‘Very serious’ nuclear situation could happen ‘at any moment’ in Ukraine, says IAEA chief

We spoke to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Cathy Newman: Let’s start with Zaporizhzhia, because earlier you said that safety was deteriorating there after this drone strike. How critical would you say it is?

Rafael Grossi: Well, we could have a very serious situation any moment. Because when you see the amount of military activity surrounding the plant, when you see… We were just watching the introduction, the fire that occurred last Sunday, one of the cooling towers of the plant, you can see that it’s not a threat, things are happening. The physical integrity of the facility is being challenged. So, this is why we say that what we see is a deterioration. The condition of the plant, I should say, is that it’s not producing energy at the moment, is in jargon what we call shut down. But there’s a lot of material there, a lot of nuclear material there. There’s a lot of spent fuel there. Fresh fuel. So, things that if impact could trigger the release of radioactivity.

Cathy Newman: So the risk has been minimised, but it hasn’t been removed, clearly. I mean, in theory, another Chernobyl is possible?

Rafael Grossi: Technically speaking, no, in the sense that what happened in Chernobyl was a combination, an explosion, and then the material there just blowing up in the air. Here you have what is in the reactors is pretty much contained. But I would say, as I was just mentioning, you have all of this material around and you could have a situation theoretically where because of the loss of external power, which has occurred, we had nine episodes of complete blackouts of the plant. So no cooling function. So if you lose all that, you could eventually have a meltdown.

Cathy Newman: So it’s perilous, clearly. I wonder whether you think the risk of the Kursk plant, which, you know, has come about really because of Ukraine’s incursion into Russia. Russia is now fortifying around that plant. I mean, is that potentially more risky because it’s a much more volatile situation.

Rafael Grossi: It is certainly serious and we should take it very, very seriously. We are taking it, the agency at the IAEA, very, very seriously. This nuclear power plant is, I would say, within artillery range already. You have just informed that the incursion of the Ukrainian troops, is a few miles, a couple dozen kilometres into Russian territory and just a few miles, in kilometres is about between 20 and 30 km from the plant itself. And there is a technical aspect here. You were just mentioning Chernobyl. The reactors here, you have six reactors in Kursk. You have two reactors that are being decommissioned. You have two reactors that are operating. No shutdown, operating when you have hot reactors. Anything that could happen there could be maximised in this sense.

And then two other units being built. The two reactors that are operating are of a type called RBMK, which is exactly the type of reactors, an old model type of reactor was the one, like the ones that were in Chernobyl. These reactors have a particularity. Normally when you look at a nuclear reactor is a dome. There is a concrete and metal protection. These two reactors don’t have that, don’t have any of that. The core of these reactors is open. Is like, as if you were here and you could see the fuel elements there. So, God forbid, was there an impact on the plant, we could have a very serious situation.

Cathy Newman: That’s terrifying enough to hear you talk about that, but there are other terrors out there in the world, namely Iran. Let’s talk about the threat, the nuclear threat from Iran. How close do you think Iran is now, right now, to building a nuclear weapon?

Rafael Grossi: Here we have to make a distinction, because what Iran has managed to have, is the material that you would need, which is significant enough, in terms of concern, to manufacture a few nuclear weapons, but they don’t have a nuclear weapon. To put together this, and to do all the other things that you would require to have something that goes boom, there’s a number of steps that should be taken, and the agency does not have any indication at the moment that they have reached that stage. But of course, there has been a progressive, I would say, rapprochement towards that capability, let’s put it like that.

Cathy Newman: You said a few months ago that you saw signs of their intent of serious dialogue with you. I wondered if you’d progressed that since the election of the new president, because he’s seen as a reformer.

Rafael Grossi: This is a saga. And as Nordic Saga said, this has lasted for so, so long. Actually, I have been visiting Tehran just a few weeks before the demise of the late foreign minister, (Hossein) Amir-Abdollahian. We had agreed on a number of things. Of course happened, what happened. So we have to start, I wouldn’t say from scratch, because we have an ongoing dialogue. The agency is there. We have exchanged messages with President (Masoud) Pezeshkian. I, of course, have sent a message, the occasion of his inauguration, indicating already that it would be very important for me to come and talk to him, and he replied, agreeing for that. So now we have to make it happen.

Cathy Newman: There are signs of optimism there.

Rafael Grossi: Well engagement and dialogue are indispensable. And of course, with the surrounding situation in the Middle East, it is, I think, essential that we make sure that we do not have nuclear proliferation in Iran.

Cathy Newman: When Donald Trump scrapped the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran responded by expanding its enrichment activities. I know you are a diplomat, but do you fear that a Trump presidency, another Trump presidency, might make your job more difficult? And what would your advice to Kamala Harris be?

Rafael Grossi: Well, two different scenarios, two different approaches, of course. Like you say, the previous Republican administration was very sceptical towards the philosophy behind this agreement. Whereas, President Biden, this administration were trying to, I would say revive, without success. We should say at the moment there is no conversation. The former, regrettably, you have to say it in this way, the former JCPOA partners that included Russia and China with the United Kingdom, with France, Germany, the United States, all of that has disintegrated.

Cathy Newman: So if Kamala Harris was elected, should she just go for a whole new nuclear deal with Iran?

Rafael Grossi: I think there is a conviction that something, some framework must be constructed.

Cathy Newman: A new framework?

Rafael Grossi: Perhaps a new I mean, the label, frankly speaking, for me, is not so relevant. You can call it JCPOA 8.2 or whatever. It is obvious that the Iran of 2024 has nothing to do with the Iran of 2015. Now, the capabilities, the technical capacities, now they have centrifuges of last generation. They are much, you know, far more developed than they used to be. So in any case, whatever agreement you will have, will have to reckon with this change.