Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17779
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Economic Times<br /><br />The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br /><br />CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br /><br />Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br /><br />In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br /><br />CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br /><br />CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br /><br />CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br /><br />CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br /><br />CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br /><br />AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br /><br />References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br /><br /><em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17779
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Economic Times<br /><br />The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br /><br />CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br /><br />Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br /><br />In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br /><br />CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br /><br />CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br /><br />CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br /><br />CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br /><br />CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br /><br />AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br /><br />References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br /><br /><em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa7ad8a062d-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17779,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17908,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17779
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Economic Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under &#039;regulatory capture&#039;. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB&#039;s de-facto functional autonomy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency&#039;s (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to &#039;safety policies&#039; and not a &#039;safety policy&#039;. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG did not appreciate AERB&#039;s role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If &#039;registration&#039; is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB&#039;s constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG&#039;s opinion that &amp;quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&amp;quot; appears far-fetched.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG&#039;s Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG proposed to replace &#039;any person&#039; in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with &#039;AERB&#039; to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AERB approves annually the &#039;collective dose&#039; to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG&#039;s claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB&#039;s direct control lacks basis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG&#039;s report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a &#039;counting-and-accounting&#039; exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Economic Times<br /><br />The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br /><br />CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br /><br />Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br /><br />In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br /><br />CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br /><br />CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br /><br />CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br /><br />CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br /><br />CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br /><br />AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br /><br />References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br /><br /><em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 17779,
		'title' => 'The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Economic Times<br />
<br />
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br />
<br />
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br />
<br />
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br />
<br />
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br />
<br />
CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br />
<br />
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br />
<br />
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br />
<br />
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br />
<br />
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br />
<br />
CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br />
<br />
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br />
<br />
AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br />
<br />
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br />
<br />
<em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 17908,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 17779,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Economic Times<br /><br />The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br /><br />CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br /><br />Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br /><br />In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br /><br />CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br /><br />CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br /><br />CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br /><br />CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br /><br />CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br /><br />AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br /><br />References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br /><br /><em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 17779,
	'title' => 'The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Economic Times<br />
<br />
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br />
<br />
CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br />
<br />
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br />
<br />
In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br />
<br />
CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br />
<br />
CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br />
<br />
CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br />
<br />
CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br />
<br />
CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br />
<br />
CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br />
<br />
CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br />
<br />
AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br />
<br />
References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br />
<br />
<em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Economic Times, 1 November, 2012, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise/articleshow/1704170',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'the-report-on-atomic-energy-regulatory-board-shows-cag-lacks-technical-expertise-ks-parthasarathy-17908',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 17908,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 17779
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy'
$metaKeywords = 'Comptroller and Auditor-General,CAG,Energy'
$metaDesc = '
-The Economic Times

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Economic Times<br /><br />The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction.<br /><br />CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures.<br /><br />Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy.<br /><br />In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy!<br /><br />CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units.<br /><br />CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states.<br /><br />CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that &quot;as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period&quot; appears far-fetched.<br /><br />CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both.<br /><br />CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution.<br /><br />CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. <br /><br />AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis.<br /><br />References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US.<br /><br /><em>(The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) </em><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

The report on Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shows CAG lacks technical expertise-KS Parthasarathy

-The Economic Times The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in its performance audit of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), highlighted deficiencies such as less effective regulatory control on medical x-ray units and lack of inspection of few types of radiation sources that have greater hazard potential, among others. These need urgent correction. CAG should not have offered advise on the possible structure and constitution of a regulatory body when the Parliament is presently considering a Bill. CAG appears to believe that AERB is under 'regulatory capture'. It ignored the actions AERB took against installations of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). AERB lowered the electric power levels of nuclear plants and shut some of them down for some periods because of safety infringements. AERB stopped construction activities of projects because of lack of industrial safety measures. Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) complied with the directives of AERB. Over 50 such actions against the DAE installations since the inception of the board demonstrated AERB's de-facto functional autonomy. In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) prescription, AERB developed a safety policy that includes a mission statement, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and rules, mandatory codes and standards and a code of ethics for the staff. Its constitution refers to 'safety policies' and not a 'safety policy'. Still, CAG argues that AERB is yet to develop a safety policy! CAG did not appreciate AERB's role in enhancing medical x-ray safety. AERB directly suggested remedial action to over 30,000 units over which it collected safety-related data through a nationwide x-ray registration programme. If 'registration' is purely an administrative step, AERB could have given a registration number to each of these units. CAG noted that AERB registered only 5,270 out of the 57,443 x-ray units. CAG used an IAEA technical document (Tecdoc), the lowest in the hierarchy of documents, to assess the frequency of inspection of radiation facilities. It should have used the board-approved Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources that prescribed the frequency of regulatory inspections. CAG wanted AERB to speed up the process of setting up directorate for x-ray safety in each state. CAG stated that the Supreme Court, in 2001, directed all states to start directorates for x-ray safety. The court has not issued any such directive to states. CAG stated that DAE has not promptly delegated powers of the competent authority to AERB. In fact, no such delegation is necessary. AERB's constitution order (November 1983) delegated the needed authority to it. CAG's opinion that "as a consequence of the delay, accountability could not have been fixed in the event of any disaster due to the absence of such legal authority during the intervening period" appears far-fetched. CAG wrongly interpreted the penalty provisions for safety violations under the Atomic Energy Act ( CAG's Atomic Mistake, ET, September 13, 2012). It stated incorrectly that the maximum fine for safety violation is Rs 500. CAG failed to note the provision in the Atomic Energy Act that whoever violates safety provisions shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to five years or with fine or with both. CAG proposed to replace 'any person' in clause 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, with 'AERB' to bring in clarity. AERB needs the flexibility, the rules offer, to send any authorised specialist - not necessarily from AERB - for inspection to any institution. CAG wanted AERB to frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process. AERB is not empowered to make rules under the Atomic Energy Act, but may notify appropriate licence fees under Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. AERB possibly cannot use this provision to collect revenue as the original intent of the provision in the Atomic Energy Act appears to be different. AERB approves annually the 'collective dose' to be spent by each nuclear power plant; it has a graded procedure to evaluate overexposures, if any, to radiation workers. Through its focused efforts, AERB implemented dose limits that are more conservative than those of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CAG's claim that independent assessments and monitoring can be ensured only if HPUs are placed under AERB's direct control lacks basis. References to IAEA documents and other documents in CAG report are vague and imprecise. CAG's report is disappointingly short on technical content. This is because the government auditor lacks technical expertise. Central government must strengthen CAG so that its future reports will not just be a 'counting-and-accounting' exercise, but be comparable to those of agencies such as Office of Technology Assessment or General Accountability Office of the US. (The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board)