IAEA chief Rafael Grossi says Yongbyon up and running again

VIENNA, Austria — North Korea is running its Yongbyon nuclear site again, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Wednesday.

“The 5MW (e) reactor was shut down for three to four weeks during September and early-October 2023, however, there are now indications of operation,” said Rafael Grossi, director-general of the IAEA, in a board of governors meeting on Wednesday. “There are also indications of ongoing operation of the reported centrifuge enrichment facility and its annex.”

Yongbyon site holds the North’s primary uranium enrichment and reprocessing facility.

The Punggye-ri nuclear test site remains “prepared to support a new nuclear test,” Grossi told the board.

Speaking with the Korea JoongAng Daily in Vienna on Monday, Grossi expressed the same concerns but dismissed speculation regarding alleged transfers of nuclear technology between North Korea, Iran and Russia.

“Russia is a depository of the NPT [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons],” he told the paper.

“I cannot imagine that Moscow would decide to violate the terms of the treaty,” he said, adding that the IAEA did not find indicators of similar nuclear deals between Iran and North Korea.

Satellite images at the border regions of North Korea and Russia have shown a visible growth of railway transport in the weeks following North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting in Russia in September.

U.S. experts have also suggested that North Korea and Iran are trading arms following the discovery of North Korean weapons in the hands of the Hamas militants during their attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

With the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine and the threats to the safety of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, as well as recent rhetoric by an Israeli minister threatening Gaza with a nuclear attack, the IAEA’s board of governors meeting this week had its hands full with items regarding Ukraine, Iran and North Korea, as well as the ongoing release of radioactive treated water from the disabled nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan.

Japan finished its third release of 7,800-tons of treated radioactive water into the sea on Nov. 20. The entire discharge process is expected to take at least 30 years.

“We are in this for the long haul,” Grossi said, adding that he would be willing to return to Korea multiple times to meet with politicians opposed to the discharge decision, as well as members of civic groups, the fishing industry and more.

The following are excerpts of the interview, edited for clarity.

Q. In light of the recent meetings between North Korean and Russian leaders, and the surfacing of North Korean weapons in the hands of the militant group Hamas, do you think there is any likelihood of nuclear weapon transfers between Russia, North Korea and Iran?
A. I don’t have any indication or information on this. If I had one, I would raise it immediately. Russia is a depository of the NPT [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]. I cannot imagine that Moscow would decide to violate the terms of the treaty. Throughout my career, I can tell you that Russia has always been very serious about the NPT. Iran is also party to the NPT, and countries [party to the agreement] should not only not transfer but also receive nuclear weapon technology. So, we do not see that happening. Iran’s nuclear program is subject to many measures, and we are trying to verify their compliance with their international obligations. But we don’t see that particular issue.


If there is any nuclear accident in North Korea, will the IAEA have oversight?
The IAEA has in place a number of emergency preparedness and response mechanisms that could be applied if this were to happen. But of course, we hope it doesn’t come to this. This is why I think it’s very important for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to avail itself, without compromising its much-cherished independence and autonomy, to the best advice of international teams, who will be there to just make sure that there is no possibility of nuclear safety accident with very serious radiological consequences.
For more than 15 years, no international independent expert has been in North Korea. And the program has grown in every direction, with additional sites to the Yongbyon complex, and the regime not only has uranium enrichment capability, it has expanded it. We should find some way to re-engage.

As we speak, the third batch of the treated water from Fukushima has been released into the sea. What are the IAEA findings from its samplings so far?
In addition to our own independent sampling, we are also involving experts from other nations, including the Republic of Korea, through an inter-laboratory comparison system that we have for which we are sampling the water, and also sediment and fish. We are reporting our findings real-time on our website. If there is a problem, we cannot stop [the release process], but we have mechanisms to immediately raise it to the attention of the Japanese side. And we have agreed with the Korean government on an information-sharing mechanism whereby we are not only sharing information but also facilitating visits of Korean experts to our laboratory.

There are scientists who continue to raise concerns about the potential effects the release might have down the road. Are you engaging with them?
We always said we take serious concerns seriously. We have tried to provide scientific answers to some questions, but sometimes, I have the impression that they are moving the goal posts. I have also said that until the last drop, we cannot lower our guard. And there’s a lot of water there. So we will have to be, as always, very, very meticulous and continue our work in the way we have so far. Our operation is a first of its kind in that a country has agreed to the IAEA independently operating samples and evaluating the controlled discharges of the treated water.

Is the IAEA considering any research to discover other methods to dispose of the treated water, such as landfills?
No, we are not in the scientific process of finding new methodologies. The methodologies that exist, in our opinion, exhaust the alternatives. And the current method is an alternative that is in compliance with the internationally agreed safety standards. It is the most commonly practiced in the world, including in the Republic of Korea, in China, in France, in the United States and in Canada.

Protests in Korea against the release of the treated water have died down over the months. How do you read this?
My impression was that this was the way to go. I could understand the concerns of many and the even the irritation that some groups could have. And this is why I decided to come give explanations and even appear in front of a panel, which was not very friendly to me, in the conviction that once the discharge started, things would start to fall into the right place. Batch after batch, the levels of tritium are even much lower than the lower levels we assumed before. Of course, you can continue to express concerns but these concerns have less and less reason.

You met with the Democratic Party leaders who oppose the water discharge decision during your visit to Korea in July. Do you expect constructive dialogue with them in your future visits?
I want to and will return to Seoul and other parts of the country because I want them to know that they may agree or disagree with me, but I am available. Let’s have a conversation, see what the technical points that may be of concern and address them. We are in this for the long haul.

BY ESTHER CHUNG [chung.juhee@joongang.co.kr]