Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting on Competence of Human Resources for Regulatory Bodies in Member States

Vienna, 30 November – 2 December 2010

Contents:

1. Introduction2. Adoption of the Agenda and Minutes of the previous meeting3. Report on the Bureau meetings4. Report on work on the draft Safety Report and SARCoN5. Discussion of the Action plan6. Presentations by IAEA7. Breakout Sessions8. Review of comments on the draft Safety Report and SARCoN9. Summary and Conclusion

Appendix 1 AgendaAppendix 2 Participants of the SC MeetingAppendix 3 Terms of reference of the Steering CommitteeAppendix 4 Action PlanAppendix 5 Letter to Dr. M. Weightman Chairman of the RCFAppendix 6 Breakout group membersAppendix 7 Presentation by Mr. Jean-Luc LachaumeAppendix 8 Presentation by Mr. R. BhattacharyaAppendix 9 Presentation by Ms. P. WielandAppendix 10 Presentation by Mr. P. Mignot

Page 1 of 32

1. Introduction

This was the second meeting of the Steering Committee, which was established to advise IAEA on ways to support effective systems and strategies to ensure and maintain the necessary competence to perform the regulatory functions in Member States (MSs) with NPPs.

The Convention on Nuclear Safety requires in Article 8 each of the signatory Member States (MSs) to “establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework referred to in Article 7, and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities.”

IAEA has published a number of documents to assist MSs on the essential elements of a training framework for staff working on nuclear activities, and this includes the regulatory bodies. It convened Technical Meetings (TM) in December 2007 and December 2008, to advise the IAEA on how it can best assist MSs to meet their training needs and comply with these documents. The second of these TMs reached a broad consensus supporting the setting up of the Steering Committee (SC), as well as a smaller Bureau that could meet to help plan and steer the work between the main meetings of the Steering Committee.

Bureau Meetings were held on 22 - 23 April 2009, 22 - 23 September 2009, 23 – 24 February 2010 and 8 – 9 July 2010. The main aims of these meetings were to establish and develop:

A Plan of Work (later to be called an Action Plan), An Agenda for the Steering Committee meetings in Vienna in December 2009 and December

2010 Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee Guidance documents on competence of Regulatory Bodies.

The Proposed Agenda for the Steering Committee is given in Appendix 1 and the participants are listed in Appendix 2.

Because of problems arising from the weather, the Chairman of the Steering Committee, Mr. Ian Britten (UK) was unable to attend, cancelling at the last moment. With the agreement of the meeting, Mr. Pierre Mignot (Belgium) took the place of Chairman. Ms. Maria Josefa Moracho Ramirez (NSNI) was also unavailable on the first day and her place on that day was met by Mr. Paul Woodhouse (NSNI); Ms. Moracho attended the other two days.

The meeting was opened by Mr. Gustavo Caruso NSNI who spoke specifically on the relationship between the work of the Steering Committee and Bureau and that of the IAEA on embarking countries. He explained that DS 424 had now been approved by IAEA and spoke on the packages for sharing information on HR development and Peer review services. He also spoke on DS 416 on licensing and the embarking country background to it. In discussion afterwards concern was expressed that embarking countries had not generally taken up the invitation to the SC meeting. Mr. Caruso informed the meeting that 60 countries had been sent invitations, but to the Permanent Missions and not the Regulatory Bodies. The meeting noted that there were difficulties in making the Regulatory Bodies aware of the meetings, and aware of the relevance of the SC to their activities.

The meeting was also addressed by Mr. Jean Rene Jubin (IAEA), on developments in the GSR document structure, and Mr. Russell Gibbs (IAEA), on embarking countries (see 7. Below).

Page 2 of 32

2. Adoption of the Agenda and the Minutes of the Previous Meeting

After a round table of introductions, Mr. Mignot presented the proposed Agenda which had been developed in the Bureau Meeting of July 2010. He emphasised that the Agenda could be modified as the meeting progressed if members wished it, and on that basis the Agenda was adopted as a working document (It is attached as Appendix 1).

The Report of the previous meeting was discussed [http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/training/report_steering_committee_dec_2009.pdf]. Mr. Woodhouse and others commented on the significant amount of work that had taken place since the last Steering Committee meeting and, even thought there were minor errors in the report, since the meeting was a year ago, no specific changes were proposed and the report was approved by the meeting.

3. Reports on the Bureau Meetings

Mr. Lyn Summers (Consultant) gave a report on the work of the Bureau since the last SC meeting.

Two Bureau Meetings had been held and the notes of these meetings circulated [Include Hypertext links]. Significant work had been done by consultants, by email by the bureau members, and in the Bureau meetings on the two documents: Guidelines for Competence Needs Self-Assessment (SARCoN) and the Draft Safety report - A Framework for Managing a Regulatory Body’s Competence and that work was reported later in the meeting (see 4. below).

In the first Bureau meeting, in Vienna, 23 – 24 February 2010, Mr. Caruso IAEA had briefed members on embarking countries and upcoming training activities at IAEA. Extensive work is underway in IAEA on embarking countries and Mr. Caruso sought to develop the relevance to the SC. A Senior Regulators Meeting had taken place which had concluded that some embarking countries would need case by case support as well as generic support. The Bureau had concluded that the work of the SC and Bureau is as relevant to embarking countries as to established countries and the SC needs to ensure that these countries aspire to the same level of competence as established countries. Actions were considered to ensure that all, outside the SC and inside, recognised this.

A Draft Proposed Plan of Work (now called the Action Plan – Appendix 4) had been developed in previous Bureau meetings and discussed in the SC. Particular care to ensure that all the discussions in breakout sessions and in plenary sessions of the SC were taken into account in a line by line review of the minutes.

A new topic area had been proposed, on assistance proposals specific to the needs of embarking countries.

After discussion of Revision 7, the development of a new Revision 8 of Guidelines for Competence Needs Self-Assessment (SARCoN) had been proposed, with significant amendments to the tables of competence related to technical disciplines and management so that all levels of staff, including managers were included. A Consultant had been commissioned to draft a safety report based on discussions in the SC, Tecdoc 1254 and SARCoN and revised in a Consultants’ meeting on 8 – 12 February 2010 and discussion of the draft report had taken place in the Bureau meeting and proposals for further revision had been agreed including a new chapter dealing with embarking countries.

The second Bureau meeting was in Vienna, 8-9 July 2010. It was addressed by Mr. Erik WeinsteinIAEA, Safety and Security Coordination Section on embarking countries and further information had been imparted and discussion had taken place. 27 countries are expressing interest in using nuclear

Page 3 of 32

power and the Senior Regulator’s Meeting established a Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) for regulatory knowledge sharing and mutual learning. The Bureau had expressed a wish to influence the RCF, to make it aware of the relevance of our work to Embarking countries by approaching the RCF, offering information.

The title of the Steering Committee and Bureau had been amended to reflect the relevance of advice and guidance initiated by the SC and Bureau to embarking countries, removing reference to MSs with NPPs and it had been decided to invite all MSs to send delegates to the SC meeting. The Action Plan and the Terms of Reference (TOR) had been amended. The TOR was to be rewritten to remove the aims, thus being a statement of the vision and mission and working methods, which are fixed (or relatively long lasting) and the Action Plan was to be a strategic statement of the aims and the plan itself (as these are expected to change). The TOR and Action Plan are attached at Appendices 3 and 4 respectively.

The needs of embarking countries are to be incorporated into the Action Plan, and a new Aim had been created, whose preliminary description is: Aim 4 - Mutual support and sharing of experience, in the area of regulatory competence, fully meets the needs of Embarking Countries.

A questionnaire had been distributed prior to the first Steering Committee meeting, 20 Member States had responded, but no analysis had yet taken place. Possible help with the analysis from embarking countries (which would also be of benefit to them) had been discussed.

A draft Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting was developed and there had been further discussion on drafts of the Safety Report and SARCoN.

4. Report on work on the draft safety Report and SARCoN

Ms. Koskinen and Mr. Summers gave presentations on the developments in SARCoN and the draft Safety Report.

SARCoN – Systematic Assessment of Regulatory Competence Needs, provides information on specific and practical means to support the implementation of the IAEA safety standards in the area of ensuring regulatory competence. It supports the implementation of Article 8 of the Nuclear Safety Convention and Modules 3 and 4 of the IRRS by providing a systematic approach and step based procedure for analyzing the training and development needs of regulatory bodies.

In context of countries “embarking” on nuclear power programmes, the guidelines are applicable to the regulator and are a means of developing the competency of regulators staff. For this, the appendices need to be examined with regard to the process of establishment and building of the competence of their organizations.

In particular, SARCoN provides examples of a questionnaire for self assessment to enable the planning of future staffing needs and advocates the use by RBs of Training Needs Assessment (TNA), providing guidance on this. Appendices give tables showing typical competencies needed in the main and supplementary Regulatory Functional Areas and detailed breakdowns of typical Competency Profiles for Regulatory Bodies which are used to determine competency gaps . An EXCEL format is available facilitating the assessment of the gaps. In this tool there is an option that supplementary competences can be added to fit the needs of individual RBs.

Draft Safety report - A Framework for Managing a Regulatory Body’s Competence. Mr. Summers said that the report recognised that the most valuable asset of a regulatory body is its employees, and that RBs need to: provide adequate resources in the budget; meet future business requirements and challenges; enable employees to develop; and allocate learning activities in a fair and equitable manner. It incorporates the competence management framework concepts, Gap Analysis and

Page 4 of 32

Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) developed in Tecdoc 1254 and SARCoN and supersedes Tecdoc 1254.

The current draft was the result of several consultancies and discussion, by email and at Bureau meetings - with the Bureau members. It proposes that RBs should have a competence management system which should be integral in the overall management of the regulatory body and should be a continuous activity, dealing with the near term and longer term future. Thus, planning for competence should be integral to the regulatory body’s overall planning and strategic management system, providing the policies and objectives and management system to establish and maintain adequate competences within the organization.

In the case of countries “embarking” on nuclear power programmes, the appendix deals with the process of establishing and building of the competence of their RBs organizations.

In the discussion Mr. Mignot, felt that there was clearly a hierarchy on the two documents being produced with the draft safety report at the top and SARCoN and the Tecdoc below, and Mr. Summers noted that the Tecdoc was frozen and, in effect superseded.

Mr. Woodhouse reported that a DPP for the Safety Report had been produced within IAEA and had now been approved with some amendments. A wider IAEA participation in further drafting had been proposed to recognise the relevance to other parts of IAEA. Further work on developing a graded approach to embarking countries was also needed. The title of the draft safety report was to be amended to remove the word “framework”. Ms. Koskinen noted that work would be needed to develop a graded approach to embarking countries and possibly to note the need for Ministries to establish competencies before the RB was formed. Mr. Szabo also drew attention to the need to advise the embarking countries on what the competencies mean.

The meeting was informed that the amendments to the DPP and the comments noted in 8. below meant that new drafts of the two documents would be required and work would progress, with the aid of consultants, next year.

5. Breakout sessions

Because of the limited number of participants, only two working groups were constituted (appendix 6 gives the members) and because of time constraints only one breakout session took place instead of two.

Working Group 1 considered: What coordination between RCF and IAEA departments is needed in respect of advice on regulatory body’s competence for embarking countries?

The group noted that the RCF provides a wide scope assistance for embarking countries and the SC is concerned with competence management. The work done by the SC should not be duplicated, so there is a need to coordinate activities between the SC and RCF - IAEA should have this role.

Considering various questions embarking countries might be expected to ask: what kind of assistance is provided? – it should be technology neutral in the very

beginning. Is the assistance for all facilities and for all newcomers? How many people are needed for the first year / for reviewing PSA / for…etc. They need to know where to find answers, so how can we help?

Page 5 of 32

Some ideas on coordination:- Could there be some grouping of embarking countries on the basis of region

/language/ culture / phase / technology /reactor type; Should there be a basic selection on the IAEA documentation on competence

management.

Working Group 2 considered: How do we ensure that the work of the SC gets done by SC, Bureau, MS, IAEA considering possible barriers to communication and information?

The group noted:-

Aim 1 Aims 1.1 and 1.2 is well underway and the documents are well developed. 1.3 - Software is available and training is now needed to get all countries informed,

not just for Training Coordinators (TC). Improved communication about SCs work is now needed on the website, directed

towards the MS. IAEA needs to address the lack of publicity of SC work for embarking countries.

Aims 2, 3, 4 That IAEA set up a web platform upon which responses to questionnaire can be posted

and MSs invited to contribute to continuously update information as they wanted to. This could be the start of a vehicle for information exchange. This will be given further consideration.

Translate the basic training documents (BPTC, Regulatory Control Course) into the 6 official languages.

Include the SARCoN and Safety Report into the document package sent before IRRS. More visibility for SC and very definite actions to get more embarking countries

involved in our work and attending SC – include setting up parallel communication channels through TCs or equivalent.

6. Discussion of the Action Plan

Mr. Summers and Mr. Mignot led a discussion on the Action Plan. Previously known as the work plan, it had now been cast to show, persons responsible and due dates (Appendix 4).

Actions 1.1 and 1.2 on SARCoN and the Safety Report were well developed and reported above.

Action 1.3 referred to Training trainers. Ms. Moracho reported that IAEA was considering seminars to be held mid- 2011 and there was a discussion on whether a workshop on applying SARCoN could be developed, perhaps connected to the next SC (e.g. extending it by 1 day), this should be discussed in the Bureau and special efforts made to involve embarking countries. All members were to receive copies of the EXCEL spreadsheet (this has been done).

Actions 1.4, 1.5 and 2.2 were to be discussed in the working group 2 session and is reported in 5. above.

Action 2.1 referred to improvements on the website, see 7. below. Action 2.3 is reported in 5. above, in the report of the breakout sessions. Actions 2.4 and 2.5 refer to revisions of the BPTC and regulatory control course. Ms.

Moracho reported considerable progress. The course was designed for new junior

Page 6 of 32

professionals, it focused on using IAEA standards. The first draft of the new version was complete and was now in the quality process(target for issue – early 2012), but parts could be used now before it was fully available.

Actions 3.1 – 3.3 refers to ensuring IAEA document development incorporates the outcomes of the SC’s work and more discussion is needed in the Bureau.

Action 4 refers to embarking countries and is discussed in 7. Below and elsewhere in these minutes.

7. Presentations by IAEA

Mr. Jean Rene Jubin (IAEA) gave a presentation on the new GSR Part 1 which replaces the previous GSR, with a clearer structure and the addition of several sections (such as a section on stakeholders) and fits into the new pyramid of guides and standards, which he also outlined. He also presented on SSG -12 on Licensing – the basic principles of which are:

Process characteristics; a management system for licensing; public participation; and a graded approach. It covers the seven stages of the life cycle of installations from siting to decommissioning. Importantly, it is applicable to all nuclear installations.

Mr. Russell Gibbs (IAEA), represents the secretariat of the embarking country Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF). He informed the meeting that DS424 was now approved. Mr. Ian Britten, in discharging an action from the Bureau on the new Aim 4, had written (Appendix 5) to Dr M Weightman (UK) who was Chairman of RCF to establish a dialogue, and Mr. Gibbs wished to establish more about the issue before helping Mr. Weightman to reply. In the discussion that followed, the structure and basis of SARCoN, the Safety Report and the training and advice that is given to trainers was described. It was explained that we talk directly to training providers and that there was a valuable resource for embarking countries in our support networks.

SC members stressed that it wanted to make member states, especially embarking countries, aware of this resource. Mr. Gibbs undertook to draw attention to the work of the SC at the working level of RCF and to inform them about Aim 4.

Ms. Moracho gave a demonstration of the newly developed IAEA web pages on training. Early meetings of the SC and Bureau had drawn attention to difficulties in navigating the diverse items pertaining to training on the IAEA website. An interdepartmental group had been established in IAEA and over 18 months, had reviewed all the parts of the website dealing with training elements. There is still some variation in the way in which information is presented in various places, but the new development had brought a new navigation facility into operation. Eventually, Nuclear Applications, Safeguards and Technical Cooperation would all utilise the same navigation design. The improvements in the website were well received by the members of the SC.

8. Review of comments on SARCoN and the draft Safety Report

This discussion commenced with consideration of comments which had been received recently from Ms. Sokolova (Russia) and Mr. Ayub (Pakistan).

Ms. Sokolova commented on the Diagram at Figure 2 of SARCoN which shows a sample gap analysis as a continuous red line. She pointed out that this was mathematically incorrect as it should be presented as a histogram as the needed and existing competencies were. She also drew attention to the situations where there is zero needed and zero actual competencies in a particular category, which did not appear to be considered in the Excel software. The SC agreed that the software should be easily modified to consider this and Ms. Moracho stated that MSs were encouraged to modify the software to

Page 7 of 32

fit their own uses. A new draft of SARCON will redraw the diagram and the Excel software is also to be changed (changes are also needed to reflect changes in the descriptions of competencies in SARCoN).

Mr. Ayub’s comments were detailed and were presented by Mr. Sadiq. Some of them were parked for consideration during redrafting of the documents because of their detailed nature.The following comments on SARCoN were specifically discussed:

Section 5 – on recruiting from foreign countries - to state “.. preferably of the same region or continent to avoid cultural conflicts” – it was agreed to consider this comment further.

Section 6.2.2 step 2 confusing tasks with competencies, which are not the same. Consistent figure numbering Various errors in section numbering and in the numbering in the tables. Consideration to be given to stating that there should be scope to put a zero against needed

competencies. It should also be clear that all new people needed induction training of some form, this was

important for embarking countries. Some possible technical competencies to add were identified – to be considered.

Mr. Summers thanked those who had made comments, including Ms. Jelinski, who had produced comments earlier and which had been agreed by Mr. Summers. He was grateful for such detailed review and it was agreed to keep a window open for any further comments until the end of the year. Comments should be copied to Ms. Moracho, Ms. Salem and Mr. Summers. As stated in 4. Earlier, further work is planned on these documents in 2011 and all comments would be considered.

9. Presentation from SC members

These are given in more detail in Appendices 7, 8, 9 and 10, and are summarised here:

Mr. Lachaume’s (France) presentation (Appendix 7) was on a working group formed in ASN on HR issues. ASN had been reformed in 2006 as an Independent Agency and there had been a need to address HR issues many of which were the result of most of the staff being Civil Servants subject to rotation into and out of the main-stream Civil Service. 12 Actions had been pursued and resolved in a recent report to the President of ASN in June 2010. The report had been shared with representatives of the trade unions and a committee has been set up to implement an Action Plan.

Mr. Bhattacharya’s (India) presentation (Appendix 8) dealt with a one year training programme for new staff and the methods of dealing with new, but experienced staff. Induction training lasting 3 months ends in an examination and oral interview leading to qualification as an inspector. A specific programme of preserving knowledge and institutional memory and the use of retirees was described.

Ms. Wieland’s (Brazil) presentation (Appendix 9) described a programme of training at CNEN on knowledge, skills and attitudes related to quadrant 4. 100 Inspectors were designated for training with a mix of seniorities and experience. In four groups of 25 an intensive 16-hour course was given by an external psychology/ auditing contractor. A large amount of preparation was made in which nominees were contacted in person and by email to prepare them. The outcome was a better appreciation of techniques, revised inspection procedures and a commitment to regular meetings amongst inspectors to network amongst themselves.

Mr. Mignot’s (Belgium) presentation (Appendix 10) described a RAMG (EU) programme (INSC). Any RB in the world could apply for help in training newcomers. The programme will deal with Quadrant 1, 2 and 3 competencies and the call for contractors had been based on a questionnaire to all countries who currently receive support. The main focus is Q2.2 And Q3 of SARCoN i.e.: 2.2.

Page 8 of 32

Applied Technologies, 3.1. Safety focused Analytical Techniques, 3.2. Inspection Techniques, 3.3. Assessment Techniques and 3.4. Investigation Techniques.

10. Summary and Conclusion

Mr. Mignot made a summary of the meeting:

The two documents (SARCoN and Safety report) had been discussed and further developments considered with the aid of consultants in particular to take into account the remarks made in connection with the approval of the DPP. Comments by SC members are welcome until the end of 2010.

Improvements to the website had been demonstrated by IAEA and had been well received. Organisation of a training workshop/seminar for the training coordinators on application of

SARCoN will be considered by IAEA during 2011 The issue on analysis of the questionnaire had been put to the breakout groups and a good

suggestion had been made, that IAEA set up a web platform for countries to continuously update information as they wanted to. This could be initially populated with the questionnaire material. This will be given further consideration.

Barriers to communication had also been put to a breakout group which had recommended IAEA translate the basic training documents into the 6 official languages (we were informed that parts had been translated).

There was now a need for the Bureau to revise the action plan – it has been intention that it is updated periodically.

There had been good exchanges on embarking countries, particularly with Mr. Gibbs. He had agreed to inform the working level of RCF of the synergies in the work of the SC/Bureau and parts of the work streams of RCF. The Bureau would also consider how to expand participation in our work, particularly into embarking countries.

Note that the next Bureau meeting is provisionally scheduled for the 1st Quarter of 2011.

Page 9 of 32

Appendix 1. Agenda for the SC Meeting, 30 November - 2 December 2010

26.11.2010 (Rev 2)

Meeting room VIC M6

Tuesday, 30 November 2010, 9.30 a.m.

1 09:30 Opening of the Meeting

Mr. Caruso

2 09:50 Introduction of participants

All to introduce themselves

3 10:10

Presentation and Adoption of the Agenda Mr. I. Britten (UK) Chairman

4 10:20

Presentation and adoption of the Minutes of the last Steering Committee Meeting in December 2010

Mr. I. Britten (UK)Chairman

10:40

Coffee Break

OBJECTIVE 1: ESTABLISH AND AGREE AN ACTION PLAN THAT MEETS MS NEEDS

5

11:00

Reports from the Bureau Meetings and proposed Action Plan for the Steering Committee

Update on IAEA revision of the TOR and status of approval of the DPP for the future Safety Report

Discussion of the Action Plan

Mr. L. Summers (UK) – (consultant)

Mr. P. Woodhouse

(Sc. Sec.)

Progress report from Mr. I Britten

6 12:15

Set up of the Breakout Working Groups (WGs) description of the first breakout topics

Mr. I. Britten

12:30

Lunch Break

7 14:00

Discussion in the WGs All

16:00

Coffee Break

Page 10 of 32

8 16:20

Presentation of conclusions by the WGs and discussion in plenary – Continuation

WG Reporters/ All

9 17:00

Summary of the discussion on the Action Plan

Close of the day

Mr. I. Britten (UK)

Chairman

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

OBJECTIVE 2: EXCHANGE INFORMATION ON TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS

10

09:00

Reports from the IAEA:

Updated information on training and IAEA developments

Ms. M. Moracho, NSNI-RAS

(Additional possible other IAEA officers)

11 10:00

Discussion on the foregoing presentationsAll

10:30

Coffee

12

11:00

Presentation on IAEA activities:

Related to embarking countries

Regulatory Cooperation Forum

IAEA responsible officers

Mr. R. Gibbs (Sc. Sec. RCF)

13 12:00

Discussion on the foregoing presentationsAll

12:30

Lunch

OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SC INFORMATION EXCHANGE

14 14:00

Clarification on barriers to information exchange All

15 14:15

Working Groups on Evaluation – The effectiveness of the foregoing information exchanges; the IAEA strategy; working practices of the SC and Bureau

Mr. I Britten to outline the tasks

All

15:3 Coffee Break

Page 11 of 32

0

16 16:00

Presentations and conclusions of Working Groups WG reporters/ All

17 17:00

Close of the day Summary

Mr I Britten

17:15

Wine and Cheese Reception (VIC Restaurant)

Thursday, 2 December 2010

OBJECTIVE 4: PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

18 09:00

Presentation of the IAEA “Guidelines for systematic assessment of regulatory competence needs – SARCoN)

Presentation of the IAEA Draft Safety Report “ A framework for managing a regulatory body’s competence”

Ms. K Koskinen

Mr. L. Summers

19 09:30

Discussion on the foregoing presentationsAll

20 10:00

Presentations on recent developments and good practices

Presentation from Mr. Lachaume, DDG, ASN France

Member States and others

10:30

Coffee Break

21 11:00

Continuation of presentations on recent developments and good practices

Member States and others

12:30 Lunch Break

22 14:00 Conclusions and dates for next meeting

Mr. I. Britten

23 15:30 Closing of the Meeting

Page 12 of 32

Appendix 2. Participants of the SC Meeting

COUNTRY /

ORGANIZATION

PARTICIPANT

OFFICIAL MAILING ADDRESS

Title Last Name

First Name, Middle Name Initials

Belgium Mr Mignot

Pierre

Bel VRue Walcourt 1481070 BRUXELLESBELGIUMTel: 0032 2 5280234Fax: 0032 2 5280102Email: pierre.mignot@belv.be

Brazil Ms Wieland

Patricia

National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN)Rua General Severiano 90Botafogo22290-901RIO DE JANEIRO, RJBRAZILTel: 0055 21 2173 2380Fax: 0055 21 2173 2383Email: pwieland@cnen.gov.br

Finland Ms Koskinen

Annakaisa

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK)Laippatie 4P.O. Box 1400881 HELSINKIFINLANDTel: 00358 9 75988322Fax: 00358 9 75988400Email: Kaisa.Koskinen@stuk.fi

France Mr Lachaume

Jean-Luc

Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)Adjoint au 6, place du Colonel Bourgoin75572 Paris Cedex 12FRANCETel: +33140198617Email: jean-luc.lachaume@asn.fr

Page 13 of 32

Germany Ms Jelinski

Marianne

Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit mbHSchwertnergasse 1D-50667 CologneGermanyEmail: Marianne.Jelinski@grs.de

Hungary Ms Petofi-Toth

Katalin

Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA); Nuclear Safety DirectorateFényes Adolf u. 41036 BUDAPESTHUNGARYTel: 0036 1 4364913Fax: 0036 1 4364909Email: tothkati@haea.gov.hu

India Mr Bhattacharya

Ramdas

Atomic Energy Regulatory BoardIndustrial Plants Safety DivisionNiyamak Bhavan - AAnushaktinagarMUMBAI 400 094INDIATel: +91 22 25 16342Fax: +91 22 25 51 63 42Email: rbhattacharya@aerb.gov.in

Iran, Islamic Republic of

Mr Sebteahmadi

S. Mohammad Bagher

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)P.O. Box 14155-1339TEHRAN, North KargarIRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OFTel: 0098 21 88221089Fax: 0098 21 88221091Email: msebteahmadi@aeoi.org.ir

Lithuania Mr Daubaras

Rimantas

State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate (VATESI)A. Gostauto Street 1201108 VILNIUSLITHUANIATel: 0037052661624Fax: 0037052614487Email: r.daubaras@vatesi.lt

Pakistan Mr Sadiq

Mohammad

Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory AuthorityMauve Area G-8/1, Peshawar More, IslamabadP.O. Box 1912Islamad 44000 PakistanTel: +92 51 926 3029Fax: +92 51 926 3007Email: dr.sadiq@pnra.org

Page 14 of 32

Russian Federation Ms Sokolova

Elena

Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service of Russia (Rostechnadzor); Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (SEC NRS)Malaya Krasnoselskaya ulitsa 2/8, dom 5107140 MOSCOWRUSSIAN FEDERATIONTel: 007 495 2640352Fax: 007 495 2642859Email: sokolova@secnrs.ru

Slovakia Mr Szabo

Viktor

Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (UJDSR)Bajkalska 27P.O. Box 24820 07 BratislavaSlovakiaTel: 00421258221120Fax: 0042125821166Email: viktor.szabo@ujd.gov.sk

United Kingdom Mr Summers

John, Lyndon

3 Roosevelt AvenueLANCASTER, Lancashire LA1 5EJUNITED KINGDOMTel: +44 152 460 410Email: lyn_summers@hotmail.com

IAEA staff

G. Caruso, SH-NSNI-RASM. Moracho, NSNI-RASP. Woodhouse, NSNI-RASM. Mandl, NSNI-RASJ.R. Jubin, NSNI-RASR. Gibbs, NS-SSCS

Page 15 of 32

Appendix 3. Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

TERMS OF REFERENCE

OF THE

STEERING COMMITTEE ON COMPETENCE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR REGULATORY BODIES IN MEMBER STATES

September 2010Vienna, Austria

Page 16 of 32

CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Terms of Reference

1. Vision

2. Mission

3 Structure & Functions

3.1. The Committee

3.2. The Chairperson

3.3. The Bureau

3.4. The IAEA Secretariat

Page 17 of 32

I. IntroductionA number of regulators face problems in the recruitment of new staff and in defining training programmes to provide and maintain the necessary competence to perform their regulatory functions. These problems have now been accentuated by the nuclear renaissance.

The Convention on Nuclear Safety requires in Article 8 that each Contracting Party “establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework referred to in Article 7, and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities.”

The IAEA has published a number of documents to assist Member States in devising training programmes for staff involved in nuclear activities, including in regulatory bodies. These documents include:

GS-R-1 Legal and Governmental Infrastructure for Nuclear, Radiation, Radioactive Waste and Transport Safety

GS-R-3 The Management System for Facilities and ActivitiesGS-G-3.1 Application of the Management System for Facilities and Activities;GS-G-1.1 Organization and Staffing of the Regulatory Body for Nuclear

Facilities; andTECDOC-1254 A Training the staff of the regulatory body for nuclear facilities: A

competency framework.

In December 2007, the IAEA convened a Technical Meeting to discuss how the IAEA can best assist Member States in meeting their training needs and comply with the above-mentioned documents. Some 17 Member States were represented, with a very broad geographical spread, and a wide variety of NPP designs.

In December 2008, a second Technical Meeting was held. The meeting reached a broad consensus on setting up a Steering Committee, as well as a smaller Bureau to help plan and steer the work between future meetings of the Steering Committee.

Page 18 of 32

II. Terms of Reference

1. Vision

“Adequate policies and strategies for providing sufficient and competent human resources are in place in Member States to ensure effective nuclear safety regulation* at NPPs consistent with the IAEA Safety Standards.”

* “safety regulation” involves both the regulatory body as well as technical support organization (TSO) activities.

2. Mission

To advise the IAEA on how it could best assist Member States to develop suitable competence management systems for their regulatory bodies.

3. Structure & Functions

3.1. The Committee

3.1.1. Composition

The Committee shall be composed of representatives that have – or are seeking to have - an experience in regulatory bodies and come from Member States with an established nuclear power programme or an interest in embarking on such a programme.

3.1.2. Meetings and Working Methods

A three-day Plenary Meeting will be held once a year. The venue and date will be decided by the Committee.

During the Plenary Meetings, Members are expected to provide information of interest to the Committee, including updates on domestic regulatory training issues and to report on any other development related to the implementation of work programmes or tasks agreed to at prior meetings

3.1.3. Output

At the end of each Plenary Meeting the following will be produced:

Conclusions of the meeting (which will be published on the IAEA website on NSNI training)

Proposals for specific training projects, if appropriate Actions and deadlines Work programme for the following year including a follow-up of

implementation of actions agreed to at prior meetings If necessary and upon recommendation from the Plenary Meeting, task forces

dealing with specific issues may be set up. The task forces will have a leader who will report to the Bureau on the progress of the work.

Page 19 of 32

3.2. The Chairperson

The Committee shall elect a Chairperson.

The Chairperson will be responsible for:

Leading the plenary meetings of the Committee Preparing the work programme and planning of the meetings Ensuring the implementation of actions between meetings Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the working methods and results.

The Chairperson will be assisted by a Bureau and the IAEA Secretariat.

3.3. The Bureau

The Bureau will consist of a limited group of representatives (approximately five) agreed to in the Committee including the Chairperson and the IAEA scientific secretary. The Bureau will meet at least once between plenary meetings in order to follow up on the implementation of actions under the work programme, assess the working methods and results and define the lines to take for the next plenary meeting.

In order to accomplish the objectives of the Committee, an evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the working methods will be conducted periodically under the responsibility of the Bureau, which may propose changes to the Committee on the working methods as a result of such evaluations. The Bureau will also conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the work programme and report thereon to the Committee.

3.4. The IAEA Secretariat

The Division of Nuclear Installation Safety (NSNI) will provide a Technical Officer who will serve as scientific secretary to the meetings of the Bureau and the Plenary.

The scientific secretary will report on any IAEA development of interest for the group, including events, conclusions from technical meetings and new material useful for training. The scientific secretary will coordinate activities internally with other IAEA Divisions/Departments.

The scientific secretary will also support the Chairperson and the Bureau with the work programme and planning of meetings, follow-up of the implementation of actions, and assessment of the working methods and results.

Page 20 of 32

Appendix 4. Action Plan

Steering committee on Competence of Human Resources for Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Member States – ACTION PLAN 2010/2011

ACTION DETAIL LEAD TIMING PROGRESS

AIM 1: Adequate tools are available for helping the RB to establish and implement an adequate competence management system1.

1.1 Complete Safety Report on Competence Management and issue to SC for their consideration for endorsement at the SC meeting

This Safety Report provides guidance for regulatory bodies on their competence management systems, It is effectively a successor to TECDOC 1254 and will give consideration to and reference the SARCON document.

This was determined by the Bureau following the identification of previous action 1.4 at the December SC meeting

IAEA Target for completion of first draft 30 September 2010.

It is anticipated that the Safety Report will be ready for SC endorsement in December 2010.

1.2 Issue Revision 10 of SARCON guide to Steering Committee for their consideration for endorsement at the SC meeting

‘SARCON’ is self-assessment of competence needs of the regulatory body.

It will include refinement of applied technology section of quadrant 2.

IAEA Target for completion of revision 8, 30 September 2010.

It is anticipated that the Safety Report will be ready for SC endorsement in December 2010.

1.3 Provide training for Training Co-ordinators on application of the ‘Guidelines for Competence Needs Self Assessment for the Regulatory Body’

It is anticipated that this will be provided on a workshop/seminar basis.

IAEA Draft training prospectus produced by to be discussed. 2010.

Training targeted for 2011

Progress will be reported to the SC in December 2010.

1.4 Set up system for the provision of examples of good practice on competence management and its continual updating.

It is expected that initial work will concentrate on information thought to be available in IRRS reports.

In due course it may be possible to include examples provided by MS’s in the standing agenda item for this at SC meetings.

UK Target completion by 31 Dec 2010 ratified by Bureau by 30 September 2010.

Selected developments will be reported at the Steering Committee in December 2010.

No progress has been made to date due to difficulty in allocating resource to this task.

1.5 Analyse questionnaires on training systems and practices.

Approximately 20 questionnaires have been received to date.

Bureau Progress report at next SC meeting in December 2010.

No progress has been made to date due to difficulty in allocating resource to this task.

Page 21 of 32

ACTION DETAIL LEAD TIMING PROGRESS

AIM 2: A system is in place for sharing knowledge, training materials and exchanging information on training events2.

2.1 Establish an IAEA continuous improvement process for sharing relevant training information.

This should include obtaining, ‘capturing’ and making available training information from regional centres and other agencies eg NEA, in particular for use by embarking countries.It will also include an IAEA website location for accessing training information and capturing MS practice.

IAEA IAEA will report developments at each Steering Committee.

Much progress has been made on improvements to the IAEA website and these will be demonstrated in December 2010. The potential for further action will be determined then, in particular making available information from MS’s

2.2 Analyse questionnaire on web links.

Approximately 20 questionnaires have been received to date.

Bureau Progress report at SC Dec 2010

2.3 Identify barriers to exchange of information on training and competence management.

This action has been raised to follow up and explore feedback on language barriers raised in December 2009. There may be other barriers to communication other than language.

The Bureau will request MS to be prepared for discussions on this issue at the Steering Committee.

MS/Steering Committee

To be discussed at next Steering Committee in December 2010.

No progress pending clarification of the issues behind this proposal.

2.4 Complete revision of BPTC.

IAEA Progress and future intentions will be reported at next Steering Committee in December 2010.

2.5 Revision of the Regulatory control course

IAEA Progress and future intentions will be reported at next Steering Committee in December 2010.

AIM 3: To incorporate the outcome of the Steering Committee’s work into the development of IAEA safety standards which deal with competence of the regulatory body3.

3.1 IAEA to establish and implement a process to keep SC members advised of developments of all safety standards and other relevant activities which deal with the competence of the regulatory body.

This is intended to complement existing IAEA processes for the development of standards and guides.

IAEA The effectiveness of this will be a standing review item at the December Steering Committee.

The Bureau was invited to provide an input to the training elements of GS-G-1.1 Management Systems for Regulatory Bodies Part 2 but this clashed with the dates of the July Bureau meeting. Copies of SARCON and the Safety Report were provided instead.

Page 22 of 32

ACTION DETAIL LEAD TIMING PROGRESS

It may be possible in future to provide an input to the IRRS guidelines.

3.2 Training Co-ordinators in Member States to comment on relevant standards as appropriate and to report on any issues of concern to Bureau.

The IAEA will ensure that MS feedback will be taken into consideration as standards are developed.

MS Standing review item at the December Steering Committee.

3.3 Ensure that SC co-ordinates input to the development of any Safety Guide on competence so that it is compatible with existing Safety Report.

This remains under consideration as a potential long term action

AIM 4: Mutual support and sharing of experience, in the area of regulatory competence, fully meet the needs of Embarking Countries.

4.1 Develop assistance proposals specific to the needs of embarking country.

This is likely to include:

Development of information exchange with Regulatory Cooperation Forum for embarking countries and other similar activities.

Identification of additional steps needed that are not covered by other actions in this plan.

Identification of the detail will be partly dependent on provision of feedback from TM’s on embarking countries. This will be provided by the IAEA.

Bureau Detail will be worked up and agreed after any discussion at the Regulatory Cooperation Forum.

This is a new action not previously considered by the Steering Committee.

Its need /convenience shall be discussed in December.

Page 23 of 32

Appendix 5. Letter to Dr M. Weightman, Chairman of the RCF

Dr Mike WeightmanHM Chief Inspector of Nuclear InstallationsHealth and Safety ExecutiveRedgrave CourtBootleMerseyside L20 7HSUnited Kingdom

Dear Mike

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN RCF AND IAEA STEERING COMMITTEE ON COMPETENCE

I am writing on behalf of the IAEA Steering Committee on the Competence of Human Resources for Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Member States. This follows our discussion of 5 August on co-operation between this committee and the Regulatory Co-operation Forum (RCF).

The mission of this Steering Committee is to ‘advise the IAEA on how it could best assist Member States to develop suitable competence management systems for their Regulatory Bodies’. It is supported by a Bureau that assists with the progress of activities between meetings of the full Steering Committee in December. At our last Bureau meeting in July, Eric Weinstein briefed its members on the activities of the RCF core group. Following this, the Bureau members expressed their concern to make sure that the work of the Steering Committee aligned with and supported RCF developments. It was suggested that it would be appropriate for me to approach you on this in your capacity as Chairman of the RCF and on 5 August we agreed that I would write formally with details of the work of the Steering Committee.

I therefore attach a copy of the committee’s Terms of Reference and also our current Action Plan. You will see that this has a specific reference to embarking countries, although proposals have not yet been developed. If you think it would be appropriate to do so I would be very grateful if you could ask the IAEA scientific secretary of the of the RCF to distribute this to RCF members and perhaps ask for their views on how we might co-ordinate our activities to support mutual interests. In particular we are keen to avoid any potential conflicts between our goals and workstreams and those of the RFC. With many thanks for your interest.

Yours Sincerely

Ian Britten

Chairman, IAEA Steering Committee on the Competence of Human Resources for Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Member States

Page 24 of 32

Appendix 6. Breakout Group Members

Group 1 Group 2

R. Bhattacharia

R Daubaras

K Koskinen

J-L Lachaume

S Sebteahmadi

V Szabo

M Jelinski

P Mignot

K Petofi-Toth

M Sadiq

E Sokolova

P Wieland

Page 25 of 32

Appendix 7. Presentation by Mr. Jean-Luc Lachume, (DDG/ASN – France)

Report of the working group about human resources at ASN - creation of a WG about human resources

ASN regulates nuclear safety and radiation protection and was established in 2006 as an independent administrative authority under a board of 5 commissioners. ASN’s has 460 staff : industrial and medical engineers, physicians and pharmacists, legal and administrative specialists, human sciences and communications experts; 3/4 civil servants with a budget of €65M. Additionally €80M is dedicated to its TSO (Institute for radiation protection and nuclear safety) IRSN for its expert analysis (~ 400 people).

Objectives of the WG (chaired by Commissioner Gouze) action plan - To review: The competences at ASN; The management of human resources; Career deveopment inside and outside ASN.

Trades Unions were consulted in this work and four task forces were formed: Benchmarking with other authorities (France and foreign countries); Relation with the ministers responsible for the civil servants (a significant issue as many staff are civil servants who may stay for a few years and have rights to return to mainstream civil service); competences and jobs at ASN: The promotion of the agents all along their career.

Twelve actions were established: Action n° 1 - ASN needs to have a strong internal capacity of expertise in order to be able to

order relevant expertises to IRSN or other experts and in order to take relevant decisions - Establish a list of technical competences

Action n° 2 - ASN has to be able to recruit adequate agents and keep them inside ASN -Identify careers for specialists inside ASN and give them promotion equivalent to managers

Action n° 3 - Training for new and in-place agents is a strength (IRRS) but has to be adapted to the real needs - Improve the training programs

Action n° 4 - SN needs to develop a specific tool for a provisional management of its agents - Establish a map of jobs and competences necessary to ASN

Action n° 5 - Recruitment is a key issue for a strong safety authority -Diversify recruitments inside and outside France

Action n° 6 - ASN has to associate his top management to the management of the human resources - Set up a training program dedicated to the management of the human resources

Action n° 7 - The need of a specific action regarding the civil servants for the management of their careers - Establish a dialog with the different ministers in charge of the careers of their civil servants working for ASN

Action n° 8 - Agents from IRSN and CEA working at ASN have to be well considered by their companies - Enhance the dialog with the managers of human resources at IRSN and CEA

Action n° 9 - Administrative agents has to be correctly promoted - Give to administrative agents the possibility to have better promotions and responsibilities inside ASN

Action n° 10 - ASN has to propose diversified careers to its agents - Prepare and anticipate the movements of the agents - Be able to identify high-potential agents

Action n° 11 - Give the possibility to the agents to have an additional personal training - Be able to propose specific training courses for some agents who declare their intention to stay at ASN

Action n° 12 - ASN has to reward the evolutions in the careers of its agents - Define the status of senior agents

Page 26 of 32

Outcomes of the report:The report was given to the president of ASN in June 2010.It has been presented to the committee with representatives from the trade unions.An action plan will be implemented by ASN’s DG: a specific committee has been set up.

Page 27 of 32

Appendix 8. Presentation by R. Bhattacharya, AERB (INDIA)

Human Resource Development

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was constituted on November 15, 1983. The mission of the Board is to ensure that the use of ionizing radiation and nuclear energy in India does not cause undue risk to health and the environment. The nature of job demands expertise in diverse fields. In view of this, considerable amount of emphasis is placed on training of the personnel. The need for manpower is assessed in advance keeping in mind the foreseen requirements, estimated attrition rates and expected work load in future.

RECRUITMENT PROCESS - Training School: The fresh graduates (scientists and engineers) from HBNI training schools at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology (RRCAT), Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and IGCAR Training Schools are absorbed in AERB. In addition, personnel from Diploma in Radiological Physics, a one-year university course on radiological protection and Health Physics training course are also inducted. Transfers: Some persons, particularly with relevant expertise and experience, are taken in AERB by transfer from various DAE organizations like NPCIL, BARC, IGCAR and IRE. Direct: The direct recruitments in AERB is done by advertising the vacant posts in national newspapers and then conducting the interviews. At this level, fresh graduates and post graduate engineers/scientists and the ones with experience in relevant industries and/or in research organizations are selected. Some students for M.Tech degree in I.I.T Bombay at Mumbai and I.I.T Madras at Chennai are also selected and they join AERB after completing their M.Tech.

TRAINING IN AERB - A rigorous and structured training program available in AERB -In-house training on nuclear science and engineering and on various regulatory aspects is imparted (Theoretical). Lectures are arranged on topics like Reactor Physics, Nuclear Reactor concepts, different safety and process systems, civil engineering and industrial safety/regulatory aspects, radiation safety in industry, medicine and R&D institutes, Acts, Rules and Codes used in regulatory process. The personnel are further trained in Nuclear Training Centres of NPCIL. The personnel undergo theoretical classroom training and following this, they undergo On the Job Training (OJT) in the plant. The personnel required for analytical work, are encouraged to do Ph.D. in educational institutes. AERB also looks for the opportunities to train its staff abroad.

The staff is provided opportunity to participate in Conferences, Seminars and Workshops in India as well as abroad to keep abreast with the new developments in the areas of relevance. Seminars/talks are arranged by the respective divisions to encourage more and more interaction between the members of other divisions with the respective divisional activities. AERB colloquiums and Technical talks are organised frequently on topics of current interests and on new developments in various fields that are of regulatory interest.

KNOWLEDGE PRESERVATION - The people who leave the organization on their superannuation, possess wealth of knowledge. Therefore, the retired manpower from the utilities and R&D organizations and private organizations depending on their expertise is employed in the review process in AERB. They are appointed as Chairman and members in various review committees. This source of knowledge augmentation provides fresh thought input and good use of tacit knowledge and is proving very effective in regulatory process of AERB.

To preserve the institutional memory, continuity is maintained and at any time, AERB staff is a good blend of senior and junior scientists and engineers. There is flow of information vertically and horizontally in the organization. In addition, a book on AERB: 25 years of Regulation has also been compiled.

The institutional memory is preserved in following ways:

Page 28 of 32

Reports: Records of the discussions of the review and authorization process, inspection and enforcement are kept in the form of notes, reports and in electronic forms. The records are appropriately indexed and stored. Review Articles: Review articles are written to consolidate the knowledge.

Electronic Storage: The AERB has state of the art LAN facility with over 250 computers connected to various nodes and servers.

Website: The information that is of interest to the public and other stake holders is put on the AERB website.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT - A formal Quality Management System ISO 9001:2008 is also adopted by AERB. Initiative has been taken to strengthen knowledge base in the Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Reactor Physics, Thermo-hydraulics, industrial, chemical, fire and Civil Engineering; the areas, which are of great importance for regulatory decision-making.R&D in AERB - A Safety Research Institute (SRI) has been established to carry out and promote safety related research and analysis in selected areas of relevance to regulatory work. In particular, research activities are going on in nuclear, radiation and environmental safety, seismic analysis and probabilistic safety assessment. A Safety Research Program (SRP) has been established to promote research in areas of regulatory interest in educational and research institute in India.

TRANSPARENCY - AERB has taken various steps to be a transparent organization and open to the public on nuclear and radiation safety related issues.

Website : www.aerb.gov.in

Newsletter: A newsletter is published on half yearly basis which consists of Chairman’s note, nuclear news in that quarter, constitution/reconstitution of committees, AERB major activities in the quarter, views on AERB working methodology from the heads of units of DAE, list of new AERB publications and recruitments/retirements in the quarter.

Annual Report: Annual report is published summarising the activities and their results in the year. About 1000 copies are distributed to premier educational institutes in India and all the DAE organisations, hospitals and media.

Publications: About 150 AERB safety codes, guides, manuals, standards have been published by AERB till date. These publications are useful both for DAE and Non-DAE related activities in India. The documents are published after a thorough multi-tier review process in AERB and by taking help from external experts.

Press Releases: Press releases are issued on major incidents and happenings in nuclear related fields.

Information under Right to Information Act: Recently, to fulfil the provisions of Right to Information Act (RIA), an Appellate Authority (AA), a Public Information Officer (PIO) and an Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) have been appointed to deal with public and media queries.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION - AERB has been collaborating with various other regulatory bodies like United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Russian Regulatory Body (ROSTEKHNADZOR) and French Regulatory Body (ASN). In addition, AERB officers interact with IAEA in various technical meetings and training programs to keep themselves abreast with the latest developments in the field of nuclear and radiation technology and its regulation process. AERB serves as the nodal agency in arranging the review of IAEA and WTO documents with the help of experts from various DAE organizations including the AERB itself.

Page 29 of 32

Appendix 9. Presentation by Ms. P Wieland, CNEN (Brazil)

An Insight on the Nuclear Competence Building Pillars – Attraction, Training and Motivation

National Commission on Nuclear Energy - CNEN regulate: Nuclear Power Plants; Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Uranium Mining and Milling Caetité, Bahia - Headquarters: Rio de Janeiro - Creation: October 10, 1956 - 2.733 employees , 30% MSc. and DSc. Nuclear regulatory sector: 277 employees

Attraction - Post-graduate MSc and DSc courses at CNEN; CNEN Scholarships from graduation to post-doctoral (around 200); Specialized training courses, fellowships and scientific visits (CNEN and IAEA); Public Concours (30 new employees in 2010)

Training - Competence requirements: knowledge, skills and attitudes - Initial and refresher training - Types: Classroom, on-the-job, distance training; Communication and information exchange; Mentoring; Immediate use of training investmentTraining skills and shaping attitudes - Optimize essential skills and attitudes to perform inspections -100 inspectors from nuclear reactors, medical and industrial installations, waste deposits, mining industries divisions - 4 x 16 h training - Previous awareness programme by e-mail and corridor - Context awareness: News Clipping and WNNTraining skills and shaping attitudes - Skills in planning and executing; Planning the inspection; Knowing the licensee; Development and Use of Checklists; Inspection Report and its communication to the parties involved

Behavioural Competencies: Code of Ethics - Technical skills and behaviour of inspectorsProfile and Quality of Inspector: Posture professional; The proper behaviour, good manners and urgent; Personal presentation: caring image

Dealing with behavioural aspects of the auditee - The importance of communication - Credibility, Respect, Fairness, Pride - Developing cooperation - Perceptions and Attitudes x Desire and Will - Strengthening the organizational image.Results - Establishment of regular inspectors meeting - Revision of inspection procedures. Motivation and Retention - Clear definition of responsibilities and recognition - Modernization of refresher nuclear training - Dissemination of job opportunities in other departments - Adequate salaries - Commitment with long term projects - Task commitment (availability of resources) - Workers involvement in decisions and information share - Professional network

Building Competence Resources – Regulations - Internal procedures for training and qualification - Inspector’s Manual - Regulatory database (UNIDOC) - Internal communications (meetings, e-mail, intranet) - Information exchange (conferences, meetings) - Nuclear Regulatory National Reports (Conventions, agreements, government, public) - Public hearings - Regulatory Information National Meeting (ENIR) - CNEN Information Programme (PIC) - www.foroiberam.org

Experience on Personal Certification - Formal recognition of professional competency by an accredited organization, based on a norm - Follow up activities to maintain certification and to continually develop nuclear competence - Certification by CNEN: nuclear reactor operators, radiation protection supervisors, industrial radiography operators, NDT at NPPs.Challenges and opportunities - Changing environment (ambitious Nuclear Programme) - Interfaces with other regulatory agencies - Revision of the legal framework - Transfer of tacit knowledge - Availability of time dedicated to training - Personal skills and attitudes adequate for regulatory tasks: entry requirements.

Page 30 of 32

Conclusions - Keep on: Attracting; Training; Motivating. Communication, training and knowledge sharing are transversal and depend both on workers and managers.

Page 31 of 32

Appendix 10. Presentation by Pierre Mignot, Bel V(Belgium) Information on Training activities in RAMG

Objective of INSC programme managed by DG Aidco - Regulatory Assistance to RB - Technical support for licensing with participation of local TSO - Training of newcomers, as a third pillar.

Possible types of projects for training - Training included in country specific projects (one Beneficiary) - Training as only activity in a regional project (several Beneficiaries) - Training organised through IAEA in frame of EC-IAEA cooperation.

Regional project MC.03/10 on training and tutoring - included in AP2010 - budget of €3M - to be contracted before the end of 2011.

Orientations of project: Development of regulations and guides - Authorization and licensing - Review and assessment - Inspection and enforcement - The four quadrant competency model is applied - Offer should cover activities related to Q1, Q2, Q3.

Identification of needs by means of a questionnaire where the required competences are listed on the basis of SARCON, rev 10 - Focus is on Applied Technology competency (section 2.2 of Q2) and Regulatory Practices competency (Q3) - Catalogue of available training courses and tutoring offers shall be established - Matching by EU of offer with demand (i.e. needs) - List of expected trainees to be submitted by Beneficiary to EU - Selection of trainees by EU in cooperation with consultant - Participation (fees, trips, per diems) of trainees covered by the project - Selection of potential lecturers and mentors by EU on proposal of the consultant - Costs (fees, trips, per diems if abroad) of lecturers covered by the project.

Page 32 of 32