in ,

Analysis of nuclear threats in Ukraine – the only solution is an immediate end to the war | Greenpeace int.

AMSTERDAM - Vladimir Putin's military invasion of Ukraine poses an unprecedented nuclear threat as the country's 15 commercial nuclear reactors, including Europe's largest nuclear power plant, face potentially catastrophic damage that renders much of the European continent, including Russia, uninhabitable could show for decades, new analyzes.[1]

At the Zaporizhzhia plant, which produced 2020% of Ukraine's electricity in 19 and is within kilometers of Russian troops and military equipment,[2] there are six large reactors and six cooling pools containing hundreds of tons of highly radioactive nuclear fuel. Three reactors are currently operational and three have been shut down since the beginning of the war.

The research gathered by specialists for Greenpeace International comes to the conclusion that the security of Zaporizhia is seriously endangered by the war. In a worst-case scenario, where explosions destroy the reactor containment and cooling systems, the potential release of radioactivity from both the reactor core and the spent fuel pool into the atmosphere could cause a disaster far worse than the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011. with tracts of land hundreds of kilometers from the reactor site potentially becoming inhospitable for decades. Even without direct damage to the facility, the reactors rely heavily on the power grid to operate cooling systems, the availability of nuclear engineers and personnel, and access to heavy equipment and logistics.

Jan Vande Putte, co-author of the risk analysis,[3] said:

“Adding to the horrifying events of the past week is a unique nuclear threat. For the first time in history, a major war is being fought in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. The war in southern Ukraine over Zaporizhia increases the risk of a serious accident for all of them. As long as this war continues, the military threat to Ukraine's nuclear power plants will remain. This is one of the many reasons why Putin must end his war against Ukraine immediately.”

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Greenpeace International has been closely monitoring the impact on nuclear facilities across the country. Greenpeace International today published a technical analysis of some of the key risks at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine.

In the event of an accidental bombing, and even more so in the case of a premeditated attack, the consequences could be catastrophic, far beyond the impact of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Because of the vulnerability of nuclear power plants, their reliance on a complex set of support systems, and the long time it takes to upgrade the power plant to a more passive level of safety, the only way to substantially reduce the risks is to end the war.

Greenpeace would like to express its deep respect and appreciation to all workers at the nuclear power plant sites in Ukraine, including Chernobyl, who work under extreme conditions to maintain the stability of the nuclear power plants.[4] They protect not only the security of their own country, but of a large part of Europe.

The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held an emergency meeting on Wednesday, March 2, to discuss Ukraine's nuclear crisis.[5]

Notes:

[1]. "The Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants During a Military Conflict Lessons from Fukushima Daiichi Focus on Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine", Jan Vande Putte (Radiation Advisor and Nuclear Activist, Greenpeace East Asia & Greenpeace Belgium) and Shaun Burnie (Senior Nuclear Specialist, Greenpeace East Asia) https://www.greenpeace.org/international/nuclear-power-plant-vulnerability-during-military-conflict-ukraine-technical-briefing/ – The main results listed below.

[2] Local reports on March 2 indicated that thousands of civilians in Enerhodar, the host city of the Zaporizhia reactors, tried to block the advance of Russian troops to the nuclear power plant.
Video from the mayor of the city: https://twitter.com/ignis_fatum/status/1498939204948144128?s=21
[3] Jan Vande Putte is radiation protection adviser and nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Belgium

[4] Chernobyl is the Ukrainian spelling of Chernobyl

[5] The IAEA was informed by the Russian government on March 1, 2022 that Russian military forces have taken control of the area around the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant - https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-6-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

The key findings of the Greenpeace analysis are:

  • Like all reactors with hot, highly radioactive fuel, the Zaporizhzhia power plant requires constant electrical power for cooling, even when it is switched off. If the power grid fails and the reactor fails in a station, there are backup diesel generators and batteries, but their reliability cannot be guaranteed over a long period of time. There are unresolved issues with Zaporizhzhia's backup diesel generators, which have an estimated fuel reserve for just seven days on site.
  • Official data from 2017 reported that there was 2.204 tons of high-level spent fuel in Zaporizhia - 855 tons of which were in high-risk spent fuel pools. Without active cooling, they risk overheating and vaporization to the point where the fuel metal cladding could ignite and release most of the radioactive inventory.
  • Zaporizhzhia, like all operating nuclear power plants, requires a complex support system, including the constant presence of qualified personnel, electricity, access to cooling water, spare parts and equipment. Such support systems are severely compromised during a war.
  • The Zaporizhia nuclear reactor buildings have a concrete container that protects both the reactor core, its cooling system and the spent fuel pool. However, such containment cannot withstand the impact of heavy ammunition. The plant could be accidentally hit. It seems unlikely that the facility will be intentionally attacked, as the nuclear release could severely contaminate neighboring countries, including Russia. Nevertheless, this cannot be completely ruled out.
  • In the worst case, the reactor containment would be destroyed by explosions and the cooling system would fail, the radioactivity from both the reactor and the storage pool could then escape unhindered into the atmosphere. This risks rendering the entire facility inaccessible due to high radiation levels, which could then lead to a further cascade of the other reactors and fuel pools, each dispersing large amounts of radioactivity in different wind directions over several weeks. It could render much of Europe, including Russia, uninhabitable for at least many decades and over hundreds of kilometers away, a nightmare scenario and potentially far worse than the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
  • It takes a long time to bring an operating power plant to a state of passive safety that does not require further human intervention. When a reactor is shut down, the residual heat from the radioactivity decreases exponentially, but remains very hot and must be cooled for a period of 5 years before it can be loaded into concrete dry storage casks, which dissipate their heat by natural circulation of the air outside the container. Shutting down a reactor might gradually reduce risks over time, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Which
Photos: Greenpeace

Written by Option

Option is an idealistic, fully independent and global social media platform on sustainability and civil society, founded in 2014 by Helmut Melzer. Together we show positive alternatives in all areas and support meaningful innovations and forward-looking ideas - constructive-critical, optimistic, down to earth. The option community is dedicated exclusively to relevant news and documents the significant progress made by our society.

Leave a Comment