|
 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.
"If the convention is already perfect, why did Fukushima happen?"
said one senior diplomat involved in the matter.
But Russia and the United States have opposed such a change, the
diplomats say.
A reform of the CNS would increase industry costs, as existing
nuclear plants, especially older ones, would have to be refitted.
The United Nations atomic watchdog says there are 439 nuclear power
reactors currently in operation globally, with 69 under
construction.
Mark Hibbs, proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment
think-tank, said those in favor of the amendment argue their
opponents are motivated by protecting the nuclear industry and
electric utility companies.
Critics of the plan say the U.S. industry has already spent billions
of dollars on improving nuclear safety since Fukushima, Hibbs added.
COMPROMISE DRAFT
A compromise proposal obtained by Reuters earlier this month shows
that CNS member countries are likely to issue a declaration or
statement echoing the amendment proposal, which had broad European
backing, rather than change the treaty.
"New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with
the objective of preventing accidents," and minimizing off-site
contamination in case of accidents, a document dated December
2014/January 2015 said, echoing the wording of the Swiss proposal,
but categorized as a "statement".
"Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing
plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these
objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."
[to top of second column] |
Such a declaration would mean less pressure on countries that fail
to impose the tougher standards. Even an amended convention would
only leave scope for punishment in the form of peer reviews.
Three senior Western diplomats confirmed that a change to the
convention itself is very unlikely to get the green light at a
diplomatic conference on the CNS in Vienna starting on Feb. 9, after
the United States objected to such a step.
Another scenario could see the amendment simply voted down or shot
down through procedural issues without even a joint statement - a
"pessimistic" outlook, according to one diplomat, as it would show
diplomatic divisions over nuclear safety.
"I think the United States government is afraid of any principle
that would even suggest that current reactors need to be retrofitted
to meet modern standards," said Edwin Lyman of the Washington-based
Union of Concerned Scientists.
"We have many plants (that face) hazards far greater than those they
were originally designed to withstand decades ago... A
declaration... would allow signatories to avoid even the obligation
to discuss the matter in their reports."
A U.S. official said that his country strongly supports the
convention and wants it, and the diplomatic conference, to be
successful, but did not comment on an amendment which may face
political and legal opposition in the United States.
(Editing by Mark Trevelyan)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
