When the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine was occupied by Russian forces last weekthe Ukrainian Foreign Ministry warned of the possibility of “another ecological disaster”.
Normal levels of radiation in the Chernobyl exclusion zone – which includes four closed reactors, one of which melted down in 1986 and spread radioactive waste across Europe – were exceeded according to Ukraine’s state nuclear regulator, allegedly due to military activity in the area.
But beyond the Chernobyl plant, there are concerns that some of Ukraine’s 15 active nuclear reactors could be caught in the crossfire.
Why Chernobyl may be key if Russia invades Ukraine
“It’s a unique situation in the history of nuclear power – in fact in history – that we have a situation where a nation is operating 15 nuclear reactors and is in the middle of a full-scale war,” said Shaun Burnie, specialist nuclear power from Greenpeace East Asia to DW. The plants provide about half of Ukraine’s electricity, although only nine of the 15 reactors are operating right now, according to Burnie.
“The idea of building protection in case of a large-scale war was never part of the planning in Ukraine, at least when it comes to commercial nuclear power,” he said.
While some Cold War-era reactors in the United States and the Soviet Union were built underground to protect against military threats, Ukraine’s “huge facilities” were all built above ground, Burnie added.
“A nuclear power plant is one of the most complex and delicate industrial installations, requiring a very complex set of resources ready at all times to keep it safe. This cannot be guaranteed in a war,” write Burnie and his Greenpeace East Asia colleague, Jan Vande Putte, in a report on the vulnerability of nuclear power plants during military conflict.
Disabled cooling could cause radiation leaks
Fears that operating reactors pose a more direct threat stem, in part, from the likelihood of a power outage during a military attack. If the power supply to a plant were to be cut off, this could shut down the cooling of the reactor – and the cooling of the spent fuel storage that is contained within relatively thin walls.
In the worst case, this could lead to a Fukushima-like meltdown and “massive releases of radioactivity,” explains Burnie.
These fears are fueled by increased military activity south of the Zaporizhia plant, which has six reactors and a high-level spent nuclear fuel storage facility. Armed clashes in the Zaporizhia region “raise the specter of major risks,” the report states.
This nuclear plant is already vulnerable, say the authors, as some aging reactors were built and designed half a century ago, in the 1970s. Roger Spautz, head of the nuclear campaign for Greenpeace France and Luxembourg, says the original lifetime of these reactors, 40 years old, has already been expanded, as is also the case in France.
“The biggest risk is that the spent fuels will be hit by a missile or that they cannot be cooled due to the power system becoming unusable,” says Spautz. “Electricity needs to work 24 hours a day,” he added, noting that diesel backup generators may not work for several weeks, which may be necessary in times of war.
A direct attack is unlikely, Burnie said, but the spent fuel pool’s containment buildings could be “accidentally destroyed” in the crossfire.
Installations containing dangerous forces
“Nuclear power plants are defined as ‘facilities containing dangerous forces’ under international humanitarian law and should never be attacked,” said Doug Weir, Director of Research and Policy at the UK-based Observatory for Conflict and Environment, referring to the Geneva Convention.
Burnie believes that Russia, which has more than twice as many reactors as Ukraine, understands the consequences of a direct attack on these facilities, including nuclear contamination of Russia itself if the winds blow in its direction.
Russia and Ukraine: will Putin push the nuclear button?
“We don’t expect to see a deliberate attack on plants like Zaporizhzhia, but the types of heavy weapons that Russia is deploying are not particularly precise,” Weir said. “We must avoid at all costs fighting in the vicinity of those places.”
On Monday, Petro Kotin, head of the operator of the Ukrainian state nuclear power plant Energoatom, expressed his concern to the International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA) about the columns of Russian military equipment and artillery “moving in the vicinity” of its nuclear facilities. Informing the IAEA of the bombing near Energoatom plants, Kotin said the fallout could be “highly undesirable threats across the planet.” In response, he called on the IAEA to step in and support a 30-kilometre non-conflict zone around nuclear power plants.
For Roger Spautz, another concern is that the Russian military captures a plant and does not have the necessary personnel to manage it properly. “Several hundred technicians who know the plant are needed,” he said.
The Greenpeace report on the vulnerability of Ukrainian nuclear power plants indicates that these personnel will be necessary in case of flooding of the Dnieper River, which passes through the vicinity of the Zaporizhia plant.
If, for example, the dams of the Dnieper reservoir system that provide cooling water to the Zaporizhzhia reactors are damaged and limit the water supply, the nuclear fuel could start to overheat and release radiation. “All of these facilities need constant surveillance, they are not secure,” Shaun Burnie said. (I)
Source: Eluniverso
Paul is a talented author and journalist with a passion for entertainment and general news. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he has established herself as a respected voice in the industry.
