The nuclear disaster that occurred in Japan this year has led to calls across the globe for stronger governance and regulatory reform for the nuclear power industry. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its plan to address many of the shortcomings revealed by the disaster, but these have been pulled back in the direction of voluntary targets, and are unlikely to have the scale necessary for issues of this magnitude anyways. To fill this void, industry-led initiatives are emerging to fill the void. This week’s GR Energy and Climate Brief analyzes the future of nuclear safety measures and surprising new players that will have large impacts on the future of the industry.

Despite pressure for stronger global governance of nuclear power after the crisis in Japan, the new action plan by the IAEA on nuclear safety remains weak, and voluntary standards by the industry itself hold the most promise for increasing global nuclear safety standards in the short-term. The IAEA recently unveiled its 12-point action plan, meant to address the technical and regulatory weaknesses revealed by the disaster, but the plan was watered down to non-binding voluntary standards at the insistence of the United States and China. The lack of commitment by these key nuclear countries to this action plan and farther reaching reforms leaves little hope the IAEA standards will be able to meaningfully impact global nuclear safety. In the meantime, industry led safety initiatives fill the void for global safety standards, and in certain cases are stronger than voluntary standards released by the IAEA. Today’s GR Climate and Energy Brief will analyze voluntary industry initiatives and their ability to make an impact on industry safety.

A IAEA’s Action Plan Unlikely to Lead to Greater Global Safety: While the crisis in Japan illustrated the consequences that arise from a lack of global nuclear safety standards, countries continue to place a low priority on negotiating and implementing global safety standards. Because each country operates under their own regulatory regimes, there is a patchwork of nuclear safety standards subject to the customs and political processes of individual countries. As Brian Radzinsky, program manager of the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said to GR, “The State-led process is not going anywhere. Two disasters, three disasters later, states are still not willing to move in a coordinated fashion.” The IAEA’s action plan attempted to remedy this situation by providing an international framework to fortify emergency preparedness and response at plants, enhance the effectiveness of regulatory bodies, reinforce safe operating procedures, develop infrastructure in new nuclear states, and increase transparency. Still, the standards are voluntary, and IAEA does not have enforcement authority, noting that the success of the action plan is “dependent on its implementation through full cooperation and participation of Member States.” Led by Germany, most developed countries have supported a binding international regime, but the United States has joined Pakistan, China, and India in blocking an agreement. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesman Scott Burnell stated that while they have addressed the issues under the IAEA’s action plan, nuclear power plants in the US will comply with what the NRC, not the IAEA, feels is necessary.

See full article here.