[en] Japan has systematically revamped its technical standards for nuclear reactor facilities by formulating various performance regulations. Being part of a trend toward deregulation, such efforts toward social regulation is aimed at effectively operating administrative procedural laws to keep pace with global trends and enhance the benefits of deregulation under the principle of self-responsibility. Based on the collection of public opinions in February and March 2005, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency(NISA) presented its position that it was required to promptly perform a flexible assessment of the technical feasibility of formulated society and association standards. Current, pressing issues are summarized as an early revision of technical standards regarding nuclear facilities for power generation, use of society and association standards, and the overhaul of nuclear safety regulations subject to performance regulations. Subjecting technical standards to performance regulations means stipulating the qualitative aspects of performance and the targets that certain facilities must achieve, which are not specific standards, but general compulsory standards. This study examines the early revision of technical standards on nuclear facilities for power generation and the status of the use of society and association standards, as well as introducing the details of revisions in the concrete containment vessel standards as specific examples

[en] With regard to the nuclear reactor permission system under the Atomic Energy Act of the Republic of Korea, two types of permits must be obtained for nuclear power reactors under Article 11 and Article 21 of the Atomic Energy Act: construction permits and operation permits. Concerning nuclear reactors for research, however, only one permit is required: a dual permit that authorizes both construction and operation, under Article 33 of said act. This permit can be obtained by submitting an application for a dual construction and operation permit to the regulatory authority. The question is whether a dual permit can be issued for nuclear reactors for research under any circumstances. If the literal provisions of the Atomic Energy Act are applied rigorously even in cases where it is realistically difficult to submit a dual permit application or issue a dual permit for construction and operation considering the power output, usage, and design complexity of nuclear reactors for research, separate permits for construction or operation shall never be issued, with only dual permits for construction and operation issued. For the Hanaro research reactor, a dual permit was issued with a condition attached thereto based on the literal provisions of the Atomic Energy Act at the time of its construction, although an application for and issuance of a dual permit for its construction and operation were impossible at the time. This is in violation of the purport of the law that provides for a dual permit

[en] Before May 17, 2005, Korea's nuclear power plant (hereinafter referred to as 'NNP') regulation system was two-pronged. Every NPP system consists of primary or secondary system, and each type was respectively regulated by the Atomic Energy Act(hereinafter referred to as 'AEA') and the Electric Utility Act(hereinafter referred to as 'EUA'). This unusual regulatory regime gave rise to a number of problems with respect to operation and safety. For this reason, the Enforcement Regulation of AEA and applicable Notice were revised on May 17, 2005 to the effect that all regulation on NPPs subject to EUA was brought under the purview of AEA, except regulation on business license for nuclear power generation under Article 7 of EUA and approval of plan of works for setting up electric installations (hereinafter referred to as 'construction plan') (including approval of any changes; the same shall apply hereinafter) under Article 61 thereof. From the point of view of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the regulation of NPPs by a single law has enhanced their safety. However, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy retains regulatory authority regarding NPPs. It reviews and approves construction plans for secondary system pursuant to Article 61 of EUA and Article 28 of the Enforcement Regulation thereof. This situation arose because Article 28 of the Enforcement Regulation of EUA continues to provide for matters related with nuclear power. Therefore, continued control of NPPs under EUA ignores the relationship and respective nature of AEA and EUA. There is also possibility of violation of a superseding law. Even if said provision is not in violation of a superseding law, Article 28 of the Enforcement Regulation of EUA poses the possibility of overlapping regulation, which may violate the principle of prohibiting excessive regulation, one of the principles of the Korean Constitution. Assessment of the dual regulatory system for review of secondary system requires (i) identifying problems by analyzing the nature of AEA and EUA and the regulatory law system on NPPs and (ii) ascertaining the legitimacy of the dual regulatory system according to the legal principles of the Constitution and administrative law

[en] KINS takes charge of a part of the affairs pertaining to nuclear safety regulation and has the authority of administrative legislation as an administrative agency dedicated to such safety regulation. Its safety regulation guidelines established on the basis of such authority directly have no external legal effect, but practically have legal effect for the following two reasons though they lack any direct external legal effect: Firstly, the safety regulation guidelines bind safety regulation workers of the KINS, requiring them to carry out duties pursuant to the guidelines. Coupled with the authentication of an administrative act (i.e. a dominant effect of such act), the safety regulation guidelines generate a practical effect upon the public, particularly nuclear licensees. Secondly, considering the Supreme Court ruling (Supreme Court adjudication on May 25, 1999; judgment no. 98 da 53134) to the effect that administrative rules, although lacking the nature of laws and regulations, present standards on specific and objective requirements and accordingly are deemed legal to the extent that they cannot be viewed as irrational and unreasonable rules, the safety regulation guidelines that put forward unified criteria for handling of government-entrusted affairs in connection with the provisions of nuclear safety regulation laws containing unclear concepts are acknowledged as lawful if they set forth specific and objective standards within the scope of such nuclear laws

[en] Technical standards by legal term in Korea are the mandatory requirements which are prescribed in nuclear laws and Notices of the MOST (Minister of Science and Technology). Regulations on Technical Standards for Nuclear Reactor Facilities, etc. (Ministerial Ordinance No.31) prescribes the technical standards on the location, structure, installation, performance, operation, and quality assurance for the design, construction and operation of reactor facilities and nuclear fuel cycle facilities. Although the ordinance was wholly amended in July 2001, the technical standards by the ordinance should be improved in a way because they do not have separate and detail standards for different type of reactor, and still have some mutatis mutandis regulations and so on. Recently, globalization for the safety standards has been pursued. In this environment, technical standards have to be improved to meet the concept of the Atomic Energy Act and the international safety level. In this paper, the structure and components of the technical standards for reactor facilities were reviewed and evaluated comparing with foreign standards such as IAEA safety standards, and considering current regulatory position. Also, the components and contents of the new requirements were suggested

[en] The additional clauses refer to 'subordinate regulations applied to primary acts in order to limit the effect of administrative acts (conditions and time limits), impose special obligations (burden) or complement requirements (reservation of the right to withdrawal and reservation of posterior changes).' Its merits include the following: i) it is possible to work out a compromise between accepting and rejecting applications by attaching additional clauses to certain measures (flexibility in permitting administrative acts); ii) it is possible to prevent re-applications and re-examinations after rejection of applications (pursuit of economy of the proceedings); and iii) it is possible to take appropriate actions to protect the interest of third parties or the public interest. Its detriment is that any rescinding additional clauses including rescission conditions, time limit(expiring time) and reservation of the right to withdrawal may generate results where the costs incurred for adaptation of posterior changes after administrative act(measures taken) are transferred to the counter-party

[en] The Atomic Energy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contains no provision that sanctions the retroactive application of new safety standards to nuclear facilities in operation to satisfy the development of technology (hereinafter referred to as 'new safety standards'). In addition, the periodic safety review under Article 23-3 of the Act does not set forth application of, nor assessment under, new safety standards. When the fatal and overwhelming impact of nuclear accidents is taken into account, it is advisable to apply the new safety standards retroactively to nuclear facilities in operation. However, retroactive application of new safety standards to nuclear facilities in operation would entail a modification in the standards for permits, etc. Therefore, there exists a risk of violating the principles of the Constitution and administrative laws, namely the principles of the prohibition of retroactive application, safeguarding of good faith and so forth. Accordingly, this report scrutinizes the possibility of introducing retroactive application of new safety standards under the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'retroactive application'), based on the theories of Constitution and administrative laws