The IAEA As Meta-Regulator?

You may have heard the International Atomic Energy Agency is having a ministerial conference in Vienna – ironic, of course, as Austria has no nuclear facilities. But the pastries are nice and the tourist council always appreciates the visitors.

I think the most interesting part of the conference, which was called to discuss post-Fukushima Daiichi safety issues - will happen later this week, as Japan will present its initial findings on the accident.

But the early part of the week brought a rather surprising proposal from the IAEA itself:

In Vienna this week, opening the International Atomic Energy Agency's first major global meeting since the Japanese Fukushima reactor disaster, agency head Yukiya Amano proposed that his organisation conduct random checks on reactors.

Warning that "business as usual" was not an option for the nuclear industry, he called for drafting of stronger IAEA global standards within a year and for improvements to the independence and capability of national regulators.

So, it would become kind of a “meta-regulator,” watching the watchmen, so to speak. The agency has to have its member countries sign on to this idea, which of course leads to issues of national sovereignty. Reporter Rick Wallace of the Australian writes that the idea hasn’t gone over very well – it’s essentially his lede and headline - but he offers nothing to back up the assertion – maybe he’s just reflecting hubbub on the floor of the conference rather than official statements. Stay tuned.

You can read NRC Chairman’s Gregory Jaczko’s remarks here. Here’s a bit:

While it is my opinion that U.S. nuclear plants are safe, the early work suggests there are a number of possible areas for improvement. To name a few, several of us on the commission have noted that our regulations for what is called a station blackout – essentially what happened in Fukushima – do not take into account an extended loss of AC power. Other areas that have drawn attention are spent fuel pools, emergency planning, or course seismic issues, contingency planning for situations beyond the design basis of a plant, and others.

All logical items to look at.

And IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s comments are here. A taste:

"We need to strengthen IAEA Safety Standards and to ensure that they are universally applied. I am therefore asking the IAEA's Commission on Safety Standards to review the relevant standards and to report within 12 months, with recommendations for strengthening them."

"Even the best safety standards are useless unless they are actually implemented. I urge all Member States to make a firm commitment to apply IAEA Safety Standards in practice."

He also made his “meta-regulator’ proposal in this speech. Do read the whole thing for an overview on what the IAEA has in mind.

If you want to explore the conference in detail, start here. PDFs and PowerPoint slides for the presentations are here.

We’ll have more on the conference after Japan presents its report on Fukushima.

---

Something entirely different: A sort of ramshackle anti-nuclear story at the Guardian didn’t include much that is comment-worthy, but I found its conclusion amusing:

The US energy mix, instead [of nuclear energy, of course], should include a national jobs program to make existing buildings energy efficient, and to install solar and wind-power technology where appropriate. These jobs could not be outsourced and would immediately reduce our energy use and, thus, our reliance on foreign oil and domestic coal and nuclear. Such a program could favor US manufacturers, to keep the money in the US economy. That would be a simple, effective and sane reaction to Fukushima.

I’m puzzled about the impact of these ideas on oil, but I cannot think that any other quibbling would get us anywhere. It’d be like arguing with a pile of fluff.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano in duplicate at the ministerial conference.

The Romantic Illusion

Energy sources like nuclear, thermal and fuel power projects are the only way to meet India's commercial energy needs, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said here today.It will be a "romantic illusion" that India, with 1.2 billion people can meet energy requirements through biogas, Ramesh said in an indirect reply to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Achim Steiner.

I don’t have much to say about this – Ramesh is right, but it’s not a unique thought - we’ve seen variations of it everywhere - including numerous times on this blog.

But how not to appreciate a government figure who uses a phrase like “romantic illusion” to describe arguments against the importance of nuclear energy.

“Wind alone can provide America’s electricity.”

“A romantic illusion, surely, dear Sebastian.”

See? Elegant, kindly, to the point.

---

Lithuania is shopping:

Lithuania received bids from Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Japan’s Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy Ltd. to build a nuclear power plant after shutting the Soviet-era Ignalina facility at the end of 2009.

The government will select the winning bidder this summer as it seeks to replace Ignalina, which the European Union ordered to be closed because of its similar design to the Chernobyl reactor that exploded in 1986, the Vilnius-based Energy Ministry said in an e-mailed statement today.

Closing Ignalina pushed up energy costs, as Lithuania had to turn to Russia for natural gas. That kind of result leads to certain – warm – feelings for the atom.

Lithuanian support for nuclear energy has remained high after the Ignalina closure pushed up energy costs and increased dependence on Russian energy.

Anytime Russia enters the eastern European energy picture, it conjures up the specter of it turning off the gas spigot if it gets annoyed – as it did to Ukraine and its neighbors a couple of winters ago. That’s energy security writ large and with crayon – no one wants anything similar happening to them.

But why nuclear?

“For Lithuania and the whole region it is important to have independent capacity to generate electricity,” Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius told a news conference today. “Different countries have different solutions to these issues.”

So there. No romantic illusions in Lithuania.

---

Here is Austrian environment minister Nikolaus Berlakovich vis a vis Germany:

"This decision by a highly industrialised country will have a very strong signal effect. It shows that scrapping nuclear power is both possible and feasible," he said.

Possible, perhaps – feasible, perhaps not.

The romantic illusion, Vienna-style. Keep the phrase at the ready – it seems usable in so many different circumstances.

Ignalina. It even looks like a Soviet remnant.

The World and the Safety Agency

How’s the world coping?

Turkey:

Speaking about a trip to Ukraine last week to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and discuss nuclear security, Minister Taner Yıldız said: “Greenpeace members had a placard there, reading, ‘No to Chernobyl.’ I agree with that placard. Still, the correct one sign should have been, ‘No to Chernobyl, yes to Akkuyu.’”

Akkuyu is the town where Turkey will build its first nuclear energy plant.

Austria:

Austria's environment minister [Nikolaus Berlakovich] says safety tests for European nuclear power plants must be mandatory and take into account the possibility of plane crashes or terror attacks.

Austria has no plants of its own. I’d be surprised if European utilities haven’t taken these elements into account – American plants certainly have (see this page for answers on these and other myths about nuclear energy plants).

Pakistan:

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Monday declared the nuclear program of Pakistan as safe and secure and appreciated the obvious dedication to the safety and security of the regulators as well of operators…. Deputy Director General IAEA Denis Flory said the IAEA emphasizes the importance of national responsibility for security, which Pakistan takes seriously.

The story indicates that Florey was snagged while attending a conference there, so “IAEA declared” might be a little strong.

A little more from Florey:

When quizzed about the future of nuclear industry, after the Fukushima incident, Denis Flory said the future of nuclear industry is not written down.It will depend on the actions taken at national and international levels to strengthen safety, to harmonize the implementation of international safety standards and to build the confidence of society through transparency.

---

The idea of international safety standards is taking hold in various quarters. Here’s a bit from an ABC News story:

Rather than observing, assisting and advising, an international agency needs to be created that can establish safety standards, inspect nuclear sites, and if necessary enforce compliance.

Authors Henry Bassman and Stephen Brozak, who work at an investment bank that deals mostly with biotechnology, think the new agency should borrow ideas from IAEA, NRC  and the Nuclear Energy Agency to develop its mission.

Partial measures will not increase the safety level of nuclear power facilities. Only a coordinated, global effort will provide individual nations, and the world as a whole, with an improved ability to prevent and withstand nuclear emergencies.

And here’s a group that puts their heft behind such an agency

Sixteen veterans of the nuclear industry and nuclear power regulation have called for tougher nuclear safety rules to be set and enforced worldwide, in a bid to prevent another severe accident such as those that befell Three Mile Island-2 in the US in 1979, Chernobyl-4 in the former USSR in 1986, and Japan's Fukushima-1 station this year.

This is certainly discussable – and will be, no doubt, at the June convention in Vienna (remember – no plants in Austria) - though I imagine issues of national sovereignty will weigh in.

And if you’re curious, here’s how Platts describes the gang of 16:

The signatories of the statement include nuclear regulators in the US, Russia and Ukraine who managed the aftermath of the TMI and Chernobyl accidents, as well as former regulators and safety experts from Spain, Sweden, France, India and South Korea. Several of them are or were members of the International Nuclear Safety Group, Insag, which advises the IAEA director general.

Pakistan’s Kanupp plant.