November 1, 2012

CAGs Proliferation of Nuclear Errors (Economic times 01.11.2012)

The report on Atomic  Energy Regulatory Board shows the CAG lacks technical expertise

K S PARTHASARATHY

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG),in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB),highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few  a types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.

CAG should not have offered advice on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill.CAG appears to believe that AERB is under regulatory capture. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures. Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERBs de-facto functional autonomy.

In line with the International Atomic Energy Agencys (IAEA) prescription,AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement ,the Atomic Energy Act,1962,and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to safety policies and not a safety policy. Still,CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!

Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a "counting and accounting"  exercise

CAG did not appreciate AERBs role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If registration is purely an administrative step,AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units.CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.

CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state.

CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001,directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety.The court has not issued any such directive to states.CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB.In fact,no such delegation is necessary. AERBs constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAGs opinion that as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period appears far-fetched.

CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act (CAGs Atomic  Mistake, ET, September 13,2012).It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is.500.CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.

CAG proposed to replace any person in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules,2004,with AERB to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist not necessarily from AERB for inspection to any institution.CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules,2004.AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different .

AERB approves annually the collective dose to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAGs claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERBs direct control lacks basis.

References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAGs report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a counting-and-accounting exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.

(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board)
ksparth@gmail.com

http://mobileet.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=21&sectid=edid=&edlabel=ETM&mydateHid=01-11-2012&pubname=Economic+Times+-+Mumbai&edname=&articleid=Ar02102&publabel=ET

[This  is a reformatted version of the original. A few minor mistakes have been corrected in this version.]

 An expanded version of this article which was published in The Economic Times may accessed at:

http://ksparthasarathy.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/cags-report-on-the-performance-audit-of-aerb-a-critique/