 Welcome to the press conference for the Director-General. The Retina will make a few opening remarks, after which we will be happy to play the questions. Well, thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for being here at such a short notice. But of course, we've had a very long night, or short, depending on how you want to take it, here at the agency working permanently. I'm here with the Deputy Director-General for Nuclear Safety and Security, Lidia Evrar. She and her team have been working the whole night, given the circumstances in Ukraine, which I would summarize as follows. I am conscious that you may be in possession of some of the information or all of the information I'm going to share with you. What I can tell you is that what we are telling you is confirmed information that is coming straight from the Ukrainian regulator or straight from the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, where we have contacts at the moment and permanently through the night. So, as you have been informed, overnight projectile hit a building within the site of the plant. This building, I should repeat, is not part of the reactor. None of the reactors is a training adjacent construction facility to the reactors. These cost a localized fire, which was extinguished by the local fire brigade at the plant. So, it's important to say that all the safety systems of the six reactors at the plant were not affected at all, and that there has been no release of radioactive material. Importantly, in this regard, is the radiation monitoring systems, so the systems we have to measure the radiation are fully functional as well. However, as you can imagine, the operator and the regulator have been telling us that the situation is naturally continues to be extremely tense and challenging because of the circumstances. Of the plant reactor units, one must say that of all the units that we have there, there's only one that is operating at around 60% of its capacity. Unit 1 was in outage for maintenance. Units 2 and 3 are in safety-controlled shutdown. Unit 4 is the one that is still operating at 60%, and units 5 and 6 were already being held in reserve, and they are operating normally in low-power mode. I must indicate that two people have been injured. These people, according to the information we have, are not operators or technical people, and they are part of the security personnel around the plant. So these are the facts. We continue to be in contact with the operators and following the situation, of course, very, very closely. Let me now address how we are addressing this, what are the next steps that we are planning, and what is possible in the circumstances. As you know, because we saw each other a couple of days ago, we had a special session of the Board of Governors here, and at that session of the Board, I indicated, apart from the general exhortations and reminders of the importance of the general principles of never attacking nuclear facilities and other important conceptual elements, I reminded Member States of a number of very clear points that must never be compromised if one is to ensure safety and security at any nuclear facility, be it a reactor or any other facility. And the first one of this was the physical integrity of the facilities, whether it is a reactor, as I said, a fuel pond, radioactive waste storage, everything. The second point that I mentioned to the Board was that all safety and security systems at these places must be maintained and operational. The third point I indicated was that staff needed to be able to fulfill their activities normally. The fourth is that there should be at all times off-site power, electricity, so that the facility is able to continue running normally. I also referred to the supply chain that must be always available in case there is a need for spare parts or things that are perhaps needed for repairs. I also referred as a six-point to the radiation monitoring systems that are also required so that we have an idea of what's going on from the perspective of the possible presence of radioactivity. And finally, communication, communication which is so important as you have seen throughout this night without it, we would have not been able to confirm the things that we are telling you. Well, everybody agrees, everybody agrees without any exception, no country disagrees that these principles must be maintained. However, the first of this, the physical integrity of the plant has been compromised with what happened last night. So we, of course, are fortunate that there was no release of radiation and that the integrity of the reactors in themselves was not compromised, but yes, the plant in a wider sense. But it is obvious that when we all agree on these principles, words must mean something. And we have to act in consequence. So for us, the IEA, it is time for action. We need to do something about this. I also referred to you, I believe, Ukraine sent a request for immediate assistance to us. So bearing in mind what's happening and the risks that we may all incur if this continues without an enhancement and without a recommitment to these principles, I have indicated to both the Russian Federation and the Ukraine my availability and disposition to travel to Chernobyl as soon as possible so that these seven crucial pillars are never again compromised. The idea behind this initiative of mine as Director-General of the IAEA is to agree on a framework and on a compromise that would commit to not compromise these principles that we all subscribe and agree to. We all know that given the very complicated circumstances on the ground, the logistics for such a trip, my presence in this place are not going to be easy and would not be easy. But at the same time, I believe they wouldn't be impossible. If we are to extend assistance, we have to be there. And the first to be there must be the head of the IAEA. I want to make clear one point. This initiative of mine has nothing to do with the political aspects of this crisis. This is not my mandate. I am not the Security Council of the United Nations. I am not the Secretary General of the United Nations. I am not a self-appointed mediator. It has nothing to do with that. I want to be extremely clear about this. What we are talking about here is a framework under the aegis of the IAEA whereby Ukraine and the forces that are present there in the context of this military operation of the Russian Federation can agree to a commitment to not compromise these principles that I have mentioned. So, as I said, the facts are this. The request for assistance has been made to us. We are not ignoring it. I am ready to come. I stop here and I take your questions. Thank you very much. Thanks, D.G. Grosy, Jonathan Tyrone with Bloomberg News. Can you please just clarify who specifically you're in touch with on the Russian side? You said you're in touch with the Enigo Atom and Ukraine and the regulator. Can you also please clarify, do we know right now whether the control room itself at that nuclear power plant is in possession of Russian forces or does the utility continue to have control of the room? Yes, of course. As I mentioned, I am in touch with Russia and also, of course, Ukraine. Ukraine is my natural counterpart. In this, I should always emphasize because we are talking about Ukraine and they are our counterparts. However, we know and this is no secret. There is a military operation and there are Russian forces there. Of course, we do have a number of contacts when it comes to the Russian Federation at diplomatic level and at technical level as well. So this is the first part. The second part is regarding the operation of the, you're talking about the control room and things like that. Here, I should emphasize that for the time being it is purely Ukrainian stuff running the operations there. What we have in this case as we speak this morning at quarter to 11, what we have is in Chernobyl and in Zaporizhzhia we have effective control of the site in the hands of Russian military forces. I hope the distinction is clear. Good morning. Albert Otti, DPA, Chairman Press Agency. Just to clarify, you said you're proposing a framework to basically guarantee the safety of the nuclear installations from both sides. How does a trip to Chernobyl contribute to this? Do you plan to negotiate in Chernobyl? I'm not quite sure. We are going to be sharing some elements with both sides and we are going to try to agree on that. It's part of the consultations we need to have. That's the plan to negotiate there? Yeah. Okay. That's going to ask you from Nippon TV. Just to follow up on that statement, who do you envision as your counterpart? That's normally a foreign minister. So do you want the foreign ministers of Russia and Ukraine to go there or...? I'm talking, of course, I'm talking with the political authorities of the countries and this is also something that we are... We have to know that this is an unprecedented situation. Normally, in diplomatic practice, one easy way out is to refer to precedent. It was done in this way last time this happened, so this establishes some sort of practice or tradition. Unfortunately, here we are in completely uncharted waters but what animates this initiative is the need to act and to hit this call for assistance, bearing in mind the realities on the ground. Thanks, Lauren Snowman. A couple of questions. I'll keep it to a couple of questions. Do you know who was responsible for the projectile that hit the site? Was it Ukrainian forces as the Russians are claiming or was it the Russians? And what have the Russians said to you about sending a team there for assistance and what have they said about your idea for a trip? Yes or no? Thank you very much. What we understand is that this projectile is a projectile that is coming from the Russian forces and we do not have details about what kind of projectile this is. It could be many different things. This is what we understand being the situation. And in terms of saying yes or no, both sites are considering it. Francois Murphy from Reuters, high DGM, over here. Yes, I'm sorry, I'm always losing you. No, of course. Two questions then. What happens now, particularly at Saporozhia? You say the Ukrainians are in control of the control room and of the operations, but they're surrounded by the Russian military. So what do you expect to happen here? Are these things supposed to stay frozen as they are? A source of a bit like Chernobyl? Or do you imagine something else? What direction are things heading in? And then also, I just want to follow up on what Albert was saying. If you don't have agreement for a meeting, why are you specifically suggesting a meeting at Chernobyl? I mean, you could meet these people anywhere. So why is this so clear in your mind? Well, there are a number of technical characteristics that make it advisable to do it there, to have a better idea. And also, to be more effective in diplomatic terms, it's very important to be there. Of course, at the end of the day, there might be many different formats, if you want. What we want to indicate here is the disposition of the IAEA to move, to do something about what is going on, and not simply tweet or say things from Vienna. We are ready to move. And in terms of the... I think one thing is connected with the other. What we have is a situation which is very difficult to sustain. And what has happened tonight, or last night, is proof of that. As we have been saying for a few days now, I'm extremely concerned this is something which is very, very fragile, very unstable as a situation. And now we have seen that because of this impact of a projectile, we don't know how it happened. I think it would be impossible unless you had a forensic team there to determine the circumstances. And this is going to be impossible. You had the kind of situation we had overnight which could have been dramatic. So I think that we should not wait for something like this to happen before trying to address it in a more efficient way since we know what is at risk. And sorry, just to follow up, since you're describing the situation overnight and you say that you're in regular contact with people at the plant, so what is happening right now? So obviously we had this projectile hit and there was some fighting. Right now we have this normal abnormality, if I can put it like that. The other day in my statement I was saying normal operations, but in fact there is nothing normal about this. Yes, they are running the plants and I paid homage the other day to their bravery, to their courage, to their resilience because they are doing this in very difficult circumstances. Now we see this happening. For how long can this continue? So I think it is our duty as an international organization with an important mandate to do safety and security, to do it also when the going gets rough. Hello, this is Jordi from Agency AFC. I'm coming here about Chernobyl and this one big site. Do you have any information about the other nuclear plants? Is there any risk there? Have you got any information? Not at the moment. And it's good. Thank you for putting up the slide. What you see here are the six reactors. One, two, three, four, five, six. We have this blue here in this unit which is the one operating at 60%. Now this is the one. And this is the building. For you to have an idea, this is more or less one kilometer. And this here is the training center which was impacted by this project here and where there was this fire. So I think this is thank you to the team for having put up this because this gives you an idea. The site is a very, very big site. Okay, thanks for the follow-up. So there's obviously another plant with three units, the southern plant that's neurodessa. Potentially more concerning. I want to hear your feedback on the VVER 440 type 213 reactors that are operating in Rivne. Those have been units of concern to European regulators and the IAEA for decades. Are these issues that you want to talk about in Chernobyl specifically? And then just briefly, you don't have any safety standards about proper procedures in a time of war. By showing us this picture up there, are you suggesting that the proper procedure would be to cold shut down all reactors in the middle of the zone? I'm not suggesting that. There are references to armed conflict and to accidents. There are general differences. Perhaps my deputy director general, who is an international expert on this, could clarify it. But there are generic references, if I'm not mistaken, to this. So there are some references that are applicable. And of course, you are pointing to a preexisting situation which is more of a structural nature about the safety of a type of reactor. This is not the time or the moment or the occasion to be dealing with that. What we are trying to address here is the situation derived from this particular... I'm sorry, but that reactor has a very shallow containment. That doesn't have the kind of depth of defense that these reactors do. You just got out of a really, you know, we're fortunate. But that reactor has a completely different containment structure. I take your point. Between line, I kind of sense that after the negotiation, if it was worth to take place, or even without that, do you have a plan to place IAEA personnel in Ukraine to assist their normal operation under emergency? Thank you for the question. The first thing that we must have is a framework within which to operate. And I would never put my stuff in harm's way before going myself and trying to set up these conditions. If those conditions were met, then one could envisage that. But we are not at that point yet. Thanks a lot. DG, you obviously didn't have the weekend upcoming off. You were supposed to go on a slightly important trip to Tehran. Is that going ahead? And would any visit to Chernobyl or Ukraine be after that? Thanks. No, I would say I am still, of course, going to visit Tehran on this very important official visit to try to address issues that we have discussed on different occasions. And regarding my proposal for a visit and a negotiation to Ukraine, no, it's not part of this. As I said, I am consulting Ukraine, of course, first and foremost, and Russia as well, to see how we could organize that. So it would be after your return from Tehran? God willing, yeah. DG, just a follow-up. I take your willingness to go to Chernobyl as an indication that you're not worried about the safety situation there, just because there seem to have been glitches with the radiation monitoring system there. Can you tell us what that is? I'm not concerned about the radiation. I am, of course, concerned about the general situation. This is a zone where there are military operations ongoing. It is obvious. Yeah, my question wasn't the best. But specifically on the radiation levels at Chernobyl, is the monitoring working normally and everything seems normal? It is. Well, everything normal, I wouldn't say. There are glitches, but nothing that would constitute a major issue at the moment in terms of the radiation monitoring systems which are in operation. Yes, David Albright from ISIS asks me to ask you if you can say anything about the safety of the spent fuel in this power plant. There's no issue with it. There's no problem. There hasn't been any reported situation with regards to this issue of the waste stored there. Well, I thank you very much. We will be keeping you informed of developments and perhaps we will be seeing each other after my mission to Tehran. Thank you very much.