ORF correspondent Christian Wehrschütz spoke with Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Argentine remains deeply concerned about the safety of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, which is practically on the front line in southern Ukraine. “Don’t shoot the nuclear power plant or militarize it!” was his call.
Christian Wehrschutz: How diverse are the threats to the security of the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is practically on the front line in southern Ukraine?
Raphael Grossi: The first danger is direct fire on the nuclear power plant area; and that happened last summer and then also in November, but the reactors were not fired upon. It cannot therefore be ruled out that fire may start in the reactors as a result of shelling, but also in the parts of the nuclear power plant where nuclear material is stored; This applies, for example, to the storage of used and new fuel rods, which are less protected, while the reactor is of course surrounded by a very strong casing. When I first visited the nuclear power plant in September, I was shocked when I was shown two large holes caused by direct fire.
During Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster, the reactors’ cooling systems failed or were destroyed. How big is this danger in Ukraine?
A very big risk is the failure of the external power supply; you lose the cooling function and then there is the risk of a meltdown – that is exactly what happened in Japan at Fukushima. There, like a Swiss watch, I shut down the reactors during the earthquake, but the tidal wave destroyed the diesel generators that had to cool the reactors in case of emergency. Although the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhia has several forms of power supply, all external power has been cut six times, forcing emergency generators to be turned on.
How long will the diesel supply for these generators last?
For ten days or two weeks.
The reactors are currently in so-called cold shut down, ie they are operating at minimum load. Why not just shut down the nuclear power plant until the war is over?
Even if you completely shut down the reactors, the nuclear material would still be there. This has consequences for enriched uranium and plutonium in the spent fuel rods. So you don’t rule out the risk of being shot at if the reactors don’t produce electricity. Second, although the power plant is owned by Ukraine, it is also located in Russian-controlled territory. The decision about what happens to the reactors therefore does not lie with the rightful owner, but with the occupier. Ukraine wants this plant back and needs it because Ukraine is a country where nuclear energy plays a very important role. Half of the energy comes from the nuclear power plants, and Zaporizhia provided 20 percent of that, which will therefore continue to be a decisive factor for Ukraine but also in the future from the Russian point of view, although of course we do not have a crystal ball to predict how the conflict will end end.
Power stations in Ukraine also need spare parts for their operation. What about the supply chains, especially for the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant?
The issue of supply chains is indeed a thorny one because a nuclear power plant, like any other large industrial company, is in constant need of spare parts, from the wire to the cable and so on. This supply is currently not easy; As for Zaporizhia, the power plant is currently controlled by the Russians, who also provide supplies. In the rest of the country, the supply chain is kept at a minimal level. In terms of fuel supply, there are very active outsiders such as AMECO and Westinghouse, who also have fuel that can be used. But I would like to point out again that supply chains are a problem because they are not functioning normally in Ukraine at the moment. But apart from Zaporizhia, the other nuclear plants are working; they are the lifeblood of the country as they are a reliable source of energy. I would like to emphasize that the IAEA experts were also stationed in four other Ukrainian nuclear power plants, in the Chernobyl, Rivne, Khmelnitsky and “Southern Ukraine” nuclear power plants.
About 3,000 people still work at the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant; the IAEA provides them with medical and psychological support. What is the situation of the employees?
You are between hammer and anvil, that is the reality. Many, especially at the beginning of the conflict, left for Ukrainian-controlled territory. Second, there is a fluctuating number of workers who have stayed in the region or Energodar city but are not working. In addition, Russia has created a new company to operate this nuclear power plant, and workers are required to sign employment contracts; this means a change in their legal status, and of course the Ukrainian party to the conflict considers this a betrayal. This means an additional source of pressure; I even talked about it with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; I have said to everyone, ‘These people are the victims and they should not be asked to play a role that is not theirs; they are not fighters, they have their families there and try to live as normally as possible to survive this conflict.’
Videos show Russian soldiers also checking workers at the power plant. How strong is the Russian military presence on the site?
We try to prevent the site of the nuclear power plant from becoming a military base and militarized. There is some presence, but we are constantly checking that the power plant can operate normally. What I want to achieve is some kind of agreement that the nuclear power plant will not be militarized. I haven’t succeeded yet, although I’m working very hard at it. What I can say is that there is some military presence, we are trying to prevent this from happening; but it is quite clear that this zone is an active war zone. This is also what makes the presence of military and paramilitary forces so volatile, which is why we want to achieve a more predictable situation; that means an enhanced role for our mission on the ground to be able to monitor this.
What are the chances that Kiev and Moscow will agree to the demilitarization of the nuclear power plant? You have been there twice so far and met both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin.
Initially the idea was to aim for a demilitarized zone; but in a situation of continuous fighting it is utopian to talk about such a zone; no military commander will agree to that because it is very difficult to demarcate such a zone. What I’m trying to do now in the negotiations is to focus on basic principles, on behaviour: don’t shoot at the nuclear power plant and don’t militarize it – and how to do it. It is precisely because of the counter-offensive or because of the defense by the Russian occupiers that I insist so strongly that we need an agreement. I say to both sides that military advantages are not at stake, because in the event of a nuclear incident, the radioactive radiation will not differentiate between uniforms and the rest of Europe. I hope I’m being listened to, and I’m insisting on it as strongly as I can these days.
Interview: Christian Wehrschütz, ORF
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
