Fukushima triggers "nuclear safety renaissance" The nuclear energy world had become "a bit complacent" before the devastating accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan exactly one year ago, the head of the agency that promotes the safe use of atomic power has admitted. While in its early years the nuclear world paid a lot of attention to safety, after construction had started again in the wake of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, "we had a nuclear renaissance and perhaps we got a bit complacent," Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Financial Times in an interview, adding that complacency "is the enemy of nuclear safety." But the Fukushima accident, the veteran Japanese diplomat said, had proven "an important wake-up call" that had itself triggered a "nuclear safety renaissance." The accident at the plant, following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan's north-eastern coast, led to explosions at three reactors and the release of high levels of radioactivity into the atmosphere and ocean. It exposed numerous weaknesses in the country's nuclear industry, including inadequate preparation and response to an emergency. Among the key failings, Mr Amano highlighted the "weak oversight" from a nuclear regulatory body that "was not fully independent from the promotional side." Communication and a lack of transparency were further issues. While the Japanese government has responded by planning a new, independent regulatory body Mr Amano cautioned it was too early to say if all the changes had been sufficient or not. He noted that a robust organisation also needed "capable people" and adequate funding. The IAEA plans to review the new body once it is up and running. The grading of nuclear events also needs to change, according to Mr Amano. The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, or Ines, ranges from one to seven, the most serious, and is designed to communicate to the public the safety significance of nuclear events. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi have been classified as a level seven despite being very different in nature. Nuclear experts agree, for example, that the radiological consequences of Chernobyl were far more serious. "Ines did not function well at a communications level," said Mr Amano, adding that while he did not advocate establishing a level eight or nine, "there should be a better way of applying it." The accident has prompted widespread debate about the IAEA's functions and whether the agency should be given mandatory powers to inspect countries" nuclear sites. The debate is continuing but Mr Amano stressed "it is not the common view of the member states for now." Instead, the agency can do a lot more using its existing powers, notably hold more frequent peer reviews, offer better analysis of information during a crisis, and improve the communication of nuclear power and nuclear accidents. A year on from Fukushima, nuclear power still has a role to play as a source of low-carbon electricity. Despite some governments in Europe, notably Germany, deciding to phase out atomic power, figures from the World Nuclear Association reveal that 60 new reactors are under construction globally, with 163 more on order or planned. Prior to Fukushima, there were 62 under construction and 156 on order or planned. Demand is coming from developing economies whose demand for electricity is rising. Of the 60 reactors, roughly two-thirds are from emerging economies, most in Asia, notably in China. A key concern among critics of nuclear power is the robustness of the regulatory systems in some of these countries. In China, said Mr Amano, "they are very serious about nuclear safety," but he conceded that other countries needed help. We are helping developing countries to establish a robust nuclear infrastructure which includes a robust regulatory body.