The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) at Enerhodar, in Russian-occupied Ukraine, is the largest nuclear power station in Europe, housing six Soviet-designed VVER-1000 pressurised light water reactors. It has become a major point of concern since Russia’s occupation of the area in 2022, given the inherent risks of military activity around a nuclear facility. The potential for disaster—whether from direct combat, poor maintenance, or deliberate sabotage—has raised alarms among international bodies, particularly the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Despite an initial agreement for IAEA oversight, concerns persist about the plant’s security, its role in military operations, and the feasibility of sustained international supervision.
A Brief History of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Facility
The Zaporizhzhia plant was constructed between 1980 and 1986, during the Soviet era, as part of Ukraine’s broader nuclear energy strategy. It remains one of Ukraine’s most important energy assets, before the second Russian invasion of Ukraine providing a significant portion of the country’s electricity needs. The facility consists of six VVER-1000 reactors, which, unlike the Chernobyl RBMK reactors, use pressurised water to cool the nuclear core, reducing the likelihood of a similar type of disaster.
Following Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the country inherited a vast nuclear infrastructure and placed it under civilian control, adhering to strict international safety protocols. Before 2022, the plant was regularly inspected and maintained according to international nuclear safety standards. However, the invasion and occupation by Russian forces have fundamentally altered the plant’s operational status and oversight.
Russian Occupation and Immediate Dangers
When Russia launched her full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, her forces rapidly advanced through southern Ukraine, occupying the territory south of the Dnipro River, including the city of Enerhodar, by early March. The occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant marked a dangerous escalation in the conflict. Fighting around the facility, including direct military engagements on its grounds, led to fears of a nuclear catastrophe.
Several incidents in 2022 raised international alarm:
• Russian forces reportedly stationed troops and heavy artillery within the facility, using it as a military stronghold.
• Shelling occurred in and around the plant, with both Russian and Ukrainian sides blaming each other for attacks.
• Ukrainian plant workers were reportedly forced to continue operations under duress, while Russian personnel, including Rosatom officials (the Russian state Atomic Energy Agency), began taking over management.
• Power supply to the plant was repeatedly cut, leading to reliance on backup generators—a critical risk, as prolonged power loss could lead to reactor overheating.
In response, the IAEA sought to secure access to the plant, negotiating an agreement with Russia that allowed for an inspection team to visit the site in September 2022. A small IAEA team was intended to remain permanently at Zaporizhzhia to monitor the situation, but their ability to oversee operations effectively has been questionable.
Current Status of the Zaporizhzhia Facility
Since 2022, the plant’s condition remains a subject of concern. The reactors have been largely shut down to avoid potential catastrophe, but the site’s integrity remains at risk due to military activity. Reports suggest that:
• Russian forces continue to use the facility for military storage, possibly including ammunition and artillery.
• Shelling has been conducted from within the plant’s perimeter toward Ukrainian-controlled Nikopol, across the Dnipro River.
• Ukrainian workers remain at the facility under Russian control, with reports of mistreatment and coercion.
• Russian personnel, including scientists and engineers, have been brought in to oversee operations, but their level of expertise in maintaining the site remains unclear.
The IAEA’s presence at Zaporizhzhia, which was meant to be permanent, has dwindled, with access seemingly restricted by Russian authorities. While the IAEA occasionally issues reports on the plant’s status, its capacity to enforce safety measures has been severely limited.
The Need for Renewed IAEA Oversight
Given the ongoing conflict and the strategic importance of the plant, there is a strong case for reestablishing robust international oversight of the Zaporizhzhia facility. Several key measures should be implemented as part of any armistice agreement:
1. A Reinforced IAEA Mission – A new agreement should ensure an expanded IAEA presence, including increased personnel and greater access to the facility. The IAEA should be able to monitor safety protocols, prevent the militarisation of the site, and ensure that plant operations remain secure.
2. Demilitarisation of the Facility – An armistice agreement should include a clause preventing military use of the plant. Neither Russian nor Ukrainian forces should be allowed within a designated exclusion zone surrounding the facility.
3. Independent Power and Supply Lines – The facility must have guaranteed access to off-site electricity to prevent reliance on unstable emergency generators. Any attacks on power infrastructure should be explicitly prohibited.
4. Legal and Political Guarantees – Russia and Ukraine should both agree, with international enforcement, that the plant will not be used as a tactical or strategic asset in any ongoing conflict. An internationally monitored buffer zone may be necessary to achieve this.
5. Safe and Fair Staffing – Ukrainian personnel must be allowed to operate the plant without coercion. An agreement should be reached regarding the employment of Ukrainian specialists, with international observers ensuring their safety.
Feasibility of an Agreement and Potential Challenges
While these measures are necessary, their implementation would require Russian cooperation, which may be difficult to obtain. The main obstacles include:
• Russia’s Control Over the Region – Moscow sees the Zaporizhzhia plant as a critical asset. It is unlikely to relinquish control easily without significant diplomatic or military pressure.
• Ukraine’s Stance – Kyiv demands the return of all occupied territories, including Enerhodar, which complicates negotiations for an international oversight arrangement.
• Security Risks – Even with an IAEA presence, there is no guarantee that fighting will not resume, threatening the plant’s security.
• Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms – The IAEA lacks the ability to enforce agreements militarily, meaning compliance would depend on broader diplomatic pressure and potential economic incentives for Russia.
Conclusion: The Future of Zaporizhzhia
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant remains a site of immense strategic, economic, and humanitarian concern. Since Russia’s occupation, the facility has been at risk from military conflict, poor maintenance, and the potential misuse of its infrastructure. Although an IAEA presence was initially established, its effectiveness has been significantly diminished.
A renewed, reinforced international monitoring mission is essential to ensure nuclear safety. However, achieving a secure, demilitarised status for the plant will require significant diplomatic effort and likely be contingent on broader negotiations surrounding the war. If an armistice or peace agreement is reached, a detailed framework governing the oversight of the Zaporizhzhia facility should be a priority.
Without decisive international action, the plant remains a dangerous flashpoint, with the potential for catastrophic consequences—not only for Ukraine but for the entire region. The world cannot afford to let the situation at Zaporizhzhia deteriorate further, and sustained international pressure will be required to mitigate the risks posed by continued Russian occupation and military activity at the site.