India’s nuclear regulator – nor independent, not effective

Radiation regulatory regime needs independent powers Deccan Herald, Devender Singh, Jan 3, 2014:“……….In India, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was set up in 1983 to carry out the regulatory and safety functions as envisaged in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. Surprisingly, the AERB remains a subordinate authority under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) though India has ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety. A regulatory body must be equipped to exercise its key regulatory functions — namely, standard-setting, authorisation, inspection and enforcement without any constraint — and must possess the core values of competence, independence, stringency and transparency.

A review of the performance of the AERA recently by parliamentary watchdog Public Accounts Committee (PAC) unfolded glaring deficiencies and lacunae with respect to regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation facilities; development of safety policy, standards and codes; weak monitoring of radiation facilities, etc. AERB’s independence is circumscribed by absence of institutional separation of regulatory and non-regulatory functions; absence of a fixed term for office of chairman AERB; dependence on DAE for budgetary and administrative support; and apparent conflict of responsibilities as the chairman, AERB, reports to the Chairman, AEC.

The penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules remains abysmally low, a maximum fine of Rs 500 can be slapped, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed as a deterrent. More so, the penal provisions were never invoked, rendering it virtually a dead letter. The need for hastening the process of development of safety documents, codes, standards, guides and manuals was stressed by the Meckoni Committee report way back in 1987 and the Raja Ramanna Committee in 1997. A consolidated safety policy document is yet to be brought out.

Another serious problem bedeviling the AERB is huge manpower shortage leaving a large gap in the regulating and monitoring regime. This needs to be addressed as the nation can ill-afford to take any risk given the constantly increasing application of radiation especially in the fields like medicine, industry, agriculture. There is no system in place for monitoring the expiry of authorisations and their renewals with instances of protracted delays for periods as long as 24 years.

……….Regulatory mechanism

The PAC noted that the regulatory mechanism concerning X-ray units was virtually non-existent. Out of a total of 57,443 medical X-ray facilities operating in the country, only 5270 units had been registered and were under the regulatory control of AERB, leaving the balance 91 per cent of the total units without registrations. The AERB admitted that with its very limited workforce of engineers and scientists, it was impossible to regulate all the X-ray machines. The marked accelerated growth of ionising radiation, such as medical X-rays used as an essential diagnostic tool pose grave risks to health of workers and the public in the vicinity of these facilities. There was an alarming shortfall of over 97 per cent regulatory inspections in case of diagnostic radiological facilities every year. ………http://www.deccanherald.com/content/378174/radiation-regulatory-regime-needs-independent.html