ML20134E768

Informs of IAEA Technical Committee Meeting in Vienna, Austria on 970120-24 in Which Member State Representatives Will Conduct Peer Review of Safety Programs.Iaea Peer Review Meeting Invitation Encl

ML20134E768
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/29/1996
From:	Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20134E771	List: ML20134E768 ML20134P885
References
NUDOCS 9611040091
Download: ML20134E768 (6)

Text

. __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ..__.m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .

', ..'*f*

j Gr

.'- p eq\

UNITED STATES; j

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

& WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-e001 '

p **...

j October 29, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor j- Executive Director for Operations n i

1 l FROM:- Carlton R. Stoiber, Director Office of International Programsi $ l l

SUBJECT:

MEMBER STATES' MEETING TO PEER REVIEW THE IAEA SAFETY t

PROGRAM (JANUARY 20-24, 1997, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) i i l'would like to call your attention to an International Atomic Energy Agency  :

(IAEA) Technical Committee meeting in Vienna, Austria, this coming January 20-  ;

o 24, 1997 in which Member States' representatives will conduct a peer review of

! the programs in the Department of Nuclear Safety (Attachment). The review i will. include the reactor,' radiation and waste safety programs. Participants i from Member States will; be regulators of high rank in their agencies, .i.e .

deputy director level or above. Member States must pay travel and per diem to ,

i attend the meeting; the IAEA will not fund it. '

1 This topic was discussed during Chairman Jackson's meeting with IAEA Deputy

Director General for Nuclear Safety Domaratzki in Vienna this past September. ,

The Chairman indicated her support for the concept of periodic peer reviews of j the safety program by Member States. The last peer review took place in July l

. 1995 in which James Richardson, former Nuclear Safety Attache at the U.S.

Mission participated together with Richard Cunningham, Consultant, formerly of  ;

NMSS. Mr. Cunningham was a U.S. cost free expert on assignment in Vienna at i

! the time of the meeting, so no NRC funds were expended for his travel and per l diem.

Charles Serpan, the Nuclear Safety Attache at the U.S. Mission will i participate in the January 1997 peer review meeting as an official U.S. i i representative; however, given that his expertise is reactor-oriented our

! participation would be enhanced by.the addition of an NRC staff member with a radiation or waste safety background. The Office of International Programs

recommends NRC staff participation in this meeting at the rank of deputy ,

office director or above, if for no other reason than to protect our interests l in the development of the IAEA radiation and waste safety programs.

d

'Although a response is due to the IAEA by October 31, 1996, nominations will .

be accepted after that date. We would. appreciate a response by November 15, 1 1 1996. The OIP contact for this matter is Suzanne Schuyler-Hayes. She can be l i reached at 415-2333. >

3

Attachment:

USVienna 2728, IAEA Peer Review Meeting Invitation  ;

C(gggQg6// p qfH)$ EDO -- G960824 J ,

i n

s- e . - . , ., -, -~

~

') *

~

INTERNATION AL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY d

AGENCE INTERNATIONALE DE L'ENERGIE ATOMlQUE I ME*RYHAPouHOE ACEHTCTBO flO ATOMHOH 3HEPTHH I

9 )

ds I dsv ORG ANISMO INTERNACIONAL DE ENERGIA ATOMICA WAGRAMERsRASSE 5, P.O. BOX 100. A-l400 VIENNA, AUSTIUA TT1Ex: 1 12M.CADLE. INATOM VIENNA, FACs! MILE:(+431120607.1ELEMIONE:(+43 I) 2060 IW mEPLY Pt1A5t ausa to Dtat DinicTLY to EJTLNssoN nanocauccuaumcazm 720-JX.01 co.wm omsema>n u wiwaooc rom 22654/22732 4

0 COPY-COPIE Sir. [ ,

l Ref: PPAS Peer Review of the Agency's Safety Programme 1 have the honour to refer you to the Agency' programme performance appraisal system (PPAS) in relation to its safety activities and to inform you that the Secretariat is plaruting to hold a Technical Committee meeting of senior experts nominated by govemments to perform a new l comprehensive peer review of the Agency's safety programme within the PPAS framework. The )

Annex to this letter provides background material on the meeting and the Agency's intentions. The  !

meeting will be heldfrom 20 to 24 January 1997 at Agency Headquarters, Vienna, Austria.

The Agency would be grateful if your Government would designate an expert to participate in the meeting. The nominated expens should be a senior high level oficer having a comprehensive expertise in thefeld ofradiation, waste and nuclear safety and is expected to represent the views of your Government in relation to the Agency's activities under review.

The Resident Represenutive of the United States of America to the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency Obersteinergasse 11/1 A-1190 Vienna

.- . - - - . ~.

. . 'a . ' . /

It would be appreciated if your Govemment's reply could reach the Agency no later than 31 October 1996. Further contact conceming the meeting, including the handling of relevant information for the PPAS peer review will then be made directly by Mr. Abel J. Gonzslez, Director of the Division of Radiation and Waste Safety, who will be the Scientific Secretary of the meeting.

It would be useful if you would, in your reply, include the complete address, telephone and fax numbers of yo'ur designated expert.

1

I would like to recall that at the last comprehensive PPAS peer review of the Agen'c'y's safety activities the designated expert from your country were Messrs. Richard Cunningham,1200 North Nash Street # 555, Arlington, Virginia 22209 and J. Richardson, Nuclear Safety Attachd, United i

States Mission to the IAEA. JEtg g The Agency does not usually bear the travel and other costs or designated participants at l 4

Technical Committee meetings.

i  !

Please note that compensation is not payable by the Agency for any damage to or loss of the l

participants' personal property or for any illness, injury or death attributable to their relationship

with the Agency under the present arrangement. However, while travelling under the authority and

, at the request of the Agency, the designated expert will be covered under the Agency's insurance policy for, inter alia, permanent total disability or death up to the amotmt of US$100,000 and 3

medical expenses up to an amount of US$10,000 in case of an accident related to such travel,

! subject to the terms of the insurance policy.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

i

, % i b .

Abel J. Gonzalez Acting for Morris Rosen A/ Deputy Director General Department of Nuclear Safety for DIRECTOR GENERAL i

I

i. .

, }

ANNEX Comprehensive Peer Review of the Agency's Safety Programmes l

B[CKGROUND INFORMATION The Programme Performance Assessment System (PPAS) ,

L The Agency's Programme Performance Assessment System (PPAS) is a managerial tool introduced by the Secretariat with the objecdvc of:

- assisting to determine future programme directions and resource allocations,

- improving the performance and impact of programme activities,

- promoting greater accountability for results, and

- fostering common expectations between the Secretariat, Agency goveming bodies, and Member States.

'Ihe PPAS is expected to help to plan clear objectives and identify resources, monitor progress along the way and evaluate performance and results. It should be able to provide a framework for good management, keep attention focused on programme delivery and results, aid prioritization and resource management, facilitate communication and aid reporting to Member States, and ensure Member States of transparency and accountability, in summary, the PPAS is expected to assist in: making decisions about priorities and programrnes to continue, expand, change, curtail, or stop; supporting programme formulation, resource justification, preparation of programme and budget, and financial plan; determining adjustments / changes wa4 to improve performance; harmonizing programmes and resources; and establishing organization and staff workplan and reviews.

4 In the safety area it has been customary for the Agency to apply the PPAS on the l basis of programmatic comprehensive peer reviews performed by senior high level experts designated by and representing the views of Member States.

9 e

I

- - ~. --. --.

, . . .; -lv d'a Previous Peer Reviews of the Agency 4 Ssfety Activitics and their impact un the l

1997/98 Programme i .

~

A comprehensive peer review of the Agency's safety activities, within the PPAS ft'mework, was already andertaken in July 1995 (reference: J5 AG 913). As a result of that, review, the programmatic and managerial structure for the 1997/98 programme was substantially improved as reflected in the budgetary documents submitted to the Agency's

! Member States,i.e. first, in the Light Blue Book, then,in the White Book and eventually 4-in the Blue Book. Following the peer group's recommendations, the major programme area on safety is now divided into four programmes: three programmes deal With the main topical disciplines of the Agency's safety related activities, i.e. " nuclear safety", ,

l " radiation safety" and " radioactive waste safety"; and one programme, "co-ordination of '

safety activities", addresses cross-cutting functions. TJ.c novel feature of this structure is the " functional" co-ordination of safety activities provided by this later programme. This  !

is expected to strengthen programme management by ensuring - through interaction with 1 the " thematic", nuclear safety, radiation safety, and radioactive waste safety, programmes i - technical consistency in the safety related functions of the Agency and also to ensure

- coherence with the corresponding safety related activities carried out by Member States and other intemational organizations. Special attention has been paid to the presentation of the support given in this area to the Agency's Technical Co-operation programme:

- Technical Co-operation projects and education and training activitics have been individually identified under cach topical project in the thematic programmes, and, in addition, the overall support has been aggregated in the programme of co-ordination.

The Proposed New Peer Review of the Agency's Safety Programmes The beginning of 1997 would be the right time to assess the administrative and managerial changes that - following the 1995 peer review - are taking place during 1996 to ensure that the new 1997/98 programmatic and managerial stmeture will run smoothly and be tailored to the 1995 peer review recommendations. It will also be the appropriate time to assess in detail priorities among the different acdvities in order to introduce further adjustments.

The budget estimates for the already approved 1998 programme will be considered at the Agency's Administrative and Budgetary Committee meeting in the boreal spring of 1997.

Although no fundamental changes for the 1999 programme should be anticipated some fine adjustments to the different tasks could be accommodated and reflected in the budget estimates for the 1998 to be issued at the 1998 White Book. (The 1998 White Book will i be submitted to the consideration of the Agency's Board of Govemors at the Board j Meeting in June 1997. It will then be revised and reissued as the 1998 Blue Book and j submitted to the Agency's General Conference in September 1997). Also in 1997 the drafting of the foithcoming 1999/2000 programme will commence: the influence of the peer review on this programme is expected to be of the fundamental nature.

l 2

l I

i

.4 <.,' .  ;

,s ..

l l /, Furthermore, as the major restructuring has occurred in the areas of radiation and waste l safety, the Secretariat feels that it would be preferable to concentrate first on this area in thC new reviCW l It has therefore been decided to undertake at the beginning of 1997 a PPAS peer review of the whole Agency's safety programme, including the relevant co-ordination activities,

! with special emphasis in the radiation and waste safety programmes. The peer review j should include activities covered by both the regular budget and extrabudgetary l

! programme as well as the relevant technical co-operation programme.

Objectives of the Peer Review The objectives of the peer review are:

1) to assess whether the current programmatic and managerial structure in the safety r progranunes meets the recommendation of the 1995 peer review, l

2) to determine the usefulness and impact of the various specific tasks comprising the safety programmes, ,

3) to recommend considerations for relevant activities in the future, and

4) to recommend future priorities for reorienting the Agency's safety programmes.

Scope

! The PPAS peer review is expected to cover the relevant programme performance, i.e. the extent to which the Agency is meeting its safety programme objectives. It should

' be retrospective, in the sense that the 1996 follow-up of the 1995 peer review should be assessed, and prospective in the sense that future priorities should be identified in order to influence the 1998 budget estimates. It is expected that it will provide recommendations 1 g for assigning priorities and modifying the future safety programmes as needed. ]

Focus The peer review should be rigorous, reliable and impartial, involve quantitative and qualitative dimensions, and indicate limitations. It should, moreover, be carefully 1 focused. The main focus should be on future programme directions and on priorities, primarily - but not only - in the radiation and waste safety programme. For instance, the peer review is expected to provide specific guidance on the Agency's future activities in interrelated areas of chronic exposure situations, residues from past operations and events, restoration of contaminated areas and decommissioning of obsolete facilities. j I