Collective madness — Zaporizhzhia is the poster child for abandoning the use of nuclear power.

The IAEA team that went to Zaporizhizhia aren’t superheroes and can’t fix what’s broken

Collective madness — Beyond Nuclear International By Linda Pentz Gunter
The deadly peril posed by nuclear power plants embroiled in a war zone — something we have been warning about since before the Russian invasion of Ukraine — just came into even sharper focus.
The continued military activity around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, home to six of Ukraine’s 15 reactors, has raised worldwide concern about the terrible consequences should a missile strike a reactor, or worse, the unprotected irradiated fuel pools or radioactive waste storage casks.

Let’s remember that the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear disaster — the result of the explosion of a single, relatively new unit — has rendered a 1,000 square mile region (the Exlusion Zone) uninhabitable still today and for the foreseeable future. Any one of the Zaporizhzhia reactors contains a far larger radioactive inventory and a more densely packed fuel pool than was the case at Chornobyl. A major breach of any one of the six would release long-lasting radioactive contamination into the environment, forcing permanent evacuations and sickening countless people.

Several obvious conclusions emerge from all this.

1. Nuclear reactors cannot be in a war zone.
2. The consequences of an attack on a nuclear plant could be catastrophic, long-lasting and far-reaching.
3. It is impossible to predict where a war might happen (Lindsey Graham’s recent reckless statements remind us that yes, there could even be (civil) war again here in the US).
4. The odds of a catastrophic failure at a nuclear plant must be zero given the unacceptable consequences; an impossibility.
5. Nuclear power plants are not only ill-suited to the climate of war, but also to both the present and impending extremes of climate change (major sea-level rise; floods; fires; violent weather events etc).

Therefore, it is senseless and irresponsible to continue using nuclear power as an energy source.

Instead, as a 14-person delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made its way to the Zaporizhzhia plant, its General Secretary, Rafael Grossi, stated that theirs was a mission “that seeks to prevent a nuclear accident and to preserve this important — the largest, the biggest — nuclear power plant in Europe”. 

Preserve? Well, as Henry Sokolski just reminded us in his August 31 article — The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Is Kindling for World War III — “The IAEA was founded seventy years ago to promote nuclear power.” It is set up to “conduct occasional nuclear audits, not to physically protect plants against military attacks or to demilitarize zones around them,” he wrote. “The IAEA can’t provide the Zaporizhzhia plant with any defenses, nor will it risk keeping IAEA staff on-site to serve as defensive tripwires.”

James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, issued similar warnings about the limitations of the IAEA delegation when he was interviewed about the worsening situation at Zaporizhzhia and the IAEA visit on the August 29th edition of The Rachel Maddow Show. 

“We should be realistic about what they can achieve,” he said. “It’s their job to report what’s going on in the plant, to assess the safety and security features on the plant and to report back. They don’t have a magic way of defending the plant or repairing broken equipment.”

The White House has called for the Zaporizhzhia reactors to be shut down. It should be calling for all reactors to be shut down. Instead, it is blindly persisting with nuclear power as a present and future energy program. 

The White House is not alone, of course. The illogical — and arguably insane — response to the war in Ukraine by a number of governments has been to insist on the continued or even expanded use of nuclear energy. Given what is at stake in so doing — and given the obvious safer, faster and cheaper alternatives of energy efficiency and renewable energy— this appears to be a symptom of some kind of collective madness.

Let’s face it, if Zaporizhzhia was a 6-acre wind farm instead of a 6-reactor nuclear power plant, we wouldn’t even be talking about it, let alone worrying about how to pronounce it.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.

September 4, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

IAEA at Zaporizhia nuclear station: Dr Paul Dorfman assesses the risks

The “physical integrity” of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in
south-eastern Ukraine has been “violated”, the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said, as he voiced his fears
for the site.

Rafael Grossi led a team of inspectors to the
Russian-controlled plant that has been frequently shelled in recent weeks,
raising fears of a nuclear incident. “It is obvious that the plant and
physical integrity of the plant has been violated several times,” Grossi
told reporters after he returned with part of his team to the
Ukrainian-controlled area on Thursday.

“I worried, I worry and I will
continue to be worried about the plant,” he said, while adding that the
situation was “more predictable” now. Rafael Grossi speaks to the media
before setting off to visit the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant “We have
spent there four or five hours. I have seen a lot, and I have my people
there, we were able to tour the whole site,” Grossi said about the
long-anticipated inspection. He said that part of his 14-strong mission to
the plant would stay at the facility “until Sunday or Monday, continuing
with the assessment”.

Guardian 2nd Sept 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/02/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-power-plant-physical-integrity-violated-un-nuclear-chief-says

September 2, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Very real risks of nuclear catastrophe at Zaporizhia nuclear station, with the memory of Chernobyl ever present

War in Ukraine. What are the risks of a nuclear accident around the
Zaporijjia power plant? For weeks, the international community has had its
sights set on the Zaporijjia nuclear power plant, which the Russians and
Ukrainians have accused each other of bombing. This Thursday, September 1,
IAEA experts arrived at the plant to assess the security situation there.

Its director general, Rafael Grossi, had earlier warned of the “real risk
of nuclear disaster”. What are the real risks of a nuclear accident around
this plant? In Zaporijjia, near the eponymous nuclear power plant, occupied
by Russian forces and the target of regular bombardments, the inhabitants
are now preparing for the worst, and some are already imagining seeing the
reactors explode.

Because the fighting around this power plant with its
imposing silhouette, the largest in Europe, has revived painful memories of
the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred in Ukraine on April 26, 1986. That
year, a reactor exploded, causing the largest civilian nuclear accident in
history and releasing a radioactive cloud that spread across Europe.

According to the UN, around thirty operators and firefighters lost their
lives there, killed by acute radiation, but the human toll of the disaster
is still debated today. According to different sources, the number of
deaths as a result of this nuclear accident varies from a few hundred to
several thousand. The NGO Greenpeace even estimates that it would have
caused 200,000 additional deaths between 1990 and 2004.

Thirty-six years later, this Chernobyl disaster is still present in people’s minds, and some
fear that the scenario will repeat itself in Zaporijjia. But are the fears
of the inhabitants of Zaporijjia, located barely fifty kilometers as the
crow flies from the plant, really justified? Is a serious nuclear accident
really possible?

“Yes, serious accidents are possible, nuclear power plants
being machines that are intrinsically very sensitive to external
aggressions and not being designed to operate in a context of armed
conflict” , explains Bernard Laponche, former nuclear engineer at the
Commissariat at the atomic energy (CEA), doctor in nuclear physics and
president of the Global Chance association. And this, especially since no
one knows today what the current state of this plant is.

Ouest France 1st Sept 2022

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/guerre-en-ukraine/guerre-en-ukraine-quels-sont-les-risques-d-accident-nucleaire-autour-de-la-centrale-de-zaporijjia-b1108af8-29e8-11ed-bd3f-f86da3bd80f7

September 2, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

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.

September 2, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

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

September 2, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | 1 Comment