Page 36 - Nuclear Plant Journal Digital Edition: January - February 2013

36 NuclearPlantJournal.comNuclear Plant Journal, January-February 2013
Fukushima Safety...
Continued from page 35
(Continued on page 47)
recognizing the significant efforts that are
needed to embed the attributes of a strong
safety culture, such as open reporting and
learning, in a prevailing, more established
culture. Additionally, it was noted that the
transparency of the results of peer review
missions is essential, as is ensuring that
regulatory bodies operate in an open and
transparent manner, thereby enhancing
confidence and trust.
8. While the concepts set out in
the strategy for defense in depth remain
sound, the application of defense in
depth requires further enhancement. The
areas for enhancement include: to focus
safety measures on both the prevention
of accidents and the mitigation of
accident consequences; to strengthen
the mitigation measures to ensure
containment integrity; periodically re-
examining site specific external hazards
to ensure the adequacy of safety margins
and protective measures; and to ensure the
availability and operability of resources
to cope with events such as a prolonged
station blackout or loss of ultimate heat
sink.
9. A major lesson from the
Fukushima Daiichi accident is the need
for effective and independent barriers in
the national nuclear safety system at the
operator, regulator and stakeholder levels.
This is why there has been considerable
focus on enhancing the international peer
review mechanisms for nuclear operators
and regulators worldwide, as well as on
promoting openness and transparency to
ensure that stakeholders—in particular,
the public—can hold industry and
regulators properly to account, thereby
enhancing trust and confidence. This will
demand a commitment to being open
to challenge, learning from others and
holding each other to account, requiring
working internationally through an
attitude of cooperation, collaboration
and mutual trust. Additionally, greater
consideration will be required on
organizational factors within each barrier
of national and international systems.
Strengthening Safety
1. More than a year since its
adoption, significant progress has been
made on all 12 actions established
in the IAEA Action Plan. Important
activities have been and continue to be
carried out in several key areas, such as
assessing safety vulnerabilities of nuclear
power plants; strengthening the IAEA’s
peer review services; reviewing and
strengthening the IAEA safety standards;
improving emergency preparedness and
response capabilities; strengthening
and maintaining capacity building; and
enhancing and widening the scope of
communication and information sharing
with Member States, international
organizations and the public. These
activities have contributed to the
enhancement of the global nuclear safety
framework.
2. Several Member States are now
actively preparing their own national
nuclear safety action plan in order to
implement the IAEA Action Plan. All
Member States were encouraged to
develop a national action plan, taking into
account their national arrangements. The
IAEA offers support to Member States
for developing such plans based on the
IAEA Action Plan.
3. Demand for IAEA peer
review services remains high. These
services have been strengthened since
the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and
the IAEA is continuously working
with Member States to make further
improvements. Numerous missions have
been conducted in all areas of nuclear
safety, including Operational Safety
Review Team (OSART), Emergency
Preparedness Review (EPREV),
Integrated Regulatory Review Service
(IRRS) and Design Safety Review
Service (DSRS) missions. Transparency
of the results of the peer review services
is essential for enhancement of safety.
4. Significant progress on
strengthening nuclear safety has been
made by those Member States with
nuclear power plants through ‘stress tests’
and the implementation of appropriate
measures based on the findings of these
tests. Virtually all Member States with
nuclear power plants have conducted
such stress tests.
5. The memorandum of under-
standing between the World Association
of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the
IAEA calls for cooperation in several im-
portant areas, including coordinating the
scheduling of IAEA OSART and WANO
peer review missions, enhancing the ex-
change of information, and collaborating
in a serious event in a nuclear power plant
or fuel cycle facility. It was reiterated that
the responsibility for nuclear safety lies
with each Member State and operating
organization.
6. Sound preparedness for and
effective response to any nuclear or
radiological emergency is essential in
order to avoid or minimize the impacts of
such an event if one were to occur. The
FukushimaDaiichi accident reinforced the
importance of emergency preparedness
and response at all levels—local, national
and international.
7. To further strengthen
international assistance arrangements,
IAEA’s Response and Assistance
Network (RANET) was enhanced with
the preparation of new guidance on the
roles and responsibilities of, and actions
for, members of the network in preparing
for, requesting and receiving assistance.
A new functional area was proposed for
providing assessments as well as advice
to competent authorities on the on-site
mitigation activities in an emergency at
a nuclear facility. Member States were
encouraged to register available national
capabilities within RANET to further
strengthen the network.
8. The Emergency Preparedness
and Review System (EPREV) peer review
service was further strengthened by
incorporating the lessons learned to date;
as a result, more effective support and
assistance is being provided to Member
States. In 2012, the IAEA carried out eight
EPREV missions, the largest number in a
single year since this programme began.
Member States, especially those with
nuclear power plants, are encouraged to
utilize this IAEA service, which allows
for a complete appraisal of the national
emergency preparedness and response
arrangements and capabilities.
9. In line with the strategy rec-
ommended in the final report of the
International Action Plan for Strength-
ening the International Preparedness
and Response System for Nuclear and
Radiological Emergencies, the Emer-
gency Preparedness and Response Ex-
pert Group (EPREG) was established to
advise the IAEA Secretariat on strategies
to strengthen and sustain sound interna-
tional preparedness for nuclear and radio-
logical emergencies.