Process to Review Compliance Has Not Been Finalized

The method to review countries’ compliance with the Convention has not been finalized. Peer Review Process Is Central to the Convention’s Success

The Convention does not impose sanctions for noncompliance but seeks to encourage compliance through peer pressure. 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 meetings to review these reports. 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. Within this group setting, all countries would critically examine and review how each country is complying with the Convention. The U.S.-favored approach was replaced by the country-grouping model proposed by France and the United Kingdom. Costs to Implement the Convention Have Not Been Fully Determined

To prepare for and attend the first review meeting in 1999, the United States estimates it could spend as much as $1.1 million. IAEA’s costs, which the United States will partially fund, have not been fully identified but could range as high as about $10 million, according to a 1993 estimate. 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. 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. Countries That Had Signed or Signed and Ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety as of December 1996

Number of operating civil nuclear power reactors(continued)

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.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed implementation of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, focusing on: (1) how compliance with the Convention's terms and obligations will be reviewed by the ratifying countries; and (2) the potential costs to the United States to participate in the Convention.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the method to review compliance with the Convention on Nuclear Safety has not been finalized; (2) the Convention does not impose sanctions for noncompliance but seeks to encourage compliance through peer pressure; (3) the Convention relies on each ratifying country to prepare a self-assessment report of its nuclear power program; (4) these reports will, in turn, be reviewed by other member countries at periodic meetings to determine how each country is complying with the Convention; (5) 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; (6) as the method is currently envisioned, groups composed of five or six countries would form the core of the review process; (7) 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; (8) 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; (9) the costs associated with the United States' participation in the Convention have not been fully determined; (10) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of State, and the Department of Energy have estimated that it could cost as much as $1.1 million to participate in planning meetings to develop the Convention's policies and procedures, prepare the first U.S. self-assessment report, review other countries' reports, and participate in the first review meeting; (11) 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; (12) NRC officials believe, however, that the actual costs will be significantly less, about $1 million to administer the first review meeting; and (13) the costs for subsequent review meetings have not been estimated.