Concerns Over Nuclear Safety in Ukraine
The ongoing efforts of the Agency to monitor conditions and mitigate the risk of a nuclear incident in Ukraine are commendable. Particularly noteworthy is the Agency’s achievement in facilitating a recent ceasefire that was essential for restoring off-site power to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). However, this development raises significant concerns.
It is unacceptable for nuclear facilities to rely on temporary ceasefires to execute vital repairs. They should not depend on emergency diesel generators to ensure the integrity of safety systems. Moreover, it is alarming that operations can become so precarious that regular fuel deliveries are critical for maintaining daily nuclear safety. Unfortunately, this is the exact situation that has been created at ZNPP by Russian actions. Although off-site power has been restored, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently cautioned that without reliable power, the plant could face a blackout, highlighting the precariousness of the situation.
The margin for error is diminishing, and with each meeting of this Board, that margin becomes even smaller.
Worrying Developments in Nuclear Safety
The report from the Director General raises considerable alarm. Recent developments over the past three months indicate a troubling decline in the layers of defence that are critical for nuclear safety. During this reporting period, ZNPP experienced ten incidents of off-site power loss, bringing the total to twenty-six since the onset of the conflict. Alarmingly, more than one-third of these incidents occurred in the last three months alone.
This statistic should prompt serious reflection from all involved. It is particularly challenging to reconcile with Russia’s claims of a commitment to nuclear safety; if such claims were authentic, we would expect improvements in the situation. Instead, the appeals from this Board continue to be ignored, and the pattern is clear: resilience is waning while risk is escalating.
The situation is deteriorating further. The report notes a significant decline in the systems necessary for detecting and responding to a nuclear emergency. At the beginning of the reporting period, over two-thirds of off-site radiation monitoring stations surrounding ZNPP were operational. By mid-July, fewer than one-third were functioning.
In simple terms, if a nuclear emergency were to arise tomorrow, there is now a heightened risk that it would be detected later, comprehended later, and addressed later. This is particularly concerning given the fragile conditions at the site.
Russia’s Continued Negligence
More than four years after Russia’s seizure of ZNPP, the threat of a nuclear accident continues to escalate. Yet, Russia’s response has been to disregard the persistent calls from this Board and the General Conference. It engages in discussions about nuclear safety here while simultaneously neglecting the very standards it professes to uphold.
Russia seeks to deflect responsibility for a crisis of its own making while attempting to position itself as a proponent of nuclear safety. This Board must not become desensitised to increasingly severe warnings. It is crucial that we do not normalise a situation that was created and is perpetuated by Russia, which refuses to take the necessary steps to resolve it.
No amount of rhetoric can obscure the reality: Russia is responsible for this risk, and it must take action by withdrawing from ZNPP and returning control of the plant to Ukraine.
Thank you, Chair.