Nuclear Power Plants as Targets of War — A New Worry?

Energy Intelligence, Aug 14, 2023, Author Stephanie Cooke,

When writer-director Christopher Nolan told his teenage son about his plans for the movie Oppenheimer, his son told him, “That’s just not something anybody worries about anymore,” Nolan told the New York Times. With so much else to worry about, it’s no surprise that nuclear weapons no longer register as a threat to a generation that never felt the fear or moral weight of them. Climate change is the new focal point and for good reason. But if Nolan’s son is correct, when it comes to mitigating the dangers of nuclear power, especially for countries in and around war zones, politicians are off the hook. That’s a big mistake and one that could prove costly down the road.

Despite the shocking risks that Russian forces have created by their occupation and shelling of nuclear power reactors in Ukraine, the push to keep selling nuclear reactors, even in war zones, continues.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in January moved its Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight — the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been. It cited Russia’s threat of nuclear weapons use in Ukraine, its occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant “violating international protocols and risking widespread release of radioactive materials,” and the undermining of efforts to deal with climate change. But the global resurgence of interest in new nuclear, most notably among several of Ukraine’s neighbors, but also among countries in Asia and Africa, sets us all up for even more trouble.

Russia’s invasion and occupation of the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on Mar. 4, 2022 was not the first time an operating nuclear plant had come under military attack; nor is it something unforeseen.

Since 1980 the Middle East has seen some 13 attacks on reactors (in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel), according to a July presentation by Henry Sokolski to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Luckily, these attacks by aerial bombing or missile strikes either failed or avoided massive radiation releases because the reactors were mainly small research reactors that weren’t operating. Only one, Iraq’s Tuwaitha research reactor, was actually operating when the US struck it in 1991. And, unlike Ukraine’s situation, none of the reactors attacked in the Middle East were large-scale commercial power plants or situated in heavily populated areas as is Zaporizhzhia.In all of these attacks, the aim of the perpetrator, whether the US, Israel, Iran or Iraq, was to destroy a facility seen as integral to a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Russia’s ground invasion and occupation of Zaporizhzhia, in contrast, demonstrates why commercial plants might become targets in future wars. Russia has used the plant to shield Russian troops and military personnel and equipment, gain control over Ukraine’s energy system, and provide a lever against European intervention through the threat of radiation contamination, according to a paper by the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies.

Wider Threats

The idea of using nuclear plants as pawns in war is hardly unique to Russia, however. In Asia, North Korea has over the past decade suggested that nuclear power plants in both South Korea and Japan could be fair game for strikes; similar suggestions or alleged threats have been reported out of both Taiwan and China against each other.

A US war manual actually permits attacks on nuclear plants if they serve military objectives, including their use to deny power to enemy forces or to pre-empt enemy forces from hampering the movement or advance of US or allied forces. And it rejects any military-civilian distinction, stating that “under customary international law, no legal presumption of civilian status exists for persons or objects.”

But attacking nuclear plants, and ignoring the distinction between civil and military targets, or people, totally ignores the 1949 Geneva Convention and protocols to that convention added in 1977. These protocols, signed and ratified by 174 countries, tightened rules regarding military conflicts and discouraged military actions against nuclear power plants. The fundamental idea was to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants — including both people and facilities — and to prevent any attacks that would cause widespread harm to civilians. The US, alongside Iran and Pakistan, signed but did not ratify the protocols, and a further 20 countries, including India and Israel did neither. In 2019, Russia withdrew from the convention’s Protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

It’s important to understand that while some features of existing plants might mitigate a combat type attack, nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand a deliberate state-sponsored military attack. Nuclear safety and security rules are crafted to address conceivable accidents or terrorist threats but don’t address how to prevent or respond to full-on military attacks. Steps can be taken to harden vulnerable areas of nuclear plants, such as spent fuel pools, and active air defense and anti-drone systems can be deployed, among other things, but these substantially increase costs.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Eyes Closed

As governments and industry continue their headlong advance into the climate change breach with the promise of “clean, safe and secure” nuclear energy they conveniently do close their eyes to this issue. Asked about the implications for nuclear energy of Russia’s attack on Zaporizhzhia, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told the BBC, “The problem is that they are at war … The problem is not nuclear energy.” But that is precisely the problem — nuclear energy sites are attractive targets in war.

The US push for new nuclear business throughout central and eastern Europe, alongside competitors and sometime-collaborators in Canada, France and South Korea, completely ignores the inherent risks, given that these countries are already awash in nuclear energy. “Six of the 10 most nuclear-dependent countries are former Eastern bloc states. They all rely on nuclear power for more than 30% of their electricity, creating a vulnerability,” points out Sharon Squassoni, a former State Department official at George Washington University. The rationale is that nuclear will provide these countries a way around dependence on fossil fuels imports from Russia and other suppliers. But by opting for more nuclear these countries are swapping one type of energy insecurity for a far more dangerous version.

Stephanie Cooke is the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

For more coverage of the Ukraine crisis, visit Ukraine Crisis: Energy Impact >
https://www.energyintel.com/00000189-bbea-dbd9-a9df-fffe811a0000

August 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | 1 Comment

Russia’s Kola nuclear power plant turns 50. That is not necessarily something to celebrate

The first VVER-440/230 reactor at Kola Nuclear Power Plant was connected to the electricity grid on June 29, 1973. Western sanctions do not trouble the safety as most spare parts are made in Russia, says environmental watchdog Bellona.

Barents Observer, By Thomas Nilsen June 23

The Kola plant became the world’s first to produce nuclear-generated electricity north of the Arctic Circle. Construction of the first reactor started in 1969 and four years later it was connected to the grid. A total of four reactors are today in operation at the power plant.

The two first are of the VVER-440/230 type, the Soviet Union’s first generation civilian water-cooled reactors. The last two are the second generation of the VVER-440/213 type.

Later, the USSR designed the larger VVER-1000 reactors that today are in operation at several nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia in the war zone in Ukraine.

A few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated a full safety evaluation of the old VVER-400/230 reactors, at that time in operation in Russia, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. A plant with similar reactors Greifswald in the former East Germany was already shut down for safety concerns. 

Safety help 

The IAEA report published in 1992 identified some 100 safety issues and pointed out a ranking of needed improvements. In the 90s, safety problems at Kola nuclear power plants caused headlines not only in Russia, but also in neighboring Scandinavian countries.

Norway granted the power plant both cash for improving the safety, but also practical equipment like external generators to ensure cooling in case of loss of power to the inbuilt cooling system. Foreign Minister of Norway at the time, Bjørn Tore Godal, however, ensured the Parliament in Oslo in 1995 that all Norwegian technical assistance to Kola nuclear power plant should not «contribute to prolong the lifetime of the reactors, only to improve the safety.»

Wartime 

For wartime Russia, most of the internationally focused safety work at Kola nuclear power plant has come to an end. 

“There are no more foreign donors helping Russia on nuclear safety in the northwest,” says Dmitry Gorchakov, a nuclear advisor with the Bellona Environmental Transparency Center in Vilnius. His group had to leave Russia for Lithuania after the full-scale war started. This spring, authorities in Moscow declared Bellona undesirable, meaning no one inside Russia can any longer work for, or stay in contact with, the environmentalists. 

For Dmitry Gorchakov and his colleagues, that limits their access to reliable information. 

“During the war, many official resources, government resources, are closed, they don’t share all information like they did before. We have to find new sources, new tools,” he says. 

“Liars” 

How Western sanctions are impacting radiation safety works on the Kola Peninsula is difficult to assess, according to Bellona.  

“We don’t talk with officials. They are lying. About how they manage with sanctions, how they will work in different countries,” Gorchakov says. He, however, thinks the state nuclear corporation Rosatom easily can maneuver operations based on a domestic supply chain.  

“Not much depends on foreign spare parts, uranium products. They make most inside the country,” Dmitry Gorchakov tells. Before starting to work for Bellona, Gorchakov worked for years for the nuclear industry inside Russia, often in tight contact with state officials.

He believes many of the safety programs initiated during decades of international cooperation now are put on hold. 

“Some safety programs will be slowed down, while others will be canceled. They will maybe put it on pause,” he says.

“I think some Russian officials hope the war will stop sooner or later. But now they spend a lot of money on the war, so environmental problems are not a priority.”

“This could be dangerous, but we need to analyze it more,” Gorchakov says.

Operation until 2033 

Meanwhile, reactor No. 1 at Kola NPP, originally built for a 30-years lifetime, celebrates its 50th anniversary. 

Authorities granted one license prolongation after the other. In 2018, Rostechnadzor, the federal supervisory body for environmental, industrial and nuclear services, issued the license for the operation of Kola nuclear power plant’s unit No. 1 until July 6, 2033, the Barents Observer reported. The following year, unit No. 2 was granted an additional 15-years operation licence. …………………………………

The backup emergency external power system at the plant aimed to keep cooling water running in case of power fallouts, is supposed to come from two diesel generators, both delivered by Norway in the 90ties. Today, Norway has ended all practical cooperation on nuclear safety with Russia, including possible deliveries of spare parts to the Kola NPP’s emergency generators. ……….   https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/nuclear-safety/2023/06/today-first-kola-npp-reactor-turns-50

August 8, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment

Nuclear power: An inherent potential for catastrophe

  July 23, 2023 by beyondnuclearinternational

Nuclear energy should not be an “inalienable right” and isn’t
“peaceful”

This excerpt on nuclear power is taken from Reaching Critical Will’s 2023 NPT Briefing Book. The handbook is being released in advance of the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which will meet from July 31 to August 11 2023 at the Vienna International Centre in Vienna, Austria.

Nuclear weapons are not the only nuclear risk. Nuclear energy also has inherent risks and the capacity to unleash uniquely horrifying forms of devastation upon human bodies, the environment, and our socioeconomic infrastructure.

In 1953, just a few years after the United States used two nuclear weapons against Japan, US President Eisenhower launched his Atoms for Peace program at the United Nations.

It resulted in the spread of nuclear technology and materials around the world for so-called peaceful uses—energy, medicinal uses, and research. In reality, nuclear technology is anything but peaceful.

Nuclear power is the most expensive and dangerous way to boil water to turn a turbine. It contains the inherent potential for catastrophe. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor. All aspects of the nuclear fuel chain, from mining uranium to storing radioactive waste, are devastating for the earth and all species living upon it. Radiation is long lasting and has inter-generational effects. 

Nuclear energy is not a solution to the climate crisis. It not only is not carbon-neutral, but its other environmental impacts and risks of contamination through accidents and attacks pose grave risks to the world’s ecosystems and living beings. As hundreds of civil society groups said to the UN Climate Conference (COP26), nuclear power is “a dangerous distraction from the real movement on the climate policies and actions that we urgently need.”

Yet the nuclear industry and certain governments continue to promote nuclear energy as clean, safe, and reliable. This has everything to do with capitalism and nothing to do with protecting the planet or its people. 

For the nuclear power industry, the primary motive for operation is profit. History shows us that increasing profit is often best achieved in ways that are not consistent with designing or operating the relevant equipment for the lowest risk to humanity or the planet. 

Profit is less likely to be achieved by honestly exploring alternative sources of energy that might necessitate initial investments, or that might not be eligible for the same government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) subsidies as nuclear is in many countries. 

Profit is also less likely to be achieved by designing economically efficient, need-oriented, and environmentally sound sources of energy. Scientists and activists alike have noted that nuclear power, which produces energy “in large, expensive, centralized facilities” is not useful “for solving the energy needs of the vast majority of [the world’s] population, much less so in a way that offers any net environmental gains.”

In the meantime, the spread of nuclear energy around the world since 1953 has enabled the development of nuclear weapons in several countries, and to the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology that are becoming susceptible to terrorist attack or accidents.

The situation at Zaporizhzhia………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Abolishing all nuclear materials and technologies

Within the NPT context, nuclear energy is upheld by most states as an “inalienable right”. This means that most states laud its perceived benefits and promote its expansion, regardless of the risks to humanity, the environment, and proliferation. 

However, since 1945, many scientists, activists, and government officials have pointed out that nuclear material, technology, and facilities are dangerous whether they are in weapons form or for “peaceful uses”.

Eliminating all nuclear materials and technology, whatever its designated purpose, is the only way to ensure that it is does not result in catastrophe, by accident or design. A few states parties recognize these inherent risks and have chosen not to pursue or to phase out nuclear power as part of their energy mixes. The more states parties that follow this path, the better for us all.

Recommendations

• Delegations should raise concerns with the health, environmental, safety, and security impacts of nuclear power, including in the context of climate change. While the NPT indicates states can use nuclear power, this does not mean it’s in best interest of humanity or the planet.
• Delegations should support the 25 May 2011 declaration by the governments of Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, and Portugal, in which they argued that nuclear power is not compatible with the concept of sustainable development and called for energy conservation and a switch to renewable sources of energy worldwide.
• States should also support the February 2011 call from a group of Hibakusha for phasing out all sources of radiation—from uranium mining, nuclear reactors, nuclear accidents, nuclear weapons development and testing, and nuclear waste—and for investment in renewable, clean energy for a sustainable future.
• States should commit to working for a sustainable future by reducing the use of energy, investing in renewable and non-carbon emitting sources of energy, phase-out nuclear energy, and not further develop harmful, radioactive technologies.
• Delegations should call on all states that currently use nuclear energy to abide by all nuclear safety and nuclear security instruments and norms and to end the dangerous transshipment of radioactive waste and nuclear materials.
• Delegations should condemn armed conflict and military activities at or near nuclear power facilities and abide by and indicate support for the IAEA General Conference decision on the “Prohibition of armed attack or threat of armed attack against nuclear installations, during operation or under construction” (GC(53)/ DEC/13).
• States must not engage in armed conflict and military activities at or near nuclear power facilities. Russia should end its war against and occupation of Ukraine, along with the withdrawal of its armed forces from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and other related sites and cease military activities at or near nuclear facilities.

Reaching Critical Will is the disarmament programme of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the oldest women’s peace organization in the world. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/07/23/an-inherent-potential-for-catastrophe/

July 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment