I am very pleased to have the opportunity personally to address this General Meeting of WANO and not merely be a message on your big screen.
The IAEA is an intergovernmental organization and WANO is an association of operators of nuclear power plants.
If you sometimes feel that the government is your adversary meddling in your business, then I feel doubly grateful for your invitation because I represent not one but some 120 governments!
However, I feel sure that members of WANO, although perhaps from time to time irritated at government actions, know that a big modern industry can only exist within a social- legal-economic framework that is provided by public institutions: concessions to operate, safety regulations and supervision, arrangement for waste, transport, etc.
It is evident that the national state remains the key mechanism through which the public sets the conditions for industrial activities, even where these activities may have transnational effects. There is no supranational government, legislating or supervising. Yet, in many different fields rules are needed governing relations between states, and there may be a need for the same rules to apply in many or all states. The field of communications is the most obvious example. We need common international rules concerning safety and supervision of air traffic. We create such international rules and supervision by agreements between states - by conventions and other instruments.
In WANO you have created a mechanism through which nuclear operators in different countries can co-operate to learn from each other, and assist each other to function with ever greater safety and efficiency. This is to be welcomed and I should like warmly to congratulate you on great achievements in a relatively short period of time. Although there are some things WANO can do which the IAEA can also do, I have never thought of WANO as a competing organization. I would rather say that any task that can be appropriately and conveniently undertaken by WANO, should not be pursued by the IAEA. Neither governmental nor intergovernmental institutions should be made any larger than they have to be.
Having said this I should like to discuss matters relating to nuclear power which do call for international rules and supervision - an international framework.
Governments focussed early both on the peaceful and the military potentials of nuclear energy. The most immediate concern of the technology holders, notably the USA, was the prospect that many countries might develop nuclear weapons. This was the first, and remains a dominant, concern - which can only be tackled by intergovernmental action. As we all know, the approach taken in the Atoms for Peace Programme, in the Statute of the IAEA, and in the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to offer the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology, while demanding a verified commitment to the exclusively peaceful use of equipment or technology so transferred. Much of the technology transfer today takes place through commercial channels, but a fair amount is transferred through bilateral intergovernmental means and some 50-60 million dollars worth of transfers occurs through IAEA technical assistance and co-operation programmes.
The peaceful use commitments are all made at the intergovernmental level, through bilateral or multilateral agreements, such as the NPT. Verification, too, is exclusively intergovernmental, mostly IAEA safeguards, but also under two regional arrangements, Euratom and ABACC for Argentina and Brazil.
On a number of points regarding the peaceful use of the atom and verification reality has turned out differently - mostly better - than was feared some 25 years ago when the NPT came into force. First, the famous pessimistic prediction of President Kennedy that there might be dozens of future nuclear weapon states has proved wrong. The declared ones are still the five permanent members of the Security Council. One - South Africa - has rolled back from nuclear weapon status and three, Israel, India and Pakistan, are so-called threshold states.
While no one can be complacent about the risk of a further spread of nuclear weapons, it is fair to recognize that the efforts to prevent further proliferation have been highly successful. Those who claimed that nuclear power and nuclear weapons were like Siamese twins, and that the development of nuclear power must be stopped because it would inevitably lead to development of nuclear weapons, have been proved wrong. The reality is rather that the global expansion of nuclear power has been accompanied by expanded commitments to non- proliferation. It is not regarded as unrealistic today to aim at nearly full nuclear disarmament by the declared nuclear weapon states and at universal adherence to non-proliferation commitments by all others. When this is attained we may hope and expect that nuclear power will at last be freed from the evil shadow which nuclear weapons have always cast on it.
Another fear dispelled has been that the safeguards verification of the IAEA would impede technical development or risk revealing commercial or technological secrets. Today, nuclear industry tends to regard international safeguards verification as something as natural and inevitable as national safety supervision - necessary for public confidence.
Our experience in the case of Iraq has shown us that to give the world a high degree of confidence that no secret nuclear development is taking place anywhere, the safeguards system must be strengthened. This process is underway and we trust that the nuclear industry will support the proposals which will give the IAEA access to more information and greater access to sites as well as allowing the Agency to use new techniques. I can assure you that the Agency has no wish to be more intrusive than is needed to make the safeguards system credible - but credible it must be. The strengthened system will call for more information from, and co- operation with, nuclear operators. In return we expect that, if fully implemented, it will not only provide greater assurance but will also considerably reduce the need for inspection of power reactors.
I turn now to Nuclear Safety.
Unlike airplanes nuclear power plants remain firmly parked within the national jurisdiction of one state. Nevertheless the safe operation of such plants early became an international interest, inscribed in the Statute of the IAEA. Here, however, inspection rights were not created. While one could not assume that a state would consistently consider it to be in its own interest to refrain from developing nuclear weapons and therefore created safeguards, one did assume that nuclear operators and the state in which plants operate would invariably consider it to be in their own interest to be free of nuclear accidents and therefore did not see a need for international safety inspection but relied on national operators and governmental safety authorities.
The international dimension of nuclear power safety, both at the operator and governmental level first evolved through the interest in an exchange of experience. It was good to learn from each other. The Nuclear Safety Standards (NUSS) are formally non-binding standards building upon the common experience of many countries and encouraging best practices. They have served as inspiration and models for the national standards of a number of states.
As governments have gradually felt the need for binding international instruments - an international legal framework - IAEA guidelines and standards have also served as the points of departure. This is true of the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which establishes binding rules mainly regarding nuclear material in international transfer. When the Chernobyl accident occurred, Members of the IAEA promptly made use of existing guidelines to draft the so-called Chernobyl Conventions on Early Notification of an Accident and on Assistance in the Case of an Accident. Both Conventions have since been utilized - fortunately mostly in arranged exercises.
For a long time the Members of the IAEA were disinclined to go beyond recommendatory standards and optional safety services like OSARTs and ASSETs and work out a binding convention on nuclear safety. However, in September 1994 such a Convention was ready and opened for signature. Its aim is to legally commit all states operating nuclear power plants to maintain a high level of safety. It does not make the IAEA a supervisory body but states squarely "that responsibility for nuclear safety rests with the state having jurisdiction over a nuclear installation". This international responsibility of the state of course in no way negates the premise of WANO that nuclear operators carry prime responsibility for the safe operation of power plants.
The Safety Convention emerged from the awareness which also lies at the root of WANO, that nuclear safety must be at a high level everywhere, that basic safety rules should be respected by all. Effective implementation of the rules is sought by requiring contracting parties to submit national reports on their nuclear power operation and by 'peer review' of such reports. The successful use, inter-alia, by WANO of the 'peer review' mechanism I am sure contributed to the adoption of this model. Some 60 states have now signed the Convention which is expected to enter into force within a year or so. Preparatory discussions have begun on matrixes for reports and the organization of the peer review. The IAEA Secretariat is now considering how it might adapt its various nuclear safety review services to respond to possible requests by states for international reviews which could serve as partial input to their national reports. WANO, for its part, might want to consider how its activities could be used for similar purposes.
Liability
All societies require that individuals and corporations be responsible for damage that they may cause by negligence and, in particular activities, like nuclear power operation, also when no negligence can be shown. The need for clarity and predictability in the sphere of liability for damages led to the Paris Convention concluded between OECD countries in 1960 and the Vienna Convention concluded under IAEA auspices in 1963. They are also part of the international legal infrastructure relating to nuclear activities. The Chernobyl case demonstrated that for transfrontier damages caused by an accident in a state not party to any liability convention there was no specific mechanism for redress. Nor, indeed, was there at any time any ready procedure for individuals living in the state of that accident and sustaining injury to property or health. In recent years the absence of liability regulations in the states of the former Soviet Union has deterred foreign nuclear industry from engaging themselves in these countries for fear that any accident might result in claims against them under unpredictable legal conditions.
In view of this unsatisfactory situation governments within the IAEA have for several years been working on a revision of the Vienna Convention. The aim is to draft modifications which will lead to a general adherence by states to the Convention, to raise the ceilings of compensation, for operators and states, to provide for international supplementary financing etc.
I do not propose to go into the many legal and technical aspects which are of great importance to you as nuclear operators. I would like to mention, however, that some time back in the negotiations a proposal was discussed regarding collective contributions by operators to a supplementary fund for the compensation of damages caused by nuclear accidents. Although in the end the proposal was not taken up in the context of the drafts now on the table, a collective scheme by operators in the compensation of nuclear damage might still be adopted at the national or regional level. Such schemes might help to respond to the criticism which is common that nuclear power is only shouldering a small part of the risks which it poses. I might add that compensation schemes operating in other fields do provide for substantial participation of the relevant industries.
Nuclear Waste
A great many of the pollution problems in our modern societies are caused by the wastes from the burning of fossil fuels in cars, trucks and buses, in plants for electricity generation, for heating and industry. Acid rains, smog and global warming are linked to our use of fossil fuels and are prompting governments to act at both the national and international level. It is paradoxical that waste from civilian nuclear activities, which in most cases has been handled with great prudence and has rarely caused any environmental or health hazards, evokes as much, if not more, concern in the public as does the waste of the fossil fuels. However, as we all know that is the case. In the national sphere this is leading to justified strict regulation about the manner of disposing radioactive wastes. If the disposal of the waste from fossil fuels had been subjected to equally stringent rules, the world would have been a lot less polluted and damaged.
Although the disposal of nuclear waste is mostly a national question, subjected to national rules, here, too, international standards based on common knowledge and experience have gradually emerged. Since a number of years the Members of the IAEA have been adopting the RADWASS - Radiation Waste Safety Standards - as guidelines and I should like to report to you that recently the decision has been taken to work out a binding convention on the safety of radioactive waste management. A working group of technical and legal experts open to all Member States is expected to initiate work in July. So far experts appear intent to give the convention a broad scope, covering not only standards for national management of nuclear waste, but also transboundary movements and possible regional and international repositories.
The rationale behind the proposed convention is similar to that behind the Nuclear Safety Convention, namely, to ensure globally, through legally binding obligations, a responsible handling of all radioactive waste, thereby also helping to allay public concerns. I think one might expect implementation procedures similar to those adopted in the Convention on Nuclear Safety, i.e. national reports and peer review.
The transboundary movements of nuclear waste is already the subject of some international regulation contained in rules concerning transportation. I should add that in response to concerns - which fortunately have proved unfounded - about the dumping of nuclear waste in developing countries, stringent international guidelines have been adopted which prohibit any irresponsible practices. I should also mention that through the so-called London Dumping Convention, and the latest amendment under it, all sea dumping of low and medium level radioactive waste, which was earlier permitted under certain conditions, is now banned.
The new international ban on sea dumping responds to the wish of the public to protect the so-called global commons - the high seas, the atmosphere, the global climate. This brings me to my last point, namely, the actual and potential role of nuclear power to reduce the use of fossil fuels which cause emissions of greenhouse gases into our common atmosphere. CO2 emitted anywhere is CO2 emitted everywhere. We know that if the energy generated by the world's some 420 nuclear power plants were instead generated by the burning of coal, the CO2 emissions would increase by some 2000 million tonnes or 7%. It is not difficult to understand that more CO2 emission could be avoided if obsolete fossil fuel based plants were replaced by nuclear plants and if additionally needed energy were sought in nuclear power. This, however, is not yet what is happening. Indeed, more and more CO2 emitting fossil fuels are consumed and global CO2 emissions are increasing - not decreasing. The rhetoric and the reality go in different directions. The use of natural gas in combined cycle is recommended by many and is expanding fast as economic and as causing 40% less CO2 emissions per energy unit than coal. It is often overlooked, however, that any given quantity of gas used gives rise to 5 - 10% leakage of methane at extraction points and from pipelines. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
There is at present increasing concern in the public and particularly among environmentally oriented groups about global warming and its possible cataclysmic consequences in rising sea levels and climate changes. Whatever the reality of the threat, at least the political atmosphere is warming! However, this common concern is not yet leading to concerted intergovernmental action. The only remedies which have general support seem to be greater efficiency to restrain the burning of fossil fuels and greater use of renewable sources, like hydropower, biomass, solar and wind power. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), which is to provide the world's government with scientific data about global climate change issues, including possible responses, offers as a main scenario the development of a world energy mix which by the year 2100 would consist of more than 80% biomass! 60% of the world's electricity would be generated by biomass under this scenario. Authoritative energy institutions like the IEA of the OECD and the World Energy Council predict - I believe realistically - a rather modest future role for the renewable sources and one must ask oneself whether these green scenarios are not dream scenarios.
In contrast, the nuclear option consistently appears highly effective to respond to the expected increased global energy use - without adding greenhouse gases. However, I must note that in the climate change discussions the nuclear option is usually brushed aside with references to operational safety, waste disposal and proliferation.
This may change, if the concerns about climate change and demand for effective action to reduce greenhouse gases increase. We do not seem to be there yet. At the recent Berlin Conference on Climate Change, the Head of the IEA appears to have been the only speaker to have referred to nuclear power, when he said that there had been an annual average improvement - i.e. reduction - in carbon intensity per unit of energy of about 0.4% between 1971 and 1992 and commented that it was attributable to the substantial growth in nuclear power over that period. However, he added that as nuclear power's share in the world's fuel mix is expected to decrease, the CO2 emissions can be expected again to follow energy demand growth. Was this sustainable, he asked.
It is not sure that the public in Western industrialized countries can be brought to appreciate that nuclear power offers an economically competitive, environmentally benign and independence creating source of energy. It seems to take an ample energy supply simply for granted, in a way that people do not do in the booming East Asia, where energy shortage is seen as an unwelcome brake on development and all energy sources are looked upon as precious.
It is easy to see that if rationality is to prevail much information is needed comparing the economy and the health and environmental aspects of different sources of energy. The IAEA co-operates with several other international organizations in preparing and presenting studies on these subjects. Efforts must obviously also continue to further improve the good nuclear safety record, to which WANO eminently contributes, to come to decisions on waste sites, and to accelerate nuclear disarmament and gain universal adherence to non-proliferation.
Let me conclude: even though the nuclear power option should be and is viable regardless of environmental considerations, these considerations are a very significant reasons for an expanded use of nuclear power. It is not claimed that nuclear power alone can be the response to possible global warming, but it can be claimed that it is capable of being an important part of the response - and governments ought to discover this.
Lastly, there are those who stress the uncertainty of the climate models, which point to global warming and who warn that we should not invest huge sums in action which might turn out not to have been needed. They do not suggest we should remain passive. They rather advocate action which we would not later regret, i.e. measures which would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and which would be meaningful and economic even without that effect. Examples are the planting of trees absorbing CO2, and investment in energy efficiency, reducing the burning of fossil fuels. I would submit that an expanded use of nuclear power, which can be perfectly economically competitive, is a no regret response to global warming. The sooner economists and ecologists and governments discover this, the better. I hope WANO Members will help them to do so.