Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections
mdsolar writes with news that the U.S. objects to a proposal to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety put forward by Switzerland. The United States looks set to succeed in watering down a proposal for tougher legal standards aimed at boosting global nuclear safety, according to senior diplomats. Diplomatic wrangling will come to a head at a 77-nation meeting in Vienna next month that threatens to expose divisions over required safety standards and the cost of meeting them, four years after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Switzerland has put forward a proposal to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS), arguing stricter standards could help avoid a repeat of Fukushima, where an earthquake and tsunami sparked triple nuclear meltdowns, forced more than 160,000 people to flee nearby towns and contaminated water, food and air.
The first thing would be tougher rules for nuclear site selection.
While it restricts the allowed area for a nuclear site, there'd be almost no additional cost for the site construction and maintenance (unless it's a really remote location). This would already help a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't fukushima's nuclear plant already breaking Japan's law? Why would then more regulation even help the problem? Enforcing current regulations on older plants should take priority over more red tape and bureaucracy.
I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the nuclear power generation industry to be less safe than it possibly could be, except where it meant that designs with potential flaws & faults would be blocked from sale to countries requiring lowest possible cost nuclear power. Blocking increased safety simply sounds like someone wants their income protected.
If current regulatory practices means that there are ways of getting round safety, then they MUST be rewritten and/or extended. Anything less I consider a dereliction of duty to the people who would live near nuclear plants.
The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.
The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.
See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.
This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.
In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.
The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."
Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.
Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.
Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
No specifics. mdsolar.
Bullshit detector in high range.
It's been a log time since I worked in the industry (I did programming in Health Physics at San Onofre many years ago) but I know that at the time, France was considered to have the safest reactors, operating rules, and procedures. Their Health Physics rules were particularly admired. Of course, this makes sense, because historically, isn't France the country with the widest deployment of and most reliance on nuclear reactors? But, now France has decided on a long-term goal of phasing-out nuclear power. Perhaps the best way to win this game - is to not play at all.
Exactly. Th problem is generally that the existing laws are ignored in the name of profits, becasue all the *individuals* calling the shots benefit from corporate profits, but suffer no penalties for corporate malfeasance. We could fix that.
To start with, how about we make CEOs personally responsible for any and all negligence that occurs on their watch? Start with liquidating their assets, with no "trust fund" safe harbors permitted, as ill gotten gains. And then proceed to criminal penalties.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that. Of course it is held in broad strokes, and of course it's the job of the national nuclear safety institutions to come up with, implement and oversee the guidelines and rules. It's the lowest common denominator everyone can (or should be able to) agree upon. That's how these things work.
The amendment states:
"Nuclear power plants shall be designed and constructed with the objectives of preventing accidents and, should an accident occur, mitigating its effects and avoiding radionuclides causing long-term off-site contamination. In order to identify and implement appropriate safety improvements, these objectives shall also be applied at existing plants."
There's also a bit on the goal of the amendment: "Switzerland believes that making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety. ..."
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then some existing plants would have to be reexamined and maybe even receive some upgrades to their safety measures. Which would affect somone's bottom line, and we can't have that, now can we?
Switzerland has put forward a proposal to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS), arguing stricter standards could help avoid a repeat of Fukushima, where an earthquake and tsunami sparked triple nuclear meltdowns, forced more than 160,000 people to flee nearby towns and contaminated water, food and air.
How convenient it is to conflate the blame for mass suffering from the tsunami with the nuclear event.
Many people have bought into the myth that the nuclear event at Fukushima was a human disaster of epic proportion, ignoring the real disaster which was the tsunami, and by doing so giving a big middle finder to those victims. Many people along the coast of Japan, well outside the Fukushima zone, are still struggling and displaced. They've lost loved ones and their homes. Many will not be able to rebuild in the same place as their old home, but the anti-nuke agenda driven assholes of the world gladly ignore that suffering because they see an opportunity to spread fear.
Meanwhile, not a single human has suffered any health impact due to radioactive releases from the accident, and the prognostications are that none will ever be detected. (if you feel tempted to post a link to the thyroid hoax study, do us a favor and first learn a little about the methods used before you spread ignorance)
Yes, the nuclear accident has complicated matters significantly, and should get due attention, but ask yourself, what do you care about more, an anti nuke agenda or the real human disaster that took place? Do you trust those that are more driven by their agenda than human compassion? Try to find stories about those forgotten victims. It takes a little sifting and effort. Too much for some folks I guess.