More

UN Nuclear Chief: Serious Problems With Government Emergency Responses Exposed

Japan Nuclear

GEORGE JAHN   03/21/11 02:19 PM ET   AP

VIENNA — Japan's nuclear crisis has exposed huge weaknesses in how the world deals with such disasters, the U.N. nuclear chief said Monday, urging changes in emergency responses worldwide.

Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also told a 35-nation IAEA board meeting that – while the situation at Japan's crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear site remains serious – "we are starting to see some positive developments."

Pressed by reporters on whether his agency should be authorized by its 35-nation board to make IAEA safety standards mandatory instead of their present voluntary status, he said "there are some arguments" from board nations in favor - but others were against.

"The views are very different," he said indicating that any reforms will be slow in coming and less than optimally effective because of the need to achieve board consensus.

Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex was crippled 10 days ago by a huge earthquake and massive tsunami, and Amano suggested that one area up for likely review is whether tsunami protection standards need to be strengthened.

But a comprehensive update of safety standards "needs more studies," he said – again suggesting that any review will take time.

Inside the board meeting, he defended his agency's performance since the crisis broke, emphasizing that it is up to individual countries to focus on nuclear safety, with the IAEA only in an advisory role.

Glyn Davies, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, however, suggested the agency needed to do more, in a joint U.S.-Canada statement that indicated agency board members will focus on more oversight of the organization's Japan performance.

He said the board will work with Amano "to ensure that this agency is bringing all of its resources to bear in addressing the current crisis."

Since a March 11 earthquake and tsunami knocked out the complex's power supplies, Fukushima's radioactive gas leaks have triggered the worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Senior Amano adviser Graham Andrew said it was too early to compare radiation dangers from the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes. But he said radiation dose rates "only just above background" in dozens of Japanese cities 10 days after the Fukushima disaster were encouraging.

"In the case of Chernobyl there was at the heart of it a massive explosion that lifted the radioactivity from the plant high into the atmosphere and there was this fire from graphite which lasted a long time" – events lacking in Japan, he said.

He also said most of Japan's radiation appeared to have been dispersed over the Pacific Ocean in quantities that are "tiny compared to the reservoir of natural radioactivity in the oceans ... in a way that's good news."

Japanese and IAEA officials have suggested the emergency might be slowly abating. But attention is now focusing on the plant's safety record, with Japan's nuclear safety agency criticizing the operator for repeatedly failing to inspect crucial equipment before the crisis broke.

Amano has repeatedly emphasized that the IAEA can only advise Japan and other member nations in such situations and has no mandate to enforce international or local regulations on nuclear safety.

"We are not a 'nuclear safety watchdog' and responsibility for nuclear safety lies with our member states," he said, in comments from the closed meeting provided to media. "In contrast to the agency's role in nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety measures are applied voluntarily by each individual country and our role is supportive."

His comments Monday contained no direct criticism of the way Tokyo has handled the emergency. Instead, Amano told the meeting: "I have confidence that the Japanese government will address public concerns properly."

Still, he touched on international allegations that Japan has been too slow in releasing information about conditions at the site and the dangers facing the Japanese public, as he called for revamping the way nations deal with future nuclear emergencies.

The present ways of responding to such disasters were based on lessons learned from Chernobyl and reflect "the realities of the 1980s, not of the 21st century," Amano said.

He acknowledged that his agency's "role in nuclear safety may need to be re-examined, along with the role of our safety standards," alluding to calls by member nations for a more muscular IAEA enforcement role.

"It is already clear that arrangements for putting international nuclear experts in touch with each other quickly during a crisis need to be improved," he added.

Davies, the chief U.S. delegate, also suggested a major nuclear review was needed, saying that the IAEA board planned to work with the agency and its member states to "act upon the lessons of this nuclear emergency."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

VIENNA — Japan's nuclear crisis has exposed huge weaknesses in how the world deals with such disasters, the U.N. nuclear chief said Monday, urging changes in emergency responses worldwide. Yuki...
VIENNA — Japan's nuclear crisis has exposed huge weaknesses in how the world deals with such disasters, the U.N. nuclear chief said Monday, urging changes in emergency responses worldwide. Yuki...
Filed by Cara Parks  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:22 PM on 03/23/2011
Bullsh*t... the response isn't the problem, the greenlighting of an iffy reactor design being place on top of a fault line and next to the ocean is the problem.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:56 PM on 03/22/2011
Nuclear power should be banned forever... Nuclear power = The death of humanity and other living creatures.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bobolini
Crusty, But Delicious!
12:14 AM on 03/22/2011
I am repeating this from another of my posts -

The problem is that the nuclear power plants are "designed" to withstand an earthquake. There is always a difference between how a plant is designed and how it is executed. These things are complex structures that are built as quickly as possible because of the huge cost of the construction loans. San Onofre has had a history of accidents, is situated 3 miles from a fault line and is right on the pacific ocean totally unprotected by a sea wall or a break of any kind.

Here is a quote from the Los Angeles Times 1981 4 years after it was built -

"San Onofre nuclear power plant Unit 1's safety record was among the 10 poorest in the United States during 1981, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal memo."

It was designed to withstand a 7 pt earthquake, so was the plant at Fukushima. Here is a quote from Wikipeda if you doubt my opening - "The July 12, 1982 edition of Time (magazine) states, "The firm Bechtel was further embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre."

The spec is for a 7pt, Bechtel was rushing, right on a fault line and unprotected from the sea - You do the risk/benefit calc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deadgnome321
09:13 AM on 03/22/2011
Earthquake, maybe (but you can't stop nature), tsunami, absolutely not.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:35 PM on 03/21/2011
What a joke. Wake up. Rahm and Axelrod lobbied for the nuclear power industry, the USA sold nuclear power tech to Chile even as the Japanese nuclear disaster was unfolding, and Chu uses 4 year old solar and green number versus future fantasy nuke numbers in the official DOE report.

The fix is in.

Vote Kucinich, Dean, Grayson Progressive Caucus, not DLC Obama Neocon sell outs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Osapient1
08:59 PM on 03/21/2011
Nations? Really. Not that many, actually. The U.S. and various European countries ALWAYS respond... Very rarely do Middle Eastern or African countries respond...
01:26 PM on 03/21/2011
let him talk as much as he feels the need but not another US dime to the UN
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TexasBahr
act as you would like to be treated
12:35 PM on 03/21/2011
Japan does not have oil or gas as a local natural resource so nuclear was, at the time, the logical solution.Having said that I also put up for discussion that nuclear plants can be designed to withstand earthquakes and yes, sunamis as well with a little imagination and good engineering skills but what about wind and solar? I have never been to Japan but I would venture to guess that since its an island country there would be a decent wind velocity and surely enough to turn giant windmills which in turn turn generators. Tidal wave generators would also work.
Japan has proven to be a country of excellent innovation and I would love to see them put their efforts to improving the percent one can get out of solar panels too.
If their nuclear plants had primary or secondary solar backup power to the fuel rod pool pumps would the pumps have failed when commercial electricity to them was interrupted?
My heart goes out to the people of Japan who have lost lives but lets do a lessons learned here and build a more impervious infrastructue in place of the current one so that there is less negative impact to the country.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
12:11 PM on 03/21/2011
Comprehens­ive Nuclear-Te­st-Ban Treaty Organizati­on (CTBTO)
 
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-21_1500_E.pdf
 
Dispersion Modeling
 
The results of the dispersion model show that radioactivity is transported inland [Japan] today and tomorrow and will be circulated around. Radioactive particles can be washed out and deposited to the ground. On Wednesday, the cloud is again transported to the Pacific Ocean.
-------------
 
The CTBTO are documenting a continuous release of radionuclides from the Fukushima plant.  Japan already has problems with contaminated food and water, and despite the story being dropped by the press... The release of radionuclide fallout has not stopped.
 
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
11:56 AM on 03/21/2011
The biggest problem with the Nuclear Cheerleaders is they don't want alternatives to even be discussed.  They know there is new technology available that will put them out of business...  So they are desperate to get new plants built now, spend the money, then spill croc tears about how they have to keep these plants because closing them would be too expensive.
 
http://www.emc2fusion.org

Lab ^ website - The front page shows the timeline and cost estimate. 4 years and $200 million for a 100 MW pilot plant.  That's next generation commerical electrical power production. No radioactive fuels, no radioactive wastes.  Google: polywell fusion
 
http://www.oilgae.com/
 
Liquid ^ transportation fuel.  All you need are shallow tanks or ponds, non-radioactive water, and nutrient salts.
03:22 PM on 03/21/2011
It's business. There is only one rule inside the carapace of business: Get the money. Nuclear power is very big business with very big profits going to very powerful men. Being practical business types, they recognize that nothing and no one is more important than their profit and their personal bank accounts. That's what business is, long and short.
No matter how many people die, the nuclear power investors will -- like their oil, financial and pharma brethren -- do literally whatever it takes to keep their profits rolling in. Top management does the strategic thinking: Laws get handled by legal, information by PR, government by lobbyists and taxes by too-big-to-fail accounting firms.
Which is precisely why such men should never be allowed more than an advisory role in the government of human beings.
11:53 AM on 03/21/2011
I think its worse than they are letting on to the public. I say NO MORE. SOLAR AND WIND NOW.
photo
Kassandra
Idiot savant artistic genius
10:57 AM on 03/21/2011
By the time we could get more nukes up and running, we could have solar powering the whole earth. And, probably, in that time we will have more unclear power accidents which we won't be able to control.
It's like trying to control the sun. Prometheus did a better job.
And just WHERE are we supposed to get all this uranium for all these new plants? It's not an abundant mineral, you know.
All in all it's a waste of money again for corporate giants which never know when to say "stop". And we want to put the fate of our very planet in their hands?
For a "smart" species we sure are dumb; just smart enough to be dangerous to all life on earth including our own
10:43 AM on 03/21/2011
".....nuclear safety measures are applied voluntarily by each individual country and our role is supportive."
That's like giving a 6 year old the keys to a candy store.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]