Zaporizhzhia Dangers

The dangers are real but not imminent

This week, we have escalating warnings of attacks or sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. While the risks are very real, they are reduced from earlier in Putin’s war. Any accident or sabotage would be very serious, but likely far less than the accidents at Chernobyl or even Fukushima.

Cheryl Rofer, a former scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. has an excellent post up today explaining why the Zaporizhzhia plant is different than those previous two massive nuclear disasters.

I discussed these threats with CNN International anchor Isa Soares today.

Fears are rising because the Ukrainians say that Russia has placed what looks like explosives on the top of at least two of the reactors at the plant. The IAEA says that they have not seen such explosives but that they need immediate access to the roofs to confirm for certain. Ominously, the IAEA says that the agency “has been aware of a previous placement of mines outside the plant perimeter, which the Agency has reported about earlier, and also at particular places inside.” So, the Ukrainian claims are credible.

The fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyre Zelensky is making the statement himself indicates the Ukrainians believe the threat is serious. He said:

Now we have information from our intelligence that the Russian military has placed objects resembling explosives on the roof of several power units of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Perhaps to simulate an attack on the plant. Perhaps they have some other scenario. But in any case, the world sees – can't but see – that the only source of danger to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is Russia and no one else.

Unfortunately, there was no timely and large-scale response to the terrorist attack on the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant. And this may incite the Kremlin to commit new evil. It is the responsibility of everyone in the world to stop it, no one can stand aside, as radiation affects everyone.

Meanwhile, the Russians claim that tonight, July 5, the Ukrainians will attack the plant and blame the Russians. This is almost certainly a lie, as the Ukrainians have zero interests in blowing up their own nuclear plant (occupied by the Russians since the early days of the Russian invasion). Any accident at the plant would harm Ukrainians and certainly complicate their ongoing counter invasion aimed at expelling the invading army. The explosives on the reactor roofs may be to simulate a Ukrainian rocket attack, making it look as if Ukraine damaged the reactor when the real damage would be done by Russian explosive on top of or inside the reactors.

For the Russians, this fits into the pattern of nuclear threats that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues and media allies have made constantly since Putin launched his unprovoked invasion last February. Most have involved threats to use nuclear weapons. Just this Sunday, for example, former President Dmitry Medvedev warned that a nuclear "apocalypse" involving Russia and Western nations is not just possible, but also "quite probable."

Threats of a nuclear disaster at the power plant fit into this same pattern. The goal is to frighten the West into ending support for Ukraine. American politicians such as Rep. Marjorie Tayler Green and Robert Kennedy, Jr. amplify this propaganda, urging an end to aid and an immediate ceasefire on the grounds that nothing is worth the risk of nuclear war.

But would the Russians actually do it? Yes. I told CNN that if the Russians are willing to commit war crimes like blowing up the Karkhovka dam, they are likely willing to blow up a nuclear power plant.

But probably not right now. The Russian have the means and the opportunity to destroy the plant, or parts of it, but not the motive. Not yet. They occupy the plant. The Ukrainians have not yet breached the Russian lines. Why destroy the plant while they still occupy it? But when the Ukrainians do breach the Russian front lines, as they likely will, then Russian motives change. Then, they could blow the plant to block Ukrainian forces while they retreat.

How bad could it be? While many say that this could be as bad as the Chernobyl disaster, that is highly unlikely. As Rofer explains in her post, the Chernobyl reactor was a completely different design, with a huge load of fuel and without any containment structure. Moreover, five of the six Zaporizhzhia reactors have been in cold shutdown for months. This means the rods have cooled, are emitting less radioactivity and, of course, are surrounded by many feet of concrete containment domes. Even if breached, the gas released is likely to be a local disaster in the area around the plant.

One reactor is in “hot shutdown” still creating steam used to provide power to the plant. Damage to this reactor would release considerably more radioactive gas, but not an actual nuclear explosion, like that from a nuclear weapon.

The greater danger may come from the thousands of spent fuel rods kept in swimming-pool-like cooling ponds at the site. It would be much easier to destroy the pools or simply cut off the cooling water. Then, those rods would heat up, releasing hydrogen gas and steam that would led to an explosion venting radioactive gas tens, hundreds or even thousands of kilometers.

Rofer says that even this would be less than the Fukushima disaster and more like the scale of Three Mile Island, but that may be underestimating the risk.

What can be done? IAEA Director Grossi has the right solution. He has been begging Russia for months to declare a no-conflict zone around the plant, to withdraw all the explosives they have stationed at the plant, and to pull out the military equipment they have positioned there. The Russians have refused.

This is likely why Zelensky has issued his warning now. He wants to bring pressure on the Russians to end the threat. The US and NATO and all interested countries should follow his and Grossi’s lead, make the same demands upon Russia and declare that any sabotage of a nuclear power plant would be treated the same as the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

Only if Putin fears a strong, united, global reaction will he retreat from his nuclear threats.