IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency LESSONS LEARNED ON THE REGULATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY Presentation to the Workshop on Lessons Learned from IRRS Missions

IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency

LESSONS LEARNED ON THE REGULATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY

Presentation to the Workshop on Lessons Learned from IRRS Missions

Moscow, Russian Federation

9-11 December 2014

IAEA IRRS enhancements 2

Outline

• Basis of presentation

• Analysis of references

• Lessons Learned on the Regulatory Framework


BASIS OF PRESENTATION

http://www.google.at/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://jemtska.se/erbjudande/tjanster/bygger-fundament-for-hoga-torn&ei=T8p-VOTID4naOLvWgMAF&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNGoxty9yGQEymUpWDNSiY_r_YNA5w&ust=1417681822670104


Missions in 2006-2014

Korea (f)

Niger UAE Zimbabwe

Mexico Germany Canada (f) France

Mauritius Ukraine Russia Switzerland Netherlands

Cameroon Sierra Leone UK (part 2) Australia (f) Belgium Cameroon

Kenya Namibia Vietnam Slovenia Czech Rep. Vietnam (f)

Uganda Madagascar Lebanon Ukraine (f) Germany (f) Finland Russia (f) Slovenia (f)

France Gabon Botswana Canada USA Korea Greece UK (f) Jordan

UK Australia Spain Peru China Spain (f) Slovakia Poland Pakistan

Romania Japan Cote d'Ivoire France (f) Iran Romania Sweden Bulgaria USA (f)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

3 9 8 7 4 9 4 6 10


IAEA Nuclear Safety Action Plan

IAEA is to “Strengthen IAEA peer reviews in order to maximize the benefits to Member States”.

In specific:

2.4.1 IAEA Secretariat to review the effectiveness of their peer reviews

To set the basis for this action an analysis of past IRRS missions has been performed


Missions analysed

• Initial (22) an follow-up (9) missions in 2006-2014 to countries with nuclear power plants

Niger UAEMexico Germany Canada (f)

Mauritius Ukraine Russia SwitzerlandCameroon Sierra Leone UK (part 2) Australia (f) Belgium

Kenya Namibia Vietnam Slovenia Czech Rep.Uganda Madagascar Lebanon Ukraine (f) Germany (f) Finland Russia (f)

France Gabon Botswana Canada USA Korea Greece UK (f)UK Australia Spain Peru China Spain (f) Slovakia Poland

Romania Japan Cote d'Ivoire France (f) Iran Romania Sweden Bulgaria USA (f)2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Details of analysis reported

http://gnssn.iaea.org/regnet/irrs/Pages/IRRS_pub_docs.aspx






IRRS Modules


Observations and their types

• Observations lead to:• Recommendation• Suggestion• Good Practice

Findings

Observation: focused results of the review process, based on facts and related to possible ways of improvement or achievements to recognise, with reference to requirements in IAEA Safety Standards

obs

erva

tions


This BASIS is a Reference to GSR Part 1 Requirement 4

Format of an Observation

Quotation from the relevant IAEA Safety Standard that is to be / has been followed. (There may be more than one Bases)

Recommendation / suggestion / good practice offered by the reviewer

A description of what the reviewer observed, that has lead to the present finding or good practice


ANALYSIS OF REFERENCES


References to IAEA safety standards

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

ber o

f ref

eren

ces

Module number

R&S references to GSR Part 1 and elsewhere from Modules to GSR Part 1 to other standards

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

ber o

f ref

eren

ces

Module number

GP References to GSR Part 1 and elsewhere from Modules to GSR Part 1 to other standards

GSR Part 1 is indeed the IAEA safety standard that plays a central role in the IRRS process, further basic references are GS-R- 3 and GS-R-2.


Frequently referred Requirements

• R24: Demonstration of safety for the authorization of facilities and activities in Module 5;

• R18: Staffing and competence of the regulatory body in Module 3;

• R20: Liaison with advisory bodies and support organizations in Module 3;

• R32: Regulations and guides in Module 9.

2.41 2.362.09 2.09

1.68 1.64 1.59 1.45

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

24 18 20 32 2 27 25 29

Num

ber o

f ref

eren

ces p

er m

issi

ons

GSR Part 1 Requirement number

Most frequent references to GSR Part 1EU missions non-EU missions all missions

3 635 9 1 7 7

Findings, referencing GSR Part 1 Requirements relating to core regulatory functions from initial missions comprise a dominant part of all references


LESSONS LEARNED ON THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

http://www.google.at/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.norway.ph/studywork/business/Doing-Business/Regulatory-Framework/&ei=EBZ_VMW4F4vXPIq9gLgF&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNFUpFRhoQ6mqBAhI6TJpBrbp7M7Fw&ust=1417701255042501


Statistics of observations analysed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

Modules

Number of observations in all missionsRecommendations Suggestions Good Practices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V

Num

ber o

f ob

serv

ation

s

Missions

Observations in initial MissionsR S GP R+S Ʃ

by Modules by missions


The Subject Group approach

• In order to analyse the technical contents of the findings they are classified into Subject Groups (SGs).

• The purpose of this grouping is to collect the observations having similar characters into statistically meaningful groups

• E.g.:SG 1d): Providing/using legal framework for regulatory activities includes findings related to

• revision of regulations to provide authority; • reflecting independence of the regulatory body; • issuance of decrees and orders; • relieving time constraints on decision making.


The most populated SGs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.d 7.a 9.b 7.c 3.a 4.a 10.e 3.f 4.b 9.a 3.c 3.g 1.a

Num

ber o

f find

ings

per

miss

ions

Subject Group

Subject Groups with the most findings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3.f 3.g 7.d 1.e 10.b 9.a 6.a 7.a 2.a 3.a 10.d

Num

ber o

f Go

od P

racti

ces

Subject Group

Subject Groups with the most GPs


Characteristic examples of issues (1)

The most populated Subject Group, Providing/using legal framework for regulatory authorities, (Module 1) includes the following typical recommendationsThe government should

• establish the legal framework for an effectively independent, unambiguously authorized regulatory body with clear division of responsibilities;

• provide the regulatory body with the authority to issue or the involvement in issuance of regulatory requirements;

• provide full provisions for appealsThe addressee of these findings is the government and the issue raised is lack of specific legal provisions necessary for discharging regulatory responsibilities.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.d 7.a 9.b 7.c 3.a 4.a 10.e 3.f 4.b 9.a 3.c 3.g 1.a

Nu

mb

er o

f fin

din

gs p

er m

issi

on

s

Subject Group




Developing inspection programme (Module 7) is the second most frequent SG. Typical findings therein are:The regulatory body should (or should consider to)

• expand the inspection programme (in scope, in types, in frequency);

• develop further its inspection system (initiation, methodology, monitoring, evaluation);

• improve inspection planning.

This is a fairly homogeneous group of findings, the addressee of which is the regulatory body and the main issue is shortcomings in the inspection methodology applied.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.d 7.a 9.b 7.c 3.a 4.a 10.e 3.f 4.b 9.a 3.c 3.g 1.a

Nu

mb

er o

f fin

din

gs p

er m

issi

on

s

Subject Group



SG Reviewing regulations and guides (Module 9) is the third among the most frequent ones with typical findings: The regulatory body should (or should consider to)

• systematically and periodically review and revise as necessary the regulations, regulatory requirements and guidance;

• introduce formalized gap analysis between IAEA requirements and national regulations.

This group also addresses the regulatory body and points to weaknesses in review and revision of regulations.

Characteristic examples of issues (3)0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.d 7.a 9.b 7.c 3.a 4.a 10.e 3.f 4.b 9.a 3.c 3.g 1.a

Nu

mb

er o

f fin

din

gs p

er m

issi

on

s

Subject Group




The most frequent Subject Group of Good Practices is External involvement in the regulatory process (Module 3). Typical observations are

• taking advice and assistance from advisory committees, Technical Support Organizations;

• regular contact with the licensees and manufacturers.

The most frequently commended activity is accepting technical assistance.

(Note that this activity is fairly common among the regulatory bodies and as such it would not qualify for a Good Practice – pointing to a weakness in the process).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3.f 3.g 7.d 1.e 10.b 9.a 6.a 7.a 2.a 3.a 10.d

Num

ber o

f G

ood

Prac

tices

Subject Group

Subject Groups with the most GPs


Dual issues

• Certain subjects appear both as findings and as Good Practices:

• Developing the inspection program (2nd in findings, 8th in GPs)• Staffing of RB (5th in findings, 10th

in GPs) • External involvement (1st in GPs, 8th in findings)

R+S GP 1) 1.d 3.f 2) 7.a 3.g 3) 9.b 7.d 4) 7.c 1.e 5) 3.a 10.b 6) 4.a 9.a 7) 10.e 6.a 8) 3.f 7.a 9) 4.b 2.a10) 9.a 3.a


Follow-up missions

• Limited amount of data from 9 missions• Progress can be characterized by the number of

issues remained open and by the number of new issues

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

num

ber o

f find

ings

Progress in follow-ups by ModulesInitial findings open issues new findings


Issues remained open

• 69 open issues • The most populated Subject Groups are:

• Details of the MS, developing MS manual (Module 4) – 6 pcs• Resources of the RB (Module 3) – 5 pcs

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Minimum Average Maximum

open

issu

es/i

ntial

issu

es

Ratio of open issues in follow-upsRecommendations Suggestions All

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

num

ber r

atio

of fi

ndin

gs

Modules

Ratio of open and new issues


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Photo: V. FriedrichThis activity is conducted by the IAEA, with funding by the European Union. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission

Documents

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency LESSONS LEARNED ON THE REGULATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY Presentation to the Workshop on Lessons Learned from IRRS Missions