernobyl accident. Nonetheless, Chernobyl gave
antinuclear forces important new impetus, especially
when the regime ordered�and the media
publicized�preventive measures against radioactive
fallout affecting most of Yugoslavia.
Several common themes run through Yugoslav
antinuclear sentiment, cutting across the diverse
groups. One is that new nuclear plants are financially
unsound. Critics argue that building four new plants
would double the country's $20 billion foreign debt
and compromise the nonaligned country's economic
and political independence. They assert that foreign
credits to build even the Krsko plant so far have not
been repaid, only rescheduled. Another is that they
are unnecessary, since the country purportedly has
sufficient untapped alternative domestic coal and
water resources. And, especially since Chernobyl,
there has been a growing belief that they pose a real
threat to the public's safety and the environment.
Outlook
The leadership seems to be playing for time, hoping
that antinuclear sentiment eventually will subside and
a decision on Prevlaka, pro or con, can be made on
practical economic and other grounds. The regime
16
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
IL
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
*x.ege�L,
Antinuclear views have received
ample coverage in the press,
including this Zagreb magazine
feature on the nuclear debate.
17
DANAS
�IF I
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
I I II I J Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851 1.,
Antinuclear Pressure Groups
Following are some of the key antinuclear pressure
groups and outlines of their motives and impacts:
Regional Interest Groups. Interest groups from
several regions have cause to be unsupportive ctf, and
even antagonistic to, Prevlaka. Serbia, Kosovo, and
Premier Mikulic's home republic of Bosnia-
Hercegovina each have substantial untapped coal
resources of their own and a vested interest in further
developing alternative energy sources in their own
regions. Even Slovenia, a junior partner in Prevlaka,
is only lukewarm about the project, US diplomats
have reported.
Youth Groups. Some youth groups have been among
the most vocal and visible opponents of nuclear
plants. The official youth group in Slovenia, the
country's most Westward-looking and tolerant
republic, has come out against nuclear energy.
Members of Croatia's youth group have protested the
lack of say on nuclear planning and have discussed
staging sit-ins at Prevlaka with their Slovene
counterparts. Some 70,000 Serbian youth re ortedly
signed an antinuclear petition.
Military. Some evidence suggests that circles within
the military have reservations about nuclear power.
One military commentator in March warned that
nuclear plants would make Yugoslavia more
dependent on big powers and could be vulnerable to
attack even from small Balkan neighbors. Nikola
Ljubicic, a Serbian leader and ex-defense minister,
also has spoken against nuclear power.
Veterans. The veterans, a conservative and vociferous
pressure group, called for the suspension of all new
nuclear plants at a congress in June. Individual
delegates�including some from Croatia�protested
a lack of public voice on nuclear planning and warned
that Yugoslavia could become a nuclear waste
disposal dump.
Scientific Community. The experts seem sharply
divided over the safety and appropriateness of
nuclear plants. Many scientists and engineers
reportedly have signed antinuclear petitions sent to
national leadership bodies.
Public at Large. The antinuclear issue has strong
appeal to the man in the street. A public opinion poll
taken at about the time of Chernobyl found that 75
percent of adult respondents nationwide believed
nuclear plants are unnecessary, and an "absolute
majority" asserted that they are environmentally
more threatening than other power plants.
The Media. Some of the country's increasingly
freewheeling media have seized on nuclear power to
sell papers and mold opinion. The press gave
extensive, largely unvarnished coverage to the
Chernobyl disaster and has reported openly and often
sympathetically on the views of nuclear opponents.
Courts. The nuclear program may hit a legal snag.
The country's Constitutional Court reportedly has
begun to examine whether the issue falls within its
competence. The court flexed its muscle last year
when it ruled unconstitutional another established
government policy on foreign exchange.
18
Approved for Release: 2017/09/22 C06629851
'1-1-177 �