As interest in nuclear energy grows and military conflicts around the globe rise, the safety of nuclear power plants in armed conflicts should be a key consideration.

South Africa’s Koeberg is currently the only nuclear power plant (NPP) on the continent; however, nearly two dozen African countries are interested in developing nuclear energy. The primary public concern regarding NPPs is safety. This factor was sharply inserted in the public consciousness with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and subsequent occupation of two nuclear power facilities in the country: Chernobyl (no longer operational but still highly radioactive) and Zaporizhzhia NPP. As more countries express their interest in nuclear energy and with the number of military conflicts around the globe on the rise, the safety of NPPs in armed conflicts should become a key consideration.

Commitment to global security 

South Africa cannot afford to abstain when it comes to nuclear safety. By leading the international community in advocating for binding legislation that prohibits military attacks on nuclear power plants, the country can reinforce its commitment to global security, drawing from its strong history of promoting nuclear safety and disarmament. Prior to the full-scale invasion, Ukraine operated four nuclear power plants that provided up to 60% of the country’s electricity needs. Ukraine has a significant history marked by one of the largest and worst nuclear accidents: the well-known Chernobyl disaster of 1986. The accident caused a complete reactor meltdown, releasing radioactive materials into the environment. Winds carried dangerous radioactive particles to the northwest, where they settled on the ground and entered water sources. As a result, large areas were contaminated, not just in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia but also in North Africa, Japan, China and North America.

Approximately 207 500km² were affected, exposing nearly 8.4-million people to radiation and leading to the evacuation of hundreds of thousands. This disaster was a major tragedy and one of the largest environmental disasters of the 20th century, illustrating that nuclear accidents know no borders. Human error was central to the Chernobyl disaster, and 38 years later, the surrounding area remains contaminated. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone stretches across both Ukraine and Belarus with this border serving as a significant entry point for Russian military forces during their invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Russian troops occupied the entire contaminated area for 36 days, enduring heavy shelling and power outages that worsened the hazardous conditions. By 26 February 2022, monitoring services reported a 20-fold increase in radiation levels. Nearly three years later, the risk of a nuclear accident is higher than ever due to the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe and twice the size of Chernobyl. This situation exemplifies how a civilian nuclear facility can be weaponised, highlighting the inadequacies of international mechanisms to prevent such occurrences.

Risks of military occupation not addressed

While many countries rely on nuclear energy, the risks posed by military occupation are not sufficiently addressed globally. Resolving this unprecedented situation will shape future nuclear safety guidelines for Ukraine and beyond. Throughout the military occupation of the NPP, the IAEA has recorded more than 150 serious violations of operational standards, breaching established nuclear safety principles. While a catastrophe has yet to occur, it remains a tangible possibility, and the potential scale of such a disaster is difficult to comprehend.

The NPP currently faces several critical issues, including an unprecedented risk of blackouts due to targeted bombings of Ukrainian electrical infrastructure since October 2022. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023 has further lowered water levels in the reservoir supplying the plant. Cooling the reactors requires substantial water, which is increasingly challenging to secure following the dam’s destruction. Inadequate maintenance and repairs have increased operational risks, while the presence of weapons, explosives and military equipment complicates matters further. A lack of qualified personnel exacerbates safety concerns and torture of Ukrainian workers, as well as significant psychological pressure and physical violence against staff, have been documented. Additionally, this year marks the end of the six-year operating life of nuclear fuel at all six units, raising alarms about the risks associated with fuel assembly removal. Ukraine now lives like a ticking time bomb, with threats remaining alarmingly high.

Although the nuclear power plant is not currently operational – due to the threat of armed attack – and the reactors are cold most of the time, the potential for an accident still exists. This context raises concerns regarding the future of the plant. Russian authorities declared their intent to operationalise the plant but four power units rely on American fuel management systems from Westinghouse, which Russian experts cannot operate safely. The IAEA has implemented various measures to enhance nuclear safety following the invasion. Since September 2022, a permanent mission has monitored the condition of the Zaporizhzhia NPP, with IAEA representatives also present at other NPPs in Ukraine, providing daily and long-term reports. In March 2024, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine, emphasising the need for the plant to return to full Ukrainian control. While this document outlines the quickest path to ensuring nuclear safety, it represents only the initial phase. Further efforts are required to develop practical measures that not only stress compliance with nuclear safety standards but also compel all parties to implement them fully.

The UN passed a resolution condemning the Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia NPP, calling for the immediate withdrawal of military forces to ensure global nuclear safety. Several African countries supported this resolution, recognising the threat to international peace posed by the militarisation of a civilian nuclear site. Their support highlights Africa’s commitment to upholding international law and ensuring the safety of nuclear facilities worldwide, although South Africa abstained on the vote.

Binding legislation needed 

The African Union has identified nuclear technology as a potential avenue for socio-economic development on the continent. However, the risks posed by military conflicts, coupled with the shortcomings of existing international regulations, may compel the public to reconsider the safety of the nuclear industry globally. South African and Ukrainian experts from various institutions developed a policy brief in support of the African Peace Mission and Ukraine Peace Formula that addresses the safety of nuclear power stations. The recommendations were presented on the margins of the African Union Mid-Year Coordination Meeting taking place on 18-21 July in Accra.

The policy brief urges South Africa and the African Union to safeguard the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by ensuring the de-occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP and advocating for new binding international legislation that prohibits military attacks on nuclear installations by any state. African countries have a strong history of leadership in promoting regional security and nuclear safety. The Pelindaba Agreement, officially the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, in force since 2009, exemplifies this commitment by establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone across the continent. This treaty also has a clause prohibiting armed attacks on nuclear facilities. By adopting a proactive approach to disarmament, African leaders demonstrate their dedication to peace and stability while addressing concerns over nuclear proliferation. This collective initiative reinforces global non-proliferation norms and highlights Africa’s role as a responsible actor in international security. Similar to South Africa, in 1994, Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal – the third largest in the world at the time – in exchange for security assurances from the USA, the UK and Russia. As members of the IAEA Board of Governors, South Africa and Ukraine have united voices and efforts crucial for developing effective nuclear safety tools and preventing similar threats in other countries. The stakes are high; threats from one plant can have devastating global consequences. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to act decisively, preventing disasters that could irreparably harm lives and the environment.

Research by Isabel Bosman, Olena Lapenko, Dzvinka Kachur

The views expressed in this publication/article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the South African Institute of International Affairs

This article was first published in News24