Complaint
A listener complained that an interview about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine contained inaccurate and misleading information and that the choice of interviewee was evidence of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s “anti-nuclear-power biasâ€. ÌýThe ECU considered whether the interview met Â鶹ԼÅÄ standards of due accuracy and impartiality.
Ìý
Outcome
The interview was prompted by news the nuclear power plant had been disconnected from Ukraine’s national grid after fire damage, raising further concerns about the safety of the plant. ÌýThe International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, had said the latest incident “sparked deepening concern about nuclear safety and security at the facilityâ€. ÌýEdwin Lyman was invited to discuss the potential implications of the plant losing off-site power. ÌýHe was introduced as the “director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DCâ€. ÌýThe ECU’s research indicated Mr Lyman is recognised as an expert in this area, and his explanation of the potential danger of the Zaporizhzhia plant losing power, either from an off-line or on-line source, appeared to be consistent with other informed organisations.
The ECU further noted that the Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Mariano Grossi, had raised concerns in March about the threat to the safety and security of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. ÌýHe outlined seven key issues to ensure the safety of the plants, including “secure off-site power supply from the grid for all nuclear sitesâ€. This was reiterated by the IAEA news release on the day of the fires, and a further release the following day confirmed the potential threat to the safety of the site.
The ECU did not therefore agree Mr Lyman’s summary of the potential danger could be regarded as misleading or inaccurate. ÌýHe made it clear there was no immediate threat to safety because the plant had on-site diesel generators but his comments also reflected the concern of many experts about the implications of a long-term loss of power. ÌýThere was no basis for concluding his contribution was evidence of a lack of due impartiality.
Not Upheld