Skip to main content

The World and the Safety Agency

kanupp 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.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Cooperation is a good idea, but I doubt that nations will give up sovereignty on nuclear regulation to an international safety panel.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…