Written by Queenie Manyan Fung, Four Green Steps

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, damaged by the March 11th tsunami, has been the center of global attention for becoming the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), serving as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation, is an intergovernmental, science-based organization that exists as part of the United Nations.

In recent weeks, representatives of the G8 countries—a group composed of Canada, the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan—are openly criticizing the organization for their lack of transparency in providing the public with clear information concerning the Fukushima radiation emission, lack of reliability in the way the situation is being handled, and lastly, their lack of mandate in enforcing safety guidelines in a country incapable of dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear meltdown. However, the agency argued that the criticism was unjustified and that the agency should not be vilified for the crisis that is unfolding in Japan.

So what exactly is the role of this ambiguous agency? According to the nuclear officials in Vienna, the agency serves to promote ways of utilizing nuclear energy. Only when there is any illicit nuclear activity involved (particularly when production of weapons is suspected), does the agency step in for evaluation. As far as nuclear safety is concerned, the agency has no jurisdiction to monitor or criticize the nuclear power industries, as stated recently, “the agency can facilitate the creation of a standard but cannot enforce that standard.” Instead, much of the inspection relies solely on the voluntary cooperation of the respective member states and it is not mandatory to publicize the information that is gathered.

It seems counter-intuitive to think that an agency with the authority to implement such important regulations on the proper usage of nuclear power could fail so miserably in its ability to prevent and handle a nuclear disaster on this scale. Conveniently, the one and only existing global nuclear safety watchdog is once again looking for ways to “misplace” their responsibilities amid a tragic event despite what happened in Chernobyl in 1986.

Iouli Andreev, one of the former Soviet nuclear scientists who organized/participated in the reconstruction of Chernobyl, describes the organization as not only ineffective in the aftermath of Chernobyl, but that the negligence of the agency had allowed the industries to make a farce of the existing regulations for the sole purpose of financial interest.

"After Chernobyl, all the force of the nuclear industry was directed to hide this event, for not creating damage to their reputation. The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry. But industry doesn't like it," said Andreev.

He also criticized how the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) devised ways to cut costs by closely stacking the fuel rods in pools near the Fukushima nuclear reactors. After the tsunami, one of those pools caught fire dispersing large quantity of radioactivity into the atmosphere.

"The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin, you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev added.

Lastly, he stated that the agency was simply too entangled with the nuclear energy corporations to enforce any standards properly, "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly [...] It always will try to hide the reality."

Central to the discussion concerning the close connections as mentioned by Iouli Andreev is the head of IAEA, former Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, whom many believe was elected on the basis of his bureaucratic ties to the Japanese government. Mr. Amano has been absent for several key meetings since elected in 2009, including the 66th summit of the U.N. General Assembly held in New York regarding nuclear security, safety, and industry surveillance. The dates of those international meetings, despite having been scheduled a year in advance, somehow always found themselves coinciding with the dates of IAEA meetings.

However, nuclear officials with knowledge of the agency's workings said at least two high-level meetings were deliberately scheduled by U.N. member officials to conflict with the other IAEA meetings in an effort to marginalize Mr. Amano. "The schedule decision was made to prevent Mr. Amano from attending, and to lower the IAEA's profile on the safety issue," one official said at a ministerial-level meeting held by representatives from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris.

Despite Mr. Amano's absence, officials from that meeting had proposed ways to strengthen IAEA's position in enforcing the safety mandate and their thoughts on the agency's new role following the nuclear disaster in Japan. French Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet is quoted as saying: "For me [the IAEA's] role is central. This meeting is not meant to weaken the role of the IAEA or make them less legitimate. On the contrary, we want to reinforce it and allow for their director to transform our conclusions into reality."

Image courtesy of Creative Commons.

| More...