원자력안전위원회 위원 제척 규정에 관한 연구 - 전문가 개별 심층 인터뷰(IDI)를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Exclusion is a system in which a member of a committee is automatically excluded from deliberating or voting on a matter or agenda without the need to go through any special procedure before deliberating or voting on the matter or agenda. The Nuclear Safety Commission(NSC) also operates a exclusion system for its members. However, the exclusion system borrows from the requirements for disqualification of judges from participating in trials in court or exclusion of members from deciding cases before the Administrative Appeals Board under the Administrative Appeals Act. This study analyses the problems with the NSC's exclusion rules and suggests interpretation directions and improvements as follows, using case law, studying analysis, and Individual Depth Interviews (IDI). First, the concept of a party in the NSC’s disqualification cannot be interpreted as only the company that applied for an authorization or license. Therefore, the scope of the parties should be considered according to the actual interests. Second, it is difficult to identify a case where a member of the NSC becomes a joint holder or obligor in practice. This concept does not seem to be appropriate for the NSC’s exclusion rule. Third, it is not necessary to limit the grounds for exclusion to the scope of court testimony or opinions. However, it seems to be an excessive interpretation to extend the scope of ‘appraisal’ to inspections, verification, checks, etc. in the safety review process for substantive approval or disapproval. Fourth, the scope of ‘agent’ cannot necessarily be interpreted as limited to a litigation representative, and it can be considered that a legal representative is also a reason for exclusion. However, the scope of the ‘relevant matter’ involved as an agent may be an issue. It would be unduly restrictive to exclude judgements that are not based on the same facts, even if they concern the same reactor and related facilities. Fifth, the NSC’s deliberations and decisions are not the same as a court's judgment on a legal challenge to an administrative decision. It is difficult to establish the phrase ‘the disposition that is the subject of the case’. This provision is effectively codified and should be amended to include a suitable phrase. The phrase ‘participated in the action or omission to which the matter relates’ cannot be read literally.