UN thanks Russia for keeping nuclear team safe
https://www.rt.com/russia/562010-un-thanks-russia-nuclear-safety/ 1 Sept 22, Russia “did what it needed to do” to get inspectors to front-line facility
The UN is appreciates Russia’s efforts to safeguard the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team that came to inspect the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, on Thursday.
That’s according to the secretary-general’s chief spokesman, who was speaking after the Russian Defense Ministry said it was “bewildered” at the lack of reaction to an alleged Ukrainian attempt to seize the facility by force.
“We are glad that the Russian Federation did what it needed to do to keep our inspectors safe,” Stephane Dujarric told reporters at a briefing in New York, when asked about Moscow’s comments.
“As with any UN mission, it is the responsibility of those who control a certain area to keep the UN staff safe,” he added, also thanking the “security people” and “drivers” for the “tremendous job” of getting the IAEA team safely in and out of the Zaporozhye NPP.
The mission, led by IAEA director Rafael Grossi, was delayed at a Ukrainian checkpoint on Thursday morning. It eventually made its way to Russian-controlled Energodar and toured the facility for several hours, before heading back to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Right before their visit, however, Ukrainian artillery targeted the city of Energodar and the Zaporozhye NPP itself, while a group of commandos crossed the Kakhovka Reservoir by boat and attempted to storm the facility, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
Both the initial assault group and the reinforcements that followed were wiped out by the National Guard and combat helicopters, the Russian military said. Their goal, according to Moscow, was to seize the Russian-held power plant and use the IAEA staff as “human shields” to maintain control over the facility.
Energodar and the Zaporozhye NPP have been under Russian control since early March. In August, the nuclear site was targeted by regular artillery and drone attacks, which Moscow and Kiev blamed on each other. Ukrainian officials also claimed that the Russian military was using the plant as a military base, stationing heavy weapons there. Moscow denied the accusations, saying that it only had lightly armed guards defending the facility.
Moscow has called for an IAEA visit to Zaporozhye, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, since June – but Ukraine’s insistence that the mission must travel through Kiev to uphold Ukrainian sovereignty contributed to delaying the mission until this week.
Fighting at Ukraine nuclear plant brings chances of a meltdown to a ‘coin toss’, expert says
“If you lose both the offsite power and the backup diesel generators, there are other emergency measures that could be employed, but you only have a few hours to be able to set those up before the core might start to melt,”
By Samantha Hawley and Flint Duxfield for ABC News Daily, 2 Aug 22,
As calls continue for an end to military activity around Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia power plant, experts are warning there is significant risk of a nuclear accident.
Key points:
- Nuclear experts are becoming increasingly concerned of a nuclear disaster at Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine
- A team from the UN’s nuclear watchdog arrived at the facility overnight
- Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant has been shelled repeatedly in recent weeks, and Ukrainian staff are reportedly working under threat
This week the Russian military, which has controlled the facility since March, agreed to a safety inspection by experts from the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who arrived overnight.
Despite this, the director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Edwin Lyman, said there was a significant possibility the situation could end badly.
“It’s probably a coin toss at this point,” he said.
While the fate of Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks, Dr Lyman told ABC News Daily he became concerned the minute Russia set its sights on the facility in early March.
“When Russia started lobbing artillery shells at the plant and when a fire broke out, it was of extreme concern because one thing the nuclear power plant doesn’t handle too well is a large fire,” he said.
The fire was quickly contained, but as Russian forces took control of the plant, safety concerns only continued to grow.
Since then, there have been reports around 9,000 of the plant’s staff have been forced to continue working at gunpoint, and that some have been beaten and tortured.
“There is evidence that the Russians were intimidating the staff, not allowing them to report safety issues, accusing them of being spies or saboteurs and of physical abuse,” Dr Lyman said.
“These are obviously very poor conditions for the staff to work in.”
Plant under attack
In the past fortnight there have been further reports of shelling of the plant, with both sides claiming the other was at fault.
Ukraine has accused Russia of using the plant as a military base to launch attacks against Ukrainian positions.
Meanwhile, Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said this week that nine shells fired by the Ukrainian artillery in two separate attacks had landed in the nuclear plant’s grounds.
While Dr Lyman doesn’t believe these kinds of attacks are likely to cause a major problem for the reactors themselves, he said there is still a risk they could damage other vital parts of the plant or make it difficult to maintain the reactors.
“The most dangerous parts of the plant, like the nuclear fuel in the reactors, is contained and under a fairly strong reinforced concrete containment building,” he said.
“Even if you had direct artillery fire on the containment, unless it was a sustained shelling, deliberately trying to destroy it, then it probably wouldn’t cause that much damage.”
However, Dr Lyman warned other parts of the plant were more susceptible to artillery fire.
“The turbine that’s used to convert the hot water or the steam that’s generated by the nuclear reactor into electricity are in less-protected buildings,” he said.
A power plant in need of power
A greater concern than artillery fire, experts believe, is the potential for the plant to lose its offsite power connection, something that has already happened twice in the past few weeks.
While it might seem strange that a power plant’s most vital input is electricity, external power is crucial in cooling the reactors to prevent them from overheating.
To reduce risk of meltdown, four of the plant’s six reactors have already been put into cold shutdown since the outbreak of the war.
But because the plant is responsible for around 20 per cent of Ukraine’s energy supply, shutting the remaining reactors would be a significant loss for the country.
The plant does have three external electricity supply lines, but these have all lost connection in recent weeks due to the conflict.
Last week, the company responsible for the plant, Energoatom, said fires at a nearby thermal power station had caused the nuclear plant’s last remaining electricity power line to be disconnected twice.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the plant’s 20 backup diesel generators had to be “immediately activated” to avert a “radiation disaster”.
“If the diesel generators hadn’t turned on, if the automation and our staff of the plant had not reacted after the blackout, then we would already be forced to overcome the consequences of the radiation accident,” Mr Zelenskyy said in his nightly briefing.
Dr Lyman said the fact that the site has already lost offsite power showed how precarious the situation was.
“If you lose both the offsite power and the backup diesel generators, there are other emergency measures that could be employed, but you only have a few hours to be able to set those up before the core might start to melt,” he said.
Meltdown could happen in hours
One simulation of the reactors losing power showed they would have just over an hour before the cooling systems stopped working.
It predicted that the reactor would heat up so quickly that it would take less than five hours for it to break through the reactor vessel.
Even if that occurs, experts say a strong protective casing around the reactors means a Chernobyl-style disaster isn’t likely………………………
Ukraine prepares for radiation leaks
The Ukrainian government has begun preparations for the possibility of a radiation leak.
In recent weeks it has run emergency drills in nearby towns and distributed iodine tablets to residents.
Iodine helps prevent radiation from amassing in the thyroid, leading to thyroid cancer; a phenomena witnessed after the Chernobyl meltdown in hundreds of Ukrainian children.
While Dr Lyman believes it is a sensible precaution, he warned it would not be enough to protect people in the case of a leak.
“In nuclear reactors, you have a sea of a soup of hundreds of different types of radioactive isotopes, all of which interact in different ways of the body,” he said.
“So you can’t do much about that except to either evacuate to avoid exposure or to shelter for a long time in a structure that’s shielded against radiation.
“That’s why the best thing is to prevent any release in the first place.”
Overnight inspectors from the IAEA travelled to the city of Zaporizhzhia.
Experts from the team will remain on site to provide an impartial, neutral and technically sound assessment of the situation.
“I worried, I worry and I will continue to be worried about the plant until we have a situation which is more stable, which is more predictable,” IAEA head Rafael Grossi, who personally led the mission, told reporters after returning to Ukrainian-held territory…………………
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-02/fears-nuclear-disaster-zaporizhzhia/101394618
Pentagon admits ‘likelihood’ of Ukrainian shelling near nuclear plant
the biggest danger is not a reactor meltdown, but Ukrainian artillery striking the open-air spent fuel storage, which would result in a radioactive release
US officials responded to questions about Kiev’s forces targeting Zaporozhye,
https://www.rt.com/russia/561769-pentagon-ukraine-nuclear-shelling 30 Aug 22,
A senior US military official admitted on Monday that Ukrainian forces may have struck the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, but insisted that this was only in response to Russian fire allegedly coming from the area. Earlier in the day, the Russian authorities said a Ukrainian artillery shell damaged the roof of the building storing reactor fuel.
“What I know for sure is that the Russians are firing from around the plant,” the unnamed official told reporters during a background briefing at the Pentagon. “I also know that there are rounds that have impacted near the plant.”
The official said it was “hard to explain, I guess” how the US was monitoring the situation around the nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest.
“And I don’t want to say that the Ukrainians haven’t fired in that vicinity either because I think there’s probably a likelihood that they have, but in good – in a number of cases, it’s returning fire of the Russians who are firing from those locations,” he said.
Russian forces established control of the Zaporozhye NPP in early March. National guard and nuclear protection specialists secured the site while the Ukrainian staff continued to operate without hindrance. The government in Kiev claims that Russian forces turned the plant into a military base from which they were attacking Ukrainian targets, but also that Russian troops were shelling themselves in a false-flag ploy to make Ukraine look bad.
The US official claimed “the Ukrainians are very aware of the potential impacts of striking the nuclear power plant and they’re going out of their way not to do that.”
Moscow has provided evidence to the UN of repeated Ukrainian attacks on the Zaporozhye NPP and the nearby town of Energodar since July, using kamikaze drones and even US-supplied artillery. The latest attack came on Monday, when a round breached the roof of a building where fresh reactor fuel was being stored, a member of the local administration said.
On Sunday, a drone was shot down over the plant, while Ukrainian artillery strikes on Energodar injured nine civilian residents.
Kiev has demanded that Russia hand the Zaporozhye NPP back over to Ukrainian control, or at least demilitarize a 30-kilometer area around it. On Monday, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby also urged demilitarization, as well as a shutdown of the reactors. The US has previously echoed Kiev’s accusations that Moscow wants to “steal Ukraine’s electricity” by shutting down the plant or disconnecting it from the Ukrainian grid.
According to Russian nuclear experts, the biggest danger is not a reactor meltdown, but Ukrainian artillery striking the open-air spent fuel storage, which would result in a radioactive release.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi is personally leading the mission that is supposed to visit the plant this week.
Satellite images show damage to buildings right next to Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactors
Satellite images show damage to Ukraine nuclear plant buildings right next
to reactor. Satellite images show armoured personnel carriers stationed
near Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant’s reactors.
Independent 30th Aug 2022
Shelling ‘leaves HOLES in roof of Russian-occupied nuclear power plant’:
Images reveal damage at Zaporizhzhia site – with Putin’s forces blaming
Ukrainian artillery for potential disaster.
Daily Mail 30th Aug 2022
U.S. Calls For ‘Controlled Shutdown’ Of Zaporizhzhya Plant As IAEA Inspectors Seek Access
Radio Free Europe 29 Aug 22, The United States said a “controlled shutdown” of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine was the “safest option” and urged Moscow to agree to a demilitarized zone around the site, where increased fighting is sparking fears of a possible massive radiation leak.
“As we’ve said many times, a nuclear power plant is not the appropriate location for combat operations,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters on August 29.
“We continue to believe that a controlled shutdown of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear reactors would be the safest and least risky option in the near term,” he added.
His comments come as a mission from the UN nuclear safety agency is due to arrive in Kyiv late on August 29 and quickly travel on to the Russian-occupied nuclear plant.
It was not immediately clear if the team would be allowed access to the nuclear site by occupying Russian forces.
Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in a post on Twitter that the “day has come” and a team of IAEA experts was “now on its way” to the nuclear power plant, which Russian invading forces have controlled since shortly after the Russian invasion began on February 24.
“We must protect the safety and security of #Ukraine’s and Europe’s biggest nuclear facility. Proud to lead this mission which will be in #ZNPP later this week.”
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said the IAEA mission was due to reach Kyiv on August 29 and “start work at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant in the coming days.”
The IAEA’s experts were set to assess physical damage to the plant, determine the functionality of safety and security systems, evaluate staff conditions, and perform urgent safeguards activities, the agency said.
Neither he nor the agency specified when they would arrive at Zaporizhzhya.
………………….The United Nations and Ukraine have called for a withdrawal of military equipment and personnel from the plant to ensure it is not a target in the conflict.
………….. The G7’s Non-Proliferation Directors’ Group welcomed news of the IAEA’s trip and again voiced concerns about the safety of the plant under the control of Russian armed forces.
“We reaffirm that the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and the electricity that it produces rightly belong to Ukraine and stress that attempts by Russia to disconnect the plant from the Ukrainian power grid would be unacceptable,” it said in a statement issued on August 29.
Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, said Moscow welcomed the IAEA mission and said Russia had made a significant contribution to the visit, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Safety fears at the facility have escalated in recent weeks as Kyiv and Moscow have traded blame for rocket strikes around the facility in the southern Ukrainian city of Enerhodar.
…………. Attacks were reported over the weekend not only in Russian-controlled territory adjacent to the plant along the left bank of the Dnieper River, but along the Ukraine-controlled right bank, including the cities of Nikopol and Marhanets, each about 10 kilometers from the facility.
Ukraine’s atomic energy agency, Enerhoatom, issued on August 28 a map forecasting where radiation could spread from the power plant in the event of an accident, showing that based on wind forecasts for August 29 a nuclear cloud could spread across southern Ukraine and southwestern Russia.
Authorities last week began distributing iodine tablets to residents who live near the Zaporizhzhya plant in case of radiation exposure.
Much of the concern centers on the cooling systems for the plant’s nuclear reactors. The systems require electricity, and the plant was temporarily knocked offline on August 25 because of what officials said was fire damage to a transmission line. A cooling system failure could cause a nuclear meltdown.
Periodic shelling has damaged the power station’s infrastructure, Enerhoatom said on August 27.
The IAEA reported on August 28 that radiation levels were normal, that two of the Zaporizhzhya plant’s six reactors were operating, and that while no complete assessment had yet been made, recent fighting had damaged a water pipeline, since repaired. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-iaea-inspection-russia-invasion/32008573.html
Nuclear: EDF extends the shutdown of four reactors for several weeks. (Translation)
The energy company announced on Thursday that reactors 1, 3 and 4 of the Cattenom power plant, as well as reactor 1 of Penly, will only be reconnected to the electricity network between November and January. An announcement related to the stress corrosion problem detected since last fall on several units.
By Les Echos
Posted on August 25, 2022 at 5:55 PMUpdated on August 25, 2022 at 6:04 p.m.
France will have to do without at least four nuclear reactors until the beginning of winter. This Thursday, EDF announced the extension, for several weeks, of the shutdown of units affected by the problem of stress corrosion detected for the first time in the fall of 2021.
According to the new provisional timetable published by the energy company, reactors 1 and 4 of the Cattenom power plant, in Moselle, will be reconnected to the electricity network on November 1 and 14 respectively . Reactor number 3 will resume service on December 11, while unit number 1 of the Penly power plant (Seine-Maritime) will not be reconnected until January 23……… (subscribers only) https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/nucleaire-edf-prolonge-pour-plusieurs-semaines-larret-de-quatre-reacteurs-1783781#utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_lec_18h&utm_content=20220825&xtor=EPR-5020-%5B20220825
Imperiled Ukrainian nuclear power plant has the world on edge – a safety expert explains what could go wrong
The Conversation, Najmedin Meshkati, 26 Aug 22, “…………………………………… What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone?
Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars.
The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled. If a shell hit the plant’s spent fuel pool – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool isn’t in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable.
Containment buildings, which house nuclear reactors, are also not protected against deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are not designed to withstand a huge explosion.
As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the atmosphere, which would make it difficult to send in first responders to contain any resulting fire. It could be another Chernobyl.
What are the concerns going forward?
The safety problems I see are twofold:
1) Human error……….
2) Power failure
The second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime.
Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the reactor and bring it to what is called a cold shutdown. Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn’t overheat.
Spent fuel pools also need constant water circulation to keep them cool, and they need cooling for several years before they can be put in dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan was the emergency generators intended to replace lost off-site power got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that, you get “station blackout” – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system.
In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium cladding can create hydrogen bubbles. If you can’t vent these bubbles, they will explode, spreading radiation.
If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for the generators themselves.
My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict because power line pylons may come down under shelling, or gas power plants might get damaged and cease to operate. …………………….
How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants?
One of the overarching concerns about the effects of war on nuclear plants is that war degrades safety culture, which is crucial in running a plant……………………..
War adversely affects safety culture in a number of ways. Operators are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare parts.
Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In war, everything is harder…………….. https://theconversation.com/imperiled-ukrainian-nuclear-power-plant-has-the-world-on-edge-a-safety-expert-explains-what-could-go-wrong-189429
Fears of a radiation leak mount near Ukrainian nuclear plant
WHSV3 By PAUL BYRNE, Aug. 26, 2022 ,
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Authorities began distributing iodine tablets to residents near Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant Friday in case of a radiation leak, amid mounting fears that the fighting around the complex could trigger a catastrophe.
The move came a day after the plant was temporarily knocked offline because of what officials said was fire damage to a transmission line. The incident heightened dread of a nuclear disaster in a country still haunted by the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl.
Continued shelling was reported in the area overnight, and satellite images from Planet Labs showed fires burning around the complex — Europe’s biggest nuclear plant — over the last several days.
Iodine tablets, which help block the absorption of radioactive iodine by the thyroid gland in a nuclear accident, were issued in the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporizhzhia, about 45 kilometers (27 miles) from the plant. A woman and her small daughter were among those receiving the pills……………..
In Thursday’s incident, Ukraine and Russia blamed one another for the transmission-line damage that knocked the plant off the power grid………
The plant requires power to run the reactors’ vital cooling systems. A loss of cooling could lead to a nuclear meltdown.
Ukrenergo, Ukraine’s transmission system operator, reported Friday that two damaged main lines supplying the plant with electricity had resumed operation, ensuring a stable power supply.
Is Ukraine ready for another Chernobyl-like catastrophe? – Paul Dorfman
Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of shelling Zaporizhzhia. Now,
International atomic energy agency team will visit Zaporizhzhia. Still the
question arises, is Ukraine ready for another Chernobyl-like catastrophe?
Paul Dorfman at 3.57
WION 20th Aug 2022
Nuclear power not a realistic option for the Philippines, given the seismic and other disaster risks
“Just last month, we saw the impacts of a 7.1 magnitude earthquake (which) should serve as a warning. Exposure to unpredictable seismic events should make us think twice about having a nuclear power plant,” he said.
Nuclear power, Mr. Arances said, is not a solution to the climate and energy crises, adding that it does not guarantee lower electricity prices.
Safety regulations seen as ‘first step’ in nuclear power shift, https://www.bworldonline.com/economy/2022/08/21/469667/safety-regulations-seen-as-first-step-in-nuclear-power-shift/ By Alyssa Nicole O. Tan, Reporter
THE Philippines is running late with its regulatory preparations for a safe nuclear power transition, the head of the Senate energy committee said.
Senator Rafael T. Tulfo said a law is needed to lay down standards for the incorporation of nuclear power companies, the construction of power plants, and the their operation.
“We have not even made a first step and we’re overdue,” he told BusinessWorld in a Viber message. Safety standards are needed because the Philippines sits astride an area of high tectonic activity, he said, adding that disaster response capacity must be developed should anything go wrong with such plants.
According to the World Bank, the Philippines is vulnerable to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tropical cyclones, and floods, making it one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world.
“In regulating the nuclear energy sector, there must be stringent standards as to the minimum standards for facilities, minimum qualifications for the persons or entities operating it, considerations as to where and how to acquire nuclear material, contingencies in case of emergency scenarios, proper standards on nuclear fuel disposal, limitations on foreign influence in the nuclear industry, and how the LGU where the plant is situated should gain a just and equitable share of the plant’s profits,” he said.
Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development Executive Director Gerry Arances told BusinessWorld in an e-mail that it would take years to create a policy framework thorough enough to take into account all safety, environmental, and electricity price risks, and years more to build nuclear facilities.
“Even small modular reactors would take about three to five years to construct. That means nuclear energy cannot provide immediate solutions to today’s energy crisis. In that span of time, renewable energy facilities could already have been deployed,” he said.
Nuclear power, Mr. Arances said, is not a solution to the climate and energy crises, adding that it does not guarantee lower electricity prices.
“The price of fuel for nuclear energy like plutonium and uranium, neither of which can be sourced domestically, will put Filipino consumers at the mercy of global market prices and vulnerable to shocks,” he said. “We are already seeing this today with fossil fuel volatilities triggered by the Ukraine-Russia war.”
“In developing nuclear power, the Philippines will devote time and energy to figuring out where we can source nuclear fuel, how we will manage nuclear waste, and how we can prevent the possibility of our country turning into the next Fukushima or Chernobyl,” he added.
Even then, he said there is no assurance of eliminating the risk of nuclear accidents, given the country’s geographic location and the intensifying climate crisis.
“Just last month, we saw the impacts of a 7.1 magnitude earthquake (which) should serve as a warning. Exposure to unpredictable seismic events should make us think twice about having a nuclear power plant,” he said.
There were 10 deaths from the magnitude 7 earthquake that struck the northern Philippines, with more 300,000 people from about 82,000 families affected, according to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council.
The earthquake also damaged more than 21,000 houses, 302 of which were destroyed, the agency said. Damage to infrastructure was about P414 million in the Ilocos region, Cagayan Valley and Cordillera Administrative Region.
Mr. Arances said time and effort should instead be channeled to effecting a 100% transition to genuinely sustainable and safe renewable energy.
“We have an abundant supply of renewable energy just waiting to be developed at an increasingly affordable cost — case in point are the winning bidders of the GEA Reserve prices, of whom the lowest bid is P3.4 per kilowatt hour from solar,” he said.
We must never forget the risks nuclear stations pose to us all in conflict situations
The Herald, Isobel Lindsay, 19 Aug 22, CURRENTLY there are two different discourses going on in relation to nuclear power with no cross-over (“If Russia turns up the heat, could a nuclear winter follow?”, The Herald, August 17).
There is a cosy consensus among UK politicians and commentators that we should have more nuclear power stations and that this is supposed to be environmentally friendly. This message is, of course, actively promoted by commercial interests. Never mind the huge cost of both the build and the decommissioning, the legacy of radioactive waste we are leaving for future generations, the impact of rising water levels and drought on these plants and the long build time.
But the other discourse playing out is the huge vulnerability of nuclear power plants in conflict situations. Both Russia and Ukraine are playing “dare you” in relation to the Zaporizhzhia power plant. The Russians are using it as a base that is too dangerous to attack and Ukraine has been having a few shots at it to frighten the Russians and the rest of Europe in order to get more help. If the worst happens, it is the wind that will determine who suffers most, not state boundaries.
The threat is not just from war situations. While we have careful security measures, risk is always there. In 2017 a member of a far-right apocalyptic group in the US was arrested with weapons on his way to a nuclear power plant. One of those killed in the January 2021 storming of the US Capitol was an employee of a nuclear plant. In 2014 an insider at a Belgium reactor sabotaged one of the plant’s turbines, leading to months of shut-down. There are plants on earthquake and tsunami vulnerable areas.
We are not short of low-risk methods for the radical reduction in carbon emissions. We need to challenge those who are promoting high-risk choices, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/20672345.letters-must-never-forget-risks-nuclear-stations-pose-us-conflict-situations/
Counting the cost of cracking at EDF’s nuclear reactors in France
Nuclear Engineering, 11 Aug, 22,
The full extent of stress corrosion cracking at EDF’s reactors in France has still to be determined. Nonetheless, lower production as plants are re-examined has come at the worst possible time for the company.
On 15 December 2021 EDF announced that it would temporarily shut down two reactors at the Civaux site. The move came after inspections undertaken as part of as Civaux 1’s 10-yearly in-service inspection revealed defect indications close to welds in pipes that formed part of the of the safety injection system (SIS). This back-up circuit allows borated water to be injected into the reactor core in order to stop the nuclear reaction and to maintain the volume of water in the primary circuit in the event of a loss of primary coolant accident.
The discovery illustrated the mixed blessings of a ‘series’ approach to nuclear build, as EDF decided that it should also investigate and, if needed, address the same problem at other reactors in the N4 series, notably at Chooz, where there are four similar reactors. It began an outage at Chooz 2 on 16 December and at Chooz 1 on 18 December.
At that time EDF said the extended outage at Civaux and the closure at Chooz would cost it about 1TWh in lost generation to the end of 2021. But since then the company has found the problem to be more widespread.
ASN (Autorite´ de Su^rete´ Nucle´aire), France’s nuclear safety authority, said analysis on parts of the pipes removed from Civaux 1 had revealed the presence of cracking resulting from an unexpected stress corrosion phenomenon on the inner face of the piping, close to the weld bead. There was worse news for EDF. The ultrasonic inspection, which had been carried out during the plants’ regular 10-yearly outages, is mainly used to detect cracking caused by thermal fatigue. It is less effective at detecting stress corrosion cracking (SCC). That raised the fear that SCC had been present in reactors that had previously been examined by ultrasound and indications of SCC had wrongly been classified as spurious. The re-examination of Chooz B1 and B2 indicated this was indeed the case and there was SCC that needed to be addressed.
All five of the reactors in the initial group have had to undergo additional checks to determine which areas and systems are affected by the stress corrosion phenomenon.
To make matters worse still, checks at Penly 1, during its third 10-yearly outage, revealed indications on the same pipes, which laboratory analysis showed to be SCC, albeit at a smaller scale than at Civaux 1. Unlike the Chooz and Civaux reactors, Penly is not one of the 1450MWe N4 series but a 1300MWe reactor in an earlier French series.
As a result, EDF has returned to the checks previously conducted on all of its reactors to re-examine the results, searching for indications then thought to be spurious but now seen as potential indications of stress corrosion.
May update
In early May, speaking at an investor meeting after the company published results for the three months to the end of March, Regis Clement, EDF’s Deputy Head of Nuclear Generation, provided an update to investors.
He said inspections and examinations had confirmed stress corrosion in sections of piping at Civaux 1, Chooz 1 and Penly 1, where the affected parts will be removed and replaced. EDF had already begun investigations at Civaux 2 and Chooz 2 and now that has been extended to seven more units – Chinon 3, Cattenom 3, Bugey 3 and 4, Flamanville 1 and 2, and Golfech 1. Of these units, Clement said: “Indications have been found during ultrasound inspection process but we are not yet able to establish whether these are minor flaws in the composition of the steel, traces of thermal fatigue or stress corrosion.” Laboratory tests are under way.
In the end, EDF will inspect all its reactors. It expects that process to be completed by the end of 2023 and largely to be carried out during scheduled maintenance outages. Clement said, “At this time more or less 20% of the fleet is undergoing examination” and EDF expected to have a “high level of requirements” in controlling or remedying the problem.
The overall cost of assessing and remedying the problem cannot yet be fully assessed, ……………………….https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurecounting-the-cost-of-cracking-9919744/
IAEA reiterates need for all military action to stop near Zaporizhzya Nuclear PP
International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Mariano Grossi
told the UN Security Council on 11 August that the IAEA’s presence at the
Zaporizhzya Nuclear PP in Ukraine, to allow it to carry out important
technical activities in nuclear safety, security and safeguards and at the
same time provide a stabilising influence, is now essential. In a session
to discuss the situation at the plant, which has been occupied by Russian
forces since March, Mr Grossi reiterated his call for all military action
to stop at the site, which came under shell fire on 5 and 6 August.
Modern Power Systems 16th Aug 2022
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/news/newsshelling-of-zaporizhya-npp-9931814
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant: Analysing safety of nuclear power in conflict zones
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant ‘not designed to withstand fighting’. A
scientist in Ukraine warns that the reactor at Europe’s largest nuclear
power station is designed to protect against some threats, but not
shelling. One nuclear scientist working in Ukraine, who asked to remain
anonymous, told New Scientist that the reactors at the ZNPP are built to a
more modern design – known as VVER-1000 – than those at the Chernobyl
nuclear power plant, with a better containment structure, but that there
are still risks from nearby fighting.
“Normally, the design of
containment should resist an external impact like the crash of an airplane.
The concrete shell of VVER-1000 containment is about 1.2 metres thick,”
he says. “However, the safety of a nuclear power plant is not only down
to the containment of the reactor itself; it’s also the work of auxiliary
equipment that ensures the cooling of the reactor and spent fuel. We have
to keep in mind that [a] loss of power caused the accident in Fukushima [in
Japan in 2011].”
Aside from the reactor, there is also liquid and solid
radioactive waste stored on site. If damaged during shelling, this could
cause a radiation leak to the environment, the nuclear scientist says.
“The plant is designed to be protected from terrorist threats, but not
[from] military fighting. All should be done to avoid any chance of
fighting, not only at the plant site, but in all the areas around,” he
says.
New Scientist 16th Aug 2022
In March, Russian forces took control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power
plant and its satellite town. Olexiy Kovynyev, independent expert, former
reactor operator and shift supervisor, reflects on the events and what it
meant for the safety of nuclear power in conflict zones.
NS Energy 16th Aug 2022
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant: assessing the seismic risks of extended operation
Since the NRC has sole authority over the radiological safety aspects of Diablo Canyon, this means that the plant owner will not have to spend a penny to strengthen its seismic protection, no matter what the state of California wants
Arguably, however, the NRC is not doing enough to reduce the risk that a severe earthquake could cause a Fukushima-like core meltdown and radiation release at Diablo Canyon.
Nature, By Edwin Lyman | August 15, 2022, In 2016, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced a historic agreement with labor and environmental groups to shut down the two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California by 2025 and replace its roughly 2,200 megawatts of electricity with low- and zero-carbon renewable energy, energy efficiency, and storage. Today, that agreement is in serious jeopardy after an academic study (underwritten in part by the nuclear industry), combined with a sustained and vocal public relations campaign waged by Diablo Canyon supporters (including a Tik-Tok influencer), have succeeded in raising doubts about the viability of the power replacement plan.
Growing concerns about climate change-related impacts on the reliability of the electrical grid have also prompted California governor Gavin Newsom to reconsider his position and seek to keep the plant open, at least in the short term. The US Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy is also doing its part to keep Diablo Canyon open by relaxing the original financial qualification criteria and extending the application deadline by more than three months for its recently established Civil Nuclear Credit Program. This will make it possible for PG&E to apply for a first round of federal subsidies aimed at helping utilities keep nuclear power plants open.
Although there is some basis for the criticism that PG&E and the State of California are not acting quickly enough to ensure that enough carbon-free power will be available to replace all of Diablo Canyon’s output, the California Public Utilities Commission’s historic decision last year to procure 11,500 megawatts of clean energy resources by 2026, along with 4,000 megawatts of new capacity (mostly battery storage) added to the grid in the last year, should help address that concern. A recent analysis by Gridlab and Telos Energy also found that renewable energy could replace Diablo Canyon and supply 85 percent of California’s electricity by 2030, while keeping the power on for its 40 million residents—even under stressful conditions such as low hydropower generation, retirements of fossil fuel-fired plants, and heatwaves similar to what caused rolling power outages in August 2020.
Nevertheless, the disagreement over the plant’s future has become a proxy for the larger debate over what role nuclear power should play in addressing climate change, given its safety and security risks. If PG&E’s original plan were to succeed, after all, it could undermine the nuclear advocates’ argument that nuclear power is an irreplaceable asset in all circumstances.
But if Diablo Canyon is to remain open beyond 2025, PG&E will have to address a number of difficult issues. First, the company will have to prepare a new 20-year license renewal application and submit it to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before the expiration of Unit 1’s operating license in 2024. PG&E will also have to undertake extensive inspections and equipment upgrades that were indefinitely postponed after it made the decision to shut the plant, as discussed in a June 2022 meeting of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee. And finally, it must take a hard look at the vulnerability of the plant to earthquakes and consider the need to make seismic upgrades to minimize the risk to the public over the period of extended operation.
Conflicting information on the seismic question has been reported. A spokesperson for the California Public Utility Commission was quoted as saying that if PG&E were to resume the license renewal proceeding for the plant, it would need to make seismic upgrades. However, this statement is not consistent with the NRC’s current position. Following a review conducted in the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan, the agency concluded that no seismic upgrades at Diablo Canyon or any other US nuclear plants were necessary, because the health and safety risks to the public were acceptable. Since the NRC has sole authority over the radiological safety aspects of Diablo Canyon, this means that the plant owner will not have to spend a penny to strengthen its seismic protection, no matter what the state of California wants.
Arguably, however, the NRC is not doing enough to reduce the risk that a severe earthquake could cause a Fukushima-like core meltdown and radiation release at Diablo Canyon (or, for that matter, other seismically vulnerable nuclear plants in the country). The agency, as part of its drive to transform into a more “risk-informed” regulator, cites the low calculated radiological risk to the public from nuclear plant accidents to justify not taking action to increase safety across a wide range of areas, including seismic protection. But there’s a major problem with this approach: Assessing the seismic risk involves understanding both the uncertainties associated with nuclear accidents and the even larger unknowns encountered in trying to predict earthquake behavior. These uncertainties raise doubts whether the seismic risks can be calculated with sufficient precision to support the NRC’s complacency.
Although other nuclear plants are also seismically vulnerable, according to current information, the potential peak ground motion that the Diablo Canyon site may experience from an earthquake occurring every 10,000 years on average is far higher than any other US plant…………………………………………………
NRC requirements for protection against earthquakes.……………………………………………
The complicated history of Diablo Canyon’s seismic evaluations……………………………………..
Fukushima seismic reevaluations. The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident showed the world what can happen when a nuclear plant experiences a natural disaster more severe than it was designed to handle. In response to the accident, the NRC convened a task force to evaluate whether its nuclear safety requirements needed to be strengthened. In its report, the task force noted that “available seismic data and models show increased seismic hazard estimates for some operating nuclear power plant sites” and recommended that the NRC “order licensees to reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at their sites against current NRC requirements and guidance, and if necessary, update the design basis and SSCs important to safety to protect against the updated hazards.”
Although the NRC did accept part of the task force recommendation by directing all nuclear plants to “reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using present-day NRC requirements and guidance,” it did not adopt the task force’s proposed remedy: ……………………………………………………………..
Likelihood of earthquake-induced core damage at Diablo Canyon……………………………………………………………………………
The best way to reduce the risk of a spent fuel pool fire is to transfer most of the densely packed stored spent fuel in the pools to dry storage casks. If the Diablo Canyon units are decommissioned, this will be accomplished within several years after the units are shut down. But the NRC insists that the risks of densely packed spent fuel pool storage are acceptable and has refused to require licensees to expedite spent fuel transfer to dry casks. If the reactors continue to operate, PG&E will have no regulatory mandate to procure and load the additional dry casks needed to thin out the pools, prolonging the period at which the spent fuel pools will pose undue risks.
Despite the fairly high risk of core damage that PG&E’s seismic probabilistic risk assessment found, after reviewing the study the NRC took the position that the risks are acceptable and that “no modifications are warranted … because a potential cost-justified substantial safety improvement was not identified.” …………………………………………………………………..
Consequences of a severe accident at Diablo Canyon. What is at stake if there were a seismically induced core damage accident at Diablo Canyon?…………………………………………………………………
Potential modifications to reduce seismic risk.………………………………………………………………….
more https://thebulletin.org/2022/08/the-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-assessing-the-seismic-risks-of-extended-operation/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
12 February – Webinar The Big Push: New Nuclear Projects in Canada
Thursday, February 12, 7 pm Eastern | 2nd of 4 sessions in the 2026 Nuclear Waste Online webinar series.
Join a webinar on the push for new nuclear generation in Canada. Go to Northwatch.org to register or use the registration link https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZfWOf1GITqSRIZX8CB-A9w
-
Archives
- February 2026 (76)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 