Download - Preparations of the Dutch IRRS-mission 1st ENSREG IRRS-WS Brussels, 23-24 January 2014 By: R.Jansen (KFD)/A.Sedee (NIV)

Preparations of the Dutch IRRS-mission

1st ENSREG IRRS-WSBrussels, 23-24 January 2014

By: R.Jansen (KFD)/A.Sedee (NIV)

Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport

IRRS IN THE NETHERLANDS

THE LAST ONE……………

…………… FOR THE FIRST TIME

2


Contents

1. General time schedule and planning2. Organisation of the RB in the Netherlands3. Choice of scope4. Organization and Resources5. SARIS-tool6. Question sets7. Summary

3


General time schedule and planning (1)1. Start of preparation: after IAEA IRRS-WS in USA end of 20112. Beginning 2012: startup of projectteam and steering group3. 2nd Quarter 2012:

– exchange visits with Germany and Sweden– Quick and dirty self assessment looking at 36 requirement

by project team

4. August 2012: formal request by the responsible Minister5. 2nd half of 2012: (inofficial) self assessment because of outcome

quick and dirty self assessment (using WORD questionsets)6. 1st quarter 2013: 1st improvement plan and implementation

4


General time schedule and planning (2)

7. 2nd Quarter 2013: – exchange visit Belgium– visit IAEA about scope, SARIS, moving targets

8. 2nd half of 2013/1st quarter 2014: - training SARIS - formal self assessment, 9. 1st quarter 2014: Preparation of preparatory meeting (May 2014)10. 2nd and 3rd quarter 2014:

– ARM production/translation of documents– Training of experts (personal effectiveness/English)

November 2014: mission

5


Organization of the RB in the Netherlands• The Minister of Economic Affairs is the primary responsible authority.• Several organizations have been mandated formally to carry out

regulatory activities:– Ministry Economic Affairs:

NIV (Nuclear Installations and Safety Directorate)AgNL, team radiation protection and society

– Ministry Infrastructure and Environment: ILT/KFD (Inspectorate of Nuclear Safety, Security, Safeguards

and Radiation Protection) ILT/TAN (emergency preparedness)

– RIVM: monitoring and back office emergency preparedness– Small entities in other ministries, mainly Social Affairs, Health, Fin.

6


Organization of the IRRS project

1. Projectteam IRRS: ~ 10 persons, 5 fteGeneral PL NIV: Aad Sedee/ PL KFD; Rob JansenOrganizations have their own internal project structure

2. Steering Group- Management of NIV and KFD

3. Meetings with representatives of all involved entities

4. Counterparts/deputy counterparts/staff/support

IRRS triggered (or stimulated) a number of (ongoing) actions

7


Choice of scope

Scope: general philosophy: full scope (cf. advice IAEA) all modules/activities

Other ministries have been approached (Health/Social Affairs/Finan.): Already involved in answering SARIS-questions No final decisions yet Regulatory Body meeting in February

8


Resources spent and plannedProjectteam 2012 2013 2014 NIV; 1,5 2,0 2,5 fte KFD; 1,0 2,0 2,5 fte

Additional estimated capacity 2012+2013+2014 (in days)NIV: SA : 500 preparation phase 100 mission 150KFD: 500 130 170Others: 100 50 100

Total number of days (rough estimate): 1800 days + 11 fte + supportThus apart from implementation action plan: ~ 22 fte (180d/fte).

175 K€ (training and IRRS-mission); 300 K€ ARM (translation)

9


Experience with SARIS tool User-friendly, well structured approach but need to stay alert Invites to discuss findings Confronts with shortcomings in regulatory body SARIS explains what IRRS means Works well with different organizations and from anywhere SARIS-training of two days was enough- Just one respondent or analyst on a module at a time hampers- As soon as just a word has been filled in: √on a half way concept- No possibilities for lay out of the text- Many times difficult to choose Yes or NO: with no you “loose” valuable

subquestions

10


Experience with question sets (1)General:• Expectation is not always available• Consistency: subjects are dealt with in several places using the same

or similar questions:– E.g. Inspection and enforcement (regulatory body, MS, inspection

and enforcement modules); Room for rationalizations?• Look for reduction of too detailed questions?

Nuclear installations:• Number of questions differs between NPP, RR and FCF’s• Structure of modules is not the same; no graded approach

– Proposal: one set covering all types of installations per regulatory function

11


Experience with question sets (2)Transport and Emergency preparedness:• Number of question sets quite high,

there is potential for simplifications/integrations

Additional modules:• In many of the additional modules (e.g. Code of Conduct, Public

exposure control) the questions are too much or only/mainly directed at regulations and only in a very limited way at supervision, which is also called differently: “verification”, “control”, “inspection”. A graded approach seems to be advisable.

12


Summary

• Netherlands is the last EU country with Nuclear Power programme receiving an IRRS: so it is for us the first time to receive an IRRS

• We are currently completing the SA phase. Final scope and participation still to be determined

• SARIS is a very helpful tool• Improvement potential in the question sets• Advisable to do a preliminary assessment

Important improvements are already carried out• We expect to have spent about 22 fte 2012-2014, including the

mission.

13


Recommendations

• Start early if it is the first time• Make a project and project structure from the beginning• Learn from recent missions in other countries (do’s and don’ts)• Keep close contact with IAEA• Use SARIS• Start early coordination with the organisations involved in the country

14