2013
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |0
IAEA, NSNI, RAS
LUX, Ivan
[DEVELOPING FURTHER THE
IRRS PROCESS]
Discussions points stemming from the Targeted Consultancies and the analysis of past
IRRS missions
Discussion Paper on IRRS Development_v2.docx
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |1
Contents
DEVELOPING FURTHER THE IRRS PROCESS............................................................................................. 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2
I.
General........................................................................................................................................ 2
I.1 IRRS module structure ............................................................................................................... 2
I.2 Team size and assignment ......................................................................................................... 3
I.3 Mission schedule ........................................................................................................................ 6
I.4 Structure of the Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 6
I.5 Definition of findings.................................................................................................................. 6
I.6 Use of web space and IRRS website........................................................................................... 6
I.7 Basic IRRS Training ..................................................................................................................... 7
I.8 Steering Committee on IRRS Process ......................................................................................... 8
I.9 Revision of Fukushima Module .................................................................................................. 9
II.
Preparations for a mission ........................................................................................................ 12
II.1 Information and preparatory meetings .................................................................................. 12
II.2 SARIS tool ................................................................................................................................ 13
II.3 ARM......................................................................................................................................... 14
II.4 Timelines of preparations ....................................................................................................... 14
III.
Conduct of a mission ............................................................................................................. 15
III.1 Initial team meeting and team building................................................................................. 15
III.2 Mission report template ........................................................................................................ 15
III.3 Balance of findings ................................................................................................................. 16
III.4 Feedbacks on the mission ...................................................................................................... 17
IV.
Follow-up of a mission .......................................................................................................... 17
IV.1 Prompt evaluation of a mission ............................................................................................. 17
IV.2 Report finalization ................................................................................................................. 18
IV.3 Follow-up as a compulsory part............................................................................................. 18
IV.4 Timing of follow-up mission................................................................................................... 18
IV.5 Follow-up mission report template ....................................................................................... 19
Appendix I: Standard Schedule of IRRS Missions .............................................................................. 20
Appendix II: Standard timing table of pre-mission activities ............................................................ 23
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |2
DEVELOPING FURTHER THE IRRS PROCESS
Discussions points stemming from the Targeted Consultancies and the
analysis of past IRRS missions
Introduction
In order to develop further the IRRS process and - for reflecting this in the official guidance – to
elaborate a new edition of the IRRS Guidelines, a series of Targeted Consultancies have been
conducted in 2012. For similar reasons the results and data of the major IRRS missions conducted
between 2006 and 2011 have been analysed. The IAEA Nuclear Safety Action Plan requires the
definition of effectiveness criteria of the IRRS peer review. Partly to answer this requirement a set of
performance indicators have been introduced to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of a
mission1. The documents summarizing the results of the above consultancies and analysis contain
conclusions and proposals that that seem to be advantageous from the point of view of developing
further the IRRS process.
The issues to discuss are divided into four chapters (General, Preparations for a mission, Conduct of
a mission, and Follow-up of a mission). Each chapter contains as many sections as the number of
issues belonging to the subject of the chapter.
For easier orientation among the various input results each section begins with references to the
related Targeted Consultancy (CS) recommendations as given in the consultancy report; references
to the conclusions of the IRRS Analysis report (if applicable) and references to the related
Performance Indicator and effectiveness criterion (if applicable) in the report entitled ‘On the
Efficiency and Effectiveness of the IRRS Missions’. All these report are available from the shared area
web space referred to in footnote 1.
The issues summarized in this document are such that in the opinion of the author need consent and
common decision by the IAEA units having roles in the IRRS process. In each of the issue discussed
here one or more propositions are offered for discussion and acceptance. All propositions are
supported by factual arguments and/or recommendations by the Targeted Consultancies.
The reader is encouraged to consult the underlying documents referred to footnote 1 and bring up
further issues for discussion that are not covered by this report but are considered needing
consensus decisions.
I.
General
I.1 IRRS module structure
Related CS recommendations: 1.07, 5.03, 6.01
Related analysis conclusions: C14, C20, C23, C29, C30
The present structure of the IRRS modules is well elaborated and tested, yet there is room for
further refinement in order to increase efficiency. Two proposals are discussed below.
1
The Terms of Reference and the reports of the consultancies, the report on the analysis and the report on the
effectiveness and efficiency performance indicators all are available from the Shared Area website
http://gnssn.iaea.org/NSNI/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FNSNI%2FShared%20
Documents%2FOPEN%20Shared%20Files%2FTargeted%20Consultancies%20on%20IRRS%2FConsultancy%20N
o%2E%2010
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |3
a) Revision of Module 11 and the list of facilities and activities
Recommendation 1.07 of Targeted Consultancy No. 1 says: “The topics covered by module 11 should
be standardized and be part of the core modules for full scope IRRS missions. The usual number of
experts in this module exceeds the associated risk”.
In recommendations 5.06 it is suggested that “all components technically belonging to the review
and assessment, previously listed among additional areas in Module 11, should be incorporated into
the core Module 6”.
According to recommendation 6.01


The area of transport safety should be included in the list of “Facilities/activities”, … and
should be dealt with in the same way as other facilities and activities in this list
Only the additional areas “control of medical exposures” and “control of chronic exposures
(radon, NORM and past practices) and remediation” should be considered as optional ones in
Module 11
Accordingly
Proposition No. 1: the list of facilities and activities should include:







Nuclear power plants;
Research reactors;
Fuel cycle facilities;
Waste management facilities;
Radiation sources facilities;
Decommissioning activities;
Transport activities;
whereas Module 11 should consist of:


Control of medical exposures;
Control of chronic exposures (radon, NORM and past practices) and
remediation.
b) Possible merging of modules
Figure 1: Number of the various observations in IRRS
missions
Thus it seems to be justified not to keep these modules
separate but merge them to a larger module.
Number of observations from initial missions
Recommendations
Suggestions
Good practices
140
120
Number of observations
Analysis of past missions shows that module 2 (Global
Nuclear Safety Regime) raises considerably less issues and
concerns that the other modules. The case is similar with
module 8 (Enforcement). Several such data are quoted in the
IRRS Analysis report (cf. the conclusions listed above), the
case is illustrated here with the number of observations in
major missions as given in Figure 1.
100
80
60
40
20
0
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Module number
VIII
Proposition No. 2: module 2 (GNSR) should be merged with module 1 (Responsibilities
and functions of the government)
Proposition No. 3: module 8 (Enforcement) should be merged with module 7
(Inspection)
I.2 Team size and assignment
Related CS recommendations: 1.12 – 1.18, 2.09 – 2.13, 2.25, 3.02, 3.03, 4.04, 4.05, 10.31
IX
X
XI
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |4
Related Performance Indicators: P1, P6
Almost all Targeted Consultancies have dealt with the size and module assignment of the IRRS teams
(see the referred recommendations above). The long refinement process resulted in a Standard
Team Assignment scheme as shown in Table 1.
a) Team size
Number of team members
The Standard Assignment Scheme in Table 1 defines the estimated size of the IRRS teams for
missions to countries with small, medium and
large nuclear programmes as well as for followTeam sizes
up missions. These numbers attempt to cover
min ave max
25
all possible needs and are meant to be guiding
ones that may be adjusted to the specificities of
20
a mission. The IRRS practice so far followed
15
shows that these numbers are realistic
10
(sometimes overestimating) and indeed may
5
cover most of the possible needs. This is
demonstrated in Figure 2, where the average,
0
minimum and maximum team sizes of the past
large
med
small
fu
programme size
major missions are shown by bars and the
proposed numbers by red vertical lines.
Figure 2: Team sizes in past missions
Proposition No. 4: Teams of the future missions should be recruited considering the
indicative team sizes given in Table 1 and based on the specificities of the host country.
Co-operation of members of Groups C and D (core regulatory activities) and the Facility and Activity
Group needs considerations based on the specificity of the actual missions. In most cases besides
the general issues and the overall responsibility, also one of the facilities or activities (usually the
most important one) is also taken by Groups C and D, the review results of the other facilities and
activities are provided them by the Facility and Activity Group.
b) Forming reviewer groups
Another achievement of the Standard Assignment Scheme above is that the reviewers are expected
to work in groups in order to be as effective as possible. Footnotes below the table clarify details of
the assignments. The numbers of experts in the groups were elaborated based on past experience
and common sense and have been tested in recent missions. These numbers are indicative and
averages, they may be adjusted/regrouped according to the specific needs of the missions.
Proposition No. 5: Teams of future IRRS missions should be recruited and organized with
consideration to the Standard assignment scheme in Table 1 and to the specificities of
the hosting regulatory body.
Recommendation 10.31 supports this proposition by stating that IAEA should hand over to the host
country the Standard Team Assignment and the Standard Mission Schedule tables in order to assist in
the compilation of the mission schedule.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |5
Table 1: Standard assignment of the modules to groups and guidance on the number of experts in an
IRRS mission
Team activitiesa)
Team Lead (TL, DTL, TC, DTC)b)
Group A
Governmental R&F (mod 1)
Global nuclear safety regime (mod 2)
Interface with security (mod 12)
Group B
Responsibilities of the regulatory body (mod 3)
Management system (mod 4)
Development of regulations and guides (mod 9) f)
Group C
Authorization (mod 5)
Review and assessment (module 6)
Group D
Inspection (mod 7)
Enforcement (mod 8)
Group E
Emergency preparedness (mod 10)
Group F
Other optional thematic areas (mod 11)
control of medical exposures
control of chronic exposures (radon, NORM and past
practices) and remediation
Facilities/Activitiesd)
Nuclear power plants
Radiation sources applications
Research reactors
Fuel cycle facilities
Waste management facilities
Decommissioning
Transport of radioactive material
Fukushimae)
Temporary, should be included in standard modules
Administration
Total
Smallh)
Medium
Large
Follow-upg)
3
3
3
3
1c)
2c)
3c)
2c)
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
-
2
5
-
1
1
-
1
11
1
17
1
22
1
11
a) Numbers
of experts include IAEA staff,
is assigned to a Group,
c) DTL supports Group A
d) For small nuclear programs the Facilities and Activities are to be reviewed by Groups C – F.
 Experts allocated to Fac./Act.s in medium and large missions may need to work together with the experts in Group F.
 For large programs the number of reviewers may be less than 5 according to the needs of the mission.
 Usually experts in Group C and D are expected to cover the general issues and the nuclear power plants.
e) The Fukushima module should be reviewed also for small programs and in follow-up missions even if there is no
dedicated reviewer to that
f) Groups C through E review the respective contents of the regulations and guides (provided it is in the scope of the
mission) and report to Group B
g)
Numbers of experts of follow-up missions are relevant for large nuclear countries and should be adjusted for small nonnuclear and medium size nuclear countries according to the actual needs.
b) DTC
h)
Definitions:
Small: No NPPs, few Facilities/Activities
Medium: Less than 5 NPP units (in construction, operating, to decommission), few Facilities/Activities
Large: 5 or more NPP units, and/or many Facilities/Activities
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |6
I.3 Mission schedule
Related CS recommendations: 1.28, 1.46, 2.37, 10.31
Recommendation 1.28 states: For an optimal effectiveness there should be a detailed schedule of the
mission including all interviews, visits, meetings and deadlines for report writing.
Recommendation 10.31 was quoted above.
Consultancy No. 1 provided a detailed mission schedule that was further refined by most of the
subsequent consultancies. The resulting Standard Mission Schedule is given in Appendix I.
This schedule has been tested in recent initial IRRS missions and was found rather effective.
Proposition No. 6: The IRRS missions should be planned according to and should then
follow as far as practicable the Standard Mission Schedule as presented in Appendix I.
I.4 Structure of the Guidelines
One of the major objectives of the series of Targeted Consultancies was to collect suggestions for
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the missions that most naturally need to be included
into a revised version of the IRRS Guidelines. This objective was fully reached by the consultancies
and a great number of valuable recommendations and suggestions have been obtained from the
experts, most of them having very practical values. It seems to be expedient that the IRRS Guidelines
summarize the basic principal facts and data and the practical hints separated.
Proposition No. 7: The novel edition of the IRRS Guidelines shall be prepared in two
volumes. The first volume shall contain the information present in the actual Guidelines
after removing practical hints and guidance from therein. Volume No. 2 is dedicated to
practicalities.
I.5 Definition of findings
Related CS recommendations: 3.09, 5.02
Recommendation 3.09 says: It is important to highlight in the mission report also good
achievements, which do not formally meet the definition of a Good Practice.
In recommendation 5.02 it is put forward that: Good Practice is defined as outstanding performance,
significantly over that of anybody else. Such a definition, if strictly followed, does not take into
account that regulatory bodies are working in significantly different environments (e.g. some of them
are in a development phase, and some are operating with significantly limited resources).
The consultants suggest that some additional criteria be introduced for appreciating strong features
in regulatory performance.
There is an obvious need from both the hosts and the reviewers for some kind of appreciation by the
peer review of excellent performance of the host country even if this performance is not unique and
therefore does not qualify for the status of a Good Practice. We might call it e.g. the “Sign of
Excellence”.
Proposition No. 8: Sign of Excellence, acknowledging excellent (although not unique)
performance of an IRRS host country should be defined and used in future IRRS
missions. Exact definition for this shall be elaborated by IAEA.
I.6 Use of web space and IRRS website
Related CS recommendations: 1.35, 1.36, 4.03,
Several recommendations relate to the use of web and internet. Recommendation 4.03 says: The
IAEA should consider opening a portal which contains all mission-related materials to help reviewers
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |7
in preparing for the mission. For example, this could include a model IRRS mission report, ARM
material, IRRS guidelines, CNS report, Lessons Learned reports from previous IRRS missions.
An IRRS web-site is under development that is meant to satisfy all needs and requirements related
to the web-appearance of IRRS information.
Proposition No. 9: The IRRS web-site should be demonstrated to and discussed by the
IAEA experts active in the IRRS process.
I.7 Basic IRRS Training
Related CS recommendations: 1.19, 1.20, 2.04
Targeted Consultancy No. 1 in its recommendation 1.19 says: IRRS Basic Qualification Training
should be developed by the IAEA and required to be completed by each new expert prior to
participating in his/her first mission.
According to recommendation 2.04 new IRRS team members should complete the appropriate IRRS
training module before attending a Mission.
As a first step the concept of a Basic IRRS Training (BIT) has been elaborated. The general part of the
concept is given below.
The BIT Concept
Purpose: To provide the basic information on preparing and conducting IRRS missions to the experts
expected to take part as reviewers, to the IAEA staff involved in IAEA missions, and to the Liaison
Officers of future IRRS host countries.
Format: The Training Course is composed of a series of uniform MS Power Point presentations. Each
presentation covers a given subject/topic and is about 30 minutes long. The presentations shall be
sufficiently detailed to be also used as a refreshing material after the course. The presentations shall
make use of tools and forms (figures, animations, other illustrations) that highlight the main
messages and make these messages easy to remember. Each presentation shall summarize the
subject in the last 1-2 pages with examples and illustration of great impact (e.g. funny or humorous).
For more see “Structure” below.
Scope: The series of presentations shall cover the entire IRRS process (including its basis, the IAEA
Safety Standards), a historical overview of IRRT and IRRS, practical guidance on preparing and
conducting initial and follow-up missions and the data and lessons learned from the past missions.
Details of the contents of the presentations shall be elaborated in the specific part of the Concept.
Basis: The presentations shall primarily be based on the following documents










Relevant IRRS Safety Standards (as listed in the IRRS Guidelines)
IRRS Guidelines (Edition 2012)
Previous IAEA presentations on the IRRS process
IRRT and IRRS Missions since 1998 in EU Member States (ENSREG WG1, 2009)
IRRS Mission Highlights (Report prepared for the 2011 Washington Conference)
IRRS Targeted Consultancy Report No. 1 through 10
(TargetedConsultancy_No_n_Report.docx, n=1,2,…10)
Summary of the Recommendations from the Consultancies - compilation
(ConsRecomSummary.xlsx)
Findings of the IRRS Missions to Major Nuclear Countries, 2006-2011 - compilation
(MissionFindings.docx)
Good Practices Identified by IRRS Missions, 2006-2011 - compilation (GoodPractices.docx)
Analysis of Data and Results from IRRS Missions to Major Nuclear Countries, 2006-2011 –
report (IRRS Analysis.docx)
Developing Further the IRRS Process


Page |8
On the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the IRRS Missions, Draft v5 – report
(IRRS_Effectiveness_Criteria_v5.docx)
Prompt evaluations of the IRRS missions – brief reports on the recent missions
(PromptEval_XXX.docx, XXX stands for the abbreviation of the host country)
Structure: The individual presentations represent distinct Chapters of the training and shall include
the following Sections (whenever they are adequate to the subject):
1. Introduction
 Outline and short description of the subject to be presented
 Context with and embedment into the entire Training Course
 Main messages of the Chapter (2-3 compact statements)
2. Guidance (or Main Body)
 Structured presentation of the relevant part(s) of the IRRS Guidelines (or of the
document(s) adequate to the subject of the Chapter) – theoretical and factual
information, practical issues come in Section 5
 The main messages discussed in more depth
3. IAEA Safety Standards
 Presentation of the structure and list of the related IAEA Safety Standards with explicit
reference to the respective documents on the IAEA website
 Brief discussion of the related GSR Part 1 Requirements
 Brief discussion of the requirements of other related IAEA SSs
 Brief discussion of the related IAEA Safety Guides
4. Illustration
 Data, facts, findings, figures and other visual means derived from and illustrating the
results of previous missions that are related to the subject
5. Practicum
 Practical hints for the reviewers/hosts as derived from the IRRS Guidelines and from the
Targeted Consultancy Reports
6. Summary
 Short summing up of the entire Chapter
 Repetition of the main messages in the framework of a high impact illustration/
visualization
The specific contents of the various Chapters shall be developed if the concept is accepted. The
Training Course shall include 12 Chapters and shall be arranged in the order of the topics in the IRRS
Guidelines.
Proposition No. 10: The Basic IRRS Training (BIT) Course should be elaborated according
to the concept above.
I.8 Steering Committee on IRRS Process
In order to take advantage of the experience of senior IRRS experts it seems expedient to set up a
Steering Committee on IRRS Process. The proposed Terms of Reference of the Committee is given
below.
ToR of the Steering Committee
Vision: The vision of the Steering Committee on IRRS Process (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Committee’) is that an effective and efficient IRRS process is in place to assist Member States in
their efforts for continuous improvement of nuclear safety.
Mission: The mission of the Committee is to advise IAEA and the Member States in the development
of the IRRS process.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Page |9
Aims: The Committee is aimed at



Providing expertise in matters affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of the IRRS missions;
Offering advice in issues discussed or debated by the IRRS community; and
Taking initiatives for further development of the IRRS process.
Composition: The Committee shall be composed of senior international experts with broad and
extensive IRRS experience. Members of the Committee shall be invited by IAEA. Invitation of three
Committee members shall be initiated by NSNI RAS, two members by NSRW RIT and one member by
IEC.
The Committee shall elect a Chairperson for three years. The Chairpersons shall be responsible for:



Leading the meetings of the Committee;
Preparing the work programme and planning the meetings;
Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Committee’s activity.
The Chairperson will be assisted by the IAEA Secretariat. This assistance is provided by NSNI RAS.
Meetings and Working Method: A regular one day meeting of the Committee is held parallel to the
yearly IAEA General Conference in Vienna. At the initiative of any Committee member or of the IAEA
Secretariat an extraordinary meeting can be called together between two regular meetings.
Further meetings by electronic communication (audio-conference, video-conference, e-mail
communication) can be organized at request of any member or of the Secretariat.
The Agenda of a meeting is determined by the propositions from the Committee members and from
the Secretariat. The Agenda is prepared by the Secretariat and is sent for finalization to the
Committee members not later than four weeks prior to the meeting.
The Committee is free to elaborate a Working Method Document for its own use.
Meetings are summarized in Minutes. The Minutes of Meeting (MoM) are composed by the
Secretariat and are sent to the Committee members for comments and approval.
The MoM shall include:



Conclusions, suggestions, proposals, deliberations taken by the Committee;
Actions with deadlines and responsible persons as decided by the Committee;
Tentative date of the next meeting, including the topics of an extraordinary meeting if so
decided.
Proposition No. 11: The Steering Committee on IRRS Process as defined in the ToR
above shall be established.
I.9 Revision of Fukushima Module
Related CS recommendations: 3.04, 3.05, 4.04, 5.01, 6.01,
Recommendation 3.04 states that: Fukushima issues should be reviewed also for small nuclear
programs.
In recommendations 4.04 it is suggested that Fukushima topics be also addressed in follow-up
missions.
Recommendation 5.01 states that: The special Fukushima module should be considered as temporary
addition. Its components should be incorporated into the core modules at the earliest opportunity
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Fukushima-related Conclusions
positive
negative
neutral
100%
Number of Conclusions
In order to see the possibility and
necessity of such changes the mission
report chapters dedicated to the
regulatory
implications
of
the
Fukushima accident have been
analysed for all eight IRRS missions that
included this chapter in its unified
form. The details of the analysis results
are reported in a document entitled
‘Analysis of the Results from the
Tailored IRRS Module on the
Regulatory
Implication
of
the
Fukushima Accident’. The report is
available from the shared area web-site
referred to in footnote 12.
P a g e | 10
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
s1
s2
I
II
III IV V
Modules
VI
VII VIII IX
X aver
Figure 3: Distribution of the Fukushima conclusions
The conclusions formulated in these chapters on the prompt reactions, future plans and IRRS
module-wise activities related to the accident were sorted into three groups according to their
overall contents:
 Positive conclusion: evaluates positively the activity of the regulatory body in the given field
by referring to outstanding achievements
 Neutral conclusion: does not commend neither raises concerns, usually records that the
regulatory body acted as expected
 Negative conclusion: points to non-conformances or gives important recommendations for
improvement
Figure 3 shows the results of the grouping. The fractions of positive conclusions are shown by blue
bars, that of the negative ones by red bars, the neutrals are given by green bars. On the horizontal
axis s1 and s2 refer to the conclusions in the prompt and longer term actions and the roman
numbers refer to the numbers of modules. The last column shows the overall average.
Accordingly, the average ratios of the positive, negative and neutral conclusions are 28/3/64,
respectively, which means that the overwhelming majority (97%) of the conclusions refer to
situations where no concern is to be raised.
The conclusions were further analysed by their contents, in more details. A number of unified
conclusion subjects were defined and the statements in the conclusions were sorted under these
unified conclusion subjects. Figure 4 below summarizes the unified conclusions and their distribution
among the module-wise conclusions.
It is seen that e.g. 40 out of the approximately 160 statements in the conclusions stated that the
regulatory body acted appropriately. Similarly, in 27 statements it is acknowledged that the existing
status with respect to the given module is appropriate to handle issues similar to the accident. In
altogether 13 cases out of the 160 were further actions suggested. The results may even be better
illustrated if the ten unified conclusion subjects are condensed into coarse groups of similar quality
as given in Table 2 below.
2
Shared Area Documents
Developing Further the IRRS Process
Unified conclusions
1 - no concern raised
2 - existing status appropriate
3 - necessary action recognised
4 - committed to act
5 - further actions planned
6 - further actions initiated
7 - appropriate action taken
8 - exemplary action taken
9 - stress test
10 - further action suggested
No. of unified conclusions
50
Number of appearance
P a g e | 11
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Unified conclusion sequence no.
Figure 4: Unified conclusion subjects in the module-wise Fukushima conclusions
The coarse groups unite those unified conclusions, which express similar activity statuses. The four
coarse groups include those conclusions that say that in the given module




the actual status is acceptable – ‘nothing to do’;
what is to be done is planned or started – ‘will be done’ ;
what has to be done was performed – ‘done’;
actions are expected – ‘to be done’.
Unified conclusions
1 - no concern raised
2 - existing status appropriate
3 - necessary action recognised
4 - committed to act
5 - further actions planned
6 - further actions initiated
7 - appropriate action taken
8 - exemplary action taken
9 - stress test
10 - further action suggested
sum
nothing to do
will be done
60
49
32
50
40
nothing to do
30
will be done
done
20
done
54
to be done
10
0
to be done
13
Table 2: Coarse grouping of unified conclusions
distribution of conclusions
Figure 5: Distribution in the coarse groups
Figure 5 summarizes in visual form the number of conclusions in the coarse groups. It reflects the
fact that in about 70% of the cases the conclusions state that either there was no issue (nothing to
do), or the issues were properly handled (done). In 22% of the cases the action has been considered
or initiated (will be done) and only in about 9% of the cases remained something to be done.
The results above suggest the following conclusions:

In the overwhelming majority of the cases the nuclear regulatory bodies act according to or
above the expectations raised by the implications of the Fukushima accident. Apart from a
very few cases no need for further development of the regulatory regime was identified as a
consequence of the accident;

The peer review has not revealed important issues related to the implications of the
accident in the regulatory regime of the host countries. Review and revision of the module
may be expedient;

The method of self-assessment and peer review so far followed for the tailored module on
the regulatory implications of the Fukushima accident needs revision in order to take
advantage of the analysis of the previous results. Simplification of the method seems
justified.
As a consequence the following propositions are offered:
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 12
Proposition No. 12: The peer review and report writing related to the first two
subchapters on the tailored module on Fukushima implications should be similar to
those for other modules of an IRRS missions. To this end the Standardized Report
Template (c.f. III.2) should be extended to these subchapters.
Proposition No. 13: The peer review and report writing related to the third subchapters
on the tailored module on Fukushima implications should concentrate on describing the
module-wise regulatory activities in terms of the unified conclusions as above.
If the proposals above are accepted their implementation needs the following actions:



Elaboration of the standard template for the tailored Module
Revision of the guidelines for the tailored Module with emphasis on the guidance on the
module-wise reporting
Preparation of a table to be used by the reviewers when proposing their unified conclusions
Note that most naturally the proposed changes may not influence the results of future missions on
the Fukushima implications, yet they are suitable to make the review process more comfortable for
the reviewers and the hosts.
II. Preparations for a mission
II.1 Information and preparatory meetings
Related CS recommendations: 10.23, 10.25, 10.27, 10.28
Recommendation 10.23 states: After the decision on an IRRS Mission the first step should be a oneday information meeting between IAEA and the host country about 18-24 months prior to the
mission.
In recommendation 10.25 it is suggested that IAEA should consider to make information meeting
compulsory and to modify the agendas of that meeting and of the Preparatory Meeting accordingly.
Consideration should be given to run SARIS training (see below) simultaneously with the information
meeting.
As the explanation for these recommendations the consultants expressed that the purpose of the
meeting is to decide on the scope and on the approximate date of the mission. Information should
be given on financial issues and on the services supplied by the IAEA; works related to the selfassessment and ideas on the policy discussions should be clarified. Furthermore an information
seminar on an IRRS mission should be held by the IAEA at least for the relevant regulatory staff. A
successful information meeting sets the scene for the whole RB staff and also in more detail for the
senior management.
According to recommendation 10.28 in order to shorten the preparatory meeting it will focus on high
level remaining issues, such as: the final scope of the review, confirmation of IRRS expertise and the
counterparts, policy issues, agenda and logistics.
The recommendations above can be summarized in a proposition as below:
Proposition No. 14: An information meeting should be introduced into the regular IRRS
process that is held 18-25 month prior to the mission. This meeting should assist the
host country in its timely preparation to the mission by providing information and by
setting basic data. The preparatory meeting, to be held 6-9 months before the mission
should then be shorter, involve fewer participants and concentrate on the remaining
open issues. The meeting would be a good opportunity to share with the host country
standardized information on conducting and hosting an IRRS mission.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 13
Recommendation 10.31 supports this proposition by stating that IAEA should hand over to the host
country the Standard Team Assignment and the Standard Mission Schedule tables in order to assist in
the compilation of the mission schedule.
II.2 SARIS tool
Related CS recommendations: 1.04, 2.07, 3.10, 4.02, 6.03, 6.06, 7.03, 10.26
Self-assessment plays a central role in the IRRS process as it constitutes the basis for the
preparations of the reviewers to the mission and also for the peer reviews themselves. On the other
hand, self-assessment serves two purposes at a time since besides its role in the IRRS process it is
also meant to be a tool for the regulators to periodically take a snapshot on its status and the
progress made since the previous self-assessment. The dual purposes cannot always be served with
equal success. It was a returning issue both in the consultancies and in the feedbacks from IRRS
missions that the SAT questionnaires need further development and structuring. The corresponding
opinions and suggestions are quoted below. (Note that the comments and recommendations
treated here relate to the former SAT, some of them may be outdated due to the development of
the new SARIS.)
Reviewers’ and hosts’ feedbacks from recent IRRS missions almost unanimously suggest
simplification and shortening of the questionnaire for IRRS purposes (c.f. the prompt evaluations of
the recent missions available from the shared area referred to in footnote 1).
Recommendation 1.04 states: The Self-Assessment Tool (SAT) questionnaires are complicated,
repetitive, and not user friendly for the host country or the IRRS team members. The host country
spends an inordinate and unwarranted amount of resources to answer all of the questions, especially
in the special modules on radiation protection, transports and radioactive sources. … The SAT
questionnaires should be revised.
According to recommendation 2.07 The IRRS SAT questionnaires should be revised and simplified by
IAEA.
Recommendation 3.10 proposes that the SAT-concept is modified to better support the IRRS review.
SAT should produce two sets of output. One output should be intended for the regulatory body´s
internal use and include the answers to the detailed question lists. The other output should be
intended to be part of the ARM, focus on assessment and evaluation, and should include the action
plan.
In recommendation 4.02 it is suggested that the IAEA could consider regrouping the SAT questions in
thematically logical groups.
By virtue of recommendation 6.06 the Self-Assessment Tool (SAT) questionnaires are complicated,
repetitive, and not user friendly for the host country nor for the IRRS team members. The SAT
questionnaires are not balanced and do not follow the principle of graded approach… The SAT
questionnaires have to be revised and harmonized with the IRRS mission report structure. The
complete set of SAT questionnaires has to be finalized by a single team.
The most important messages of the opinions and recommendations above is summarized in the
proposition below:
Proposition No. 15: The current self-assessment questionnaires should be revised, the
revised version should be simpler, shorter and should follow the structure of the IRRS
mission report.
Proposition No. 16: The output of the IRRS self-assessment tool should produce part of
the ARM in a structure analogous to that of the mission report.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 14
Note also that according to recommendation 10.26: in order to give the host country insight in SARIS
tool, IAEA should encourage the host country to participate in a … course on SARIS. It is possible (but
not necessary) to have it in connection with the information meeting.
II.3 ARM
Related CS recommendations: 1.03, 2.08, 2.19, 3.12, 4.01, 5.08, 5.09, 5.12, 10.16, 10.17
The ARM is the basic input document set of an IRRS mission and as such its structuring and
preparation are of primary importance. Several consultancies have dealt with this issue; the most
important recommendations are quoted below.
Recommendation 1.03 states that: the ARM should include summaries for every module highlighting
the specific aspects of the regulatory framework of the host country and give an overall perspective
on the regulator. The host country should prepare the ARM in the same format and template used by
the IRRS team to prepare the mission report.
In recommendation 4.01 it is suggested that in order to make the ARM still more efficient
 Summaries in the ARM for each module should be structured so that it helps the reviewer in
evaluating the compliance with the relevant GSR part 1 requirements specific to that module.
 Compliance with other relevant IAEA standard’s requirements should also be demonstrated.
 IAEA should develop a template for mapping (see Swiss example) to help the host country in
the demonstration.
Recommendation 5.12 requires that the regulatory body’s action plan in response to its selfassessment should be considered as an essential part of the ARM.
According to recommendation 10.16: IAEA should elaborate a template for the ARM, the host
country should prepare the ARM using this IRRS ARM template,
while in recommendations 10.17 it is required that the ARM should include executive summaries for
every module highlighting the issues arising for those specific aspects of the national infrastructure
for safety, and should give the overall information on the identified strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities for improvement based on the self-assessment.
The recommendations above quite unanimously suggest the following
Proposition No. 17: IAEA should elaborate a template for the contents and format of the
ARM taking into account the relevant good practices of the past missions. A template for
the Action Plan would also be useful.
In specific, it seems to be useful to set requirements on the summary of self-assessment:
Proposition No. 18: The ARM should contain the summary of the results of the selfassessment for each module following the format of the IRRS missions report.
Proposition No. 19: The ARM should also contain the results of the action plan
implementation that followed a previous IRRS mission (if there was one).
II.4 Timelines of preparations
Related CS recommendations: 10.Appendix
Preparations to an IRRS missions is a long process that may take as much as three years. Proper
timing of the activities is essential for the success. Consultancy No. 10 has set up the time-table of
the preparatory activities, it is found in Appendix II to this document.
Proposition No. 20: The time-table in Appendix II should be accepted as the one to be
suggested by the IRRS Guidelines to the host countries.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 15
III. Conduct of a mission
III.1 Initial team meeting and team building
Related CS recommendations: 1.24, 1.25, 2.14,
In recommendation 1.24 it is expressed that experience from prior missions has shown that the
preparation phase should be more structured in order to better ensure that every expert is equally
well prepared. The importance of preparation for the mission as an essential prerequisite for
participating in the team should be reemphasized.
Recommendations 1.25 says: There is not enough time available for a team building process prior to
the start of the work. The arrival day and the first Sunday could be used for that purpose.
The time before the entrance meeting should also be used for the intentional and structured team
building process.
In recommendations 2.14: The Consultants agreed with the proposal of Consultancy No.1 that
additional time should be allocated at the beginning of the Mission for team building to promote
efficiency of the team. This should also include rules of conduct and expected behaviours.
Additional time should be allocated at the beginning of the Mission for team building.
The Standard Missions Schedule in Appendix I takes into account these recommendations. They are
summarized in the following explicit proposition:
Proposition No. 21: The official program of an IRRS mission should include a team
building session on Sunday morning (or the day before the Entrance meeting) prior to
the Initial team meeting. Accordingly, the team members are expected to arrive the day
before (i.e. on Saturday, if the mission starts on Monday).
III.2 Mission report template
Related CS recommendations: 1.33, 1.34, 2.31, 3.14, 3.18, 4.10, 4.16, 4.18, 5.21, 5.22, 6.14, 6.15, 6.17, 7.20,
7.26, 7.30 – 7.33, 9.01
Standardization of the mission report is beneficial for several reasons. It gives guidance to the host
country in developing the ARM, to the reviewer in making interviews and in preparing their report
contributions and to everyone who wishes to make comparisons of or draw conclusions from several
missions. Almost all consultancies have dealt with this question and agreed in the need of a
standardized template. The most relevant recommendations are quoted below; most of the
recommendations referred to above give details of the template related to the module investigated.
Recommendations 1.33 says: The report Template should be developed/revised to guide authors on
structure and content – the background, comparison with standards and expectations, conclusions
justification to support R, S & GPs as well as form and style.
According to recommendation 1.34 harmonisation both within the mission report and with other
mission reports should be an important goal of the team.
In recommendation 5.22 the consultants support development of the general template of the final
report from IRRS missions as important means for improved effectiveness, harmonization and
consistency of the missions.
Based on the recommendations of the previous consultancies consultancy No. 9 elaborated a
detailed mission report template. It is available from the shared area referred to in footnote 1. The
template has been tested in a recent mission to Finland and was received very positively (c.f. the
Prompt Evaluation Report on the mission also available from the shared area.) Consequently the
following proposition seems to be justified:
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 16
Proposition No. 22: The IRRS missions should use the Standard IRRS Mission Report
Template as guiding document for the summaries of the ARM (c.f. Proposition No. 17) as
well as for the interviews and the mission reports.
III.3 Balance of findings
Related CS recommendations: 1.37, 3.08
Related analysis conclusions: C12
Related Performance Indicators: P11
Recommendation 1.38 states: The focus for balance, harmonization and consistency of R, S & GPs
should reflect the main purpose of the mission which is to improve the regulation of nuclear safety
for the Host Country and the International Regulatory Community.
The recommendation also suggests that in order reaching a realistic review result there must be
certain balance between the numbers of various observations of a mission. It is expected that in a
mission where a large number of non-compliance with the IAEA safety standards is found the
number of good practices will be lower than the average and vice versa.
The question has been analysed for the major past missions. Figure 6 illustrates the tendency of
findings in a number of missions, the blue line shows the number of recommendations (divided by
its average) and the green line shows the number of good practices (again divided by its average).
Obviously the two lines have opposite tendencies, in other words the two quantities are negatively
correlated and therefore their empirical correlation ratio is expected to be nearly constant over the
efficient missions
This observation leads to the definition of the Balance of Findings Performance Indicator. Let NR
denote the number of recommendations NG the number of good practices in a mission and let
NAv(R*G) be the average of the product NR* NG (as calculated from the past missions). The PI
describing the balance of the findings in a mission is defined as
ρ = √[( NR* NG)/ NAv(R*G)]
In Figure 6 the orange line shows the values of this indicator in the past missions. It is apparent that
although the numbers of the recommendations and good practices assume substantially differing
values in various missions, this indicator shows only moderate changes around unity. It is also
Tendency of findings
Recommendations
Good Practices
Balance
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Figure 6: Recommendations, good practices and their balance in recent missions
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 17
obvious that whenever the value of this indicator is substantially lower than unity then either the
number of findings or the number of Good Practices is too low, whereas if the indicator is much
greater than unity then one of the observations types is too high.
Proposition No. 23: The Balance of Findings PI should be used as one of the indicators of
the effectiveness and efficiency of the IRRS missions. As such it will be part of the
prompt evaluation of the missions (c.f. Section IV.1)
III.4 Feedbacks on the mission
Related CS recommendations: 1.43, 1.44, 2.02, 2.34, 2.35, 6.05
Related Performance Indicators: P5, P7, P8
In recent missions feedbacks from both the IRRS team members and the host countries were
requested in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the mission. The feedbacks were
obtained via questionnaires on the following issues:



Team members‘ feedback on the ARM;
Team members feedback on the effectiveness of the mission; and
Host country’s feedback on the effectiveness of the mission.
Examples of the feedback results are available in the prompt evaluation reports of recent missions
uploaded to the shared area referred to in footnote 1.
Recommendation 1.44 says that the consultancy participants discussed IAEA’s recent initiative to use
surveys of IRRS Team members and the host country as a means of providing feedback on the
effectiveness of the IRRS mission. The participants were positively impressed by this initiative and
believe it should be continued.
Continue the initiative to use surveys of IRRS Team members and the host countries to provide
feedback on the effectiveness of the IRRS mission
According to recommendation 2.02 IAEA should develop a consistent approach to collect and
evaluate feedback from IRRS host countries and participants on Missions to learn lessons.
In recommendation 2.34 the Consultants recommend IRRS participants give structured feedback on
the conduct and effectiveness of the mission. The Consultants endorse IAEA proposals for developing
a process for collecting and evaluating this information. This is to promote the continuing
improvement to the IRRS process.
Recommendation 6.05 proposes that the document “On the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the IRRS
Mission” contain provisions on feedback from the IRRS team members and the host organisation on
the IAEA Safety Standards used. The IAEA should develop a system for collection, evaluation and
further use of these comments and recommendations
Following the recommendations quoted the proposition below seems justified:
Proposition No. 24: The questionnaires for feedbacks from the team members and from
the host country as proposed in the effectiveness and efficiency report and used in
recent missions should be used in future IRRS missions.
IV. Follow-up of a mission
IV.1 Prompt evaluation of a mission
Related CS recommendations: 1.44
The evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of missions may have several advantages:


Feedback is given to the participants (team members, host country, IAEA)
The possible ways of further improvement may be derived
Developing Further the IRRS Process

P a g e | 18
Efficiency and effectiveness of the IRRS process is demonstrated in a transparent way
Examples of prompt evaluation of recent missions are reachable from the shared area referred to in
footnote 13.
Recommendation 1.44 states that the consultancy participants discussed IAEA’s recent initiative to
use surveys of IRRS Team members and the host country as a means of providing feedback on the
effectiveness of the IRRS mission. The participants were positively impressed by this initiative and
believe it should be continued.
Continue the initiative to use surveys of IRRS Team members and the host countries to provide
feedback on the effectiveness of the IRRS mission
Accordingly:
Proposition No. 25: Prompt evaluation of IRRS mission should be a permanent practice.
Proposition No. 26: Evaluation report should be prepared within two month after the
missions.
IV.2 Report finalization
Related CS recommendations: 1.42
The actual version of the IRRS Guidelines requires that “the IAEA Coordinator in conjunction with the
IRRS Team Leader, and with appropriate coordination with other team members, will assess the host
country comments and draft the final IRRS Report”.
Recommendation 1.42 proposes: Provide clarity regarding the expected interaction between the
IAEA Team Coordinator, Team Leader and Team Members after receipt of any final comments from
the host country.
Modify the Guidelines to read as follows: “The IAEA Coordinator and the IRRS Team Leader, with the
appropriate coordination with IRRS team members, will produce the final report. This action will
include an assessment of any final comments received from the host country.”
Proposition No. 27: The IRRS Guideline should clarify in more details the responsibilities
and duties of the team members in finalizing the mission report.
Proposition No. 28: The team members need to be informed of any change in the
mission report occurring or proposed after the end of the mission.
IV.3 Follow-up as a compulsory part
Related CS recommendations: 4.22
Recommendation 4.22 proposes that follow up mission should be made a compulsory part of the
mission. The IAEA should not conduct a mission unless there is a clear statement from the host
country to host a follow up mission.
Proposition No. 29: Follow-up should be considered to be a permanent/compulsory/
strongly recommended part of the IRRS process. A tentative date for the follow-up
missions should be discussed during the preparatory meeting of the initial missions and
should be included into the IRRS mission report
IV.4 Timing of follow-up mission
Related CS recommendations: 4.24
Related analysis conclusions: C17
3
Shared Area Documents
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 19
Ratio of open issues in followup missions
Analysis of the past IRRS missions demonstrated that considerable
portion of the findings is not closed by the time of the follow-up
missions. Figure 7 shows the average, minimum and maximum ratios
of the open issues to the number of findings. It is seen that on
average 23% of the findings remains open.
In line with this observation recommendation 4.24 says: The
consultants suggest that the follow up mission is conducted within 3
years after the original mission
Recommendations
All
0.60
open issues/all issues
Based on this observation the analysis concludes that the relatively
high number of issues remained open suggests that the time
between the initial and follow-up missions may sometimes be not
sufficient to comply with the recommendations or suggestions of the
initial
Suggestions
0.70
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Figure 7: Ranges of open issues in follow-ups
Proposition No. 30: The time period of requesting a follow-up mission should be
changed from the actual value of “from two to four years” after the initial mission to
“from three to five years”.
IV.5 Follow-up mission report template
Related CS recommendations: 9.02
The Consultancies recommended the use of a standard template form also for the follow-up mission
report. It is available from the shared area referred to in the footnotes above.
Proposition No. 31: The follow-up IRRS missions should use the Standard IRRS Follow-up
Mission Report Template as guiding document for the mission reports.
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 20
Appendix I: Standard Schedule of IRRS Missions
Initial Mission First Week
17:00-18:00
18:00-20:00
20:00-24:00
Informal
dinner
Team Dinner
Daily Team
Meeting
Daily Team
Meeting
Dinner
Dinner
Writing of
the report
Writing of the
report
Standing lunch
SUN
 Discussing and
improving Draft
Report
 Cross-Reading
 TL, DTL, TC and
DTC read
everything
Standing lunch
Finalisation of the
Draft Report
Daily Team
Meeting
Daily Team
Meeting
Dinner
Dinner
Dinner
Dinner
Secretariat
edits Report
TM write
Report
Writing of the
report
TM Read Draft
Secretariat edits the
report
Free day, Social Tour
Policy Discussions
Reading, Cross-reading of the Report
Draft text to TL
Cross-reading by TM
Written
preliminary
findings
delivered
Daily Team
Meeting:
Discussion of
findings
Visits/EPR Exercise
Standing lunch
SAT
TM write Report
TL and DTL
review
introductory part
Secretariat edits the report
Preliminary Draft
Report Ready
DTC writes
introductory parts
Visits/EPR exerc.
Interviews
Visits
FRI
DTC writes introductory parts
16:00-17:00
Initial Team
Meeting:
 IRRS process
 Main
objectives
 Report writing
 Schedule
 First
observations
 In-Group
discussions
Visits
15:00-16:00
Lunch
Interviews
14:00-15:00
Arrival of Team Members
13:00-14:00
Lunch with
Host
Standing
lunch
Interviews
Standing lunch
12:00-13:00
THU
Visits
11:00-12:00
Entrance
Meeting
WED
Interviews
10:00-11:00
TUE
Interviews
Team building
meeting:
 5 minutes/TM
self-intro
 Refresher
training
9:00-10:00
MON
Visits
SUN
Interviews
SAT
Interviews
Time
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 21
Initial Mission Second Week
WED
12:00-13:00
Standing lunch
Standing lunch
13:00-15:00
Policy Discussions
15:00-17:00
Individual discussions
of Rs, Ss and GPs
with counterparts
17:00-18:00
Daily Team Meeting
18:00-20:00
Dinner
Discussion of the
report by the
team
Dinner
THU
Common read through
and finalisation by the
Team
Submission of the Draft
to the Host
Lunch
TC Drafts the Press
Release
Cross-Reading
TL, DTL, TC and DTC
read everything
Finalisation
TC, DTC prepare Executive
Summary and exit presentation
10:00-12:00
Individual discussions
of Rs, Ss and GPs
with counterparts
TL finalises
Executive Summary
and exit presentation
9:00-10:00
TUE
Host reads Draft
MON
Discussion of Executive
Summary
Discussion with Host
Standing Lunch
Written comments by the
Host
FRI
Submission of the Final
Draft
9:00-10:00
Exit Meeting
Press Conference
10:00-12:00
Lunch
12:00-13:00
13:00-15:00
Team meeting for
finalisation of the Report
15:00-17:00
Briefing of the DDG
Finalisation of the press
release
Dinner
Departure Home
17:00-18:00
18:00-20:00
Farewell Dinner
20:00-21:00
21:00-24:00
Secretariat includes
changes
20:00-21:00
Secretariat finalises text
Free
Free
21:00-24:00
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 22
Follow-up Mission
Team building
meeting:
 5 minutes/TM
self-intro
 Refresher
training
14:00-15:00
15:00-16:00
Arrival of Team Members
13:00-14:00
16:00-17:00
20:00-24:00
Finalisation
Draft text to TL
Submission of the
Draft to the Host
Standing
lunch
Standing lunch
Standing lunch
Policy
Discussions
Initial Team
Meeting:
 IRRS process
 Main
objectives
 Report writing
 Schedule
 First
observations
Interviews
Interviews
Daily Team
Meeting
Informal
dinner
TM write Report
TL and DTL
review
introductory part
Team Dinner
Written
preliminary
findings
delivered
Daily Team
Meeting:
Discussion of
findings
Preliminary Draft
Report Ready
SAT
Daily Team
Meeting
Discussion of
Executive
Summary
Dinner
Dinner
Dinner
Dinner
Writing of
the report
Secretariat
edits Report
TM write
Report
TM Read Draft
Free
Discussion by the
Host
Exit Meeting
&
Press Conference
(alternative)
Standing Lunch
Lunch
17:00-18:00
18:00-19:00
19:00-20:00
FRI
Discussion by the
Team
Interviews
Standing
Lunch
12:00-13:00
THU
Written comments
by the Host
TC drafts the Press Release
11:00-12:00
Interviews
WED
TL finalises the presentation
10:00-11:00
TUE
Host reads Draft
9:00-10:00
MON
Entrance
Meeting
Finalisation of the
Report
Presenting the final
Draft of the Report
to the Host
Exit Meeting
&
Press Conference
(optional)
Farewell Dinner
Departures of Team Members
SUN
Cross-reading
SAT
Secretariat
edits the report
Time
Developing Further the IRRS Process
P a g e | 23
Appendix II: Standard timing table of pre-mission activities
Remark: This table provides time sequence of the activities. The table contains major activities only
and it can be further developed and broken down into many more steps for actual planning
purposes. The time scale is illustrative and may be adjusted to the actual needs and possibilities.
T0 is the beginning time of the IRRS mission
From/to
T0-3 y’s/
T0-2 y’s
T0-24 m’s/
T0-18 m’s
Durat.
-
Activity
Request for IRRS
Guidance
Ch.2
Participants
host
1-2
days
Information
Meeting
Ch.5
IAEA, host and
all
stakeholders
T0-15 m’s/
T0-12 m’s
T0-12 m’s/
T0-9 m’s
2-3 m’s
Preparations for
self-assessment
Self-assessment
Ch.3
T0-9 m’s/
T0-6 m’s
1-2
days
Prep Meting
Ch.5
T0-3 m’s/
T0-2 m’s
1 day
Sending out ARM
to IAEA
Ch. 4
T0-9 m’s/
T0
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Resource
planning:
Ch. 8
Host and
stakeholders
host and all
stakeholders –
counterparts
are responsible
IAEA, host and
all
stakeholders
Senior
management,
Counterparts,
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 5
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 5
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Emergency exercise
planned and organized
Resource
planning:
Ch. 7
Staff involved
Not allow absences for the
time of the mission
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
IT resources including IT
staff are planned and
informed, and supplied or
booked for the time of IRRS
mission
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-9 m’s/
T0
T0-9 m’s/
T0
T0-9 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
3-9 m’s
Ch. 3
Outcome/deliverables
IAEA plans and initiates the
mission
IAEA provides initial
information on the mission
and also training on selfassessment, indication of
the time when mission
takes place
Project plan
SA Report, List of noncompliances, Action Plan
Scope is fixed, Policy Issues
selected, Schedule agreed
(including visits)
ARM received by the IAEA
– Remark: schedule
preparation of ARM
Booking of hotel rooms
and assigning rooms at the
regulator
Room for entrance
meeting for IRRS team and
hosts (30+ people)
Room(s) for Exit meeting +
press conference facilities,
PR staff is engaged
Administrative support will
be available all the time
Developing Further the IRRS Process
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-5 m’s/
T0
T0-1 m/
T0-2 w’s
T0-2 m’s/
T0-2 w’s
T0-2 m’s/
T0-2 w’s
T0-2 m’s/
T0
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
1-2 hrs
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Resource
planning:
Ch. 6
Project group
Organize
meeting/briefing
for all hosts staff
Ch. 2
All hosts staff
Within
that
period
Within
that
period
Mission planning:
Ch. 7
Project group
Mission planning:
Ch. 7
Project group
Within
that
period
Mission planning:
Ch. 7
Project group
P a g e | 24
Communication
arrangements discussed,
analysed and finalized
Catering organized
Transport organized
including visits and social
events
Visits agreed with
stakeholders including
licensees
Inspection visits organized
Hosts' staff is informed
about the objectives,
conduct, scope of the
mission – in general terms
Ensure availability of all
relevant documents
Information flow within the
host organization is
planned, senior staff is
familiar with that
Efficient re-scheduling of
changes is organized and
means to inform all
interested persons are in
place