The IAEA inspected the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant this Thursday, with Rafael Grossi, the agency head leading an expert mission that operated under the presence of Russian forces. Grossi decided to establish a permanent IAEA footprint at the facility and to leave a portion of the team there at least through Saturday.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti reports that the experts overseeing the plant were accompanied by Rosatom representatives and facility staff.
Grossi, director general of the IAEA, departed the building about two hours later after gathering crucial information in the initial assessment round with 13 other experts.
Some IAEA experts left
The Argentine head announced his plan to depart, but noted that a number of IAEA experts would remain at the site.
He remarked that the visit to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant had been long anticipated. The team would stay on and a continuous IAEA presence would be established at the site.
Grossi did not specify the exact number of experts staying, or the duration of their stay, nor did he clarify whether Zelenskiy’s request for a permanent IAEA presence was being pursued. He stated that maintaining a regular, reliable flow of information is necessary to stabilize the situation.
Energoatom, the Ukrainian state-owned operator, indicated that five IAEA representatives had departed and that others were expected to arrive by September 3.
The head of Energodar, a city under Russian control, said the remaining experts would be accommodated at a local hotel.
The rest of the delegation, including Grossi, was planned to depart the Russian-controlled area before 8 pm Moscow time, according to Energoatom.
During the visit, some residents of Energodar, under Russian control, reportedly interacted with Grossi and urged restraint amid calls to stop provocations against the plant and to address concerns related to a suspected Ukrainian missile.
a high risk road
The delegation arrived shortly before 14:30 local time at the plant, which has endured repeated attacks in recent weeks and raised concerns about nuclear security in the region. One reactor that remains operational was brought offline by emergency measures after a mortar strike, and Energoatom said the backup power line needed for internal needs had been damaged.
Officials described the shutdown as the second incident in ten days caused by what they call criminal actions by Russian military forces, resulting in a loss of power at the facility.
Grossi noted the journey through Zaporizhzhia as a difficult one, given the high-risk environment and ongoing fighting nearby. He arrived a day earlier, aware that the path to the plant near Energodar, about 120 kilometers away, required careful planning. Still, he believed there were minimum conditions for movement, and the mission would continue despite the challenges.
overcoming the charges
From the outset, Kyiv and Moscow traded accusations about attacks on the facility, Energodar, and the convoy’s route to reach the plant, each side aiming to undermine the mission’s safety.
Officials in Kyiv accused Russia of bombarding Energodar along the IAEA convoy route to discredit Ukraine and to question the mission’s credibility. The Ukrainian presidency highlighted what it called Russia’s real interest in the inspection.
The Russian Defense Ministry countered by alleging Ukrainian strikes near the IAEA meeting point and near Energodar, raising claims of sabotage groups and attempts to seize control of the plant. The dialogue around the mission was framed by both sides as a security concern amid ongoing conflict.
The IAEA convoy experienced a three-hour delay at the Novooleksandrivka checkpoint, roughly 20 kilometers from the front line, as authorities worked to restore a safe window for continued movement.
The IAEA spokesperson noted that Grossi should personally engage with Ukrainian military authorities to proceed with the mission and ensure safe passage.
Yevgeny Balitsky, the pro-Russian leader of the Zaporizhzhia region, stated that Ukrainians would seek guarantees of security for the team and access to documents describing who was in charge during the mission.