The programme for restarting the Zaporizhia NPP (ZNPP) has been developed in great detail, Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev told Rossiya 24 TV channel. The programme covers all risks and is being coordinated with the energy authorities, the Ministry of Energy, and a single operator, he noted.
Russia took control of the six-unit ZNPP in March 2022 and the following September a referendum was held in Zaporozhye region in which according to Russian officials of the Central Election Commission 93.11% (of 541,093 voters) favoured joining the Russian Federation on a turnout of 85.4%. On 5 October, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree formally transferring ZNPP to Russian jurisdiction under nuclear utility Rosenergoatom (part of Rosatom). A Russian Federal State Unitary Enterprise, JSC Zaporizhia NPP, was established by Rosenergoatom to operate the plant.
Likhachev added that there was a need to extend the licence of unit 1, which expires this year. “We need to make an appropriate decision together with [regulator] Rostechnadzor by December. We also need to resolve the issue of water supply,” he said. After the destruction of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, the water level in the Dnieper fell.
“There is still enough water for shut down units but further efforts must be made to ensure that working units are adequately supplied with water.” It will be necessary either to dig a well or to restore the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, he added. “Because of this the units will probably be launched one at a time, and not all at once.” He reiterated that this would of course first require an end to the military conflict.
More details were provided by Alexander Uvarov, a specialist in nuclear energy and head of the Atominfo Centre, in an interview with Mk.ru, in which he pointed out some of the difficulties of restarting the plant.
“ZNPP used to be under the control of the Ukrainian regulatory body – Gosatomregulirovanie Ukrainy and the Ukrainian operating organisation – NNEGC Energoatom,” said Uvarov. “Now the station is being transferred to Russian jurisdiction, to the Russian regulatory system. And we need to check whether Ukrainian requirements coincide with ours. And they were already slowly dispersing. This is the first thing. And, secondly, it is necessary to check the condition of all equipment at all power units. We cannot be sure that the Ukrainians did everything 100% correctly. Especially since their parent company was always unprofitable and they did not have enough money. Therefore, everything should be checked and rechecked. If something happens after the launch, we will be responsible.”
Uvarov explained that the units had a design service life of 30 years. “But the fact is that all of them in the 20th century were constructed with a huge margin or error, since there was no clear understanding of how this or that material or equipment would behave. In reality, it turned out that the Soviet units can operate for 60 years and, after a thorough analysis of their resources, even longer – maybe 80 or even 100 years. However, all the units should be inspected, as they were launched at different times. To do this, we will need a large complex of works including develop an ageing management programme for each piece of equipment. This is not a joke.”
He noted that Soviet-built units need to be modernised to meet current safety requirements for nuclear safety. “For example, on modern units there is a melt trap. This is a special basket under the reactor, to catch melted fuel in the event of a very serious accident. This was not the case for the Soviet units but there is a way to enable the molten fuel to drain down. This is not a trap in the literal sense of the word, but an analogue of a trap. Such things must be done.”
Uvarov said four of ZNPP’s six units use American fuel. “There’s a supply of fresh American fuel in the warehouse there. We don’t need it. It’s not our property. It was bought by Ukraine from Westinghouse and they are now very concerned about their intellectual property. There is nothing special about this fuel, but technically, they’re right. The simplest option in this case, when there is a truce or peace, or some window in the fighting, is to say: ‘Take it away.’ If this is Ukrainian property, then take this fuel to Ukraine.”
Even more of a problem is the American used fuel. “There is quite a lot of it. And here we see a contradiction. When the Americans sell fuel to a third country, they say what happens to the used fuel doesn’t concern them. However, according to our rules, we would have to send it for recycling in order to extract all sorts of valuable materials from it and return them to the fuel cycle. But we can’t do this, because the owners of the fuel won’t give us legal permission to do so. We do not need this used fuel. We have enough of our own.”
Therefore, Usarov says the most reasonable option is when the situation is calm, just load it into a container and send it to Ukraine. “Especially since they now have a centralised storage facility for used nuclear fuel in the Chernobyl zone. This issue, of course, will not be decided by nuclear scientists. This is a political issue. I suspect that Ukraine will oppose this decision. After all, while this used fuel is at the Zaporizhia NPP, it will be possible to constantly file all sorts of protests, and write various notes.”
He proposed another option. “In principle, we can buy this used fuel for recycling, if the Americans give the go-ahead. Or we can exchange it for something else. But all this requires political will. We will have to wait to see what the politicians agree on.”
