prompt evaluation of the irrs mission to belgium documents/open shared... · web viewlarge numbers...

Prompt Evaluation of the IRRS mission to Belgium Page | 0

LUX, Ivan

IAEA

12/20/2013

2013Prompt Evaluation of the IRRS Mission to Belgium


Table of Contents1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................2

2. Basic Mission Data.....................................................................................................................2

3. Feedback from the Team Members on the Advance Reference Material of the IRRS Mission..2

Characteristic additional comments..............................................................................................3

Further specific remarks................................................................................................................3

General conclusions.......................................................................................................................3

4. Feedback from the Team Members on the Effectiveness of the Mission..................................3

Characteristic additional comments..............................................................................................4

Further specific remarks................................................................................................................4

General conclusion........................................................................................................................5

5. Feedback from the Host Country on the Effectiveness of the Mission......................................5

6. Overall Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Mission.......................................6

Discussion and conclusions............................................................................................................8

7. Summary....................................................................................................................................8

Appendix 1: Module-wise Coverage in the Mission Report...............................................................9

Appendix 2: Module-wise Coverage of the Action Plan...................................................................12


1. Introduction

The Contribution Agreement ENER/11/NUCL/SI2.588650 between the European Atomic Energy Community (represented by the European Commission) and the IAEA among others foresees as an expected result a performance monitoring based on the evaluation of some key performance indicators of the IRRS missions.

The Nuclear Safety Action Plan of the IAEA has as one of its main objectives the requirement to “Strengthen IAEA peer reviews in order to maximize the benefits to Member States” and in specific, it calls the IAEA Secretariat to review the effectiveness of the IRRS peer reviews.

In reply to these requirements a system of performance indicators have been elaborated in order to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRRS missions. Some of the performance indicators are based on direct feedbacks from the IRRS team members and from the representatives of the country hosting the IRRS mission.

Results of and conclusions from the feedbacks and efficiency and effectiveness evaluations are given in the present Prompt Evaluation Report.

2. Basic Mission Data

Host country: BelgiumHost organization: Department of Nuclear Safety and SecurityMission date: 1 to 13 December 2013Team Leader: Colin Patchett (UK)Deputy Team: Scott Moore (USA) Team Coordinator: David Graves (IAEA-NSNI)Deputy Team Coordinator: Stephen Evans (IAEA-NSRW)Number of external experts: 18Number of IAEA staff: 6Number of observers: 2Mission type: full scopeScope of the mission:

Core modules (No. 1 through 10) Facilities and activities: NPP, research reactors, fuel cycle facilities, radioactive waste

facilities, radioactive sources facilities, decommissioning activities, transport activities Additional areas (Module 11): control of medical exposures; occupational radiation

protection; control of discharges, materials for clearance and chronic exposures, environmental monitoring for public radiation protection

Fukushima module Policy issues: (1) Leadership and management for safety – regulatory effectiveness, (2)

Justification for radiation exposure for medical and consumer goods

3. Feedback from the Team Members on the Advance Reference Material of the IRRS Mission

The Advance Reference Material (ARM) normally includes the results of the self-assessment of the host country (usually performed with the aid of the Self-Assessment Tool – SARIS); the Action Plan for improvement in issues found in the self-assessment, a module-by-module summary of the status and activity of the regulatory body reviewed and a number of other documents needed for an objective and well informed peer review.

The team members are requested to offer their opinions on the quality of the ARM by giving marks from 1 to 5 (5 reflecting the highest satisfaction) in reply to three questions and also expanding in


free text their comments on the questions. The questions and the average values of the team members’ ratings are given below:

No. Question Average markQr1 How complete do you consider the ARM? 3.8

Qr2 How realistic picture could you obtain on the area you will be reviewing from the ARM?

3.4

Qr3 What is your overall evaluation on the quality of the ARM? 3.8

Total average 3.7

Characteristic additional comments

Qr1: The general quality was good, but it was inhomogeneous and contained some gaps A large set of documents was provided including all related issues Certain legal documents should have been translated to English

Qr2: Questions often answered by yes or no, evidencing examples were missing Repeated answers by copy and paste Interfaces between the various institutions needed further clarification

Qr3: Overall the ARM was of high quality It was well presented, yet some information was missing

Further specific remarks

Some parts of the ARM arrived too late The ARM summary report should contain hyperlinks to referenced documents The host should try to close issues and not to leave doubts in the reader The questionnaires should refer to all paragraphs of the relevant IAEA safety standard

General conclusions

1) The ARM contained the necessary information in a generally good quality with certain deficiencies

2) More translated documents were demanded by the reviewers3) A standard ARM summary report needs to be defined

4. Feedback from the Team Members on the Effectiveness of the Mission

The team members are requested to offer their opinions on the effectiveness of the mission by rating from 1 to 5 (5 reflecting the highest satisfaction) five questions and also expanding in free text their comments on the questions. The questions and the average values of the team members’ ratings are given below:

No. Question Average markQt1 How effective do you consider the activity of the expert team during the

mission?3.9

Qt2 How effective do you consider the activity of the IAEA staff in the team during the mission

3.9

Qt3 How effective do you consider the activity of the Team Leader? 4.3

Qt4 How effective do you consider the activity of the Deputy Team Leader? 4.2

Qt5 How satisfied are you with the preparations of the mission (enough time for preparing yourself, information provided by the IAEA, etc.)?

3.8


Total average 4.0

Characteristic additional comments

Qt1:

Most of the team did a generally good job, a few team-members were challenged Effectiveness of decision making could have been better The team was very effective yet the group was too big and not all followed the

instructions/agenda The team had very experienced experts, good recruitment New findings kept appearing. Handling of cross-cutting issues was challenging Time for interviews was too short, especially for those on site visits Too many bilateral discussion on the second week and no plenary session at the end

Qt2:

Some inputs lacked direction and alignment with the mission The IAEA staff did a wonderful job providing leadership, help and insight The activity was very effective but some of the IAEA experts were not really needed The mission report template was useful

Qt3:

The TL was very effective in leading the team and liaising with the Belgian management. Some redundant discussion could have been cut short

Effective in reaching final conclusions and keeping positive atmosphere Clearer instructions would have been needed at some points and a roadmap on how the

process should go A session with all modules present would have been useful

Qt4:

The DTL supported well the TL He had a key role in reaching conclusions in week 2 DTL might have the role to provide feedback to the reviewers on their contributions

Qt5:

The ARM was provided well in advance, logistical material could have come earlier Training course needs to be held for first time reviewers The main deadlines related to a mission should be more explicit and communicated earlier Introductory material on reviewers (e.g. with photos) should be distributed in advance Due to the timing (end of year) reviewers had limited time to prepare for the mission

Further specific remarks

The overall process worked well, IAEA should prepare hosts to expect far more findings than good practices

Reviewers should tell the counterparts that findings may change by the end of the mission Reliable internet access is a key factor, it should be checked prior to the mission Crosscutting issues (facilities and activities) need clear instructions for discussions and

writing and need better coordination A draft report should be developed prior to the interviews to spare time for the interviews A “second-level good practice” needs to be developed Daily morning team-meetings (15 min) for reviewing actions and deadlines are suggested The process from the first draft to the final draft should be better formalized Experts on site visits should be made aware of the time-limitations


The templates are excellent means to keep people focussed

General conclusion

1) Most members and the leaders of the team were effective and did a good job2) Support from IAEA staff was appreciated, yet the IAEA team was too large3) Plenary session to discuss report would have been needed4) Deadlines related to the missions need to be effectively communicated to the reviewers5) More time is needed for interviews, e.g. by a pre-prepared draft report (or standard format

ARM summary report)6) Coordination of managing the facilities and activities topics needs considerations and

formalization

5. Feedback from the Host Country on the Effectiveness of the Mission

The Liaison Officer of the host country is requested to offer the opinion of the host on the effectiveness of the mission by rating from 1 to 5 (5 reflecting the highest satisfaction) seven questions and also expanding in free text their comments on the questions. The questions, the host country’s ratings and the associated comments are given below:

No. Question MarkQh1 How effective do you consider the mission in assisting the continuous

improvement of nuclear safety in your country?Comment: Overall, the mission met its objectives. A majority of the findings was already identified during the self-assessment. However, the very large number of questions in the self-assessment questionnaires did not give the opportunity to address all the issues identified in the self-assessment

4.0

Qh2 How objective was the peer review?Comment: Individual subjectivity of the reviewers due to national backgrounds was present but was to some extend balanced by the “team work”.

4.0

Qh3 How has the mission helped the exchange of information, experience and good practice with other countries?Comment: In general, discussions led to exchanges of information. Nevertheless, the policy issue discussion on regulatory effectiveness did not provide us with strong added value.

3.8

Qh4 How consistent was the use of the IAEA safety requirements and guides in the mission?Comment: We underline the role of the IAEA facilitators, Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator in ensuring the consistent use of the IAEA requirements and guides during the review.

3.8

Qh5 How justified are the findings of the peer review?Comment: Most of the findings are justified. However, a few disagreements with the counterparts remained in the final draft.

4.0

Qh6 How relevant are the findings of the peer review for the future development of your regulatory body?Comment: Most of the finding can assist the development of the Regulatory Body. A major part of the findings have been identified during the self-assessment. Many findings address the Government and those findings could take some time (and difficulties) to be resolved

3.8

Qh7 How competent were the reviewers in their review and findings?Comment: In general, the reviewers showed a high level of competence.

4.0


Average 3.9

Further comments:

Comments and/or suggestions for improvement were presented at the joint IAEA-ENSREG workshop on feedback from IRRS missions (22nd & 23rd of January, 2014).

6. Overall Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the MissionThe Performance Indicators developed for the measurement of the effectiveness and efficiency of an IRRS mission were evaluated in the extent as it was made possible by the data available at the time of the present evaluation.

In the next figure the values of the performance indicators as they follow from the evaluation of the mission data1, as well as the overall effectiveness of the mission are presented. The rightmost columns (EFF. INDICATION) present the ranges where the particular PIs fall (green – optimum, yellow – acceptable, red – needing attention), whereas the frame in the right lower part summarizes the overall effectiveness of the mission (green – optimum, white – effective, yellow – acceptable, red – to analyse).

The bar diagram in the figure shows the number ratio of issues covered by the mission report to those foreseen by the Standard Mission Report Template. Details on this coverage are given in Appendix 1.

The coverage of the Action Plan items (defined by the host country) by Recommendations and Suggestions by the reviewers of the various Modules is shown in the figure in Appendix 2.

1 On the Efficiency and Effectiveness of IRRS Missions, Draft v6, Working Material, IAEA, Vienna, 2013


Efficiency and Effectiveness of an IRRS Mission initial

INPUT QUANTITIES valueA priory mission data No(id) Unit Value min.(>) max.(≤) min.(>) max.(≤) col PI

Type of mission (1 - initial or 2 - follow-up) 1 optimum 0.0 C1(T) - 24 24 29 21 32 0.00 Team sizeHost country Belgium effective 0.1 C2(P) - 150 132 162 118 176 0.00 Report lengthStating time of the mission (yyyy-mm-dd) 2013-12-01 acceptable 0.2 C3(tARM) day 60 45 - 30 45 0.00 ARM review timeEnding time of the mission (yyyy-mm-dd) 2013-12-13 needs attention C4(NAWC) - 14 14 - 11 14 0.00 Advance commentsNumber of modules (nT) 13 C5(fbARM) - 3.65 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 0.09 Feedback on ARMNumber of supplementary modules (in follow-up) (nM+) T 0-first -0.96 C6(Exp) - 0.50 0.50 0.66 0.33 1.00 0.00 Team experienceNumber of facility and activity types (nx) 5 λ T-first 1.48 C7(fbHost) - 3.91 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 0.02 Host feedbackNumber of additional technical areas (nT) 3 T 0-fu 3.09 C8(fbTeam) - 4.01 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 Team feedbackNumber of policy discussion issues (nP) 2 λ T-fu 0.71 C9(β0) - 1.55 1.00 - 0.80 1.00 0.00 Action Plan ExtentNumber of NPP units in the host country (ν) 7 C10(β1) - 0.84 1.00 - 0.80 1.00 0.16 Action Plan coverage

Pre-mission data P 0-first 17.60 C11(β2) - 1.32 1.00 - 0.80 1.00 0.00 Beyond AP coverageNumber of Team Members (including IAEA) (T) 24 λ M-first 5.83 C12(ρ1) - 1.09 0.75 1.25 0.50 1.50 0.00 Balance of findingsNumber of Experts in the Team (without IAEA) (Te) 18 λ F-first 0.63 C13(ρ2) - 1.23 0.75 1.25 0.50 1.50 0.00 Balance of R & SNumber of Experts with IRRS experience (Tx) 9 P 0-fu 54.20 C14(RCont) - 0.73 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.90 0.19 Report concisenessARM distribution date (yyy-mm-dd) 2013-10-01 λ M-fu 1.55 C15(RTime) day 117 0 90 90 120 0.30 Report completionNumber of issues in the Action Plan (NAP) 43 λ F-fu 0.64 C16(OpenI) - - 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.40 - - Open issues leftNumber of advanced ARM comments from TM's (NAWC) 14 μ 0.90 G1 (InitEff) - - 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 - - Init. miss. effectivenessNumber of findings (R+S) in the initial mission (for follow-up)

Mission data (R+S) av 39Number of Recommendations (R) 31 R av 15.1Number of Suggestions (S) 23 G av 12.3Number of Good Practices (G) 6 (R*G) av 157.4Number of findings also in the Action Plan (N=) 18 (R/S) av 0.89Number of issues remained open (in follow-up)Number of Report Pages (P) 150 Size of nucl.pr. 1Conciseness of the Mission Report (ρ) 0.73 Mission size 18.5

Feedback data (average marks) Opt.team size 26.4By the Team on ARM quality 3.65 Opt.rep.length 147

By the Host on mission effectiveness 3.91 EFF.& EFF. OF THE MISSION TOBy the Team on mission effectiveness 4.01 Mission type:By the Host on initial mission effectiveness (for follow-up) - Missions duration:

Post-mission data Average Measure of Deviation (Δ):Date of isuance of mission report (yyyy-mm-dd) 2014-04-10 fields to input!

2013-12-01

effectiveOverall Effectiveness:November 2013 0.051

2013-12-13initial

CALCULATED DATA

IAEA, Version 5

EFF. INDICATIONRel.Dist from Opt.

Optimum rangePERFORMANCE INDICATORS Acceptable range

Belgium

Belgium

LIMITS & PARAMETERSFor average deviation

For team size

For report length

For findings

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

Module-wise report conciseness


Discussion and conclusions

The values of the effectiveness and efficiency Performance Indicators (upper right table in the figure headed by EFF. INDICATION) suggest the following conclusions:

1) It is remarkable that many of the Performance Indicators of the mission ( 11 out of the 15 that applied) are inside or at the boundary of the optimum range

2) The feedback of the reviewers on the ARM shows some concern, although the related comments offered are fairly favourable

3) Similarly the marks in the feedback from the hosts reflect certain concern, although the comments associated to the marks are mostly favourable

4) The Action Plan coverage was far from optimum indicating that the reviewers paid less attention than necessary to the Action Plan (c.f. in Appendix 2)

5) The report conciseness is in the red range, several issues and topics present in the Report Template were not addressed in the report (c.f. in Appendix 1)

6) Release of the mission report was delayed for several reasons which is reflected by a poor respective Performance Indicator

7) The overall effectiveness of the mission is in the lower region of white (effective) range and its value (0.051) indicates a fairly efficient mission.

7. Summary

The data of and feedback from the full scope initial IRRS mission to Belgium have been analysed. The following conclusions are drawn:

The ARM contained the necessary information in a generally good quality with certain deficiencies

More translated documents were demanded by the reviewers A standard ARM summary report needs to be defined Most members and the leaders of the team were effective and did a good job Support from IAEA staff was appreciated, yet the IAEA team was too large Plenary session to discuss report would have been needed Deadlines related to the missions need to be effectively communicated to the reviewers More time is needed for interviews, e.g. by a pre-prepared draft report (or standard format

ARM summary report) Coordination of managing the facilities and activities topics needs considerations and

formalization The hosts generally considered the mission useful and efficient, yet certain issues very

noted:o Excessive number of questions in the self-assessment questionnaireo Including reviewers’ national practice into the reviewo Little added value from policy discussionso Difficulties in addressing findings offered to the government

The Action Plan coverage, the report conciseness and the report completion indicators of the mission are rather poor

The overall effectiveness and efficiency of the mission was very good.


Appendix 1: Module-wise Coverage in the Mission Report Conciseness of the Mission Report

conciseness ratio: 0.73205 150

M No. Report section in scope in report M Module-wise

I 1.1 National policy and strategy 1 11.2 Establishment of a framework for safety - legal background covering all activities and facilities 1 1

- clearly allocated responsibilities 1 1 - legal and financial provisions for waste and spent fuel management 1 0

1.3 Establishment of a regulatory body - legal authority 1 1 - necessary resources 1 1 - effective independence of the Regulatory Body 1 1 - free from conflicting responsibilities 1 1

1.4 Compliance with regulations and responsibility for safety - prime responsibility for safety 1 1 - authority of regulatory body to require demonstration of compliance with requirements1 0 - responsibility through all stages of lifetime 1 0

1.5 Coordination of different authorities with responsibilities for safety within the regulatory framework - 1 1 - appropriate and documented liaison among authorities 1 1

1.6 System for protective actions to reduce existing or unregulated radiation risks - protection against risk not 1 1 - role of RB 1 1

1.7 Provision for decommissioning of facilities and the mngmnt of rad. waste and spent fuel - gov. 1 1 - provisions for financial resources, funds 1 1 - existence of respective legal requirements 1 1 - provisions for appropriate R&D programmes 1 0

1.8 Competence for safety - required for all parties with responsibilities for safety 1 0 - definition of necessary competence levels 1 0 - arrangements for training 1 1 - requirements for provisions of sufficient number of qualified and 1 0

1.9 Provision of technical services 1 1 I 0.71

II 2.1 International obligations and arrangements for international cooperation - international conventions 1 1 - use of and participation in the developmen tof IAEA SSs 1 1 - international peer reviews 1 1 - bilateral and multilateral cooperations 1 1

2.2 Sharing of operating experience and regulatory experience - reporting operating and regulatory experience 1 1 - receiving information from other states and parties 1 1

- dissemination of lessons learned, feedback on responsemeasures

1 1 II 1.00

III 3.1 Organizational structure of the regulatory body and allocation of resources - organization 1 1 - sufficient resources 1 1 - decision making process 1 0

3.2 Effective independence in the performance of regulatory activities - independent decision making 1 1 - prevention or resolution of conflicts of interest 1 0 - separation from influence, integrity of staff 1 0

3.3 Staffing and competence of the regulatory body - sufficiency and competence of staff 1 1 - long term human resource planning 1 1 - training and knowledge management 1 0

3.4 Liaison with advisory bodies and support organizations - advisory bodies 1 1 - dedicated TSOs / intelligent customer status 0 - - handling of conflicts of interest related to technical support 0 -

3.5 Liaison between the regulatory body and authorized parties - meeting types and schedules 1 1 - nature of relationship 1 1 - resident inspectors 0 -

3.6 Stability and consistency of regulatory control - predictability 1 1 - transparency in change of requirements 1 0

3.7 Safety related records - scope of records to be kept 1 1 - management of records 1 1

3.8 Communication and consultation with interested parties - interfaces with the media and the public 1 1 - meetings and reports 1 1 - regulator's website 1 1 III 0.74

IV 4.1 Implementation and documentation of the MS - existence, defined, integrated 1 1 - documentation 1 1 - all activities defined by documented processes 1 1 - priority to safety 1 0 - promotion of safety culture 1 1 - promotion of continuous improvement 1 1 - application of graded approach 1 1

4.2 Management responsibility - demonstration of commitment 1 1 - address expectations of interested parties 1 1 - organizational policies 1 0 - establishment of goals, strategies, plans, objectives 1 0

4.3 Resource management - determination of needs and requirements 1 1 - development of staffing plan 1 1 - training 1 1

4.4 Process implementation - identification, documentation of processes, process owners 1 1 - control of working documents and records 1 1 - management of organizational changes 1 1

4.5 Measurement, assessment, improvement - self-assessment 1 1 - audits 1 1 - MS review and improvement 1 1 - management of non-conformances 1 1 IV 0.86

fields to input!Belgium

initial


V 5.1 Generic issues - roles and responsibilities in authorization 1 1 - types of authorization 1 1 - licensing steps, license amendment, renewal, revocation 1 1 - requirements on the submittal 1 1 - decision making process, traceability 1 0 - appeal 1 1 - assessment by the regulatory body 1 1 - independent verification of the safety assessment included in the 1 0

5.2 Authorization of nuclear power plants - application for authorization 1 1 - documentation of the licensing basis, modification of licensing documentation1 1 - licensing of plant personnel 1 1 - ageing management 1 0 - severe accident management 1 0

5.3 Authorization of research reactors - safety committees, communication with the reactor manager 1 0 - licensing of personnel 1 0 - ageing management 1 0 - experimental devices, influence of experiments on DBA 1 0

5.4 Authorization of fuel cycle facilities - specific authorization requirements for facilities 1 05.5 Authorization of radioactive waste management facilities - specific authorizations requirements 1 1

- authorization of closure of disposal facilities 1 15.6 Authorization of radiation sources facilities - specific authorization requirements 1 1

- hazards associated with industrial and health applications 0 - - reuse or recycling 1 1 - authorization of export and import of sealed sources 1 1

5.7 Authorization of decommissioning activities - preserving key staff 1 0 - responsibilites of financial provisions 1 0 - demonstration of compliance with the decommissioning plan 1 1 - controls if cannot be released for unrestricted use 1 0

5.8 Authorization of transport activities - specific authorization requirements 1 10 - V 0.57

VI 6.1 Generic issues - graded approach for the various facilities 1 1 - responsibility for the R&A 1 1 - safety assessment has to address all radiation risks 1 1

6.2.1 Management of R&A (NPP) - types and number of documents subject to review 1 1 - availablity of internal guidance for R&A 1 1 - availability of R&A plan 1 0 - interface among interested authorities (if applicable) 0 - - documentation, monitoring, tracking, QA of the R&A process 1 0 - graded approach 1 0

6.2.2 Organization and technical resources for R&A (NPP) - internal manpower and organizational arrangements 1 1 - staff competence and training for R&A 1 1 - external resources, advisory bodies 1 1 - specific regulatory R&A tools (codes, experiements) and 1 0

6.2.3 Bases for R&A (NPP) - availability of relevant regulations and guides for the licensee 1 1 - guidance on the scope of probabilistic/deterministic safety analysis 1 1 - alignment with IAEA SSs 1 0

6.2.4 Performance of the R&A (NPP) - methods for verification of comprehensiveness and quality 1 0 - Periodic Safety Review 1 1 - Feedback of Operating Experience 1 1 - independent regulatory control calculations 1 0

6.3 R&A for research reactors - specific R&A methods 1 0 - Periodic Safety Review 1 1

6.4 R&A for fuel cycle facilities - specific R&A methods 1 0 - Periodic Safety Review 1 1

6.5 R&A for waste management facilities - specific R&A methods 1 16.6 R&A for radiation source facilities - specific R&A methods 1 16.7 R&A for decommissioning activities - specific R&A methods 1 16.8 R&A for transport activities - specific R&A methods (e.g. shipment, special arrangements, packaging) 1 1 VI 0.63

VII 7.1.1 Inspection approaches, methods and plans - inspection areas and aspects related to facilities and activities 1 1 - graded approach 1 1 - types and methods of inspections 1 1 - inspection plans 1 1 - use of third parties and joint inspections 1 1

7.1.2 Inspection processess and practices - procedures, guides, check lists 1 1 - observation, recording, reporting 1 1 - follow-up and use of inspection results 1 0 - reactive inspections 1 0

7.1.3 Inspectors - manpower, qualification, training 1 1 - resident inspectors, presence of inspectors on-site 1 0 - authority of inspectors (unlimited access, enforcement tools) 1 1

7.2 Inspection of nuclear power plants - specific issues from 7.1 1 17.3 Inspection of research reactors - specific issues from 7.1 1 17.4 Inspection of fuel cycle facilities - specific issues from 7.1 1 07.5 Inspection of waste management facilities - specific issues from 7.1 1 17.6 Inspection of radiation source facilities - specific issues from 7.1 1 17.7 Inspection of decommissioning activities - specific issues from 7.1 1 17.8 Inspection of transport activities - specific issues from 7.1 1 1 VII 0.79


VIII 8.1 Enforcement policy and process - graded approach 1 1 - enforcement processes, tools and powers 1 1 - decision making process to prosecute 1 1 - appeal 1 0

8.2 Enforcement implementations - roles of inspectors and of the regulatory body 1 1 - guidance, training and criteria for enforcement 1 0 VIII 0.67

IX 9.1 Generic issues - process of development and promotion of regulations and guides 1 1 - graded approach 1 0 - review and updating of regulations and guides 1 1 - specific review and assessment topics (PSA, PSR, OEF, SAM) 1 0 - specific authorization topics 1 0

9.2 R&Gs for nuclear power plants - regulatory requirements and guidance on design 1 1 - regulatory requirements and guidance on operation 1 1

9.3 R&Gs for research reactors 1 09.4 R&Gs for fuel cycle facilities 1 09.5 R&Gs for radioactive waste management facilities - requirements on national policy and strategy 1 0

- requiremenets on the identification, control and minimisation of RAW1 1 - requirements on waste acceptance criteria 1 1

9.6 R&Gs for radiation sources facilities 1 19.7 R&Gs for decommissioning activities - decommissioning strategy, financial provisions, retaining key staff 1 1

- compliance with the end state criteria, controls if cannot be released1 09.8 R&Gs for transport activities - covering all modes of transport 1 1

- availability of guides to meet TS-R-1 requirements 1 1 IX 0.59

X 10.1 General requirements - basic responsibilities 1 1 - assessment of threats 1 1

10.2 Functional requirements - establishing emergency management and operation 1 1 - identifying, notifying, activating / assessing initial phase 1 1 - taking urgent protective and/or mitigatory actions 1 1 - providing information / keeping the public informed 1 1 - protecting emergency workers 1 1 - mitigating the non-radioactive consequences 0 - - conducting recovery operations 0 -

10.3 Infrastructural requirements - authority 0 - - organization 0 - - coordination of emergency response 0 - - plans and procedures 1 1 - logistical support and facilities 0 - - trainings, drills and exercises 1 1 - quality assurance programme 1 0

10.4 Role of the RB during response 1 1 X 0.91

XI 11.1 Control of medical exposures - responsibilites (registrant, licensee, government, regulator) 1 1 - justification and optimization of medical exposure 1 1 - exposure of pregnant and breast-feeding 1 1

11.2 Occupational radiation protection - general responsibilites (registrants, licensees, employers, workers) 1 1 - requirements for radiation protection programmes 1 1 - monitoring programmes and technical services 1 1

11.3Control of rad. discharges and materials for clearance; envir. monitoring for public rad. prot. - req.s onexemption & clearance

1 1 - dose constraints in the R&Gs 1 0 - regulatory limits for discharges from facilities and activities 1 0 XI 0.78

XII 12.1 Legal basis - existence of legal framework for oversight and enforcement security arrangements1 112.2 Regulatory oversight activity - related regulatory programme and organization 1 1

- authorization, inspection, enforcement activity 1 1 - operational experience feedback 1 0

12.3 Interface with other authorities - cooperation and distribution of responsibilities and activities 1 1 XII 0.80

XIII 13.1 Immediate axtions taken by the regulatory body - emergency response 1 1 - safety evaluation required from the licesees 1 1 - public communication 1 1 - lessons learned from the immediate actions 1 1

13.2 Technical and other issues considered - results of in-depth analysis by the licensees 1 1 - corresponding actions by the regulatory body 1 1 - activities related to the IAEA Nuclear Safety Action Plan 1 0 - longer term impact on the public 1 1

13.3 Plans for upcoming actions - Action Plans of the licensee and the RB 1 1 - planned changes in the legal background and regulations 1 1 - planned changes in the orgnization and working method of the RB 1 1 - planned activities related to the IAEA Nuclear Aafety Action Plan 1 0 XIII 0.83


Appendix 2: Module-wise Coverage of the Action Plan

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

II III IV V VI VII IX X XI XII

Modules

AP coverage by Modules

As seen from the figure, the coverage of the Action Plan (AP) items by findings is rather poor in several Modules; this is partly due to the extensive and detailed Action Plan prepared by the host country, that contains as much as 87 actions most of which have relevance to the scope of the mission. Large numbers of AP items were defined in Module 9 (19), Module 10 (13) and Module 11 (13) where the coverage is lower than expected (21, 23 and 15%, respectively). There are a single AP item in both Modules 2 and 6 (none covered) and there are 5 items in Module 7 (1 of them covered).

prompt evaluation of the irrs mission to belgium documents/open shared... · web viewlarge numbers...

Documents