oversight

Nuclear Safety: Uncertainties About the Implementation and Costs of the Nuclear Safety Convention

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-01-02.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                 United States General Accounting Office

GAO              Report to Congressional Requesters




January 1997
                 NUCLEAR SAFETY
                 Uncertainties About
                 the Implementation
                 and Costs of the
                 Nuclear Safety
                 Convention




GAO/RCED-97-39
                   United States
GAO                General Accounting Office
                   Washington, D.C. 20548

                   Resources, Community, and
                   Economic Development Division

                   B-275746

                   January 2, 1997

                   The Honorable Jesse Helms
                   Chairman, Committee on Foreign
                     Relations
                   United States Senate

                   The Honorable Bob Graham
                   United States Senate

                   The 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power reactor in Ukraine
                   underscored the global importance of nuclear safety, as radioactive
                   material was carried beyond the national boundaries of the Soviet Union
                   to East and West European countries. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl
                   accident, representatives of over 50 nations participated in the
                   development of a Convention on Nuclear Safety, a multilateral treaty that
                   seeks to increase the safety of civil nuclear power reactors. As of
                   December 1996, the Convention had been signed by 65 countries,
                   including the United States. The Secretary of Energy signed the
                   Convention on behalf of the United States in September 1994. However, in
                   order for the United States to become legally bound by the Convention,
                   the U.S. Senate must ratify it. In May 1995, the administration transmitted
                   the Convention to the Senate, but the Senate has yet to take action. (See
                   app. I for a list of countries that have signed—or signed and ratified—the
                   Convention.)

                   As requested, this report provides information on (1) how compliance with
                   the Convention’s terms and obligations will be reviewed by the ratifying
                   countries (hereinafter, also called parties) and (2) the potential costs to
                   the United States to participate in the Convention.


                   The method to review compliance with the Convention on Nuclear Safety
Results in Brief   has not been finalized. The Convention does not impose sanctions for
                   noncompliance but seeks to encourage compliance through peer pressure.
                   The Convention relies on each ratifying country to prepare a
                   self-assessment report of its nuclear power program. These reports will, in
                   turn, be reviewed by other member countries at periodic meetings to
                   determine how each country is complying with the Convention. The level
                   of detail to be included in these reports has not been finalized, nor has the
                   process by which countries will critically review these reports been fully
                   determined.




                   Page 1                               GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
             B-275746




             As the method is currently envisioned, groups composed of five or six
             countries would form the core of the review process. The countries with
             the greatest number of operating nuclear reactors—the United States,
             France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia—would participate in
             separate review groups made up primarily of several other countries with
             operating reactors. Although U.S. government officials did not originally
             favor the country-grouping approach, they believe the United States will
             have adequate opportunities to review the safety programs of all countries
             through other mechanisms established by the Convention.

             The costs associated with the United States’ participation in the
             Convention have not been fully determined. The Nuclear Regulatory
             Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy have
             estimated that it could cost as much as $1.1 million to (1) participate in
             planning meetings to develop the Convention’s policies and procedures;
             (2) prepare the first U.S. self-assessment report; (3) review other
             countries’ reports; and (4) participate in the first review meeting, which
             will probably be held in April 1999. These costs are made up primarily of
             U.S. government-related salaries and benefits. Other costs—a portion of
             which the United States will incur—associated with the International
             Atomic Energy Agency’s administration of the Convention are less certain
             but could range up to $10.3 million through the first review meeting,
             according to a 1993 estimate. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials
             believe, however, that the actual costs will be significantly less—about
             $1 million to administer the first review meeting. The costs for subsequent
             review meetings have not been estimated.


             The Convention on Nuclear Safety, which became effective for the
Background   ratifying countries on October 24, 1996,1 seeks to achieve and maintain a
             high level of safety for all nations that operate civil nuclear power
             reactors. (According to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], as
             of December 31, 1995, 32 countries operated 437 nuclear power reactors.)
             The U.S. government views the Convention as one of the chief policy
             instruments to encourage Russia and other countries with reactors that do
             not meet Western safety standards to improve safety. The Convention calls
             on countries to take action to, among other things, (1) establish and
             maintain a legislative framework and independent regulatory body to
             govern the safety of nuclear installations; (2) establish procedures to
             ensure that technical aspects of safety, such as the siting, design, and

             1
             Under the terms of the Convention, any country that ratifies the Convention subsequent to
             October 24, 1996, must wait 90 days to participate in it.



             Page 2                                          GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                              B-275746




                              construction of nuclear power reactors, are adequately considered; and
                              (3) ensure that an acceptable level of safety is maintained throughout the
                              life of the installations by such things as giving a priority to safety,
                              providing adequate financial resources, and establishing a quality
                              assurance program.

                              The Department of State, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear
                              Regulatory Commission (NRC) have participated in the development and
                              implementation of the Convention.2 NRC, in its capacity as the U.S. civilian
                              nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
                              obligations under the Convention. The Convention establishes IAEA as the
                              Convention’s secretariat primarily to (1) convene and prepare for the
                              meetings and (2) transmit reports and information to member countries.


                              The method to review countries’ compliance with the Convention has not
Process to Review             been finalized. The Convention relies on the ratifying countries to prepare
Compliance Has Not            reports (self-assessments of their nuclear power programs) that are
Been Finalized                expected to describe how they are complying with the Convention.
                              However, the reports’ level of detail and specifics and the process for
                              examining the reports have not been fully determined. Although U.S. and
                              IAEA officials believe the Convention will encourage openness about
                              countries’ safety programs, it is uncertain how much information will be
                              made available to the public.


Peer Review Process Is        The Convention does not impose sanctions for noncompliance but seeks
Central to the Convention’s   to encourage compliance through peer pressure. To determine compliance
Success                       with the terms of the Convention, countries are required to meet
                              periodically to review one another’s safety programs.3 State, DOE, and NRC
                              officials have stated that this peer review process is central to the
                              Convention’s success, noting that it will enable the countries’ safety
                              practices to be brought before the “bar of world public opinion.”

                              The Convention does not specify the form and content of the peer review
                              process but calls on the parties to (1) submit self-assessment reports of
                              the measures they have taken to implement the Convention and (2) hold

                              2
                               See our report entitled Nuclear Safety: Progress Toward International Agreement to Improve Reactor
                              Safety (GAO/RCED-93-153, May 14, 1993) for more information about the development of the
                              Convention.
                              3
                               The Convention requires that the first meeting of the parties to review the self-assessment reports
                              occur within 30 months of the Convention’s entry into force, which means not later than April 24, 1999.
                              Subsequent meetings are to be held at intervals not to exceed 3 years.



                              Page 3                                            GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                                          B-275746




                                          meetings to review these reports. Representatives of over 40 countries,
                                          including the United States, have met on several occasions over the past 2
                                          years to develop options for implementing the peer review process. The
                                          United States has chaired these sessions. In June 1996, the representatives
                                          agreed on a model to implement the peer review process, but final
                                          decisions will not be made until all of the ratifying countries meet no later
                                          than April 1997, as required by the Convention.4

                                          As the process is currently envisioned, the five countries with the most
                                          operating nuclear reactors—the United States, France, Japan, the United
                                          Kingdom, and Russia—would participate in separate groups made up of
                                          several other countries that have ratified the Convention. The remaining
                                          countries are placed in each group on the basis of the number of reactors
                                          in each country, as shown in table 1. Within this group setting, all
                                          countries would critically examine and review how each country is
                                          complying with the Convention. IAEA officials told us that the
                                          country-review groups form the core of the peer review process.


Table 1: Possible Grouping of Countries for the Peer Review Process
                                                      Countries (number of reactors)
Group
A            United States Republic of   India           China                    Argentina               Armenia              Italy
             (109)         Korea         (10)            (3)                      (2)                     (1)                  (0)
                           (11)
B            France        Sweden        Spain           Slovak Republic          Lithuania               Slovenia             Romania
             (56)          (12)          (9)             (4)                      (2)                     (1)                  (0)
C            Japan         Ukraine       Belgium         Hungary                  Mexico                  Pakistan             Cuba
             (51)          (16)          (7)             (4)                      (2)                     (1)                  (0)
D            United        Germany       Bulgaria        Finland                  The Netherlands         Kazakhstan           Philippines
             Kingdom       (20)          (6)             (4)                      (2)                     (1)                  (0)
             (35)
E            Russia        Canada        Switzerland     Czech Republic           South Africa            Brazil
             (29)          (21)          (5)             (4)                      (2)                     (1)

                                          Note: Numbers in parentheses show the total number of reactors operating in the country as of
                                          December 31, 1995. The table assumes that all of the countries had ratified the Convention.

                                          Source: June 1996 Meeting of the Signatory Countries to the Convention on Nuclear Safety and
                                          IAEA.




                                          4
                                           Because the Convention provides that a country must wait 90 days after ratification, the United States
                                          would not be entitled to participate in the April 1997 meeting unless it ratified the Convention by
                                          January 24, 1997. NRC officials told us that it is likely that some form of informal participation could
                                          be arranged, however, if the United States ratified before the April meeting.



                                          Page 4                                              GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
B-275746




NRC officials have expressed some concern about the potential grouping of
countries. In their view, this approach may not provide the most
meaningful, professionally technical review. For example, the United
States, which spent about $89 million through March 1996 to improve the
safety of Soviet-designed reactors, would not be in the same review group
as Russia or Ukraine, countries that operate the majority of these reactors.
In addition to its ongoing safety assistance program, the United States also
has significant technical expertise and years of practical experience
working to improve the safety of these reactors and improve these
countries’ civilian nuclear regulatory capabilities.

The United States had earlier supported a different approach in which
each country’s self-assessment would be reviewed by separate subject
matter committees. This review would be based on three main elements of
the Convention: (1) governmental organization; (2) siting, design, and
construction; and (3) operations. The U.S.-favored approach was replaced
by the country-grouping model proposed by France and the United
Kingdom. Representatives of these countries maintained that the smaller
groups of countries would allow for a more thorough and unified review of
a country’s report than would a functional review of part of a country’s
report, as initially envisioned by the United States.

The Convention states that each country shall have a reasonable
opportunity to discuss and seek clarification of the reports of any other
party at the review meeting. As a result, NRC and IAEA officials believe that
regardless of how the countries are ultimately grouped, the United States
will have ample opportunity to review and comment on the
self-assessment reports of all countries.5 For example, according to NRC
and IAEA officials, countries may be permitted to participate in other
groups’ meetings as observers and discuss their concerns in supplemental
meetings. Countries are also expected to have opportunities to comment
on the self-assessment reports at general sessions held during the review
meeting.

The detail and specifics of the self-assessment reports—which serve as the
basis for the meeting of the parties—have not been finalized. These
reports are expected to describe how the parties are complying with the
Convention. Because of the differences in countries’ nuclear safety

5
 According to the June 1996 “Draft Guidelines Regarding the Review Process Under the Convention on
Nuclear Safety,” the self-assessment reports of all countries will be submitted to IAEA 6 months prior
to the first review meeting. Each country may send questions and comments on any report to the
coordinators of the relevant groups up to 2 months before the first meeting. The coordinators would
then distribute the comments to all parties to the Convention.



Page 5                                           GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                           B-275746




                           programs and available resources, NRC officials anticipate an unevenness
                           in the quality and detail of the reports. In their view, this unevenness could
                           affect the level of review and analysis. U.S. officials also stated that the
                           countries with a significant number of nuclear installations may produce a
                           generic rather than a plant-specific report.


Public Access to           The public dissemination of information about the countries’ progress in
Convention’s Proceedings   meeting the Convention’s obligations can play a key role in influencing
Is Unclear                 compliance, according to some experts familiar with international
                           agreements that rely primarily on peer review. Although U.S. and IAEA
                           officials believe the Convention will encourage greater openness about
                           many countries’ safety records and programs, it is uncertain how much
                           information resulting from the periodic meetings will be made available to
                           the public. According to NRC officials, the countries can limit the
                           distribution of their reports. These officials noted, however, that the
                           United States plans to make its report available to the public.

                           Although the Convention provides for the public distribution of a report
                           summarizing the issues discussed and decisions reached during the review
                           meeting, preliminary information indicates that this report is unlikely to
                           identify any country by name. IAEA officials told us that they do not expect
                           this report to provide detailed information about the key issues addressed
                           during the review meeting.

                           According to IAEA, the Convention explicitly prohibits nongovernmental
                           organizations from participating in the meetings. NRC officials told us
                           however that these organizations, such as public advocacy or industry
                           groups, might participate as members of their national delegation or be
                           called upon to review and comment on self-assessment reports. U.S.
                           nuclear industry representatives told us that they would like to assist in
                           developing the U.S. report and participate in the meeting of the parties.
                           NRC officials acknowledged that the Convention does not specifically
                           provide for the kind of openness they would prefer, but they believe that
                           over time, more information will be made available to the public through
                           the Convention process.




                           Page 6                                GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                          B-275746




                          To prepare for and attend the first review meeting in 1999, the United
Costs to Implement        States estimates it could spend as much as $1.1 million. As the
the Convention Have       Convention’s secretariat, IAEA will also incur costs to administer these
Not Been Fully            meetings. IAEA’s costs, which the United States will partially fund, have not
                          been fully identified but could range as high as about $10 million,
Determined                according to a 1993 estimate. NRC officials told us that they believe IAEA’s
                          costs will be significantly less—about $1 million.


U.S. Costs to Implement   The United States estimates that it could spend between $700,000 and
the Convention            $1.1 million through fiscal year 1999 to prepare for and attend the first
                          review meeting, which is expected to be held in April 1999. Additional
                          costs to participate in subsequent review meetings, which are expected to
                          be held every 3 years, have not been estimated. Officials from NRC, State,
                          and DOE told us that the costs associated with the first review meeting are
                          based on (1) participating in four planning meetings held between
                          December 1994 and June 1996 to develop the Convention’s draft policies
                          and procedures, (2) preparing the first U.S. self-assessment report,
                          (3) reviewing other countries’ reports, and (4) participating in the
                          April 1997 preparatory meeting and the first review meeting. The agencies’
                          estimated costs include the existing and planned travel costs associated
                          with attending meetings at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, and salary
                          and benefit costs related to the time spent preparing for these meetings.
                          Figure 1 shows the breakdown of estimated costs by agency through the
                          first meeting of the parties.




                          Page 7                               GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                                        B-275746




Figure 1: U.S. Government’s Estimated
Costs to Implement the Convention on
Nuclear Safety Through 1999                                                                  4%
                                                                                             Department of State, $42,000

                                                                                             Department of Energy, $124,000




                                                        • 11%
                                                    •




                                                                 85% •                       Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
                                                                                             $954,000




                                        Note 1: These costs include $99,500 actually expended in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

                                        Note 2: These costs are based on a high range of costs projected, as discussed in app. II.

                                        Sources: NRC, DOE, and State.




                                        Salary and benefits constitute 94 percent of the agencies’ costs; the
                                        remainder is for travel and per diem expenses. The salary and benefit
                                        costs result from the efforts of agency staff to prepare the first U.S.
                                        self-assessment report, review all other countries’ reports as part of the
                                        peer review process, and participate in all aspects of the first review
                                        meeting. (See app. II for a breakdown of expenditures by each agency.)


Full Costs of IAEA Support              In late 1993, a working group that participated in the drafting of the
Are Not Known                           Convention estimated that IAEA’s costs could range from $10,800 to
                                        $10.3 million for the first review meeting. NRC officials told us that they
                                        believe that IAEA’s actual costs will be significantly less—about $1 million
                                        to administer the first review meeting. The factors affecting IAEA’s costs




                                        Page 8                                          GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
B-275746




primarily involve the number of languages used to conduct the meeting of
the parties and the corresponding translation and interpretation services.6
IAEA’s costs to administer future review meetings have not been estimated.


The Convention states that IAEA will bear the cost of administering the
meeting of the parties. IAEA’s cost of holding the meeting in Vienna is
expected to be funded from IAEA’s operating budget, which the United
States supports through an annual 25-percent contribution. IAEA’s 1997 and
1998 budget shows that IAEA plans to dedicate about $330,000 in 1997 and
1998 for Convention-related activities. According to an NRC official, IAEA,
whose regular budget has been subject to a policy of “zero real growth”
since 1985, may have difficulty financing the initial review meeting. As a
result, this official said that additional financial assessments of
participating countries may be warranted to provide the necessary funds
for IAEA to administer the Convention. The need for additional financial
assessments will have to be addressed during the April 1997 preparatory
meeting. NRC officials told us they were concerned about IAEA’s potential
costs to administer the Convention and that the United States will seek to
keep these costs to a minimum.

The Convention also permits participating countries to request, after
receiving consensus approval from the other countries, additional support
and administrative services from IAEA. IAEA’s Deputy Director General for
Nuclear Safety told us that it is likely that IAEA will receive requests for
such assistance and would cover these costs from its regular budget.

NRC  and DOE officials told us that they believe the Convention will not
stimulate any significant requests for additional assistance to upgrade
unsafe reactors. An NRC official told us that as a result of the meetings,
there may be some reordering of assistance priorities, but he noted that
requirements have already been identified over the past several years
through regular multilateral and bilateral assistance channels. A DOE
official noted that by the time the first meeting of the parties occurs in
1999, some Western assistance efforts should be winding down, and many
safety upgrades will have already been made.7




6
 The lowest range of estimates, based on English as the primary language, was considered artificial,
since a number of incidental expenses were not included. The high end of the estimates is based on the
use of six languages—Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.
7
 For more information on assistance efforts, see our reports entitled Nuclear Safety: Status of U.S.
Assistance to Improve the Safety of Soviet-Designed Reactors (GAO/RCED-97-5) and Nuclear Safety:
International Assistance Efforts to Make Soviet-Designed Reactors Safer (GAO/RCED-94-234).



Page 9                                           GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
                  B-275746




                  IAEA’s Deputy Director General for Nuclear Safety told us, however, that
                  the Convention may uncover additional safety problems that require
                  attention. As a result, the countries with the most acute safety problems
                  may seek to use the Convention process as leverage to obtain additional
                  nuclear safety assistance.


                  We provided copies of a draft of this report to NRC for its review and
Agency Comments   comment. NRC obtained and consolidated additional comments from the
                  departments of State and Energy. On December 23, 1996, we met with NRC
                  officials, including the Director, Office of International Programs, and
                  State’s Director, Nuclear Energy Affairs, to discuss their comments. In
                  general, these officials agreed with the facts and analysis presented. They
                  gave us additional clarifying information, and we revised the text as
                  appropriate. The officials noted that the Convention is fairly well
                  developed because of the significant amount of work already done by
                  various countries’ representatives during several preliminary meetings. In
                  their opinion, it is very important that the United States ratify the
                  Convention before the April 1997 preparatory meeting in order to
                  (1) shape the peer review process to create the most rigorous and
                  systematic analysis of the self-assessment reports, (2) keep the
                  implementation costs as low as possible, and (3) use the United States’
                  diplomatic and political strength to make the Convention an integral
                  component of a network of binding international legal instruments that
                  enhance global safety.

                  We also provided IAEA with a copy of the draft report. In its comments,
                  IAEA, including the Deputy Director General for Nuclear Safety, suggested
                  some technical revisions to the text, which we incorporated as
                  appropriate. IAEA noted that the April 1997 preparatory meeting will
                  provide countries with the opportunity to decide on the review process
                  and factors that will determine the costs to implement the Convention.
                  IAEA also views the Convention as a major accomplishment that will assist
                  in achieving and maintaining a high level of safety worldwide. In its view,
                  the Convention will provide for a degree of openness about national safety
                  programs that has not existed in the past.


                  To obtain information on how the Convention will be reviewed for
Scope and         compliance, we examined relevant parts of the Convention and
Methodology       interviewed agency officials from the Department of State, DOE, and NRC
                  and other officials knowledgeable about international agreements from



                  Page 10                             GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
B-275746




the Congressional Research Service, Georgetown University Law Center,
and New York University. We also discussed the Convention with officials
from IAEA, including the Director General, the Deputy Director General for
Nuclear Safety, and the Senior Legal Officer. These matters were also
discussed with officials from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations
System Organizations, Vienna, Austria, and the Nuclear Energy Institute,
Washington, D.C. We also reviewed relevant documentation provided by
these agencies and officials.

To identify cost information, we obtained cost data from the Department
of State, DOE, and NRC. We also obtained data developed by IAEA’s Division
of Nuclear Safety. We did not independently verify the accuracy of these
data.

We performed our review from October 1996 through December 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.


Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of State and Energy,
the Chairman of NRC, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-3600 if you or your staff have any questions.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.




Allen Li
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
  and Science Issues




Page 11                              GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Contents



Letter                                                                                               1


Appendix I                                                                                          14

Countries That Had
Signed or Signed and
Ratified the
Convention on
Nuclear Safety as of
December 1996
Appendix II                                                                                         16

The Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission’s,
Department of State’s,
and Department of
Energy’s Estimated
Costs to Implement
the Convention
Appendix III                                                                                        17

Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                   Table 1: Possible Grouping of Countries for the Peer Review                 4
                           Process
                         Table II.1: NRC’s, State’s, and DOE’s Estimated Costs to                   16
                           Implement the Convention

Figure                   Figure 1: U.S. Government’s Estimated Costs to Implement the                8
                           Convention on Nuclear Safety Through 1999




                         Page 12                            GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Contents




Abbreviations

DOE        Department of Energy
GAO        U.S. General Accounting Office
IAEA       International Atomic Energy Agency
NRC        Nuclear Regulatory Commission


Page 13                           GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Appendix I

Countries That Had Signed or Signed and
Ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety
as of December 1996

                                                                               Number of
                                                                            operating civil
                                   Signed            Ratified               nuclear power
               Country             convention        convention                  reactorsa
               Algeria             X                                                     0
               Argentina           X                                                     2
               Armenia             X                                                     1
               Australia           X                                                     0
               Austria             X                                                     0
               Bangladesh          X                 X                                   0
               Belgium             X                                                     7
               Brazil              X                                                     1
               Bulgaria            X                 X                                   6
               Canada              X                 X                                  21
               Chile               X                                                     0
               China               X                 X                                   3
               Croatia             X                 X                                   0
               Cuba                X                                                     0
               Czech Republic      X                 X                                   4
               Denmark             X                                                     0
               Egypt               X                                                     0
               Finland             X                 X                                   4
               France              X                 X                                  56
               Germany             X                                                    20
               Ghana               X                                                     0
               Greece              X                                                     0
               Hungary             X                 X                                   4
               Iceland             X                                                     0
               India               X                                                    10
               Indonesia           X                                                     0
               Ireland             X                 X                                   0
               Israel              X                                                     0
               Italy               X                                                     0
               Japan               X                 X                                  51
               Jordan              X                                                     0
               Kazakhstanb         X                                                     1
               Republic of Korea   X                 X                                  11
               Latvia                                X                                   0
               Lebanon             X                 X                                   0
               Lithuania           X                 X                                   2
                                                                                (continued)


               Page 14                          GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Appendix I
Countries That Had Signed or Signed and
Ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety
as of December 1996




                                                                                    Number of
                                                                                 operating civil
                                   Signed                  Ratified              nuclear power
Country                            convention              convention                 reactorsa
Luxembourg                         X                                                          0
Mali                               X                       X                                  0
Mexico                             X                       X                                  2
Monaco                             X                                                          0
Morocco                            X                                                          0
Netherlands                        X                       X                                  2
Nicaragua                          X                                                          0
Nigeria                            X                                                          0
Norway                             X                       X                                  0
Pakistan                           X                                                          1
Peru                               X                                                          0
Philippines                        X                                                          0
Poland                             X                       X                                  0
Portugal                           X                                                          0
Romania                            X                       X                                  0
Russia                             X                       X                                 29
Slovak Republic                    X                       X                                  4
Slovenia                           X                       X                                  1
South Africa                       X                                                          2
Spain                              X                       X                                  9
Sudan                              X                                                          0
Sweden                             X                       X                                 12
Switzerland                        X                       X                                  5
Syria                              X                                                          0
Tunisia                            X                                                          0
Turkey                             X                       X                                  0
Ukraine                            X                                                         16
United Kingdom                     X                       X                                 35
United States                      X                                                        109
Uruguay                            X                                                          0
Total                              65                      29                               431

a
    Number of operating reactors as of December 31, 1995.
b
    The installation is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor.

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and International Atomic Energy Agency.




Page 15                                              GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Appendix II

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s,
Department of State’s, and Department of
Energy’s Estimated Costs to Implement the
Convention
                                        This appendix provides information on the costs that have been or may be
                                        incurred by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of
                                        State, and the Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the
                                        Convention on behalf of the United States. NRC, State, and DOE estimated
                                        together they could spend about $1.1 million in travel and salary and
                                        benefit costs to prepare for and participate in the first review meeting,
                                        which is scheduled to take place no later than April 1999. This
                                        amount—based on the number of NRC staff needed to prepare for and
                                        attend meetings—represents a higher-range estimate of a figure that could
                                        be as low as about $700,000.

Table II.1: NRC’s, State’s, and DOE’s
Estimated Costs to Implement the        Element of cost                     NRC               State                DOE                  Total
Convention                              Travel                          $ 45,000           $12,000              $ 8,000            $ 65,000
                                        Salary/benefits                 909,000a             30,000            116,000           1,055,000
                                        Total                          $954,000            $42,000            $124,000          $1,120,000
                                        Note: Actual costs incurred to date by these agencies total $99,500 for fiscal years 1995 and
                                        1996.
                                        a
                                            NRC’s reported costs range from $450,000 to $909,000.

                                        Sources: NRC, Department of State, and DOE.




                                        Page 16                                          GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Appendix III

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources,
Resources,                and Science Issues
Community, and          Gene Aloise, Assistant Director
Economic                Glen Levis, Evaluator-in-Charge
                        Gregory Mills, Evaluator
Development             Duane G. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineer
Division, Washington,
D.C.
                        Jackie A. Goff, Senior Attorney
Office of General
Counsel




(141000)                Page 17                            GAO/RCED-97-39 Convention on Nuclear Safety
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested