Cooperation between national regulatory bodies

Simultaneously, while regulation of nuclear installations remains a national responsibility, regulators have created several international groups to exchange information and best practices with counterparts in other countries to strengthen cooperation, and to improve regulatory effectiveness and processes in their own countries. Some of these groups are regional, some deal with particular reactor types, and others are based on the size of the in-country nuclear reactor programme. Membership often is overlapping, but the key point is that there does not appear to be a common approach to regulatory issues.

The most well known of these include:

• INRA (International Nuclear Regulators Association), is a forum for senior regulators from major advanced nuclear power countries in Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) as well as the USA, Canada, and Japan. The objective of the group is to share experience and examine a broad range of safety issues with the purpose of influencing and enhancing nuclear safety from a regulatory perspective. INRA has not attempted to standardize national regulations, but works to increase consensus on approaches to nuclear safety issues.

• WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators Association), as the name implies, consists of the heads of nuclear regulatory bodies of most western European countries with nuclear power programmes. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined WENRA in March 2003. The group is again focused on sharing experience in nuclear safety regulation. It uses its collective knowledge to advise European institutions on nuclear safety in countries that are

TOPICAL ISSUE 1

45 applicants to join the European Union. The group also has been active in promoting the harmonization of nuclear reactor safety and radioactive waste standards in member countries.

• NERS (Network of Regulators of Countries with Small Nuclear Programmes), includes Argentina, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Pakistan, and Switzerland, and focuses on many of the issues relevant to diversity and globalization.

NERS most recent meeting (2003) included discussions on maintaining regulatory control and corporate knowledge within the regulatory body (when, for example, operating organizations contract out work and when Technical Support Offices are engaged in regulatory decision making), and quality management of regulatory bodies.

• The Ibero-American Forum of Nuclear Regulators originally was limited to Ibero-American countries with interest in nuclear power (Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, and Spain), but was expanded in 2003 to cover regulatory issues related to radiation safety, and therefore open to other countries of the region.

• The Cooperation Forum of State Nuclear Safety Authorities of the Countries Operating WWER Type of Reactors includes Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine (Germany and the IAEA participate as observers).

At its most recent meeting in 2003, topics included elements that contribute to regulatory independence and technical competence, inspection practices, differences between PSA reports and subsequent plant modifications, and methods to make better use of operating experience when working to increase nuclear power plant safety.

• The Group of Senior Regulators from Countries Operating CANDU Type Nuclear Power Plants includes Argentina, Canada, India, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan and Romania. Meetings generally focus on generic safety issues for pressurized heavy water reactors, compliance and enforcement, safety indicators, periodic safety review, technical specifica-tions and operating policies and principles, and other operational topics.

These groups aim to foster the interest of their particular group, and sometimes focus on single issues. The groups are informal in that they are not based on international treaties or other legally binding instruments. Generally, participation by the respective regulatory bodies in these groups is at a very senior level. Although such interaction might be conducive for cooperative efforts, it does not necessarily lead to optimal coordination of day-to-day activities by national regulators. Broader perspectives need to be pursued to

VERSTEEG et al.

46

seek common directions in approaches, for example, at the regional level, or on a thematic basis.

In 2003, the European Commission proposed initiatives to develop common nuclear safety and waste management regulations that would be binding on the EU states. The June 2004 meeting of the EU Council did not endorse these initiatives after they met with resistance from some states. The Commission recently announced revised initiatives, calling for discussion by EU leaders “without delay”. The Commission stressed the need for estab-lishment “of a common system for the evaluation of nuclear safety in each member state”.

On a broader multinational level, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), a specialized agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has a standing committee for senior level representa-tives from member government regulatory organizations, the Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA), which aims at reaching a common understanding on state-of-the-art safety approaches.

The IAEA holds a meeting of senior regulators in association with the annual IAEA General Conference, which is mainly an information exchange activity. In addition, the IAEA hosts many other activities, during which regulators seek to develop a common understanding on technical and policy matters. The IAEA also facilitates and supports the reviews by the Contracting Parties of the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Despite efforts to gain understanding and experience through interna-tional exchanges, rigidities and inadequacies remain in nainterna-tional legal and regulatory schemes. However, there is general agreement amongst IAEA Member States that the IAEA safety standards reflect a high level of safety and could serve as the global reference for the protection of people and the environment. It is very clear that these international safety standards are not at level of the lowest common denominator. Many regulatory bodies in IAEA Member States use the Agency’s safety standards as reference for developing their national regulations. In other Member States, regulators are called upon to ensure that their regulations are in agreement with the Agency standards and the levels of safety expressed in them. However, this is not the case univer-sally, and national safety regulations and methodologies may not be fully compatible with, or based on, international standards due to individual national approaches and regulatory practices. Some advanced nuclear power countries, with long standing independent regulatory bodies, have not invited IRRT (International Regulatory Review Team) missions to review national nuclear regulatory practices against the benchmark of IAEA safety standards.

In other States, steps to improve regulatory independence and introduce adequate legislation are still needed. In other instances, national regulatory

TOPICAL ISSUE 1

47 regimes may lack adequate authority to oversee activities of contractors (sometimes from foreign countries) that have been hired to operate nuclear facilities. Regulators also must pay attention that globalization does not allow for any degradation of safety. They should be alert to any early symptoms of safety culture deficiency through prompt regulatory attention.