SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
zaporizhzhia
'A Dangerous Nuclear Crisis': Greenpeace Warns Zaporizhzhia Insufficiently Monitored
A new report found that Russian troops were likely "using the plant as a shield" in violation of the safety principles laid out by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sep 28, 2023
The Russian forces occupying Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant have been violating the safety principles established by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the watchdog body has not been able to effectively monitor the situation.
That's the warning from a new Greenpeace report sent to Western leaders on Thursday, which argues that the IAEA needs to be more upfront about the reality of the situation.
"The IAEA reporting risks normalizing what remains a dangerous nuclear crisis, unprecedented in the history of nuclear power, while exaggerating its actual influence on events on the ground," wrote report authors Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist from Greenpeace East Asia, and Jan Vande Putte, a Greenpeace Belgium radiation and nuclear expert.
Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia plant on March 4, 2022, less than a month into the invasion.
"Since 2022 we have been deeply concerned by the multiple hazards and risks to the Zaporozhzhia nuclear plant posed by the Russian armed forces and the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom," Burnie and Putte wrote.
To address these concerns, Greenpeace Germany commissioned former U.K. military specialists at McKenzie Intelligence Services to report on conditions at the plant.
"The Russian armed forces and Rosatom occupation pose a constant nuclear threat to Zaporozhzhia and must be condemned."
The result, Greenpeace said, "provides detailed evidence that the Zaporizhizhia nuclear plant is being used strategically and tactically by Russian armed forces in its illegal war against Ukraine."
For example, the report found that Russian troops were firing from positions between one and 18 kilometers (approximately 0.6 to 11 miles) from the plant, had constructed small defensive positions with sandbags on the roofs of some of the reactor halls, and are using a type of truck near the plant that is commonly used to transport weapons and combustible material.
It also concluded that both Russian forces and Rosatom are acting in violation of the five principles that IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi laid out in June to prevent a nuclear accident at the plant.
These principles are:
- No launching attacks from or at the plant;
- No storing weapons at the plant;
- No threatening outside power sources;
- Making sure all important structures are protected; and
- No taking actions that go against these principles.
McKenzie found evidence that Russian forces have a firing pattern of settling in one location, attacking from another, and then moving again to avoid counterattacks. In this process, they appear to be "using the plant as a shield."
"All activity observed over the reporting period does suggest a precarious environment continues to exist at the plant," Burnie and Putte concluded.
The Greenpeace experts also reviewed the IAEA's monitoring in the context of McKenzie's findings, and argued that the agency could be more upfront about its limitations and Russia's violations.
IAEA only has four monitors for the largest nuclear plant on the continent, and they must conduct their investigation with restrictions placed on their movements and access, as well as the requirement that they make access requests a week in advance.
Despite all this, Burnie said in a statement, "the director general's reporting is incomplete and misleading, including the assessment of Russian noncompliance with safety and security principles."
"The Russian armed forces and Rosatom occupation pose a constant nuclear threat to Zaporozhzhia and must be condemned—but currently the IAEA is unable to fully report on the security and safety hazards they pose," Burnie continued. "That has to change."
The advocacy group prepared the report ahead of an IAEA discussion of the situation in Ukraine in Vienna Thursday, as well as the IAEA Board of Governors meeting October 2. On Wednesday night, Greenpeace sent copies to the board's member governments, The Guardian reported.
IAEA did not comment on the report directly. However, it told The Guardian that, without its inspectors stationed there since September 2022, "the world would have no independent source of information about Europe's largest nuclear power plant."
However, Greenpeace argued the agency could take steps to improve that information.
"Greenpeace is calling on the IAEA board member governments to review the scale and scope of the IAEA mission, and to work with member states, and in particular the government of Ukraine, to institute whatever measures that will bring maximum pressure to bear on the Russian armed forces and Rosatom at the plant and to bring about an early end to the current military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant," Burnie and Putte wrote.
These measures could include an improved analysis by the IAEA and sanctions against Rosatom, Greenpeace said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
When it Comes to Ukranian Claims, Tell the Truth, Don’t Cheerlead
The Western Press, government officials, and others must be far more circumspect around reporting on claims from Ukrainian officials, lest another incident in the fog of war threaten to widen the conflict.
Jul 13, 2023
The war in Ukraine is at a dangerous crossroads. The outcome on the battlefield is increasingly tied to the political survival and prestige of all principal warring parties, including President Joe Biden, who is on the verge of crossing more self-imposed lines on arms transfers.
Kyiv, meanwhile, is in the middle of an underwhelming offensive that it’s been previously told may mark the end of U.S. military aid. All the while, a ceasefire is publicly rejected by leaders who cast it as unacceptable.
It’s in this context that top Ukrainian officials’ charges of Moscow orchestrating an impending nuclear catastrophe has reached a fever pitch. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently cited alleged intelligence to announce that Russia was “technically ready to provoke a local explosion” at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which has been controlled by Russian forces since March last year.
Zelensky’s claim was uncritically broadcast in headlines from American news outlets like Reuters, The Guardian, New York Post, ABC, and Newsweek, as well as foreign outlets like Al Jazeera, the Independent, the Australian Financial Review, and The Jerusalem Post.
The war has now reached a point where the press must take greater care in how they treat Ukrainian officials’ claims, especially in cases like this. An explosion at the plant may not only cause a near-unprecedented environmental catastrophe, but could also be used by hawks to argue for direct U.S. or NATO involvement in the war.
This follows on from earlier, identical claims by the Ukrainian leader not only in these same outlets, but in major mainstream newspapers like The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Much of this coverage not only puts Kyiv’s accusations in the headline, but frames the entire story around them, implicitly front-loading the charge with authority, while introducing countervailing facts only further down, if they’re mentioned at all.
The average reader, as a result, is left with little reason to doubt his claims.
That’s despite International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi saying on June 29 that he “didn’t see that kind of development,” referring to Zelensky’s claims that Moscow was planning an attack, when he and his team recently inspected the plant. Only two of the above outlets—ABC and Newsweek—bothered to mention Grossi’s remarks in their reports, many paragraphs in.
Grossi weighed in again on July 5, saying that teams had inspected the facility “so far without observing any visible indications of mines or explosives,” according to an IAEA statement.
In contrast to Zelensky’s charges, Grossi’s assessment has gone almost completely unreported, and has, with some notable exceptions, similarly been left out of coverage of Zelensky and others’ more recent accusations of Russian forces planting explosives, with stories once more tending to frame the charges uncritically.
The New York Post, in fact, mentioned Grossi in its story only to paint him as ineffective, relying heavily on quotes from Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak.
This mirrors earlier coverage. The culprit behind the nuclear plant’s shelling last year was treated as a mystery by the press, either ascribed to a mysterious force or outlets reporting that both sides blamed the other. The London Times eventually revealed Ukraine’s secret and “desperate attempt to retake the facility” at the time this past April. Journalists understandably sympathetic to the Ukrainian war effort may have been loath to give Ukrainian forces negative publicity or appear to give credence to Russian claims.
But the war has now reached a point where the press must take greater care in how they treat Ukrainian officials’ claims, especially in cases like this. An explosion at the plant may not only cause a near-unprecedented environmental catastrophe, but could also be used by hawks to argue for direct U.S. or NATO involvement in the war.
On July 4, in the midst of Kyiv’s headline-grabbing charges, former congressman and current CNN senior political commentator Adam Kinzinger urged that “every single living Russia[n] solider or Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine becomes extremely destroyed by NATO” if Moscow causes an explosion at the plant. Indeed, Zelensky himself has called on world leaders to show Moscow “the world is ready to react” to such an attack.
Not only do Ukrainian officials, who have long called for NATO’s direct entry in the war, have a rational incentive to draw their military backers directly into the fighting, but there have already been numerous other examples of Kyiv falsely blaming Russia for attacks Ukraine itself was responsible for. Maybe most alarming was in November, after a stray air defense missile launched by Ukrainian forces accidentally killed two people in Poland.
That incident, coupled with thinly sourced and ultimately erroneous reporting based on the word of an unnamed U.S. intelligence official, was quickly declared a deliberate Russian attack on NATO by both hawkish commentators and senior officials from Ukraine and NATO member states, some of whom called for the alliance to respond directly. Kyiv refused to admit fault for the incident despite NATO concluding Ukrainian-fired rockets were the culprit.
It was the most dangerous instance, but far from the only one. Kyiv also swiftly blamed Russia for the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines last September, a charge repeated by European officials, print media, and countless talking heads on U.S. television, before Western officials all but absolved Moscow and evidence emerged that Europe and the United States had had advance knowledge of a Ukrainian military plot for the attack.
Ukrainian officials likewise accused Russians of responsibility for attacks on what Moscow considers its own soil, namely the October 2022 suicide bombing of the Kerch Strait Bridge and the May 2023 drone attack on the Kremlin, both of which U.S. intelligence ultimately concluded was Kyiv’s doing, and the latter of which was widely suggested to be a Kremlin false flag in the mainstream press.
Ukrainian officials similarly claimed no connection to the group of anti-Putin far right Russian extremists who carried out attacks in Russia’s Belgorod region earlier this year, even though they used NATO-provided arms and its leader admitted getting “a lot of encouragement” from Ukrainian authorities. Often, news of Ukrainian culpability came long after the initial claims of Russian guilt were widely disseminated.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that Russian forces could be responsible for any theoretical future explosion at the Zaporizhzhia plant, however strategically confounding it might seem, just as it was possible for Moscow to be behind attacks on its own pipeline, bridge, and government building. But given the track record of past claims and the stakes involved here, it would be irresponsible and imprudent in the extreme to simply assume Russian blame is the truth, or to immediately present it as such.
This is doubly so given that Kyiv has made a host of factually dubious statements throughout the war on other matters. As just one example, officials, including Zelensky, made repeated, conflicting statements early last month about whether or not their spring offensive had even begun, with Podolyak flatly contradicting himself in the space of two weeks.
This is hardly scandalous. All government officials dissemble and deceive, particularly in wartime, and Ukraine’s proficiency at “information warfare” has been widely remarked upon in the West. Meanwhile, Russian officials have their own, very long list of dubious claims. The difference is, Moscow’s statements are treated in the West with appropriate skepticism and caution, the kind that should be applied to all government claims, particularly during war.
The Western press, government officials, and other prominent voices have to be far more circumspect around reporting on claims from Ukrainian officials, particularly should another incident in the fog of war threaten to widen the conflict. Understandable sympathy for the Ukrainian war effort shouldn’t supersede the core, fundamental task of reporting, which is to tell the truth, not cheerlead. The stakes are simply too high.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Military Attack on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Would Be a Disaster Beyond Description
It is imperative that the international community take Ukraine’s warnings seriously and provide all the assistance it needs for emergency preparedness
Jul 08, 2023
Ukraine has accused Russia of planning to carry out a sabotage attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant that it has controlled since it seized it by force in March 2022. Although it reports this morning that this current threat is decreasing, the situation is fluid and the plant remains vulnerable to both accidents and attacks. While this ongoing crisis should not lead to panic, there is no cause for complacency either. Unfortunately, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and other commenters have been busy attempting to dismiss the risks that either an accident or a deliberate attack could lead to a significant radiological release with far-reaching consequences. Simply put, the ANS is dead wrong here, and by minimizing the potential risk it is endangering Ukrainians and others who may be affected by lulling them into a false sense of security and undermining any motivation to prepare for the worst. Effective emergency preparedness requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual threat.
As I have pointed out previously, the fact that the six reactors have been in shutdown mode for many months (with one in “hot”, as opposed to “cold,” shutdown) does reduce the risk somewhat compared to a situation where reactors are operating or have only recently shut down. The decay heat in the reactors’ cores decreases significantly over time, although the rate of decrease slows down quite a bit after a few months. However, this does not mean, as ANS misleadingly implies, that there is no risk of a major radiological release that could disperse over a wide area. What it does mean is that if cooling were disrupted to one or more of the reactors, then there would be a longer period of time—days instead of hours—for operators to fix the problem before the cooling water in the reactor cores would start to boil away and drop below the tops of the fuel assemblies, causing the fuel to overheat and degrade.
Effective emergency preparedness requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual threat.
Timely operator actions are even more critical for reactors that are shut down than for reactors that are operating, since some automatic safety systems are not functional during shutdown. Indeed, in a 1997 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) points out that “acceptable results for most of events during shutdown modes cannot be achieved without operator intervention.” The IAEA report states that both “preventive and mitigatory capabilities are somewhat degraded” in shutdown conditions, and lists a number of shutdown accident initiators for VVER-1000s.
One class of events of particular concern are “boron dilution” accidents, in which the concentration of boron in cooling water necessary to maintain reactors in a subcritical state becomes reduced and nuclear fission inadvertently begins in the core. This would not only increase the reactor temperature and the amount of heat that would have to be removed, but would also generate new quantities of troublesome short-lived fission products, such as iodine isotopes, which have previously decayed away in the months since shutdown. (This is why it remains important that potassium iodide—a drug that can block uptake of radioactive iodine in the thyroid—continue to be available to communities who may be in the path of any plume.) It is also important to note that it is very unusual for reactors to be maintained for any length of time in either hot or cold shutdown modes with fuel remaining in the core, as is the case at Zaporizhzhia. Whenever nuclear reactors operate in unusual conditions that have not been thoroughly analyzed, risks increase.
There is no technical reason why any resulting radioactive releases could not disperse at least as far as occurred at Fukushima, depending on the meteorological conditions
Unfortunately, because of the incredible stress that the greatly reduced staff at Zaporizhzhia are under, and the unclear lines of command under Russian occupation, their ability to efficiently execute all the actions necessary to mitigate any accident or sabotage attack is in grave doubt. And if timely operator intervention does not occur, and the fuel assemblies are exposed, then a core melt accident similar to what was experienced in three of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi is certainly possible. Once the water level has dropped below the tops of the fuel assemblies, the original decay heat in the reactor core is no longer a relevant factor because when the zirconium cladding surrounding the fuel rods overheats and reacts with steam or air, it produces additional heat through a so-called exothermic reaction. The heat released in this way would soon become far greater than the original decay heat load and would accelerate the heat-up and degradation of the reactor core. At that point, it would be much harder for operators to arrest the progression of the core melt. Eventually, the molten core would drop to the floor of the steel reactor vessel and melt through it onto the floor of the containment building, where it would react with concrete to generate hot gases. Then, there are multiple ways in which the radioactive gases and aerosols generated during the core melt could be released into the environment, including a containment melt-through mode that is possible in VVER-1000 reactors such as Zaporizhzhia.
There is no technical reason why any resulting radioactive releases could not disperse at least as far as occurred at Fukushima, depending on the meteorological conditions. The heat of the radioactive plumes, which determines how high they will rise in the atmosphere and hence how far they can travel, largely come from the heat released by zirconium oxidation. The magnitude and extent of the resulting environmental contamination would depend on the “source term,” or the inventory and characteristics of the radioactive materials released from the site. Since up to six reactors and six spent fuel pools could be involved—especially if the site is deliberately sabotaged—the source term could ultimately be larger than that of Fukushima, where only three reactors were involved and containments remained largely intact.
Thus it is imperative that the international community take Ukraine’s warnings seriously and provide all the assistance it needs for emergency preparedness. Unjustified complacency could lead to a lack of resolve for addressing the danger, only increasing the potential for a long-lasting disaster that will compound the misery of the Ukrainian people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fresh Nuclear Safety Concerns After Dam Disaster Downriver From Zaporizhzhia Plant
While the IAEA said it doesn't see an "immediate risk" to the nuclear plant's safety, the agency warned that a lack of cooling water "would cause fuel melt and inoperability of the emergency diesel generators."
Jun 06, 2023
Already heightened concerns about the operational safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine intensified further on Tuesday after a major downriver dam was destroyed, forcing thousands to evacuate as water surged through the breached structure.
The wrecked barrier held back a body of water equal in size to Utah's Great Salt Lake, and the reservoir supplies water for the cooling of the Zaporizhzhia facility, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. The reservoir also serves as a key source of drinking water.
Ukraine and Russia blamed each other for the dam's destruction, which would constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Reuters noted that "neither side offered immediate public evidence" to substantiate their accusations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been monitoring the Zaporizhzhia plant for months and vocally warning about ongoing threats to its integrity, said Tuesday it was closely examining the fallout from the dam breach but there was "no immediate risk to the safety of the plant."
But Rafael Mariano Grossi, the IAEA's director-general, stressed Tuesday that an "absence of cooling water in the essential cooling water systems for an extended period of time would cause fuel melt and inoperability of the emergency diesel generators" at Zaporizhzhia, which is currently controlled by Russian forces.
The plant is roughly 90 miles upriver from the breached dam.
"The main line of cooling water is fed from the reservoir and pumped up through channels near the thermal power plant to the site," said Grossi. "It is estimated that the water through this route should last for a few days. Water in the reservoir was at around 16.4 meters at 8:00 am. If it drops below 12.7 meters, then it can no longer be pumped."
Grossi noted that "there are a number of alternative sources of water," including a "large cooling pond next to the site that by design is kept above the height of the reservoir."
"It is therefore vital that this cooling pond remains intact. Nothing must be done to potentially undermine its integrity," he added. "I call on all sides to ensure nothing is done to undermine that. My trip to ZNPP next week was planned and now it is essential. I will go."
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that "the potentially far-reaching environmental and social consequences of the disaster quickly became clear as homes, streets, and businesses flooded downstream and emergency crews began evacuations."
James Elder, a UNICEF spokesperson, said in a statement that the impacts of the dam's destruction will be acutely felt by children, many of whom will be left homeless and without reliable access to clean drinking water.
"This is yet another merciless attack on infrastructure that is vital to the well-being of everyday Ukrainians," said Elder.
Outside experts and critics of nuclear power have been warning for more than a year that the longer the war drags on, the greater the threat of a catastrophe at Zaporizhzhia, which has already been significantly damaged by shelling.
In a March 2022 report, Greenpeace wrote that "in the event of a loss of cooling and resultant fire in any of the spent fuel pools at Zaporizhzhia, the potential for a very large release of radioactivity would have a devastating effect not only on Ukraine but also its neighboring countries, including Russia, and potentially, depending on the weather conditions and wind directions, on a large part of Europe."
Ukrainian and Russian officials traded blame for the disastrous dam breach.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tweeted Tuesday that Russia "blew it up," an alleged attack that he called a "bomb of mass environmental destruction."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, for his part, said during a news briefing that "we can state unequivocally that we are talking about deliberate sabotage by the Ukrainian side."
Meanwhile, according to Reuters, "some Russian-installed officials said the dam had burst on its own."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Warn Biden Ukraine War Shows Attacks on Nuclear Plants 'Could Happen Here'
"The recent catastrophic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and the crash of two Boeing 737 Max jets demonstrate the real-world consequences of inadequate or capriciously enforced safety regulation and oversight. We can't add radiological releases from U.S. nuclear plants to this list."
May 25, 2023
In the wake of another nerve-wracking outage at a Russian-held Ukrainian nuclear energy facility this week, 90 groups and dozens of individuals wrote to U.S. President Joe Biden expressing "grave concerns regarding security at U.S. nuclear power plants."
"We commend and wholeheartedly support your administration's much-needed efforts to make nuclear plants in the Ukraine war zone more secure in the face of daunting political and military challenges," states the letter, spearheaded by Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) and sent to the White House Wednesday. "This work protects not only Ukraine but the entire planet."
"Our concern is that the security of U.S. nuclear power plants does not seem to be receiving a commensurate amount of attention, neither from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), nor the administration," the coalition explained. "Worse, your administration is also seeking to expand the nuclear industry in dangerous ways that compound nuclear plant security threats."
"Attacks on nuclear facilities and other external dangers they face are credible threats and could happen here."
While the letter argues that given the associated security threats, "federal funding should prioritize scaling up renewables, storage, efficiency, and transmission upgrades, so as to phase out nuclear power as quickly as possible," it also calls for immediate action.
"Nuclear plant security MUST begin at home," the groups declared, urging the U.S. government to "learn the lesson" from Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) since Russian forces invaded Ukraine early last year—that "attacks on nuclear facilities and other external dangers they face are credible threats and could happen here."
"The recent catastrophic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and the crash of two Boeing 737 Max jets demonstrate the real-world consequences of inadequate or capriciously enforced safety regulation and oversight," the organizations asserted. "We can't add radiological releases from U.S. nuclear plants to this list."
The coalition also sent the president a separate document detailing security concerns and recommendations for U.S. facilities, but the letter highlights the top takeaways:
- The 92 operating reactors and 19 reactors in various stages of decommissioning in the U.S. are vulnerable to sabotage, terrorism, cyberattack, dam breaches, and other threats of a deliberate nature.
- Shipments of spent nuclear fuel to consolidated interim storage facilities (CISFs) are similarly vulnerable.
- NRC nuclear plant security policy is reactive rather than proactive, leaving it up to licensees. The NRC also takes a "hands-off" approach to securing spent nuclear fuel.
- Independent analysis shows this approach has failed, and that as a result, U.S. nuclear plants are not secure.
The coalition is calling on the Biden administration to enforce "enhanced, mandatory security measures for existing nuclear facilities and spent nuclear fuel to make them less vulnerable to attack," at the cost of licensees, not U.S. taxpayers.
The groups' recommendations include changes to storage policies. The letter says that "instead of transporting it to proposed CISFs, most spent nuclear fuel should be stored at reactor sites using hardened onsite storage (HOSS)."
In a statement, Kevin Kamps—a radioactive waste specialist with Beyond Nuclear, which signed the letter to Biden—took aim at Holtec International, a U.S.-based company that owns a proposed New Mexico CISF, has handled spent fuel in Ukraine, and recently signed a contract to deploy small modular nuclear reactors in the war-torn country.
"Holtec's performance in handling spent fuel has been abysmal in Ukraine and similarly abysmal in the United States," said Kamps. "That's one illustration among others that the problem is not limited to Ukraine, and that U.S. nuclear plants are subject to security threats we need to start addressing."
NEIS director Dave Kraft asked, "What sense does it make to send tens of millions of dollars to Ukraine to enhance security and safety, when our own 92 operating reactors and 90,000 tons of high-level radioactive wastes are not secure?"
"What sense does it make to sprinkle the next-generation micro- and mini-nuke reactors around the nation and the world, boasting they can be mobile on flatbed trucks or housed in factories or Walmarts, when it is daily demonstrated that silent drones are capable of turning heavily armored tanks and military vehicles into shredded heaps of burning metal?" he added. "This is the real world nuclear power now exists in, and this administration is not prepared to provide the safety and security necessary for it to survive."
On Monday, for the seventh time since the Russians took control of ZNPP last year, Europe's largest nuclear facility was fully disconnected from Ukraine's electricity grid and had to rely on backup diesel generators. The outage lasted over five hours.
Reuters reported that a "Russia-installed local official said Ukraine had disconnected a power line and Ukrainian state nuclear energy company Energoatom said the problem was caused by Russian shelling."
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday's incident "demonstrates the highly vulnerable nuclear safety and security situation" at the facility and reiterated that "this simply can't go on."
"We're playing with fire. We must act now to avoid the very real danger of a nuclear accident in Europe, with its associated consequences for the public and the environment," he added. "I'm continuing to engage in intense negotiations with all the involved parties to secure the protection of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. I will not stop until this has been achieved."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mad Panic' Near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant Leads IAEA to Sound Alarm
The situation is 'becoming increasingly unpredictable and potentially dangerous'
May 07, 2023
The situation Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has taken a turn for the worse as Russia has begun evacuating 18 settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region, including Enerhodar.
The BBC has cited as Ukrainian official as saying this has sparked a "mad panic" - and traffic jams have been observed as thousands of people pack up and head out of the city.
The exiled mayor of Melitopol, Ivan Fedorov, wrote on Telegram that shops in the evacuated areas had run out of goods and medicine. He also said hospitals were discharging patients into the street amid fears that electricity and water supplies could be suspended.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA ) experts still at the plant site are continuing to hear shelling on a regular basis, including Friday night. Ukrainian authorities on Sunday said that a 72-year-old woman was killed and three others were wounded when Russian forces fired more than 30 shells at Nikopol, a Ukrainian-held town neighboring the nuclear plant.
The situation is “becoming increasingly unpredictable and potentially dangerous,” the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said Saturday.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in a statement :
“The general situation in the area near the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is becoming increasingly unpredictable and potentially dangerous."
"I’m extremely concerned about the very real nuclear safety and security risks facing the plant."
"We must act now to prevent the threat of a severe nuclear accident and its associated consequences for the population and the environment. This major nuclear facility must be protected."
"I will continue to press for a commitment by all sides to achieve this vital objective, and the IAEA will continue to do everything it can to help ensure nuclear safety and security at the plant,” he said.
The expected Ukrainian spring counter-offensive is viewed as likely to take in the Zaporizhzhia region, around 80% of which is controlled by Russian forces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Truly Troubling': Claiming Western Invasion Imminent, Lukashenko Says Belarus Seeks Nukes
In addition to tactical nuclear weapons Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week he plans to station in Belarus, Lukashenko said Friday he would seek intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Mar 31, 2023
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Friday claimed without evidence that his government needs to "safeguard" the Eastern European country from a looming Western invasion, saying he is seeking to station intercontinental nuclear missiles there to defend Belarus against the United States and other countries in the West.
In an hourslong speech to Parliament on the state of the nation, Lukashenko, who has been in office since 1994 and whose 2020 reelection was disputed by hundreds of thousands of Belarusians, said the West is planning to take over both Belarus and its neighboring Poland.
"Take my word for it, I have never deceived you," said Lukashenko. "They are preparing to invade Belarus, to destroy our country."
For this reason, he said, he may use so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons that Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week the Kremlin would deploy in Belarus, if Putin agrees to their use. In addition, Lukashenko said he would seek intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of destroying whole cities from thousands of miles away, on Belarusian soil.
"Putin and I will decide and introduce here, if necessary, strategic weapons, and they must understand this, the scoundrels abroad, who today are trying to blow us up from inside and outside," Lukashenko told lawmakers and his constituents. "We will stop at nothing to protect our countries, our state, and their peoples. "We will protect our sovereignty and independence by any means necessary, including through the nuclear arsenal."
"Don't say we will just be looking after them, and these are not our weapons," he added. "These are our weapons and they will contribute to ensuring sovereignty and independence."
Putin said Saturday that the short-range nuclear weapons he plans to station in Belarus will remain under Russian control.
Belarus relinquished its nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Lukashenko noted in his speech that Belarus gave up the weapons under pressure from former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Russia's announcement last week that it would deploy weapons in Belarus would mark the country's first stationing of nuclear weapons outside its border in more than three decades.
U.S. President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the pending deployment is "worrisome."
"Belarus hosting Russian nuclear weapons would mean an irresponsible escalation and threat to European security," said European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell this week. "Belarus can still stop it, it is their choice. The E.U. stands ready to respond with further sanctions."
Lukashenko and Putin have strengthened their cooperation since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with Belarus providing a staging ground for Russian troops.
The Belarusian leader's comments came amid ongoing attacks in Ukraine, with multiple rocket strikes in the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, the site of a nuclear power plant, on Friday. Lukashenko included in his speech a call for an immediate ceasefire "without preconditions," warning Ukraine that "it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power" and that Russia will use "the most terrible weapon" if it is threatened.
Thijs Reuten, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, denounced Lukashenko as Putin's "lapdog" and condemned his attempt to "blame the West."
"Truly troubling: Each of these steps brings Belarus closer to full-blown occupation," said Reuten. "The Belarusian people deserve so much better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Day Our Luck Will Run Out,' Warns IAEA Chief Over Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant
"What are we doing? How can we sit here in this room this morning and allow this to happen? This cannot go on," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Mariano Grossi said following a massive Russian attack on Ukraine.
Mar 09, 2023
The largest nuclear energy plant in Europe, located in southern Ukraine, lost all off-site power for the sixth time in a year as Russian forces carried out a massive missile attack on Thursday, once again raising fears of a nuclear catastrophe with continent-wide implications.
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, expressed dismay over the repeated near-misses at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and said he is "astonished by the complacency" in the face of such a threat.
"What are we doing? How can we sit here in this room this morning and allow this to happen? This cannot go on," Grossi said in a statement to the IAEA Board of Governors. "Each time we are rolling a dice. And if we allow this to continue time after time then one day our luck will run out. I call on everyone in this room today and elsewhere—we must commit to protect the safety and security of the plant. And we need to commit now."
Grossi noted that Thursday marked the first time since November that the nuclear plant has lost all off-site power, sparking the activation of emergency diesel generators. The IAEA chief said there is enough diesel at the facility to power it for just over two weeks.
A constant supply of power to the plant is necessary to prevent a nuclear meltdown.
"This is the sixth time—let me say it again, this is the sixth time—that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has lost all off-site power and has had to operate in this emergency mode," Grossi said. "Let me remind you—this is the largest nuclear power station in Europe."
Rafael Mariano Grossi
Russian forces currently control the nuclear facility, which IAEA inspectors visited in September following months of grave safety concerns.
In the wake of the trip, the United Nations agency issued a report warning that "any further escalation affecting the six-reactor plant could lead to a severe nuclear accident with potentially grave radiological consequences for human health and the environment in Ukraine and elsewhere."
Last March, Greenpeace released an analysis similarly cautioning that a Zaporizhzhia disaster could "render vast areas of the European continent, including Russia, uninhabitable for decades."
Energoatom, Ukraine's state nuclear energy operator, told the Associated Press on Thursday that the power supply to Zaporizhzhia can be restored "within a day or two" and that emergency fixes to a disconnected power line are underway.
Energoatom has accused the Russian forces occupying the plant of compromising its physical integrity. Citing the nuclear energy firm, The New York Times reported earlier this week that "Russian soldiers have recently set up machine guns on the grounds of the plant, placed military equipment in engine rooms, covered windows with sandbags, and even carried out indoor welding work that has set off fire alarms."
"Those actions come on top of damage from shelling last summer, including to an area where spent nuclear fuel is stored; disruptions to the plant's management in power struggles with Russian occupiers; and the shutdown of the complex's six reactors," the Times noted.
During Thursday's barrage, Russia reportedly launched more than 80 missiles in the direction of Ukrainian cities—dozens of which were intercepted, according to Ukrainian officials.
AP reported that "the Russian Defense Ministry said the strikes were in retaliation for a recent incursion into the Bryansk region of western Russia by what Moscow claimed were Ukrainian saboteurs. Ukraine denied the claim and warned that Moscow could use the allegations to justify stepping up its own assaults."
The bombardment came as the prospect of a diplomatic resolution to the war in the near future appeared virtually nonexistent after more than a year of deadly fighting, with Russia continuing its assault on Ukraine while western governments—principally the United States—continue to pump weapons into the war zone.
"Let there be no doubt: Putin should immediately stop this insanity in Ukraine," The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill wrote in a column last week. "This is a gruesome and murderous campaign he's engaged in, and the death toll is shocking. The Biden administration should do what we are constantly told is untenable, unrealistic, or characterized as appeasement: make a negotiated end to the war the top priority."
"It's a reasonable position for people watching this bloodbath to want to do everything possible to help Ukrainians defend themselves, and supporting weapons transfers to Ukraine does not make you a pawn of the U.S. imperial state," Scahill continued. "But the argument over whether the U.S. and NATO should be giving military aid is a trap because it's presented as a binary choice. What has our government done to seek alternative paths? Has it exhausted all diplomatic efforts?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nuclear Power Plants as Dangerous Tool of War
While a nuclear tit-for-tat between Russia and NATO — an exchange that could easily destroy much of Eastern Europe in no time at all — is a genuine, if frightening, prospect, it isn’t the most imminent radioactive peril facing the region.
Mar 01, 2023
In 1946, Albert Einstein shot off a telegram to several hundred American leaders and politicians warning that the “unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Einstein’s forecast remains prescient. Nuclear calamity still knocks.
Even prior to Vladimir Putin’s bloody invasion of Ukraine, the threat of a nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia was intensifying. After all, in August 2019, President Donald Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, long heralded as a pillar of arms control between the two superpowers.
“Russia is solely responsible for the treaty’s demise,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo following the announcement. “With the full support of our NATO allies, the United States has determined Russia to be in material breach of the treaty and has subsequently suspended our obligations under the treaty.” No evidence of that breach was offered, but in Trump World, no evidence was needed.
Then, on February 21st of this year, following the Biden administration’s claims that Russia was no longer abiding by its obligations under the New START treaty, the last remaining nuclear arms accord between the two nations, Putin announced that he would end his country’s participation.
In the year since Russia’s initial assault on Ukraine, the danger of nuclear war has only inched ever closer. While President Biden’s White House raised doubts that Putin would indeed use any of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ominously reset its Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest since its creation in 1947. Those scientific experts weren’t buying what the Biden administration was selling.
In the year since Russia’s initial assault on Ukraine, the danger of nuclear war has only inched ever closer.
“As Russia’s war on Ukraine continues, the last remaining nuclear weapons treaty between Russia and the United States… stands in jeopardy,” read a January 2023 press release from the Bulletin before Putin backed out of the agreement. “Unless the two parties resume negotiations and find a basis for further reductions, the treaty will expire in February 2026. This would eliminate mutual inspections, deepen mistrust, spur a nuclear arms race, and heighten the possibility of a nuclear exchange.”
Of course, they were correct and, in mid-February, the Norwegian government claimed Russia had already deployed ships armed with tactical nukes in the Baltic Sea for the first time in more than 30 years. “Tactical nuclear weapons are a particularly serious threat in several operational scenarios in which NATO countries may be involved,” claimed the report. “The ongoing tensions between Russia and the West mean that Russia will continue to pose the greatest nuclear threat to NATO, and therefore to Norway.”
For its part, in October 2022, NATO ran its own nuclear bombing drills, designated “Steadfast Noon,” with fighter jets in Europe’s skies involved in “war games” (minus live weaponry). “It’s an exercise to ensure that our nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective,” claimed NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, but it almost seemed as if NATO was taunting Putin to cross the line.
And yet, here’s the true horror story lurking behind the war in Ukraine. While a nuclear tit-for-tat between Russia and NATO — an exchange that could easily destroy much of Eastern Europe in no time at all — is a genuine, if frightening, prospect, it isn’t the most imminent radioactive peril facing the region.
Averting a Meltdown
By now, we all ought to be familiar with the worrisome Zaporizhzhia nuclear complex (ZNPP), which sits right in the middle of the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Assembled between 1980 and 1986, Zaporizhzhia is Europe’s largest nuclear-power complex, with six 950-megawatt reactors. In February and March of last year, after a series of fierce battles, which caused a fire to break out at a nearby training facility, the Russians hijacked the embattled plant. Representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were later sent in to ensure that the reactors weren’t at immediate risk of meltdown and issued a report stating, in part, that:
“…further escalation affecting the six-reactor plant could lead to a severe nuclear accident with potentially grave radiological consequences for human health and the environment in Ukraine and elsewhere and that renewed shelling at or near the ZNPP was deeply troubling for nuclear safety and security at the facility.”
Since then, the fighting has only intensified. Russia kidnapped some of the plant’s Ukrainian employees, including its deputy director Valery Martynyuk. In September 2022, due to ongoing shelling in the area, Zaporizhzhia was taken offline and, after losing external power on several occasions, has since been sporadically relying on old diesel backup generators. (Once disconnected from the electrical grid, backup power is crucial to ensure the plant’s reactors don’t overheat, which could lead to a full-blown radioactive meltdown.)
However, relying on risk-prone backup power is a fool’s game, according to electrical engineer Josh Karpoff. A member of Science for the People who previously worked for the New York State Office of General Services where he designed electrical systems for buildings, including large standby generators, Karpoff knows how these things work in a real-world setting. He assures me that, although Zaporizhzhia is no longer getting much attention in the general rush of Ukraine news, the possibility of a major disaster there is ever more real. A backup generator, he explains, is about as reliable as a ’75 Winnebago.
“It’s really not that hard to knock out these kinds of diesel generators,” Karpoff adds. “If your standby generator starts up but says there’s a leak in a high-pressure oil line fitting, it sprays heated, aerosolized oil all over the hot motor, starting a fire. This happens to diesel motors all the time. A similar diesel engine fire in a locomotive was partly responsible for causing the Lac Megantic Rail Disaster in Quebec back in 2013.”
Sadly enough, Karpoff is on target. Just remember how the backup generators failed at the three nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. Many people believe that the 9.0 magnitude underwater earthquake caused them to melt down, but that’s not exactly the case.
It was, in fact, a horrific chain of worsening events. While the earthquake itself didn’t damage Fukushima’s reactors, it cut the facility off from the power grid, automatically switching the plant to backup generators. So even though the fission reaction had stopped, heat was still being produced by the radioactive material inside the reactor cores. A continual water supply, relying on backup power, was needed to keep those cores from melting down. Then, 30 minutes after that huge quake, a tsunami struck, knocking out the plant’s seawater pumps, which subsequently caused the generators to go down.
“The myth of the tsunami is that the tsunami destroyed the [generators] and had that not happened, everything would have been fine,” former nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “What really happened is that the tsunami destroyed the [sea] pumps right along the ocean… Without that water, the [diesel generators] will overheat, and without that water, it’s impossible to cool a nuclear core.”
With the sea pumps out of commission, 12 of the plant’s 13 generators ended up failing. Unable to cool, the reactors began to melt, leading to three hydrogen explosions that released radioactive material, carried disastrously across the region and out to sea by prevailing winds, where much of it will continue to float around and accumulate for decades.
At Zaporizhzhia, there are several scenarios that could lead to a similar failure of the standby generators. They could be directly shelled and catch fire or clog up or just run out of fuel. It’s a dicey situation, as the ongoing war edges Ukraine and the surrounding countries toward the brink of a catastrophic nuclear crisis.
“I don’t know for how long we are going to be lucky in avoiding a nuclear accident,” said Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA in late January, calling it a “bizarre situation: a Ukrainian facility in Russian-controlled territory, managed by Russians, but operated by Ukrainians.”
Bad Things Will Follow
Unfortunately, it’s not just Zaporizhzhia we have to worry about. Though not much attention has been given to them, there are, in fact, 14 other nuclear power plants in the war zone and Russia has also seized the ruined Chernobyl plant, where there is still significant hot radioactive waste that must be kept cool.
Kate Brown, author of Plutopia, told Science for the People last April:
“Russians are apparently using these two captured nuclear installations like kings on a chessboard. They hold Chernobyl and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power reactor plants, and they are stockpiling weapons and soldiers there as safe havens. This is a new military tactic we haven’t seen before, where you use the vulnerability of these installations, as a defensive tactic. The Russians apparently figured that the Ukrainians wouldn’t shoot. The Russians noticed that when they came to the Chernobyl zone, the Ukrainian guard of the Chernobyl plant stood down because they didn’t want missiles fired at these vulnerable installations. There are twenty thousand spent nuclear fuel rods, more than half of them in basins at that plant. It’s a precarious situation. This is a new scenario for us.”
Of course, the hazards facing Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl would be mitigated if Putin removed his forces tomorrow, but there’s little possibility of that happening. It’s worth noting as well that Ukraine is not the only place where, in the future, such a scenario could play out. Taiwan, at the center of a potential military conflict between the U.S. and China, has several nuclear power plants. Iran operates a nuclear facility. Pakistan has six reactors at two different sites. Saudi Arabia is building a new facility. The list only goes on and on.
Even more regrettably, Russia has raised the nuclear stakes in a new way, setting a distressing precedent with its illegal occupation of Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl, turning them into tools of war. No other power-generating source operating in a war zone, even the worst of the fossil-fuel users, poses such a potentially serious and immediate threat to life as we know it on this planet.
And while hitting those Ukrainian reactors themselves is one recipe for utter disaster, there are other potentially horrific “peaceful” nuclear possibilities as well. What about a deliberate attack on nuclear-waste facilities or those unstable backup generators? You wouldn’t even have to strike the reactors directly to cause a disaster. Simply take out the power-grid supply lines, hit the generators, and terrible things will follow. With nuclear power, even the purportedly “peaceful” type, the potential for catastrophe is obvious.
The Greatest of Evils
In my new book Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America, I probe the horrors of the Hanford site in Washington state, one of the locations chosen to develop the first nuclear weapons for the covert Manhattan Project during World War II. For more than 40 years, that facility churned out most of the plutonium used in the vast American arsenal of atomic weapons.
Now, however, Hanford is a radioactive wasteland, as well as the largest and most expensive environmental clean-up project in history. To say that it’s a boondoggle would be an understatement. Hanford has 177 underground tanks loaded with 56 million gallons of steaming radioactive gunk. Two of those tanks are currently leaking, their waste making its way toward groundwater supplies that could eventually reach the Columbia River. High-level whistleblowers I interviewed who worked at Hanford told me they feared that a hydrogen build-up in one of those tanks, if ignited, could lead to a Chernobyl-like event here in the United States, resulting in a tragedy unlike anything this country has ever experienced.
All of this makes me fear that those old Hanford tanks could someday be possible targets for an attack. Sabotage or a missile strike on them could cause a major release of radioactive material from coast to coast. The economy would crash. Major cities would become unlivable. And there’s precedent for this: in 1957, a massive explosion occurred at Mayak, Hanford’s Cold War sister facility in the then-Soviet Union that manufactured plutonium for nukes. Largely unknown, it was the second biggest peacetime radioactive disaster ever, only “bested” by the Chernobyl accident. In Mayak’s case, a faulty cooling system gave out and the waste in one of the facility’s tanks overheated, causing a radioactive blast equivalent to the force of 70 tons of TNT, contaminating 20,000 square miles. Countless people died and whole villages were forever vacated.
All of this is to say that nuclear waste, whether on a battlefield or not, is an inherently nasty business. Nuclear facilities around the world, containing less waste than the underground silos at Hanford, have already shown us their vulnerabilities. Last August, in fact, the Russians reported that containers housing spent fuel waste at Zaporizhzhia were shelled by Ukrainian forces. “One of the guided shells hit the ground ten meters from them (containers with nuclear waste…). Others fell down slightly further — 50 and 200 meters,” alleged Vladimir Rogov, a Russian-appointed official there. “As the storage area is open, a shell or a rocket may unseal containers and kilograms, or even hundreds of kilograms of nuclear waste will be emitted into the environment and contaminate it. To put it simply, it will be a ‘dirty bomb.’”
Ukraine, in turn, blamed Russia for the strike, but regardless of which side was at fault, after Chernobyl (which some researchers believe affected upwards of 1.8 million people) both the Ukrainians and the Russians understand the grave risks of atomically-charged explosions. This is undoubtedly why the Russians are apparently constructing protective coverings over Zaporizhzhia’s waste storage tanks. An incident at the plant releasing radioactive particles would damage not just Ukraine but Russia, too.
As former New York Times correspondent Chris Hedges so aptly put it, war is the greatest of evils and such evils rise exponentially with the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse. Worse yet, a radioactive Armageddon doesn’t have to come from the actual detonation of nuclear bombs. It can take many forms. The atom, as Einstein warned us, has certainly changed everything.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Staff at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant in War-Torn Ukraine Awarded for Heroism
"We must continue to do everything we can to avert the danger of a serious nuclear accident," said the IAEA chief, who plans to visit Ukraine next week for talks to establish a safety zone around the Russian-occupied facility.
Jan 13, 2023
A U.S.-based group on Friday recognized the "heroic" Ukrainian staff at a Russian-controlled nuclear power plant, highlighting concerns about the facility nearly 11 months into Russia's invasion.
The Arms Control Association (ACA) hosts an annual online contest celebrating efforts to "advance disarmament, nuclear security, nonproliferation, civilian protection, and international peace, security, and justice."
"Russia's illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation."
After thousands of votes were cast from nearly 80 countries, the Energoatom workers at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) were selected as the 2022 Arms Control Persons of the Year.
ZNPP is one of four nuclear energy facilities in Ukraine, also home to the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Ukrainian workers remain at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia plant despite the Russian military's takeover and shelling that the countries have blamed on each other.
"Russia's illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation," said Kelsey Davenport, ACA's director for nonproliferation policy, in a statement. "In the face of harassment and threats by Russian forces, Ukrainian personnel have continued to operate the plant and avert a nuclear crisis."
"The international community owes a debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of the Zaporizhzhia personnel, but this dire situation cannot continue," Davenport stressed. "The ongoing safety and security risks underscore the critical importance of establishing a zone of protection at the site, returning control of Zaporizhzhia to Ukraine, and strengthening the norm against targeting civilian nuclear infrastructure."
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), plans to travel to Ukraine next week to discuss a proposed nuclear safety and security protection zone around ZNPP with Ukrainian government officials in Kyiv.
"I remain determined to make the much-needed protection zone a reality as soon as possible," Grossi said in a statement Friday. "My consultations with Ukraine and Russia are making progress, albeit not as fast as they should. I remain hopeful that we will be able to agree and implement the zone soon."
Since the IAEA Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) was established in September, five groups of agency experts have spent time at the facility, with the latest team arriving this week.
As the IAEA detailed:
The ISAMZ team reports that the ZNPP's last remaining 330 kilovolt (kV) backup power line is now connected to the plant, after suffering some further disconnections in the last week, highlighting the continued fragile off-site power supply situation for Europe's largest NPP. The ZNPP's six reactors are in shutdown but still need electricity for reactor cooling and other essential nuclear safety and security functions. The ZNPP receives off-site power also from its last remaining operational 750 kV external power line. In case of loss of external power, all the site's 20 diesel backup generators are ready to supply the site with the electricity needed for all safety related equipment. In addition, nine mobile diesel-fueled boilers are now operating to help prevent critical ZNPP systems from freezing during the winter and provide heating for ZNPP personnel. The situation at the ZNPP remains precarious.
The agency also noted that ZNPP staff are under pressure to accept new labor contracts with the Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, which the national Ukrainian operator Energoatom has discouraged.
"The reduced ZNPP staffing levels combined with psychological stress due to the ongoing military conflict and the absence of family members who fled the area have created an unprecedented situation that no NPP staff should have to endure," said Grossi.
"As this tragic war enters its second year, we must continue to do everything we can to avert the danger of a serious nuclear accident that would cause even more suffering and destruction for the people of Ukraine and beyond," he emphasized.
In addition to meeting with officials in the Ukrainian capital, Grossi plans to visit the South Ukraine and Rivne nuclear plants as well as to the Chernobyl site to launch the missions of two experts at each facility. The IAEA also intends to soon station a two-member team at the Khmelnitsky plant. The missions were requested by the Ukrainian government, according to the global agency.
"Soon the IAEA will be permanently present at all of Ukraine's nuclear pwer facilities, including Chernobyl," Grossi said. "This is an important step in our work to help Ukraine during these immensely difficult and challenging times. Our nuclear safety and security experts will monitor the situation at the plants, assess their equipment and other needs, provide technical support and advice, and report their findings to IAEA headquarters."
Discussing his Ukraine trip on an Italian television channel earlier this week, Grossi said: "After that, there is hope to get to Moscow. The plant is Ukrainian but under Russian control, and it is a reality. And I have to work with both sides."
"Our duty is to secure the plant. The establishment of a permanent group [of IAEA observers] is the first concrete and tangible result of our efforts, but we cannot stop; the main thing is to protect the plant's safety," he continued, stressing the need for a deal to establish a zone around ZNPP.
"This agreement is not impossible," he said, "because a nuclear accident is not in the interests of anyone, not even the Russians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy