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.

When You Don't Have Bad News...

... make some up. From The Guardian (U.K.), our old friend in nuclear alarmism:

The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor, experts say, raising fears of a major release of radiation at the site.

Experts? Really?


Well, one, and he was an expert 40 years ago:

Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at Fukushima, told the Guardian workers at the site appeared to have "lost the race" to save the reactor, but said there was no danger of a Chernobyl-style catastrophe.

If he was head of safety research then, that was 1971. So it's a reach, at best. No one is quoted to agree or disagree with Lahey, so the story is just the opinion of one fellow - a fine fellow, we're sure, but still. The only other "expert" quoted in the story is Robert Gale, a US medical researcher who is helping out in Japan but has no opinion about the state of the plant.


Honestly! Can we agree not to build stories about such a serious event around such flimsy evidence.


Sheesh!


---


Let's jump a little west.  From The Irish Times:

What are the implications of Fukushima for Ireland? It will require a more measured appraisal of the full consequences of the accident before its significance for the possible future use of nuclear power in Ireland can be definitively assessed.

All the same, even at this point we cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of a reliable supply of safe, affordable and clean energy for a modern society, which is as important to our wellbeing as clean air and water. In coming years, after our economic recovery, we shall need more energy than we are currently consuming. From where is this energy to come?

Read the rest to find out where from - it's pretty long - and well written by David Sowby from the International Commission on Radiological Protection and Frank Turvey, a fellow of the Institute of Nuclear Engineers and a former member of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. It's great to see informed sources standing up for what they know is true.


An Irish nuclear power plant? Nah  - but the green filter has clearly been turned down a few notches.

Editorial Round-Up

Editorial boards around the country continue to ruminate about nuclear energy in this country in the wake of event in Japan.

From the Amarillo Globe-News:

But is this tragic event reason to throw the nuclear power strategy onto the trash heap? No.

Well, that’s direct. Part of the response is informed by industry around Amarillo:

The Panhandle of Texas has its share of natural gas and oil production and, thus, residents here are exposed to potential danger all the time.

Do we toss aside those energy sources because of accidents? Again, no.

So:

But it must be noted that the Fukushima plant that's been all but destroyed by Mother Nature is an old plant. Newer installations would have far superior technology to guard against the kind of disaster that's occurring in Japan.

I’m not sure that argument holds true. Fukushima and all older plants are held to the standards of the present day, but it’s all right. Newer plants have redundant safeguards that do aid in staving off nature’s fury. In all, an interesting approach. Amarillans clearly know the dangers of energy production, so they know equally what can happen and what’s necessary to maintain safety.

---

From mLive in Michigan:

As the U.S. continues to offer help, compassion and prayers to Japan, those questions should be confronted and addressed, with an eye toward keeping nuclear energy as one important component in a mix of power sources. Nuclear does not produce the emissions of other types of electricity generation, especially coal. The United States should sensibly manage the risks involved, but not back away from them.

Notably, a lot of editorial boards are just not backing away – I can’t confirm this, but I don’t believe off shore drilling received quite such a warm reception after the BP spill last year. If so, it is the emission free nature of nuclear energy that causes it to get a stronger second look. at which point its other strengths begin to weigh in more heavily.

---

I’ve been on the hunt for some more dire editorials, but they aren’t really crossing my radar. I thought I could find a sure thing over at the Guardian, but even it hesitates:

Nuclear power will doubtless remain part of a diverse portfolio of energy sources, but the solution to the problem of low-carbon power must ultimately lie in renewables. In the UK, that points to tidal and wave power, to which we are geographically well-suited, alongside carbon capture and storage technology. Britain is currently a leading centre for the innovation of these processes. Their successful development could create huge economic advantages in manufacturing and exports of the technology, alongside the strategic benefits of energy self-sufficiency.

Very Guardian-like, but also fairly dim on the prospect of flipping the switch on nuclear energy:

But around 13% of the world's electricity is produced by nuclear plants. It is unrealistic to expect that capacity to be dismantled or quickly replaced. The threat to human safety, while real, is not unfathomably vast, nor beyond management. Radiation is harmful, but not apocalyptically deadly. It was the Earth's crust, not a manmade power station that caused tragedy in Japan.

It’s like watching a conversation between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, isn’t it?