The United Nations and Fukushima

Some words from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the United Nations:

The Obama Administration is committed to nuclear power as a component of our secure energy future, and we recognize that nuclear power is a vital contributor to the world’s growing energy needs. It is, therefore, not an option that we simply can take off the table.

But:

But it is an option that carries special risks and dangers. Therefore, we must do everything possible to ensure its safe and responsible use. We must remain vigilant against outside threats and internal weaknesses to prevent accidents from occurring. We must make continuous improvements to regulations and strengthen implementation of existing conventions so we hold ourselves, and others, to the highest standards.

One might call all this self-evident, but she was speaking at a high-level meeting on nuclear safety of the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, so perhaps we can allow for the self-evident.

Here is Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda at the same meeting (somewhat loosely translated):

Japan is determined to raise the safety of nuclear power generation to the highest level in the world. In addition to the emergency measures already taken, we plan to establish ''The Nuclear Safety and Security Agency'' around April of next year, by separating off the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, to accomplish the independence of nuclear regulation from promotion, for the purpose of centralizing the regulatory system and ensuring a thorough safety culture.

He is here responding to criticism that the Japanese equivalent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission resided in the equivalent of the Commerce Department. The latter is a cheerleader for industry, the former is meant to oversee an industry, but sometimes defaulted to an industry-friendly stance. This did the Japanese nuclear energy industry no favors, at least in Noda’s view.

Noda is still keeping the regulatory body within the direct purview of government – the NRC is an independent government agency, more removed from politics – but fine. That’s how Japan wants to do it. Different countries handle their regulators differently.

Here’s a bit from Noda’s speech that struck us:

Japan stands ready to respond to the interest of countries seeking to use nuclear power generation. For several years, emerging nations and many other countries around the world have earnestly explored ways of using nuclear energy amid the need for energy security and in response to global warming. Japan has been supporting their efforts, including their improvements of nuclear safety. Japan remains steadfast in responding positively to their interest in our undertakings.

I had run into a couple of stories about Japan bidding for nuclear-related work in other countries – this is the kind of thing a Commerce Department facilitates diplomatically - but it’s interesting to see Noda make a point of it.

It serves to remind us that nuclear energy is not just an economic engine domestically but also as an export. I’ve written here about different countries considering nuclear energy and shopping among their choices for technology – the United States, France, Russia, South Korea, Japan. Nuclear technology is not just a purveyor of electricity but an economic force. Noda has this exactly right.

----

Now, the U.N. being the U.N., the goal behind the meeting was to take the international temperature on nuclear energy. And perhaps one can conclude that the fever has gone down and the patient has lost a bit of weight, but that’s about all.

Indeed, it has been left to the International Atomic Energy Agency to initiate the therapy. At its international conference that concludes today in Vienna, the IAEA has passed its action plan on Nuclear Safety. This means the plan faced the meat grinder of consensus, as every country had to approve it. But it hasn’t been ground down to pabulum.

The voluntary plan, prepared by the office of IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, calls on member states to promptly assess their nuclear power plants to determine whether they can withstand extreme natural hazards. The members would also take steps to remedy any weaknesses and strengthen emergency preparedness.

Well, maybe it has been ground down a little bit. What the IAEA would like in an ideal world is the ability to do inspections itself and to impose rules more forcefully, but that raises issues of national prerogative. So, on the one hand:

One group of nations -- including Germany, France, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada and Denmark -- voiced disappointment about the final version of the IAEA's safety action plan for not going far enough.

It represents a "considerable step backwards" compared with the aspirations voiced by many at a ministerial safety meeting in June, the Swiss representative told the board.

And on the other:

The United States, India, China and Pakistan were among countries resisting any moves towards mandatory outside inspections of their atomic energy facilities.

Both sides have valid points. Navigating between them is what the IAEA had to do because it had to find consensus. That’s what U.N. agencies do. And it did find it, likely to the full satisfaction of few.

All that said, it’s not a bad document, if perhaps more useful to countries with small nuclear fleets and those considering nuclear energy for the first time. The IAEA hasn’t posted the final version, but a late draft can be found here.

Secretary Hillary Clinton. Not from the meeting yesterday, but we wanted her and the U.N. symbol. This is from March.

Secretary Clinton in India

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is visiting India. There are a skein of issues to discuss, but one with special resonance to us:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed Tuesday for easier access to the Indian market for US nuclear energy firms, who are trailing their French and Russian competitors.

Here’s what she had to say about that:

"With regard to our civil nuclear agreement... we need to resolve those issues that still remain so we can reap the rewards of a robust energy partnership," Clinton said in opening remarks during her trip to India.

Creating or expanding a market for goods of any stripe is a job creator, so well worth pursuing. Nuclear trade between India and the U.S. is still relatively new – the treaty opening it was one of President George W. Bush’s last major accomplishments – so effort is still needed to resolve lingering issues. The most serious such issue involves liability:

The United States wants India to "tighten up" legislation to protect equipment makers from liability in case of nuclear accidents, saying it is much more stringent than comparable laws in other countries. General Electric and Westinghouse, the U.S.-based arm of Japan's Toshiba Corp , are keen to take a slice of the market.

Now, India has signed onto the relevant international treaty covering liability, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, but even at the time it did this last year, most nuclear technology vendors – including those in India’s domestic industry – thought it was inadequate to fully address the liability issue. That’s because the Indian parliament had earlier passed a law that conflicts with the conference and does not adequately shield suppliers from lawsuits.

Here’s what the Indian law says (you can read the legislation here):

The operator of the nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear damage, … shall have a right of recourse where the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects of sub-standard services.”

That provision and the lack of a provision prohibiting individual claims run counter to the convention. Here’s the specific provision in the convention:

The right to compensation for nuclear damage may be exercised only against the operator liable, provided that national law may permit a direct right of action against any supplier of funds that are made available pursuant to provisions in national law to ensure compensation through the use of funds from sources other than the operator.”

There’s no particular reason to think the U.S. is asking for something outlandish here – every other country that engages in trade of nuclear technologies follows the terms of the convention.

Now, to be fair, India has the experience of the 1984 Bhopal disaster, which led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people. (You can read more about this at the National Institutes of Health.) Serious minds can disagree over the extent and quality of Union Carbide’s disposition of its liability obligation, but cannot dispute that the accident has cast a dark shadow over any subsequent consideration of industrial liability in India.

But, to return to a positive posture, it sounds as though India, at least on the executive level, agrees with Clinton. Here are the comments made by Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna:

We reiterated our commitment to taking forward civil nuclear energy cooperation on the basis of full implementation of mutual commitments. We were reassured that United States reaffirmed its commitment for full civil nuclear cooperation. I expressed appreciation for our ongoing engagement and full support of the US for India’s full membership of the four export control regimes and our expectation of progress in tandem on the four regimes. We discussed UNSC reforms and India’s permanent membership of a reformed UN Security Council.

Diplomat-speak, of course, with an excess of politesse, but it shows the U.S. and India in sync on trade issues.

Now, I admit that there isn’t much a story here – Clinton and Krishna don’t seem ready to sign anything and I can’t find much evidence that the Indian parliament will revisit the liability issue imminently. But State is pushing for a reconsideration – that’s a plus – and the Indian equivalent seems open to it – another plus. That’s movement – good for the industry, good for trade balance, good for job creation. It’s a worthy effort that should have a few lights shined on it.

Hillary Clinton and Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna.