Rafael Grossi at a pivotal moment around Zaporizhzia
Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, travels through a circle of diplomats and world leaders in Rome, where a major international summit unfolds. He agrees to give an interview focused on Ukraine, its ongoing conflict, and the fragile balance around one of the world’s most sensitive nuclear sites, the Zaporizhzia power plant. This plant, Europe’s largest, houses six reactors and substantial quantities of nuclear fuel. Its position amid hostilities has drawn urgent attention from global powers who fear a disaster that could ripple across borders. In the interview with a European daily, Grossi explains that his immediate mission is to persuade both Russia and Ukraine to allow an IAEA on-site mission and to establish a protective safety zone around the facility. The aim is to reduce risk and protect lives while the war continues to unfold.
Russia has repeatedly warned of the enormous nuclear risk arising from the Ukraine conflict. How real is this danger today?
In truth, danger is never abstract when it involves a nuclear facility of this scale. Zaporizhzia operates six reactors and stores thousands of kilograms of uranium and plutonium. The facility has endured regular strikes, raising two primary concerns. A direct hit could damage a reactor or its nuclear fuel, while damage to the high‑voltage lines powering cooling systems could endanger the reactor cores. Either scenario could unleash severe and lasting consequences for nearby communities and the environment.
What could happen next?
High‑voltage lines are essential for every function of the plant, including core cooling. Nuclear reactors run at extremely high temperatures, and a loss of cooling capacity could lead to fuel melting. The potential for catastrophe mirrors past events and underscores why a protective zone around Zaporizhzia is necessary. This is the core reason behind the latest IAEA proposal to secure a safe perimeter around the site.
But progress has been slow. How is the offer advancing, and are there direct talks with Russian or Ukrainian authorities?
Ongoing communication with both sides continues, though the war creates significant rifts. Both governments acknowledge, in principle, that protecting reactors is necessary and that they trust the IAEA to oversee the process. Still, this is not a simple negotiation. Optimism sits beside realism, and the path to an agreement depends on substantial technical details that must be resolved by the parties involved. Talks remain careful, technical, and ongoing.
What are the barriers to reaching an agreement?
Technical limitations shape the negotiations, including what activities are permissible and how commitments will be implemented. Sharing precise operational details could affect security, but the overarching goal remains clear: safeguard the plant and protect the surrounding population. The discussions focus on concrete steps that both sides can accept while keeping safety as the priority.
Is a deal possible before year’s end?
The effort is intense and persistent. The goal is within reach, but it requires careful sequencing of actions, verification, and trust-building between the signatories. The international community watches closely as the parties work toward a framework that can be implemented on the ground with measurable safeguards.
Zaporizhzia was attacked again in recent days. Is it true that a building storing nuclear materials sustained damage?
Affirmative. Strikes affected a structure containing fresh nuclear fuel and storage materials. A direct hit or breach could release radioactivity, raising environmental concerns and health risks for nearby residents. The repeated incidents highlight the urgency of protection and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure in conflict zones.
How does the agency handle the blame game that follows each incident?
The approach is to gather, verify, and interpret data while avoiding political attribution. The objective remains consistent: secure a practical agreement that prioritizes safety. Directly engaging in blame risks derailing the process, so the focus stays on facts and on advancing protective measures that both sides can accept.
Are there concerns about other Ukrainian facilities?
Yes. Technical teams are stationed in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi, and the southern region where additional reactor sites exist. The agency also maintains a presence at Chernobyl. This broader monitoring reflects the ongoing worry about multiple facilities and the need for comprehensive safety oversight in a war-torn landscape.
Who are the inspectors on the ground?
The specifics of individual inspectors cannot be disclosed for safety reasons, but teams rotate regularly. The schedules typically involve weeks on site, followed by evacuation and replacement crews. In a setting where narratives often conflict, inspectors verify facts, support technicians, and help guide decisions that reduce risk.
A recent meeting with Russia’s president raised questions about the protective plan. What came of that discussion?
The aim of the encounter was to advocate for a conservation zone around the Zaporizhzia plant. The outcome included a willingness to consider protection measures and a mutual acknowledgment of the IAEA’s role in safeguarding the facility. The same priority was expressed to Ukraine’s leadership, reinforcing the shared interest in preventing a nuclear accident in a war zone.
What about other nuclear programs, such as Iran’s?
The situation with Iran remains delicate. There is concern over Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and the need for transparent information regarding locations of nuclear material. The hope is to reestablish a constructive relationship that supports nonproliferation goals and regional stability, while ensuring compliance with international expectations.
Are there other issues the agency is addressing?
Indeed there are. Nuclear nonproliferation is a global priority with a broad range of activities. The IAEA maintains vigilance and engages in initiatives worldwide to strengthen safety, security, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. The work is wide, and the focus remains on reducing risk, sharing accurate information, and supporting responsible governance in the energy sector.
In sum, the mission around Zaporizhzia is not just about a single plant but about reinforcing a framework that keeps nuclear material out of harm’s way and preserves human life in a time of war. The IAEA continues to monitor, verify, and propose practical steps that align with international safety standards and the realities on the ground. This is how the agency aims to help prevent a catastrophe with consequences that would extend far beyond any single nation, touching health, environment, and security for people across the region and the world. [Citation: IAEA, contemporary safety initiatives and official statements on Zaporizhzia, 2024]