ROME – “These are difficult days”. We meet Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a hotel in Rome: he is in the capital to attend a FAO summit on food safety, but the difficulties he refers to are thousands of kilometres away to the east, in Zaporizhzhia, the Ukrainian nuclear power plant occupied by Russian forces. Last week Grossi led a team of IAEA inspectors to the plant and on Tuesday he presented his report to the UN Security Council. It’s a detailed list of all the things putting the safety of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant at risk, just as Ukraine is launching a major counter-offensive in the area. But the report also contains a possible solution: establishing a security protection zone, corresponding to the perimeter of the plant. Grossi defines it as turning Zaporizhzhia into a “sanctuary”, an idea that won the full support of Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi during a meeting at Palazzo Chigi.
Director General, Russian President Vladimir Putin, after your report was published, accused IAEA of not blaming Ukrainians for shelling Zaporizhzhia. What is your reply?
“At the same moment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused us of failing to report Russian shelling. It is normal, it would be surprising if nobody made such statements. Maybe they proof we are working well. It is not my mandate to be the judge, the referee between two contenders. Indeed, if I were it would invalidate my usefulness as guarantor of the nuclear power plant safety.”
So, are you satisfied with last week’s mission?
“It’s a radical change. The journey to Zaporizhzhia took four months, not two days, because we had been asking to visit the plant since April. Finally, last week we were able to carry out checks we usually perform at nuclear plants and that we had to forgo due to the start of the war. But we were also able to assess the situation in terms of security: many communication systems were destroyed and continuous attacks and shelling caused serious damage to the plant. In the end, we took the opportunity to create a permanent mission, important not only for assessing the damage but also to dissuade contenders from new attacks: now everyone knows two IAEA members will remain at the plant in Zaporizhzhia.”
And yet, in the last few hours shelling continued close to the reactors.
“I never thought our presence alone would work magic, with so many military forces concentrated in the region. But I believe it is still a factor of stability and transparency: we know what is happening in real time.”
So the presence of the two inspectors is not just symbolic?
“Absolutely not. They monitor the safety of fuels, reactors, control rooms, and emergency systems. Systematically monitoring what is going on requires a lot of work, every day something new happens, because shelling continues. We are in contact at all times and they send us daily updates.”
What struck you the most when you entered the plant?
“Seeing the working conditions of the plant personnel moved and touched me. But I can’t say I’ve seen anything I didn’t already know. The visit was a confirmation, a more exact and precise assessment of the damage caused to many of the plant sectors. Not to the reactors, well protected by reinforced concrete shielding, but for example to the containers with spent nuclear fuel. Everything I saw confirmed it is necessary to protect the nuclear power plant immediately, and in the most efficient way possible.”
After the visit you said: “Something very, very catastrophic could take place”. What were you referring to?
“I was very worried by two holes of one meter in diameter each, caused by shellfire, on the roof of a nuclear fuel storage facility: we were very lucky, those shots could have caused radioactive material to disperse into the environment. As I already said, the reactors are not in danger, protected by very sturdy buildings, difficult to pierce, but the fuel does not have the same degree of protection. And there is the question of the electricity the plant needs to run security and cooling systems.”
Once again Kiev and Moscow exchanged accusations. Could you help us shed some light?
“Unfortunately, it is not clear. Generally, the plant relies on four external power lines and an internal one to run the reactors safety and cooling systems. Now there are one or two remaining working lines. Ukrainians say it is part of a Russian plan to disconnect the power plant from Ukraine’s power grid. Technically it is difficult to do, but it cannot be completely excluded.”
We come to the possible solutions: you propose making Zaporizhzhia a sanctuary.
“This is a term we can use in Rome. We propose a nuclear safety and security protection zone around the Zaporizhzhia power plant, limited to the perimeter and the plant itself.”
Why not the demilitarisation of the entire surrounding area, as Ukrainian officials are demanding?
“Demilitarisation is a broader and also a more ambitious concept. I am only entitled to speak of nuclear safety. We have seen with our own eyes that nuclear safety has been compromised. Something must be done. Demilitarisation is not realistic, because the plant is not inside an area conquered by Russian forces, but it is on the front line. Highest level negotiations would be necessary, and these fall beyond the Agency’s competences.”
How do you intend to proceed?
“The idea is to ask Russians and Ukrainians: do you agree in principle the plant should not be shelled? If so, let’s draw a simple protection agreement, and transform the plant into a “sanctuary”. In the hours following my proposal, despite Putin and Zelensky’s statements, I noticed the parties involved had some interesting reactions. They certainly didn’t say no.”
What is the deadline?
“I have already got in touch with the two sides. I think we will meet to study the plan within ten days, two weeks at most.”
Are you optimistic?
“Optimistic might be too much. But I believe I have created a space within which to work. I have made a suggestion that is not impossible, because we urgently need to do something practical: it is unthinkable to go on like this, with continued attacks on a nuclear power plant.”
Do you feel supported by the international community in this operation?
“As normal, there are different positions: some support Ukraine, some are in the middle, and others support Russia. But I have to work with everyone and it is important the public also understands it. I have been accused of failing to denounce the aggression of one or the other, but had I done so my action would have become pointless. It is difficult, because I have a heart and ethical principles, but my mission is to help, not to denounce. Ukraine does not need an extra voice on its side, my duty lies elsewhere.”
It was also said the IAEA inspection would legitimise the Russian occupation of the plant…
“Whereas we have been to Zaporizhzhia and nothing has been legitimised. Indeed, now we have the advantage of having Agency members inside the plant: if they send us away, they will have to explain the world why they are doing it. Similarly, we have put both sides in a difficult situation: saying no to protection and security. Because later you have to explain your ‘no’.”
So you consider the IAEA mission in Zaporizhzhia permanent?
“Permanent until peace is reached. I’m not going away. And if they throw me out, I say it again, they must take responsibility for it.”
Many governments were revisiting nuclear power as a source of clean energy. Are the events in Ukraine bringing them to ditch this technology for good?
“The issue is not nuclear energy, it is war. And war can destroy a nuclear plant, a petrochemical plant, a pharmaceutical industry, a church. However, it is pointless to hide the nuclear industry is concerned about the impact these events could have on public opinion. The fact remains that, while not being a universal solution, nuclear energy is very useful at this time of energy and climate crisis.”
Are you planning to return to Zaporizhzhia?
“Perhaps. We entered the plant, and that was the most important step. Now we are there and we must continue our work. This is our challenge.”
Translated by Barbara Bacci
Link to the Italian version