Nuclear Power Plant Security Assessment: Ukraine War

Zaporizhzhia NPP Occupation

• Russian forces captured the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant on 4 March 2022, during the initial southern advance from Crimea; the seizure followed a firefight that caused a storage building fire at the plant, briefly triggering international alarm about a possible reactor fire — an alarm that proved to be groundless but demonstrated the extreme danger of military operations near nuclear facilities
• IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has personally visited the plant multiple times and established a permanent IAEA monitoring presence at ZNPP since September 2022; the IAEA monitoring mission documents adherence to the seven 'indispensable pillars' of nuclear safety including physical integrity of reactors, power supply for cooling systems, maintenance of safety systems, regular testing of emergency procedures, and protection of staff
• Physical integrity threats: shelling near the plant — attributed by each side to the other — has damaged cooling system ponds, external power lines, and administrative buildings on multiple occasions; the IAEA has documented 12+ occasions of missile or drone damage at or near the plant between 2022 and 2026; each incident has raised the risk of triggering an automatic safety shutdown or damaging cooling infrastructure that, if unrepaired, could lead to spent fuel pool overheating
• Cold shutdown status: all six ZNPP reactors have been in cold shutdown since September 2022, significantly reducing the immediate radiological risk — a cold shutdown reactor requires far less cooling than an operating reactor; however, spent fuel stored in spent fuel pools continues to require active cooling indefinitely, and the pools depend on external power, pumps, and piping that remain vulnerable to damage

Other Ukrainian Nuclear Plants

• Rivne NPP (Kuznetsovsk, Volyn oblast) — 4 VVER reactors, 2.8 GWe capacity: operated by Energoatom throughout the war; experienced multiple grid disconnection events as Russian attacks on the national electricity grid caused external power fluctuations that triggered emergency protocols; each disconnection event requires emergency diesel generator activation and is classified as a nuclear safety 'event'; Rivne's geographic location in western Ukraine (closer to NATO borders, farther from Russian forces) has given it somewhat greater physical security advantage
• Khmelnytskyi NPP — 2 VVER reactors, 1.9 GWe capacity; like Rivne, has experienced grid events through the war but remained under Ukrainian control and IAEA-monitored; received international attention in 2024 when Ukraine's government sought Western approval for expanding the plant to add additional reactor units as part of energy security planning
• South Ukraine NPP (Mykolaiv oblast) — 3 VVER reactors, 2.85 GWe: located near the Kherson front, this plant has been the second most directly at-risk facility after ZNPP; Russian missile and drone attacks have periodically disrupted grid connections and tested the plant's emergency power systems; its proximity to the front and the importance of Mykolaiv as a supply route have made it a target of concern in Ukrainian air defence planning
• Chornobyl exclusion zone: the abandoned Chornobyl site was occupied by Russian forces from 24 February to 31 March 2022; Russian troops dug trenches in the highly contaminated 'Red Forest,' exposing themselves to radiation; the site's radioactive waste storage and spent fuel cooling systems were briefly under Russian control before orderly withdrawal; IAEA assessment after liberation found no major safety breaches, though radiation monitoring equipment was damaged or stolen

Risk Scenarios and Probability Assessment

• Cooling system failure at ZNPP: the most serious credible near-term risk is loss of cooling to spent fuel pools or reactor components; the IAEA has documented that ZNPP has been operating on a single remaining external power line for extended periods, with any damage to that line requiring immediate diesel generator activation; sustained diesel generator operation is limited by fuel supply logistics that Russian forces control; IAEA assessment categorises this risk as low-probability but non-negligible and improving only when the plant is reconnected to reliable external power
• Intentional radiological release: scenario analysis has been conducted by nuclear security experts on the possibility of deliberate Russian use of the controlled ZNPP as a radiological weapon — releasing radioactive material to contaminate Ukrainian territory; the consensus expert assessment is that this scenario is both technically difficult to execute without significant radiological risk to Russian personnel at the plant, and strategically counterproductive for Russian objectives (contamination would primarily affect Russian-occupied and Russian-adjacent territory given prevailing wind patterns); the scenario is assessed as low probability
• Missile/drone strike accident: an accidental (non-deliberate) strike on reactor containment by Russian or Ukrainian forces due to navigation error, sensor malfunction, or information failure represents a non-negligible risk; nuclear hardening of reactor containment was designed to withstand aircraft impact but not all categories of military munition; deliberate avoidance of the ZNPP exclusion zone by both sides has been observed in most documented cases but not in all

IAEA Response and International Engagement

• The IAEA established a framework of five principles for nuclear safety during armed conflict following the ZNPP occupation, explicitly stating that attacks on nuclear facilities or use of such facilities as military platforms violate international nuclear safety norms; these principles, while non-binding, represent an international normative framework that has informed diplomatic pressure on Russia
• Director General Grossi's personal mediating role — travelling to Moscow and Kyiv to negotiate safety protocols, seeking Russian and Ukrainian commitments to avoid military action near the plant, and lobbying for establishment of a protection zone — has kept the nuclear safety issue in diplomatic attention and prevented individual incidents from escalating into full crises
• The limitations of IAEA monitoring: the IAEA's permanent mission at ZNPP operates with significant constraints — Russian military and administrative control of the plant limits IAEA observers' movement, access to certain areas, and communications freedom; IAEA reports have consistently noted that monitoring under these conditions is partial and that some categories of information that would be available in normal IAEA safeguards inspections cannot be confirmed

Overall Assessment

• Three years after the seizure of ZNPP, the most alarming radiological scenario — major reactor accident comparable to Fukushima in impact — has not materialised; the combination of cold shutdown status, functional IAEA monitoring, both sides' apparent shared interest in avoiding a nuclear incident, and the physical robustness of the plant's safety systems has maintained a higher level of nuclear safety than many experts assessed as likely in the first months of occupation
• The accumulated risk from repeated grid events, physical damage, Russian control of maintenance decisions, and the difficulty of maintaining aging plant infrastructure under occupied conditions represents a slowly increasing risk that may not remain manageable indefinitely; the IAEA has consistently called for restoration of Ukrainian control or establishment of a protection zone as the necessary conditions for confident long-term nuclear safety
• The nuclear safety situation at ZNPP represents a hostage-taking dimension of the war: Russia's continued occupation of the plant gives it leverage over Ukrainian energy security and creates ongoing international concern that constrains some categories of Ukrainian military action near the plant; this leverage has been a deliberate dimension of Russian strategy, making the plant both a nuclear safety risk and a geopolitical instrument

Frequently Asked Questions