IRRS follow-up mission Germany Advance Reference Material (ARM)

Transcription

1 mission Advance Reference Material (ARM)

2 Advance Reference Material (ARM) May 2011

3 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material

4 Table of contents 1 Introduction Fundamentals for the mission Objectives and scope of the follow-up mission Federal system in Germany Description of the BMU and UM BW authorities Description of the BMU Description of the UM BW IRRS team Germany Nuclear power in Germany Nuclear energy use in the Federal Republic of Germany Nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg Self assessment process and status of implementation of the improvements Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder Introduction Status quo Developments and measures since the IRRS mission Federal state structure Regulatory body Execution by the Länder on federal commission Conclusion Module I Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities Module II Responsibilities and Functions of the Regulatory Body Module III Organization of the Regulatory Body Module IV Authorization Module V Review and Assessment Module VI Inspection and Enforcement Module VII Development of Regulations and Guides IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 1 of 261

5 3.9 Module VIII Management System of the Regulatory Body Improvement process Improvement process of the BMU development and implementation of the Action Plan Improvement process of UM BW development and implementation of the Action Plan Additional documentation related to Chapter 3 Self assessment process and status of implementation of the improvements General Documentation Documentation with respect to BMU Documentation with respect to UM BW List of abbreviations IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 2 of 261

6 1 Introduction Between 7 and 19 September 2008, the respective bodies in charge of regulatory supervision of nuclear energy at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit - BMU) and the Environment Ministry of Baden-Württemberg (today: Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector (Ministerium für Umwelt, Klima und Energiewirtschaft Baden-Württemberg UM BW), subjected themselves to a review by an international team of experts under the leadership of the IAEA. Both sides have gained valuable insights from the 2008 IRRS mission and were presented with many useful suggestions to further improve the regulatory activities in the area of nuclear energy supervision. In its report, the review team made 13 recommendations and 34 suggestions overall. The IRRS Guidelines provide that after a period of about two years, it should be examined anew to what extent the recommendations following from the IRRS mission have been taken up and the derived improvement measures have been implemented. In the meantime, BMU and UM BW have invited the IAEA to conduct the mission. This mission will take place in Bonn and Stuttgart from 12 to 20 June This report serves for the preparation of the mission. It is structured in 4 Chapters. Chapter 2 describes on the following pages the objectives and the scope of the mission, organisational changes at the regulatory bodies involved as well as major changes in the area of legislation since the 2008 IRRS mission. Chapter 2 contains furthermore some basic information about the system of nuclear power supervision in Germany, a description of the nuclear power plants within the scope of responsibility of the Baden-Württemberg supervisory authority, and a list of the BMU und UM BW contacts for the performance of the follow-up mission. One focus of the report is on the presentation of the progress made in the meantime. Chapter 3 first introduces the general changes and improvements. In the subsections of Chapter 3 that follow, it is shown how the individual recommendations and suggestions have been implemented or what the current status of the initiated improvement IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 3 of 261

7 measures is. Sections 3.2 to 3.9 are structured according to the different areas that were subject of the review (Modules I VIII). Section 3.10 deals with the Action Plans of BMU and UM BW and, besides other information on the development of the Action Plans, contains overviews of the state of implementation of the intended measures. Chapter 4 contains a compilation of further documents to which reference is made in the progress report (Chapter 3). These serve the purpose of providing more details and explanations regarding the facts and circumstances mentioned in the report. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 4 of 261

8 2 Fundamentals for the mission 2.1 Objectives and scope of the follow-up mission 2011 In September 2008, an IRRS mission of the IAEA took place in Germany at the invitation of the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). To complete the IRRS mission process and to be able to show the reviewers the continuous improvement of the competent regulatory bodies for nuclear supervision in Germany, also as a result of the IRRS mission, Germany has now invited to conduct an IRRS follow-up mission in June The scope of the 2011 follow-up mission 2011 remains unchanged compared to the 2008 IRRS mission. Accordingly, the supervision of the safety of nuclear power plants by the Federation (represented by the BMU) and the Länder (represented by the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden- Württemberg UM BW) is still the central issue of implementation of the recommendations and suggestions and the follow-up mission. The review is to take place on the same basis as the 2008 mission, i.e. Modules I to VIII of the IRRS Guidelines. The underlying objective is the continuous improvement of nuclear supervision by the UM BW as well as the regulatory work of the Federation and the Länder. Significant improvements of nuclear supervision in Germany have been achieved in particular due to those recommendations and suggestions that were made by the reviewers with regard to the Federation/Länder relationship. In particular, the implementation of these recommendations and instructions has led to a reassessment of the roles of the BMU and the Länder. For example, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in Germany, in terms of the IRRS mission, that are still in operation is the responsibility of the Länder. The Federation has additional competences only within the framework of Modules I and VII; concerning the remaining Modules, it represents an oversight of the Länder. The reassessment is described in detail in Chapter 3.1. The IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 5 of 261

9 reassessment and agreement on the distribution of tasks and rules has already improved the regulatory activities of the Federation and the Länder. As a result of the agreement between the BMU and the Länder on the understanding of their respective roles, the 2011 follow-up mission will consequently mainly take place in Stuttgart, Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden- Württemberg. The BMU will provide counterparts for representing Modules I and VII; whereas all other Modules will be represented by the UM BW. Fundamental changes since the 2008 mission Based on an energy concept for long-term promotion of sustainable and efficient energy sources, adopted by the Federal Government in September 2010, guidelines were defined for the national energy policy until the year This policy is to initiate a turn in the way energy is produced and a start into an age of renewable energies. To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to use nuclear energy as a so-called "bridging technology" beyond the extent provided by the law so far until nuclear energy can reliably be replaced by renewable energies. Hence the operating lifetimes of the 17 nuclear power plants in Germany were correspondingly prolonged by an average of twelve years. For nuclear power plants that began power operation at a date prior to and including 1980, the operating lifetime was prolonged by eight years; for the more recent plants, it was extended by 14 years. In addition, Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations was implemented in national law. This Directive serves for the establishment of a European Community framework for maintaining and promoting the continuous improvement of the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. It is to ensure that Member States of the European Union provide for appropriate national arrangements for a high level of nuclear safety. This concerns i.a. the material duties of licensees of nuclear installations. Furthermore, Germany will in future conduct at least every ten years self-assessments of the legislative, executive and organisational framework for nuclear supervision and radiation protection and invite international peer reviews for an evaluation of the results. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 6 of 261

10 Irrespective of the implementation of the Directive, the new Atomic Energy Act provides that the licensees implement additional safety provisions in the nuclear power plants to increase safety margins and to ensure highest possible safety. For this purpose, the new 7d was added to the Atomic Energy Act. According to this provision, the holders of a licence for the operation of a nuclear power plants have to ensure that such safety provisions are realised, in accordance with the progressing state of the art in science and technology, that are suitable and adequate to contribute to the further precaution against risks for the general public in a manner that is not merely slightly relevant. 2.2 Federal system in Germany The German constitution (Basic Law) states that Germany is a federal republic. Germany comprises 16 federal states (Länder). The German federalism can be described as an alliance of member states in order to form one national state where the individual members still retain the quality of states. The 16 Länder in Germany are characterised by own Länder constitutions own elections, parliaments, governments own competences from the federal constitution (Basic Law). The implementation of a federal system in Germany has historical reasons. After World War II the allies decided to reconstitute Germany as a federal republic with strong Länder authorities. The basic idea was to divide the powers of the state for the purpose of preventing any further abuse of them. For this reason a complex system of power division in two directions was established in Germany. The classical division of powers IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 7 of 261

11 among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, the so called horizontal division of power, well known since the times of John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, is complemented by a vertical division of power between the Federation (Bund) and the Länder. The matrix in the figure below shows the principle division of powers, horizontal as well as vertical. In the German Basic Law it is stated, which legislative and which executive powers the Federation and the Länder have. Generally speaking the Federation has the power of legislation, whereas the Länder have the power to execute the law, the power of administration. Administration (Execution of laws) Legislation Berlin Länder Bund IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 8 of 261

12 However there is a complex system of mutual checks and balances between the Federation and Länder within which the Federation and Länder work together. A special feature of the German federalism is that the federal states participate directly in the legislative decisions of the federation. This is done by the Federal Council (the Bundesrat), a constitutional body of the federation in which the governments of the Länder are represented. The Atomic Energy Act for example was enacted with consent of the Federal Council. The participation of the Länder in the legislative procedure is an element of checks and balances within the area of Legislature. Furthermore ordinances and general administrative provisions need to be consented by the federal government and the Federal Council. Another element of checks and balances within the area of Executive, is the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act with federal oversight and not by the Länder in sole responsibility. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 9 of 261

13 The execution of the Atomic Energy Act by the Länder with oversight by the Federation is called federal executive administration, which means administration by the Länder on behalf of the federation. The Federation has the power to give instructions to the Länder, both, regarding lawfulness and appropriateness of actions to be taken, but the administrative actions can only be carried out by the Länder authorities. federal executive administration Berlin by the Länder on behalf of the federal government Länder Bund IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 10 of 261

14 Consequently there are competent authorities on the two levels, the federal level and the Länder level with different functions and rights. On the federal level as well as in the case of Baden-Württemberg on the Länder level, the ministries of the environment are the competent authorities. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 11 of 261

15 2.3 Description of the BMU and UM BW authorities Description of the BMU At the federal level, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) in general and its Directorate-General RS in particular is responsible i.a. for the tasks in connection with nuclear safety. The Directorate-General RS is divided into three Directorates. Directorate RS I is responsible for the safety of nuclear installations and consists of 6 Divisions, each with its own scope of functions. Directorate RS II is responsible for radiological protection and consists of 5 Divisions, while Directorate RS III is responsible for nuclear fuel supply and waste management and consists of 5 Divisions. (See also the following chart "BMU organisation") IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 12 of 261

16 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 13 of 261

17 2.3.2 Description of the UM BW In Germany, the individual federal states (Länder) are responsible for the licensing and supervision of the nuclear power plants. In Baden-Württemberg, these functions are fulfilled by Division 3 "Nuclear Supervision, Radiation Protection" at the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector (see chart). This Division is subdivided into 6 Sections. Section 31 Administration and Legislation Section 32 General Affaires of Nuclear Supervision Section 33 Supervision NPP I Neckarwestheim Section 34 Supervision NPP II Philippsburg Section 35 Nuclear Waste Disposal and Decommissioning Section 36 Radiation Protection Two of these Sections are responsible for the nuclear power plants sites of Philippsburg and Neckarwestheim. These Sections are in charge of the main regulatory functions of authorisation (Module IV), review and assessment (Module V) and inspection and enforcement (Module VI) to be performed by the Länder authority. There are approximately 48 staff working in the Division. The large majority of them have university degrees in a scientific-technical discipline (physics, chemistry, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, process engineering, material sciences, etc.), 3 members of staff are legal experts, and 3 are qualified administrative clerks. For technical support, the licensing and supervisory authority consults authorised experts, predominantly TÜV SÜD Energietechnik. The cost incurred by consulting authorized experts as well as the cost of state oversight has to be borne by the licensees. As intensive specialist technical support is provided by authorised experts, care is taken that the staff of the Division itself are competent in wider areas ("generalists"). Such broad competence and thus the flexibility of staff is achieved by choosing suitable candidates when employing new staff, by training, and by job rotation. Apart from that, there is a strategy to provide expert knowledge regarding important IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 14 of 261

18 subject areas within the licensing and supervisory authority. For some special topic areas, such as material issues, fuel elements, PSA, earthquakes, etc., certain members of staff are appointed as "Technical Co-ordinators". Their task is to monitor developments in the specialist field and support and co-ordinate the activities of the Division in this area. Changes since 2008: On 27 March 2011, a new state parliament was elected in Baden-Württemberg. With the parliamentary election, the political majorities in Baden-Württemberg have changed. The new coalition government is formed by the two parties Alliance 90/The Greens party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). On 12 May 2011, the parliament elected Winfried Kretschmann (Alliance 90/The Greens) as the new Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg. In the course of the change of government, the former Ministry of the Environment has been given the responsibility for the energy sector and is now called the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector. Organisation and tasks of Division 3" Nuclear Supervision, Radiation Protection" remained essentially unchanged. The staffing situation in Division 3 was improved compared to new staff have been recruited, nine persons have left the Division since In addition, there were some staff reassignments within the Division (10 persons). In addition to the existing permanent organisational units, i.e. the clearing agency and the MTO group, another permanent working group has been established for the field of emergency exercises. The new exercises emergency group (Gruppe Notfallübungen) has the task to carry out exercises on a regular basis, thus maintaining the competence of the Division in the field of emergency preparedness and to continuously improve emergency organisation. (See also the following chart "UM BW organisation") IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 15 of 261

19 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 16 of 261

20 2.3.3 IRRS team Germany Liaison Officer Module Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities (Module I) Responsibilities and Functions of the Regulatory Body (Module II) Organization of the Regulatory Body (Module III) Authorization (Module IV) Review and Assessment (Module V) Inspection and Enforcement (Module VI) Development of Regulations and Guides (Module VII) Management System of Regulatory Body (Module VIII) BMU Dr. Herttrich Dr. Schneider Dr. Herttrich Counterparts UM BW Dr. Kern Winter Dr. Glöckle Schwarz Dr. Stratmann Wildermann Dr. Glöckle Technical support BMU: Dr. Herttrich Tel , Weidenbrück Tel UM BW: Winter Tel , Dr. Kern Tel Support by GRS: Erven Tel , Klassen Tel IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 17 of 261

21 2.4 Nuclear power in Germany Nuclear energy use in the Federal Republic of Germany In 2010, 17 nuclear power plants were in operation in Germany at 12 sites with a gross total design electrical rating of 21,507 MW. Nuclear power plants in Germany Brunsbüttel 806 BWR Unterweser PWR PWR 1410 Stade 672 BWR Lingen 252 PWR Emsland 1400 PWR PWR Brokdorf 1440 BWR Grohnde 1430 Krümmel 1402 Greifswald 440 each PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR Rheinsberg 70 THTR 308 HTR Würgassen BWR 670 HTR AVR 15 PWR Mülheim-Kärlich 1302 Biblis PWR PWR 1225 / 1300 Philippsburg 926 / 1458 BWR PWR Kahl 16 BWR SSR HDR 25 Obrigheim PWR 357 PWR Grafenrheinfeld 1345 PWR FBR MZFR KNK II PWR PWR Neckarwestheim 840 / 1400 BWR BWR BWR Gundremmingen 250 / 1344 / 1344 PTR BWR PWR Niederaichbach / Isar 106 / 912 / 1475 Legend 05/2007 PWR Pressurized Water Reactor BWR Boiling Water Reactor in operation FBR Fast Breeder Reactor HTR High Temperature Reactor PTR Pressure Tube Reactor completely SSR Superheated Steam-Cooled Reactor shut down dismantled Numbers indicate gross capacity [MWe] IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 18 of 261

22 At the end of this chapter is a list of nuclear power plants in Germany with some key data. Nuclear power in Germany before the Fukushima accident Since 1988, nuclear energy has been contributing about one third to public electricity supply and around 12 % to the total primary energy supply in Germany. In 2010, the German nuclear power plants generated billion kwh of electricity. Time and energy availability was 76.4 % and 77.5 %, respectively. Average availabilities of the German nuclear power plants Year Time availability Energy availability Energy % % % 2010* * preliminary data (to be confirmed) utilisation Time availability: Energy availability: Energy utilisation: available operating time / calendar time possible energy production / nominal capacity actual energy production / nominal capacity Since November 2009, the Federal Government has been striving for a new energy mix which gradually replaces the conventional sources of energy by renewable energies. The new energy concept, ensuring a clean, reliable and affordable energy supply, has been established in September Nuclear power shall only be used for a limited period as a bridging technology in transition to renewable energy sources. However, the Federal Government decided that the transition time needs more time and resources compared to the phase out law of The Federal Government therefore extended the allowances of producible electricity volumes of the German nuclear power plants via the 11 th amendment of the Atomic Energy Act. The electricity volumes for the nuclear power plants were extended on basis for an average of 12 years. Nuclear power plants that started operation in or before 1980 received an additional volume being equivalent to additional 8 years of IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 19 of 261

23 production, whereas newer plants received an additional volume being equivalent to 14 years of production. With the 12 th amendment to the Atomic Energy Act inter alia a new 7d was introduced that contains the obligation for the licence holder to ensure that further precautions against risks are implemented that go beyond the necessary precautions against damages. The existing legal provisions remained completely untouched. The implementation of the additional measures is subject to concretion by the competent authority. Future role of nuclear power in Germany after the Fukushima accident The severe nuclear accident caused by the disastrous earthquake resulted in a major change in energy policy. The German Federal Government, the German political parties and the public have discussed and reassessed the risks of the peaceful use of nuclear power. Actions have been taken on two levels, on the political level regarding the future energy mix and related issues, and on the level of nuclear regulation. The German Federal Government in agreement with the Länder governments imposed a three-month temporary cessation of operation on seven German NPPs that have been commissioned before These were Biblis A and B (Hesse), Neckarwestheim I and Philipsburg I (Baden-Württemberg), Brunsbüttel (Schleswig-Holstein), Isar I (Bavaria) and Unterweser (Lower Saxony). This shutdown was a precautionary measure in response to concerns raised by the Fukushima accident. In addition to the seven NPPs mentioned, the Krümmel NPP that was in cold shutdown was not to startup during the cessation. Immediate political decisions after the Tohoku earthquake March 11 resulted from two top level meetings between Chancellor Merkel and the minister presidents of the five Länder with nuclear power plants: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 20 of 261

24 request to the Reactor Safety Commission (RSK) to establish a catalogue of requirements for plant-specific safety reviews, taking a request from the German Federal Parliament dated March 17 into account 3-month moratorium and shut down of 7 oldest NPPs during this moratorium establishment of a new Ethics Commission to reassess risks from nuclear energy During the temporary cessation, the safety of all German nuclear power plants has been reviewed by order of the Federal Government and the minister presidents of the Länder where nuclear power plants are operated. The safety review was performed by the RSK upon request of the BMU. The RSK safety review was conducted in close co-operation with the competent nuclear regulatory authorities and expert organisation of the Länder and the Federation. The safety review was performed under mere safety-related aspects as commissioned by the BMU. The RSK completed a first safety review of all operating nuclear power plants with respect to their behaviour under extreme conditions beyond the design basis and upon postulated unavailabilities of safety systems. The report of the RSK safety review was presented to the public on 15 May Regardless of plant type, age and generation, the RSK found a high level of robustness of the NPPs and did not identify reasons for discontinuation of operation (see RSK statement Plant-specific safety review (RSK-SÜ) of German nuclear power plants in the light of the events in Fukushima-1 (Japan), p.15 ff, of 15 May 2011). In addition to the RSK safety review, the Federal Government established the Ethics Commission Secure Energy Supply through the Federal Chancellery. The Ethics Commission is composed of leading figures from politics, economy, society and churches. Their task was to initiate a social dialogue on the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy and the possibility of an accelerated transition to the age of renewable energies. Having regard to the results of the RSK safety review, the Ethics Commission has come to the conclusion that the reality of a reactor accident has a substantial influence on the assessment of the residual risk. The potential uncontrollability of an accident would IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 21 of 261

25 therefore be of central importance in the national context. The report of the Ethics Commission was presented to the public on 30 May 2011 (see report of the Ethics Commission Secure Energy Supply of 30 May 2011, p. 11 ff). Accordingly, efforts should be made to limit the use of nuclear energy for the commercial generation of electricity as far as possible and to accomplish nuclear phase-out within a decade. Based on the findings and recommendations of both commissions, the Federal Government, Länder governments and political parties agreed on joint efforts to amend the Atomic Energy Act with the following main modifications: The granting of further electricity production rights according to the 11 th amendment of the Atomic Energy Act was cancelled. The licences for power operation of the seven oldest nuclear power plants and the Krümmel nuclear power plant terminated with the entry into force of the amended Atomic Energy Act. For the three youngest plants, the licences for power operation will expire in 2022 at the latest; for the other plants on a step-by-step basis until 2015/2017/2019/2021 at the latest (see figure for details). The transfer of electricity volumes will still be possible, provided that the respective end times are adhered to. The regulations on safety measures for further precaution against risks introduced with the 12 th amendment to the Atomic Energy Act are not affected by the new regulations. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 22 of 261

26 Successive permanent shutdown of German NPPs: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 23 of 261

27 Operating nuclear power plants in Germany Nuclear power plants in operation Site 1 Biblis A (KWB A) Biblis Hessen 2 Biblis B (KWB B) Biblis Hessen 3 Neckarwestheim 1 (GKN 1) Neckarwestheim Baden-Württemberg 4 Brunsbüttel (KKB) Brunsbüttel Schleswig-Holstein 5 Isar 1 (KKI 1) Essenbach Bayern 6 Unterweser (KKU) Esenshamm Niedersachsen 7 Philippsburg 1 (KKP 1) Philippsburg Baden-Württemberg 8 Grafenrheinfeld (KKG) Grafenrheinfeld Bayern 9 Krümmel (KKK) Krümmel Schleswig-Holstein a) Licensee b) Manufacturer c) Major shareholder a) RWE Power b) KWU c) RWE Power 100% a) RWE Power b) KWU c) RWE Power 100% a) EnBW Kernkraft (EnKK) b) KWU c) EnKK 98.45% a) Kernkraftwerk Brunsbüttel b) AEG/KWU c) Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy 66. 7% a) E.ON Kernkraft b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 100% a) E.ON Kernkraft b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 100% a) EnBW Kernkraft (EnKK) b) KWU c) EnKK 100 % a) E.ON Kernkraft b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 100% a) Kernkraftwerk Krümmel b) KWU c) Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy 50 % E.ON Kernkraft 50% Type Grosscapacity MWe PWR 1225 PWR 1300 PWR 840 BWR 806 BWR 912 PWR 1410 BWR 926 PWR 1345 BWR 1402 Constr. line a) Date of application b) First criticality 2 a) 11/06/1969 b) 16/07/ a) 03/05/1971 b) 25/03/ a) 02/04/1971 b) 26/05/ a) 10/11/1969 b) 23/06/ a) 25/06/1971 b) 20/11/ a) 07/04/1971 b) 16/09/ a) 20/02/1970 b) 09/03/ a) 07/06/1973 b) 09/12/ a) 18/02/1972 b) 14/09/ Gundremmingen B (KRB B) Gundremmingen Bayern a) Kernkraftwerk Gundremmingen b) KWU c) RWE Power 75% BWR a) 15/03/1974 b) 09/03/ Grohnde (KWG) Grohnde Niedersachsen a) Gemeinschaftskernkraftwerk Grohnde b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 83.3% PWR a) 03/12/1973 b) 01/09/ Gundremmingen C (KRB C) Gundremmingen Bayern a) Kernkraftwerk Gundremmingen b) KWU c) RWE Power 75% BWR a) 15/03/1974 b) 26/10/1984 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 24 of 261

28 Operating nuclear power plants in Germany Nuclear power plants in operation Site a) Licensee b) Manufacturer c) Major shareholder Type Grosscapacity MWe Constr. line a) Date of application b) First criticality 13 Philippsburg 2 (KKP 2) Philippsburg Baden-Württemberg a) EnBW Kernkraft (EnKK) b) KWU c) EnKK 100 % PWR a) 24/06/1975 b) 13/12/ Brokdorf (KBR) Brokdorf Schleswig-Holstein a) E.ON Kernkraft b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 80% PWR a) 12/03/1974 b) 08/10/ Isar 2 (KKI 2) Essenbach Bayern a) E.ON Kernkraft b) KWU c) E.ON Kernkraft 75% PWR Konvoi a) 13/02/1979 b) 15/01/ Emsland (KKE) Lingen Niedersachsen a) Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems b) KWU c) RWE Power 87.5% PWR Konvoi a) 28/11/1980 b) 14/04/ Neckarwestheim 2 (GKN 2) Neckarwestheim Baden-Württemberg a) EnBW Kernkraft (EnKK) b) KWU c) EnKK 98.45% PWR Konvoi a) 27/11/1980 b) 29/12/1988 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 25 of 261

29 2.4.2 Nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg The Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden- Württemberg is in charge of the licensing and supervision of the nuclear power plants at the Philippsburg and Neckarwestheim sites. All these nuclear power plants are operated by EnBW Kernkraft GmbH. At the Philippsburg site, there are two nuclear power plant units in operation. Unit 1 (KKP 1) is a boiling water reactor and has been operational since Unit 2 (KKP 2) is a pressurised water reactor that started operating in Further details are given in the illustration below. Site: Philippsburg located on the river Rhine 2 NPPs 800 employees Philippsburg 1 boiling water reactor 930 MW start of operation: 1979 Philippsburg 2 pressurised water reactor 1460 MW start of operation: 1984 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 26 of 261

30 At the Neckarwestheim site, there are two nuclear power plant units in operation. Unit 1 (GKN I) is a pressurised water reactor that started operating in Unit 2 (GKN II) is a pressurised water reactor and has been operational since Further details are given in the illustration below. Site: Neckarwestheim located on the river Neckar 2 NPPs 800 employees Neckarwestheim I pressurised water reactor 840 MW start of operation: 1976 oldest reactor in operation Neckarwestheim II pressurised water reactor 1400 MW start of operation: 1989 most recent reactor in operation The two units KKP 2 and GKN I were the subject of OSART missions in 2004 and 2007, respectively. Both plants achieved very good results in the reviews. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 27 of 261

31 3 Self assessment process and status of implementation of the improvements 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder Introduction One of the most discussed issues during the IRRS mission was the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Federation and the Länder. Among others, it concerned the different interpretations of the term "federal oversight" and the extent to which the BMU has its own responsibilities in the field of nuclear supervision in addition to the Länder and the extent to which the Länder must provide information to the BMU that it can fulfil its tasks. The importance of this issue during the mission, the developments since the mission and the current status are presented coherently below in a general chapter since it has particular importance and affects or influences a number of other issues of the mission Status quo During the 14-day review in 2008, the review team dealt intensively with the problem and made some recommendations and suggestions on how clarifications and improvements could be achieved. In this respect, recommendation R4 is of particular importance. Extracts from the IRRS report are given below. However, the supervision responsibilities of BMU DG-RS (as required under Article 85 of the Constitution) leads to the potential for an apparent duplication of effort. In order to clarify the respective roles of DG-RS and the Länder, and to enable BMU DG- RS to fulfil its responsibilities for federal harmonization, it could be appropriate for the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy (LAA) (see Chapter 3) to develop an agreement IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 28 of 261

32 in this respect that BMU and each Land could accept as mutually binding. A Recommendation addressing this issue is included in Section 3. 1 It is the responsibility of BMU and BfS to work out the strategic plan. However, the IRRS Team is of the opinion that BMU should carry out a comprehensive review of the tasks necessary on a federal level. Unnecessary duplication of the activities carried out by Länder should be avoided. Therefore the team is of the opinion that the outcome of the LAA discussion on an integrated, effective and efficient oversight process in Germany (see recommendation R4) is an important input for the strategic plan. 2 A lack of mutual trust was observed in the relationship between BMU RS and UM BW 3 Recommendation R4 In the interest of nuclear safety BMU DG RS and UM BW should cooperate in order to improve mutual trust by the development of an agreement at the LAA (possibly aided or led by a facilitator) to address all relevant topics, including: clarification and understanding of the respective roles and responsibility of the BMU DG RS and the Länder, and the execution of these roles and responsibilities; identification of the means of communication between BMU DG RS and the Länder; identification of the rules of the exchange of information regarding the supervision of nuclear safety. These rules should take regard of needs, in such a way that BMU DG RS has confidence in the data content and accuracy and it is able to: use the data without the need for further technical analysis; and assure itself that each Land is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities appropriately. Secondment of staff between BMU DG RS and the Länder to improve mutual understanding and experience. The establishment of a strategic nuclear safety research plan for the existing NPPs Developments and measures since the IRRS mission In the first half of 2009, the other Länder with nuclear power plants (Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein) were informed on the implementation and the results of the IRRS mission and the improvements planned by the BMU and the UM BW in two special sessions of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy. The controversial 1 IRRS report to the Government of Germany, 28 November 2008, page 26 2 IRRS report to the Government of Germany, 28 November 2008, page 37 3 IRRS report to the Government of Germany, 28 November 2008, page 41 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 29 of 261

33 topics between the Federation and the Länder have also been discussed within the framework of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy. As a result, the Federation and the Länder have agreed on the division of tasks and on a trustful co-operation. At the meeting of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy of 10/11 June 2010, the relationship Federation/Länder was discussed in detail and the other Länder were informed about the follow-up mission with participation of the BMU and the UM BW. The Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy has taken the following decision: The Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy - main committee takes note of the report of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety emphasises that, within the framework of the execution by the Länder on federal commission with regard to nuclear power plants and other nuclear installations, licensing and supervision falls within the competence of the Land authorities. The oversight on the Land authorities by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety mainly serves to ensure uniform execution of the nuclear law at the federal level. Accordingly, the Federation and the Länder assume a legal framework as presented in the following. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) does not claim to have any other management and control function or own supervision competences. Thus, the scope of responsibility of the BMU primarily comprises, as part of the regulatory body in terms of GS-R-1 regarding the basic functions of the regulatory body, the development of safety regulations and guides (Module VII) and in the field of nuclear supervision, oversight of the Land authorities with regard to the lawfulness and expediency of their actions. Licensing and supervision of the nuclear power plants as well as the enforcement of regulations and provisions (Modules IV, V and VI) is the sole responsibility of the nuclear authorities of the Länder. Only the respective nuclear authority of a Land acts towards the licensees. In the supervision procedure, the BMU plays no direct role, but has an additional function of control over the Länder authorities in terms of supervision on supervision. With this understanding and its practical application, the risk of duplication of administration and unclear interfaces is not to be feared. The federally structured system of nuclear IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 30 of 261

34 supervision in Germany rather has the advantage of two state control levels at which the safety objectives of the Atomic Energy Act will be pursued. Based on this common understanding of their roles, there is a trusting relationship between the Federation and the Länder Federal state structure For a better understanding of the situation in Germany, the federal structure, the different responsibilities and functions of governmental bodies and their co-operation are outlined below (a more detailed description is given in the Report under the Convention on Nuclear Safety by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in the chapters on Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention). As defined in Article 20 of the Basic Law (the German constitution), Germany is a federal state. This means that the state is made up of the Federation and the Länder. The Federation and the 16 Länder are independent constitutional bodies with different constitutional rights and obligations as set out in detail in the Basic Law. The Länder are in principle independent of the Federation and autonomous. They have their own constitutions, parliaments and governments. Besides the principle of horizontal separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary, implemented both at the federal as well as at the Länder level, the federal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany leads to an additional separation of powers between the Federation and the Länder. In general, the legislative power lies more with the Federation, while the Länder are principally responsible for enforcing the federal laws. In fact, however, there are many possibilities of mutual influence and control between the two levels of government that characterise the federal system in Germany. So, for example, the Länder participate in the legislation of the Federation through the Bundesrat (the German Federal Council). IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 31 of 261

35 The Federal Government has the legislative competence for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Further development of the nuclear law also lies within the responsibility of the Federation. The Länder are involved in the procedure. According to 24 para 1 of the Atomic Energy Act in conjunction with Article 87c, 85 of the Basic Law, the Atomic Energy Act and the statutory ordinances based thereon are executed - with some exceptions - by the Länder on behalf of the Federation. In this respect, the Länder authorities are under the oversight of the Federation with regard to the lawfulness and expediency of their actions Regulatory body According to Article 5 of the Council Directive 2009/71/EURATOM of the European Union of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, Member States shall establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the field of nuclear safety of nuclear installations. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Convention on Nuclear Safety states that each Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework referred to in Article 7 of the Convention. In Germany, the "regulatory body is composed of the two state levels Federation and Länder (see figure below). At the federal level, it is the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and at the Länder level, the responsibility lies with the supreme Land authorities; these are, in general, the Land ministries. In Baden-Württemberg, the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden-Württemberg (UM BW) is the competent nuclear authority. Both according to Council Directive 2009/71/EURATOM and the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the regulatory body has to fulfil the following basic functions: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 32 of 261

36 the development of safety procedures and regulations, licensing procedures, regulatory examination and assessment, and execution and inspection. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) Federal oversight on the lawfulness and expediency of the actions of the Länder, federal regulatory directive in single cases Co-operation of federal and Länder governments with the aims to develop and uniformly apply regulations and to achieve an equal level of precaution throughout the federation Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy Land ministry - responsible for licensing and supervision of nuclear installations Subordinate Land authorities In principle, federal as well as Länder government authorities are involved in all functions, albeit with different competencies, responsibilities and duties to co-operate. The following table shows how the functions of the regulatory body are distributed to the authorities of the Federation and the Länder. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 33 of 261

37 Main regulatory functions Federation Bund (BMU) Federal States Länder (UM BW) Authorization (Module IV) Oversight Responsible Review and Assessment (Module V) Oversight Responsible Inspection and Enforcement (Module VI) Oversight Responsible Development of Regulations and Guides (Module VII) Responsible Participating In Germany, nuclear supervision (licensing and supervision in terms of the supervisory regulations of the Atomic Energy Act and Modules IV, V and VI of the IRRS guidelines) is the sole responsibility of the Länder, as defined in 24 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act. The Land ministries are no subordinate authorities or bodies of the Federation which would principally be subject to its instructions. The Federation neither has surrogate competence nor the right to act on its own regarding the supervision by the Land. There is no parallel administration by the Federation and the Länder and there are no common supervisory activities. Law enforcement is also the sole responsibility of the Länder which, accordingly, will be liable for wrong decisions in law enforcement Execution by the Länder on federal commission According to 24 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act in conjunction with Article 87c and Article 85 of the Basic Law, the Länder are in charge of the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act in the area of nuclear supervision on behalf of the Federation. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 34 of 261

38 Article 85 Basic Law [Execution by the Länder on federal commission] (1) Where the Länder execute federal laws on federal commission, establishment of the authorities shall remain the concern of the Länder, except insofar as federal laws enacted with the consent of the Bundesrat otherwise provide. (2) The Federal Government, with the consent of the Bundesrat, may issue general administrative rules. It may provide for the uniform training of civil servants and other salaried public employees. The heads of intermediate authorities shall be appointed with its approval. (3) The Land authorities shall be subject to instructions from the competent highest federal authorities. Such instructions shall be addressed to the highest Land authorities unless the Federal Government considers the matter urgent. Implementation of the instructions shall be ensured by the highest Land authorities. (4) Federal oversight shall extend to the legality and appropriateness of execution. For this purpose the Federal Government may require the submission of reports and documents and send commissioners to all authorities. The competent supervisory and licensing authorities report to the Federation on law enforcement on demand. The Federation has the right to require the submission of reports and documents and may send commissioners for evaluation of the circumstances. In the individual case and under certain conditions, the Federation may issue binding directives to the Land authority. By exercising its right to issue directives, the Federation may assume the competence for the subject matter, i.e. the decision in the cause. The competence to execute the duties, i.e. the execution of the decision towards the applicant or licensee, remains with the competent Land authority. In this respect, execution on federal commission is also a form of Land administration with specific, clearly defined and limited possibilities for the Federation to exert influence. According to Article 85 of the Basic Law, a distinction is made between two different possibilities of influence on the supervisory activities of the Länder by the Federation: Article 85 (3) of the Basic Law (so-called Weisungsrecht, the right to issue instructions) The Federation has the right to issue instructions to a Land. However, the issuance of general administrative provisions by the Federal Government requires the consent of IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 35 of 261

39 the Bundesrat in accordance with Article 85 (2) of the Basic Law. There must be an imminent or on-going situation (so-called präventive Vollzugskontrolle, i.e. preventive regulatory control). Regarding such an individual case, the BMU may instruct the Land how it should treat the individual case and decide on the merits. Thus, the BMU assumes the competence for the subject matter. With issuance of the instruction, the responsibility for proper (lawful and appropriate) treatment of the case passes to the Federation. The competence to execute the duties, i.e. the execution of the decision towards the applicant or licensee, remains with the competent Land authority. Article 85 (4) of the Basic Law (so-called Bundesaufsicht, i.e. federal oversight) Here, the Federation has the right to check whether the Land has handled a case where the facts have already been established properly (in a lawful and appropriate manner). In this respect, the Federal Government may require the submission of reports and documents and send commissioners. This is the so-called repressive control which refers to an individual case that has been closed. Co-operation and exchange of information between the Federation and the Länder The Federation and the Länder work together in many ways within the framework of cooperative federalism, as provided for in the Basic Law. In this respect, the co-operation between the Federation and the Länder in the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy (LAA) is of particular importance. The LAA, already established in 1956, is a permanent Federation-Länder committee composed of representatives from the Länder nuclear licensing and supervisory authorities and the BMU. It serves for the preparatory coordination of activities of the Federation and the Länder in connection with the execution of the Atomic Energy Act as well as for the preparation of amendments and the further development of legal and administrative provisions as well as of the regulatory guidance instruments. In the interest of an execution of nuclear law that is as uniform throughout Germany as possible, the competent nuclear licensing and supervisory authorities of the Länder and the BMU draft any regulations on the uniform handling of nuclear law in consensus. These regulations are then promulgated by the BMU. The BMU chairs the LAA and also manages its affairs. The Committee's decisions are usually by mutual IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 36 of 261

40 consent. In the numerous committees, subcommittees and working groups of the LAA, officials of the Federation and the Länder work together. In the area of legislation, the LAA is an important committee for early and comprehensive involvement of the Länder which supplements the formal right of participation of the Länder in the legislative procedure of the Bundesrat. Moreover, co-operation and a lively exchange of information also take place in a number of other committees and organisations such as the Reactor Safety Commission (RSK) and its committees or in the Nuclear Safety Standards Commission (KTA). The nation-wide activities of expert organisations (TÜV and GRS) and their co-operation in the central office for nuclear engineering at the Association of Technical Inspection Agencies (Leitstelle Kerntechnik beim VdTÜV) also lead to an information exchange and harmonisation. Further, there is direct contact of officials of the Federation and the Länder in everyday working life. These forms of voluntary co-operation are to be distinguished from information requests that are made unilaterally by the BMU and for which a specific legal authorisation is required. The Federation may request information according to Article 85 of the Basic Law either when issuing an instruction according to Article 85 (3) of the Basic Law or when fulfilling its tasks of federal oversight according to Article 85 (4) of the Basic Law. With the agreement on the respective competencies and responsibilities brought about between the Federation and the Länder it has also become clear what information will be needed by both sides. Thus, there is no disagreement on the mutual provision of information. All information needed to perform their duties are provided by the respective side in due time Conclusion The co-operation between the Federation and the Länder has been improved significantly. Agreement was reached on the respective tasks and responsibilities of the competent nuclear authorities at the federal and the Länder level. Co-operation takes IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 37 of 261

41 place in a constructive and trusting manner. In response to the problems in recent years, the Federation and the Länder have taken the necessary steps and reorganised their relationship. In this respect, the BMU and the UM BW continued the momentum from the IRRS mission in 2008 and implemented the recommendations and suggestions of the review team with the involvement of the nuclear authorities of other Länder with nuclear power plants. In particular, this relates to recommendations R4, R5 and R11 and suggestions S5, S9, S10 and S30. The implementation of these recommendations and suggestions is explained in detail in the respective module chapters. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 38 of 261

42 3.2 Module I Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities Recommendation R1 (1) BASIS: GS-R (4) states that the regulatory body shall be provided with adequate authority and power, and it shall be ensured that it has adequate staffing and financial resources to discharge its assigned responsibilities. (2) BASIS: GS-R (5) states that legislation shall arrange for adequate funding of the regulatory body. R1 Recommendation: The German Government should make arrangements to establish adequate resources at a federal level in the future to ensure that it can discharge its determined and agreed roles and responsibilities for nuclear safety, in addition to those assigned by law. This Recommendation should be read in conjunction with recommendations and suggestions regarding the need to determine roles and responsibilities in Chapter 3. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission is the responsibility of the Länder. Only in the context of Module I "Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities" and Module VII "Development of Regulations and Guides", the BMU has additional tasks that also represent a service function for the Länder. Thus, for the BMU there is no further need to provide additional resources for regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants beyond the current scope. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 39 of 261

43 2. Assessment The recommendation no longer has to be implemented by the BMU at the federal level. The boundary conditions have changed since the mission in Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 1: The number of personnel of the Federal Regulator including support of Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) shall be enhanced by implementing a 3-year plan. Each regulatory authority has at least one trained expert at its disposal for each of the major specialist areas (material science, systems engineering, instrumentation and control, thermal hydraulics, etc.). Until 2009, the BMU has taken on additional responsibilities in the area of supervision. Therefore, measure No. 1 was drafted within the framework of selfassessment for the IRRS mission in However, in accordance with Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, the measure and the related additional requirements of questions 5, 6, 10, 18, 47, 59, 94, 98, 123, 179, 180 and 181 of the IRRS-questionnaire do no longer have to be implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 40 of 261

44 3.3 Module II Responsibilities and Functions of the Regulatory Body Recommendation R2 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that in order to fulfil its statutory obligations, the regulatory body shall define policies, safety principles and associated criteria as a basis for its regulatory actions. R2 Recommendation: BMU DG-RS should develop its Federal Supervision Manual as it has proposed. The Supervision Manual should include arrangements for cooperation and interaction with the Länder in order to develop consensual processes (whether required by the law or voluntary) to continuously improve nuclear safety. This Recommendation should be read in conjunction with recommendations and suggestions regarding the need to determine roles and responsibilities in Chapter 3. BMU statement: 1. Implementation The first draft of the Federal Oversight Manual structure is available. The draft was presented and discussed in the Federation-Länder committees (Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy - LAA, Reactor Safety Technical Committee - FARS). The participation of the supervisory authorities of the Länder is ensured through this process. A first consultation took place in spring Assessment The process to implement recommendation R2 has been started. The participation of the Länder has been initiated. The BMU plans to complete the process in 2012 with the publication of the approved Federal Oversight Manual. The Federal Oversight Manual is to be checked regularly for up-to-dateness. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 41 of 261

45 3. Documents Draft structure of the Federal Oversight Manual 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 14: A Federal Supervision Manual will be available by the end of 2009, defining general objectives and policies Principles Basic Processes taking into account the co-operation/interaction with the Länder authorities. Measure No. 14 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 45, 46, 71, 158, 159, 166, 168, 170, 174, 196, , 227, , 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the recommendation also implements action No. 14 of the BMU Action Plan of the 2008 mission. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 42 of 261

46 Suggestion S1 (1) BASIS: GS-R (6) states that the regulatory body shall communicate with, and provide information to, other competent governmental bodies, international organizations and the public. S1 Suggestion: DG-RS and UM BW should ensure that their commitments to develop and share participation in international activities are included in their respective organization management manuals. BMU statement: 1. Implementation In the area of reactor safety, DG-RS represents Germany vis-à-vis all international organisations and in bilateral commissions. This obligation is laid down in the organisational chart of DG-RS and in the schedule of responsibilities of the divisions of the DG-RS. For the fulfilment of the international obligations, two technical divisions (RS I 4 and RS I 5) have been established. The fulfilment of the international obligations is specified in the QM manual of DG-RS by the following processes: Process of fulfilment of obligations under international conventions (Convention on Nuclear Safety, Joint Convention) Process of international events under the leadership of the BMU Process of international events under the leadership of other ministries Process of preparation of international reports at regular intervals Process of EU legislation according to EURATOM - Treaty (EAEC) Within the framework of the Reactor Safety Technical Committee, the BMU regularly informs the Länder about issues important to safety at the international level. Other measures for implementation are not necessary. The Länder were asked to increase their participation in international events. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 43 of 261

47 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. From the point of view of the BMU, the suggestion has been implemented. Increased participation of the Länder in international obligations is desirable. The UM BW has initiated an appropriate process, which may apply exemplary for the other Länder. 3. Documents Schedule or responsibilities for Division RS I 4 and RS I 5 Process of fulfilment of obligations under international conventions (Convention on Nuclear Safety, Joint Convention) Process of international events under the leadership of the BMU Process of international events under the leadership of other ministries Process of preparation of international reports at regular intervals Process of EU legislation according to EURATOM - Treaty (EAEC) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 44 of 261

48 The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The UM BW is represented in various international committees. The extension of international co-operation is an important objective of the UM BW, both to learn from international experience and to contribute its own supervisory experience. This concern is also in line with the wish of the BMU for increased participation of the Länder that was expressed in the decision of the main committee of the LAA of November The UM BW has then prepared a list of proposals for intensified international participation, based on which the possibility of international participation should be increasingly used. The management system of Division 3 specifies which persons of the Division are represented within the framework of national and international co-operation in the various committees, commissions and working groups are represented and which sections are responsible (document MS- OH-158-R). The strategic orientation and objectives of Division 3 of the UM BW are defined annually by the leadership of the Division. Each strategic objective is assigned to a number of operative objectives and measures by which specific progress is to be achieved in corresponding areas. As a result of the ILK review and the IRRS mission D-2008, the operative objective of extended participation in international committees was anchored under the strategic objective to further develop the technical competence of the members of the supervisory authority. Currently members of the Division participate in committees of the German-French Commission and the German-Swiss Commission as well as in the Working Group on Inspection Practices (WGIP) of the OECD/NEA, the Association of European Competent Authorities for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (AECA) and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 45 of 261

49 the European ALARA network. The Division intends to have representative in one or two more committees dealing with issues related to supervision. In addition to the constant collaboration in committees, the authority also aims to increasingly co-operate in individual international projects and campaigns. The UM BW, for example, intensely participated in drafting the report of the Federal Republic of Germany for the 5th review meeting in Vienna in April 2011 within the context of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. In addition, it is intended to participate in the review meeting in April Furthermore, the UM BW has meanwhile taken part in a series of other international projects and events These include for example: Regional Workshop on the Regulatory Inspection and Enforcement for Regulatory Bodies in March 2009 Cuerta de Arges, Romania Participation in the exchange of scientific and technical experience in the field of nuclear safety with authorities from Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia in May 2009 IAEA Regional Workshop on Competence Management System and Human Resources Development in June 2010 in Karlsruhe WGIP Workshop of the OECD/NEA 2010 in Amsterdam Co-operation in drafting a report on the harmonisation status of the WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators Association) reference levels for the WENRA Reactor Harmonization Working Group (RHWG) VVER-Forum; Meeting of the VVER- working group on organisational issues, February 2011 in Köln/Cologne (KOMFORT presentation, safety culture) Moreover, the UM BW supports the performance of IRRS missions and has appointed experts for this purpose for the BMU. It has also participated in similar activities of the IAEA in the past. Participation in the international exchange of experience and collaboration in international committees are the avowed aim of the Division and form an essential IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 46 of 261

50 part of its strategic orientation. The staffing of committees, boards and working parties is specified in the organisational manual. Collaboration in individual projects has been intensified and will remain an ongoing task. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Staffing of committees, sub-committees and working groups (MS-OH-158-R) LAA decision on agenda item TOP 4, Nov (S1_LAA_Beschluss) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 1: Co-operation in international working groups and committees (IAEA, OECD/NEA, EU/WENRA) as well as co-ordination between BMU and UM BW. Measure No. 1 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of questions No. 67 and No. 96 of the IRRS-questionnaire. Measure No. 1 has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 47 of 261

51 Question No. 67 Question No. 67: Does the Regulatory Body communicate with, and provide information to, international organization? The regulatory body shall communicate with, and provide information to, other competent governmental bodies, international organizations and the public; SS Ref.: GS-R (6) Answer: The BMU is responsible as Federal authority for international co-operation and is represented on many relevant committees, either by its own staff members or by staff from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) or from expert organisations like Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS). There is a comprehensive flow of information between the international organisations and the BMU. Co-operation is particularly strong in the area of the radiation protection and emergency preparedness. Here, the BMU works closely together with the IAEA and the OECD/NEA as well as with the EU. Baden-Württemberg is so far represented only on some international committees, but in future intends to participate in the international exchange of experience at an increased rate. The Ministry of the Environment Baden-Württemberg sees this target confirmed by a corresponding recommendation of the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (ILK) (cf. ILK Report on the Assessment of Nuclear Oversight Activities of the Ministry of Environment, Baden-Württemberg, ILK-28 of December 2006 and Action Plan). Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The requirements from question No. 67 are fulfilled with the measures No. 1 and No. 2 of the UM BW Action Plan. The implementation of this measure is described in summary in the statement on suggestion S1 of the IRRS report (this Chapter, suggestion S1). 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 67 have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 48 of 261

52 3. Documents Staffing of committees, sub-committees and working groups (MS-OH-158-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 1: Co-operation in international working groups and committees (IAEA, OECD/NEA, EU/WENRA) as well as co-ordination between BMU and UM BW. Action Plan No. 2: Co-operation in international projects and actions (e.g. IAEA missions, workshops). Measure No. 1 of the Action Plan also implements the requirements of suggestion S1 and measures No. 1 and No. 2 implement the requirements of question No. 96 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 49 of 261

53 Question No. 68 Question No. 68: Does the Regulatory Body communicate with, and provide information to, the public? The regulatory body shall communicate with, and provide information to, other competent governmental bodies, international organizations and the public; SS Ref.: GS-R (6) Answer: The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety informs the general public through media relations (press releases, press conferences, visits to certain locations to which the media are invited), campaigns, competitions and happenings, printed matter, the Internet, audiovisual media, implementation of the Environmental Information Act (UIG), answers to individual enquiries, guiding groups of visitors, and public lectures on demand. The Ministry of the Environment Baden-Württemberg makes a variety of both basic and current information available on the Internet. Furthermore, the public relations activities are supported by active press work. The Nuclear Supervision, Environmental Radioactivity Department intends on the one hand to further expand the Internet presence considerably and on the other hand to get in direct contact with the citizens concerned by staging local events at the nuclear power plant sites and inform them about the activity of the supervisory authority (cf. Action Plan). Assessment: 2 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 50 of 261

54 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Optimisation of public relations is a strategic objective of Division 3. The main topics are the further expansion and optimisation of the Internet presence of the UM BW in the field of nuclear energy supervision and radiation protection, and improved cooperation with the section responsible for press and public relations. It is also planned to inform the affected population in the communities where nuclear power plants are located through public events on the organisation, competence and work of the supervisory authority. The aim of such a direct contact with local citizens is to strengthen the confidence in the supervisory authority. In detail: Internet: ( The project of revision and further development of the Internet presence of the Nuclear Supervision, Radiation Protection Division primarily serves to increase the transparency of the work of the Division by an extended range of information and easy and user-friendly access to the information and data. To achieve this goal, the following measures were implemented: New citizen-friendly structuring of the Internet presence, presenting important tasks of the authority in full and, above all, easier to find. Significant expansion of Internet contents, such as information on nuclear licences and safety reviews information on the activities of the Division and its organisation (management system) service area with download materials information on nuclear installations near the border current status of the nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg (onlineaccess to a selection of current system parameters) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 51 of 261

55 Modern visualisations and clear, easily understandable texts. Improvement of up-to-dateness. Information events The Nuclear Supervision and Radiation Protection Division pays special attention to the information needs of citizens and interest groups. With corresponding efforts, e.g., the Division answers questions from the citizens carefully and thoroughly. Should a direct exchange of information on certain issues focussed on be requested, then the Division is prepared to conduct appropriate discussions, such as in connection with the publication of the results to the children's cancer study, in response to which the Division invited a local citizens' initiative to an information meeting. Discussions also take place with other citizens initiatives. The department itself has made several attempts to conduct public information events at the sites of nuclear power plants in the manner as outlined in the introduction. Unfortunately, the offer of the UM BW has not been accepted by the locally responsible parties so far. In the run-up to the parliamentary elections in Baden-Württemberg, the UM BW has deferred other related projects. The UM BW thus complies with the requirement of utmost restraint to be considered with regard to public relations in the pre-election period, although the events envisaged expressly should be purely factual information events without political character. Press and public relations The collaboration with the organisational unit responsible for communication and public relations (KÖ) and with the press office of UM BW was intensified. The Division thus benefits even more so from the know-how of these units. In addition to regular meetings of the officers for communications and public relations, KÖ was particularly involved in the restructuring of the Internet presence of the Division. The press office now regularly participates in emergency exercises of Division 3, so that the already close co-operation could be further improved. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 52 of 261

56 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 68 have been implemented. 3. Documents Internet ( 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 3: Further expansion and optimisation of the Internet presence. Action Plan No. 4: Holding of public events. Action Plan No. 5: Co-ordination with the press office and the Communication and Public Relations Section at the UM BW. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 53 of 261

57 3.4 Module III Organization of the Regulatory Body Recommendation R3 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall employ a sufficient number of personnel with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to undertake its functions and responsibilities. It is likely that there will be positions of a specialist nature and positions needing more general skills and expertise. The regulatory body shall acquire and maintain the competence to judge, on an overall basis, the safety of facilities and activities and to make the necessary regulatory decisions. R3 Recommendation: BMU should introduce a near-term recruitment and staffing plan, as well as a long-term succession planning strategy. Both the plan and strategy should include a competence matrix based on the agreed roles and responsibilities (as referenced in this and other chapters). These plans and strategies should be periodically reviewed, used to develop the training programme, and the process should be incorporated in the management system. BMU statement: 1. Implementation For the IRRS mission in 2008, a staffing plan was submitted that is valid until The staffing plan is being updated. A specification of the successors to retiring staff or any staff increases is not possible against the background of the required job advertisements at the time of the corresponding staffing. According to the Action 3 of the BMU Action Plan of 2008, the GRS Academy was established, offering an extensive and modular training programme with basic and specialised courses since BMU staff members participate in the training courses for certain periods or modules. So, three new staff members of currently nine technical and scientific staff of RS I 3, (federal oversight) attended the GRS Academy in 2009 and Currently, two other staff members attend the GRS Academy. The required competence of the BMU staff is determined by the duties to be performed in the divisions, taking into account the division of responsibilities IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 54 of 261

58 between the Federation and the Länder. Therefore, a general competence matrix and a training plan for staff in Directorate-General RS will be concretised. 2. Assessment The process for further development of a staffing plan has been started. The establishment of the GRS Academy for staff development has been completed. The process for final implementation of the recommendation was initiated. 3. Documents Description of the GRS Academy for the maintenance of competence of the BMU and BfS staff 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 2: A human resources development concept shall be prepared for and by the Federal Regulator (on the basis of the graduated scheme for to improve staffing levels as approved by the senior level at the Federal Regulator in 2008). Action Plan No. 3: Creation of a nuclear academy at GRS. Actions: A catalogue of requirements for the technical qualification of authority personnel is available. A "nuclear academy" training centre for authority personnel and experts is to be set up in co-operation with GRS. The nuclear academy shall specialise in issues of supervision and assessment. The academy shall be open to the Länder regulatory authorities. This training programme shall include different training stages (Land, Federation, expert, international) For personnel with technical qualification, a Senior Trainee Programme shall be defined at the end of each year. Measures No. 2 and No. 3 of the Action Plan also implement additional requirements of questions 187, 188, 189, 96 and 193 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The human resources development concept addressed in Action 2 is continued to be pursued. The process has been started. The "nuclear academy at GRS" IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 55 of 261

59 mentioned in Action 3 has been established. Thus, Bullets 2 and 3 of the action have been implemented. Bullets 1 and 4 will be implemented depending on the yet competence matrix still to be developed. The process has been started. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 56 of 261

60 Recommendation R4 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that If the regulatory body consists of more than one authority, effective arrangements shall be made to ensure that regulatory responsibilities and functions are clearly defined and co-ordinated, in order to avoid any omissions or unnecessary duplication and to prevent conflicting requirements being placed on the operator. The main functions of review and assessment and inspection and enforcement shall be organized in such a way as to achieve consistency and to enable the necessary feedback and exchange of information. In addition, the authorities responsible for the different disciplines concerned in the regulatory process, such as those responsible for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety, shall be effectively co-ordinated. (2) BASIS: GS-R (3) states that responsibility shall be assigned to the regulatory body for authorization, regulatory review and assessment, inspection and enforcement, and for establishing safety principles, criteria, regulations and guides. (3) BASIS: GS-R (2) states that the regulatory body shall review and assess submissions on safety from the operators both prior to authorization and periodically during operation as required. (4) BASIS: GS-R (5) states that the regulatory body shall ensure that corrective actions are taken if unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions are detected. (5) BASIS: GS-R-1, 4.10 states that Mutual understanding and respect between the regulatory body and the operator, and a frank, open and yet formal relationship, shall be fostered. R4 Recommendation: In the interest of nuclear safety BMU DG RS and UM BW should cooperate in order to improve mutual trust by the development of an agreement at the LAA (possibly aided or led by a facilitator) to address all relevant topics, including: clarification and understanding of the respective roles and responsibility of the BMU DG RS and the Länder, and the execution of these roles and responsibilities; identification of the means of communication between BMU DG RS and the Länder; identification of the rules of the exchange of information regarding the supervision of nuclear safety. These rules should take regard of needs, in such a way that BMU DG RS has confidence in the data content and accuracy and it is able to: use the data without the need for further technical analysis; and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 57 of 261

61 assure itself that each Land is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities appropriately. Secondment of staff between BMU DG RS and the Länder to improve mutual understanding and experience. The establishment of a strategic nuclear safety research plan for the existing NPPs BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation In response to the problems in recent years, the Federation and the Länder have taken the necessary steps and reorganised their relationship (see Chapter 3.1). As described in the introductory Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, the Federation and the Länder agreed on their respective tasks and responsibilities. Regarding the IRRS mission, the BMU sees its main tasks in the areas of Module I (Legislative and governmental responsibilities) and Module VII (Development of regulations and guides), while the competencies and responsibilities in the field of nuclear supervision directly rest with the authorities of the Länder. Accordingly, Module IV (Authorization by the regulatory body), V (Review and assessment) and VI (Inspection and enforcement) primarily address the Länder authorities. In this area, the BMU exercises oversight over the legality and appropriateness of law enforcement by the Länder (federal oversight) and supports them within the framework of co-ordination and harmonisation between the Länder regarding licensing and supervision. This common understanding of the division of tasks between the BMU and the Länder ensures that the regulatory body as a whole fully complies with its duties and obligations and avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and disputes about areas of competence. The common understanding of roles is also the basis for the trustful co-operation, which is characterised by an open and adequate communication between the BMU and UM BW and a smooth flow of information. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 58 of 261

62 The review team also recommended an exchange of personnel in the form of secondments between the BMU and the Länder authorities in order to improve mutual understanding and for the exchange of experiences. As described in the introductory Chapter 3.1, there are numerous committees, subcommittees, working groups, etc. in which staff of the BMU and the Länder authorities intensely cooperate and which, altogether, offer an important platform for the exchange of experiences. However, both the BMU and the UM BW would support such exchange when suitable opportunities arise and in case of personal interests of staff. The responsibility for nuclear safety research primarily rests with the Federation. Within the research framework of the BMU, focal areas are, among others, reactor safety and radiation protection. The research projects resulting from this research framework are specified in an annual research plan. In the numerous Federation- Länder committees, questions relating to safety research questions can be introduced and discussed by both sides. The advisory committees of the BMU, such as the Reactor Safety Commission (RSK), the Nuclear Waste Management Commission (ESK) and the Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) also play an important role in the strategic research planning of the Federation. Depending on the issues to be dealt with, Land authorities authorised experts or the industry will be involved in the consultations of the commissions so that their expertise is taken into consideration appropriately. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents See Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 9: All important information affecting the safety of the nuclear installations as well as all important information on generic safety issues will be exchanged between Federation and Länder. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 59 of 261

63 A documentation system is established which is to give the entire regulatory body direct electronic access to all important technical documents. Measure No. 9 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 13, 47, 83, 85, 86, 98 and 119 of the IRRS-questionnaire. With implementation of the recommendation, the first part of measure No. 9 has been implemented. The second part relating to a common electronic documentation of all important technical documents does no longer have to be pursued because it is ensured by the understanding in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder" that the BMU will receive all safety-relevant documents required to perform its tasks from the Länder. As part of the implementation of the first part of the measure for the exchange of safety-relevant documents between the BMU and the Länder, Division RS I 5 establishes portals using a SharePoint solution to share knowledge. So, e.g., a common knowledge basis is created for the entire field of experience feedback from plants in operation. Furthermore, this solution has already been used to involve the other Länder in the preparation of the mission. 5. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 6: Discuss co-operation between Federation and Länder in the LAA. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 60 of 261

64 Suggestion S2 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall employ a sufficient number of personnel with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to undertake its functions and responsibilities. It is likely that there will be positions of a specialist nature and positions needing more general skills and expertise. The regulatory body shall acquire and maintain the competence to judge, on an overall basis, the safety of facilities and activities and to make the necessary regulatory decisions. S2 Suggestion: UM BW division 3 should introduce a near-term recruitment and staffing plan, as well as a long-term succession planning strategy. UM BW should develop a competence matrix to support the plan and strategy. These plans and strategies should be periodically reviewed and used to develop the training program. The process should be incorporated in the management system. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Background of this suggestion was the objective pursued by the UM BW to have trained experts at the authority for all key areas of nuclear safety (specialist areas). This led to the task of having to define and review the key areas for which appropriate experts are already available or for which areas adequate staff have to be hired. In accordance with suggestion S2, the following proceeding was chosen: Preparation of a personnel and staffing plan Determination of the necessary specialist areas Assignment of the available personnel to these specialist areas (competence matrix) Determination in which specialist areas additional staff is required Staff recruitment Specifications on personnel planning in the personnel process Coupling with the training programme IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 61 of 261

65 In detail: During the IRRS mission, Minister Gönner stated that for the Nuclear Supervision and Radiation Protection Division 50 staff positions are provided, and also that 5 additional staff positions have been agreed on with the Ministry of Finance for overlapping staffing. These numbers of posts remain the basis at the UM BW for planning of staffing of the Division and the recruitment of personnel. With the Ministry of Finance, overlapping staffing was concretised for vacancies due to reasons of age. For this purpose, five jobholders were named who will retire within 5 years, and for these posts the time for early staffing was defined. For the determination of the key areas of nuclear safety for which experts should be available internally at the authority (specialist areas), a level of abstraction was chosen that is more general than the questions arising (criticality safety, strength, etc.) and a little more special than academic degrees (physics, engineering, etc.). Basis for the determination of the specialist fields was the competence catalogue of Division 3, the IAEA document Tecdoc 1254 "Training the staff of the regulatory body for nuclear facilities: A competency framework" and the list of subject areas of the Dutch authority. On the basis of the training and professional experience, the technical staff of the Division were assigned to the specialist areas (competence matrix). The competence matrix showed that with regard to personnel recruitment, special attention is to be paid to the main specialist areas "power engineering", "control engineering/instrumentation and control and "mechanical engineering/mechanical components". Altogether, a larger number of staff had to be recruited due to the recruitment difficulties in recent years and further staff reductions. The economic crisis in 2009 changed the situation in the labour market and it was possible, in the course of permanent recruitment efforts, to hire three new staff as of The following job advertisements and recruitments were restricted to electrical and mechanical engineers to acquire staff for the above IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 62 of 261

66 main specialist areas. 5 people were hired as of and Two of these people have left the UM BW at the end of the probationary period. At the beginning of 2011, 3 other posts could be filled. The process Staffing and human resources management" MS-OH-130-R includes regulations on the determination of staffing needs and recruitment. The determination of staffing consists of an inventory, needs assessment and a demand planning, so that regular review and updating of the personnel strategy and planning takes place. The process is closely linked with the process Knowledge and advanced training" MS-OH-160-R. The process Knowledge and advanced training MS-OH-160-R regulates the lead-in training for new staff and advanced training for the staff. Specific initial training plans and continuous consideration of training needs in employee interviews ensure that basic and advanced training takes place according to the needs. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Bullet 2: Annotation of Competence matrix and staffing plan (S2_Anlage 1_Kompetenzmatrix u. Personalplan), List of main specialist areas (MS-OH-132-U) Bullet 6: Staffing and human resources management with the related documents (MS-OH-130-R) Bullet 7: Knowledge and advanced training with the related documents (MS-OH-160-R) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 63 of 261

67 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: Winning new personnel (appropriate recruiting methods) to replace retired staff and to ensure that experts trained in the key areas of nuclear safety (main specialist areas) are available in the Division. Measure No. 7 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestions S3 and S4 and questions No. 94 and No. 123 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 64 of 261

68 Suggestion S3 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that It is neither necessary nor practicable for the regulatory body to be entirely self-sufficient in all technical areas relating to inspection. It may therefore be necessary for it to use consultants in specialized areas. It may occasionally be necessary owing to a heavy short term workload to augment the regulatory body s inspection staff with consultants having as much knowledge and experience as the regulatory body s inspection staff. Such consultants may be any of the following: Experts provided by other governmental bodies, technical societies or research institutes; Consultants or members of advisory committees with recognized skills and experience, provided that they are effectively independent of the operator and its contractors; Experts provided by or under the auspices of international organizations. When consultants are engaged, arrangements should be made for them to have access to the facility and to any information necessary to perform their tasks. The use of consultants shall not relieve the regulatory body of any of its responsibilities. In particular, the regulatory body s responsibility for making decisions and recommendations shall not be delegated. (Ref. [1], para. 4.4.) (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall employ a sufficient number of personnel with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to undertake its functions and responsibilities. It is likely that there will be positions of a specialist nature and positions needing more general skills and expertise. The regulatory body shall acquire and maintain the competence to judge, on an overall basis, the safety of facilities and activities and to make the necessary regulatory decisions. S3 Suggestion: BMU and UM BW should execute their plans to acquire additional staff to supplement the current staff, thereby enabling management s flexibility to support advanced training, develop regulatory infrastructure, and benchmark best practices of other regulatory bodies. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in Germany, in IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 65 of 261

69 terms of the IRRS mission, is the responsibility of the Länder. Only in the context of Module I "Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities" and Module VII "Development of Regulations and Guides", the BMU has additional tasks that also represent a service function for the Länder. Thus, for the BMU there is no further need to provide additional resources for regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants beyond the current scope. 2. Assessment The suggestion no longer has to be implemented by the BMU at the federal level. The boundary conditions have changed since the mission in Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 1: The number of personnel of the Federal Regulator including support of Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) shall be enhanced by implementing a 3-year plan. Each regulatory authority has at least one trained expert at its disposal for each of the major specialist areas (material science, systems engineering, instrumentation and control, thermal hydraulics, etc.). Until 2009, the BMU has taken on additional responsibilities in the area of supervision. Therefore, measure No. 1 was drafted within the framework of selfassessment for the IRRS mission in However, in accordance with Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, the measure and the related additional requirements of questions 5, 6, 10, 18, 47, 59, 94, 98, 123, 179, 180 and 181 of the IRRS-questionnaire do no longer have to be implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 66 of 261

70 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The overall staffing strategy is described under suggestion S2. The planned staffing of 50 positions is considered to be sufficient. For the recruitment, attention should be paid to the coverage of the specialist areas. Scope and timing of recruitment should be such that good incorporation of the new staff can be ensured. In order to counteract the difficulty of obtaining enough suitable candidates to the posts, contact to universities and other educational institutions has been established (addressing professors, use of the institutions noticeboards, etc.) in addition to job advertisements in newspapers and on the Internet. A brochure was issued explaining the pay and benefits of working in the area of public service. Moreover, due to the economic crisis, it has become easier in the course of 2009 to find suitable candidates to the posts. A first recruitment round has led to 3 new hires as of , a second one to 5 new hires as of / and a third one to 3 new hires in the first half of More job advertisements/recruitments are planned. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: Winning new personnel (appropriate recruiting methods) to replace retired staff and to ensure that experts trained in the key areas of nuclear safety (main specialist areas) are available in the Division. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 67 of 261

71 Measure No. 7 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestions S2 and S4 and questions No. 94 and No. 123 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 68 of 261

72 Suggestion S4 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that It is neither necessary nor practicable for the regulatory body to be entirely self-sufficient in all technical areas relating to inspection. It may therefore be necessary for it to use consultants in specialized areas. It may occasionally be necessary owing to a heavy short term workload to augment the regulatory body s inspection staff with consultants having as much knowledge and experience as the regulatory body s inspection staff. Such consultants may be any of the following: Experts provided by other governmental bodies, technical societies or research institutes; Consultants or members of advisory committees with recognized skills and experience, provided that they are effectively independent of the operator and its contractors; Experts provided by or under the auspices of international organizations. When consultants are engaged, arrangements should be made for them to have access to the facility and to any information necessary to perform their tasks. The use of consultants shall not relieve the regulatory body of any of its responsibilities. In particular, the regulatory body s responsibility for making decisions and recommendations shall not be delegated. (Ref. [1], para. 4.4.) (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall employ a sufficient number of personnel with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to undertake its functions and responsibilities. It is likely that there will be positions of a specialist nature and positions needing more general skills and expertise. The regulatory body shall acquire and maintain the competence to judge, on an overall basis, the safety of facilities and activities and to make the necessary regulatory decisions. S4 Suggestion: BMU and UM BW should consider introducing means to adapt to market conditions to ensure that the required level of staffing is achieved and secured for the future. BMU statement: 1. Implementation In order to be able to compete with the industry regarding the recruitment of technical staff, it has been considered to take measures to highlight the benefits of IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 69 of 261

73 working in the public service (as civil servant). For this purpose, an information sheet is to be prepared on the employment and salaries of technical staff. This shall serve to make it clear that in case of an employment in the public service, any salary-related disadvantages will be compensated by non-monetary benefits. The remuneration of civil servants cannot be changed by the BMU. This lies within the competence of the Minister of the Interior. The salary is fixed by the legislator. 2. Assessment The suggestion can only partially be implemented within the BMU s competence. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None UM BW statement: 1. Implementation In order to be able to compete with the industry regarding the recruitment of technical staff, it has been considered to take measures working in two directions: Presentation of the advantages for working in the public service (as civil servant) Use of the opportunities according to the civil servant compensation law in the form of salary supplements for special education/activities An information sheet has been prepared on the employment and salaries of technical staff which makes it clear that in case of an employment in the public IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 70 of 261

74 service, any salary-related disadvantages will be compensated by non-monetary benefits. An application for a special salary bonus for employment in the field of nuclear supervision was not necessary since the situation on the labour market changed due to the economic crisis. Should it become necessary in future to introduce such a bonus, this can be done in agreement with the Ministry of Finance. The Cost Ordinance under the Atomic Energy Act (AtKostV) already stipulates that the licensees have to refund the cost of supervision. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: Winning new personnel (appropriate recruiting methods) to replace retired staff and to ensure that experts trained in the key areas of nuclear safety (main specialist areas) are available in the Division. Measure No. 7 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestions S2 and S3 and questions No. 94 and No. 123 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 71 of 261

75 Suggestion S5 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that If the regulatory body consists of more than one authority, effective arrangements shall be made to ensure that regulatory responsibilities and functions are clearly defined and co-ordinated, in order to avoid any omissions or unnecessary duplication and to prevent conflicting requirements being placed on the operator. The main functions of review and assessment and inspection and enforcement shall be organized in such a way as to achieve consistency and to enable the necessary feedback and exchange of information. In addition, the authorities responsible for the different disciplines concerned in the regulatory process, such as those responsible for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety, shall be effectively co-ordinated. S5 Suggestion: BMU should evaluate the assignments of tasks of the regulatory body at the federal level to further improve effectiveness and efficiency, and avoid unnecessary duplication. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in terms of the IRRS mission, the licensing and supervisory authorities are at the Land level. The division of tasks and roles between the Federation and the Länder was re-evaluated in Chapter 3.1. Thus unnecessary duplication of effort by the Federation and the Länder are avoided. The organisation of task distribution in the licensing and supervisory authorities of the Länder lies within the responsibility of the Länder themselves. The BMU, however, supports the Länder in their supervisory activities within the framework of co-ordination and harmonisation between the Länder. For the fulfilment of the suggestion, the tasks of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection and GRS were re-examined by the BMU at the federal level. It was found that the distribution of work at the federal level is regulated such that there is no unnecessary duplication of work done. The Federal Office for Radiation Protection and GRS perform the work on behalf of the BMU effectively and efficiently. No change is required. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 72 of 261

76 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 73 of 261

77 Question No. 94 Question No. 94: Does the Regulatory Body employ sufficient staff with the necessary qualification, experience and expertise to adequately fulfil its regulatory functions and responsibilities? The regulatory body shall employ a sufficient number of personnel with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to undertake its functions and responsibilities. It is likely that there will be positions of a specialist nature and positions needing more general skills and expertise. The regulatory body shall acquire and maintain the competence to judge, on an overall basis, the safety of facilities and activities and to make the necessary regulatory decisions. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The Division Nuclear Supervision, Environmental Radioactivity at the Ministry of the Environment Baden-Württemberg employs about 44 specialist staff (mainly scientists and engineers, 3 lawyers and 4 administrators). Most of these persons have a university degree, more than one third have a doctorate. Most of the division members perform reviews and assessments as well as inspections and enforcement tasks (there is no assignment of oversight officials to assessment" or "inspection"). The tasks also include the control of the experts and review and assessment of the expert s statements. Here, basic oversight (cf. Chapter of the oversight concept) presents the main field of work with about 40 % of the working time. About 10 % are used for modifications (cf. Chapter of the oversight concept) and event-induced oversight (cf. Chapter of the oversight concept) each. The participation in the development of rules and regulations, legal procedures and tasks related to plants near the border consume altogether about 15 % of the working time. The assignment of persons to the different plants and tasks is described in the schedule of responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment. On the basis of an expert framework agreement, TÜV SÜD ET provides support to the authority to a considerable extent. The expenses for the four nuclear power plants amount to about 25 Mio. Euro per year (equivalent to 120 full-time employees approx.). About 25 % of the work of TÜV SÜD ET is dedicated to the inspection of periodic tests of the operator and the assessment of testing instructions, about 35 % to reviews in modification procedures, about 25 % to support of the general oversight of the regulatory body (e.g. fulfilment of obligations) and about 15 % to special assignments (e.g. assessment of PSR). TÜV SÜD ET employs about 180 technical staff. The organisation provides six main divisions (cf. organisational chart of TÜV SÜD ET). On behalf of the Ministry of the Environment, the Institute for Environment, Measurements and Nature Conservation Baden-Württemberg (LUBW) operates the remote monitoring system for nuclear reactors (KFÜ) and performs measurements in the surroundings of the nuclear power plants. The manpower required includes about 12 full-time employees. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 74 of 261

78 A comprehensive review of tasks and personnel resources of Division 3 at the Ministry of the Environment was performed in 2002 by the Kienbaum consulting company. Regarding the definition of new oversight activities, amendments to the oversight programme, definition of oversight priorities etc., the personnel resources are considered, priorities are set or adjustments performed by relocation of staff within the division. A review of staffing is performed in general also in case of replacements. Moreover, comparisons are performed with nuclear authorities in Germany and abroad. The definition of the tasks of the experts and their scope is commissioned by the licensing and supervisory authority. Commissioning takes place where it is required. There is no financial limit. In 2006, the fulfilment of tasks of Division 3 was reviewed by a team of the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (ILK) on the basis of IAEA requirements (cf. ILK report ILK-28 of December 2006). The review did not identify any area where the Ministry of the Environment has not sufficient information for an evaluation of the safe operational management of the operator. The review concluded that the Ministry of the Environment has the personnel, competence and the financial means to fulfil its responsibilities which leads to an effective oversight of nuclear power plants in Baden- Württemberg. According to the ILK review, no major personnel changes were required. Since 2006 the number of staff members has decreased. Due to the good labour market situation for engineers and a high demand for qualified personnel in the nuclear industry, it is currently difficult to fill vacancies of retiring staff. Assessment: 3 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation See statement on S3 2. Assessment The measure derived from question No. 94 has been implemented. 3. Documents None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 75 of 261

79 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: Winning new personnel (appropriate recruiting methods) to replace retired staff and to ensure that experts trained in the key areas of nuclear safety (main specialist areas) are available in the Division. Measure No. 7 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestions S2, S3 and S4 and question No. 123 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 76 of 261

80 Question No. 96 Question No. 96: Does the Regulatory Body have a well-defined training programme to ensure that its staff acquire the proper skills, maintain the relevant competencies and are aware of technological developments and new safety principles and concepts? In order to ensure that the proper skills are acquired and that adequate levels of competence are achieved and maintained, the regulatory body shall ensure that its staff members participate in well defined training programmes. This training should ensure that staff are aware of technological developments and new safety principles and concepts. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The further education and training programme is described in Chapter 3.4 of the organisational manual of the Division Nuclear Supervision, Environmental Radioactivity. For new staff, the training programme provides seminars, courses and intensive on-thejob training under the guidance of a personal contact person/mentor. In addition to a good initial training, continuous further qualification is required for the authority staff. The exchange on which measures are useful for the individual staff member is, among other things, subject matter of the annual appraisal interview of the employee by his/her supervisor. The ILK review recommended (cf. Chapter 3.2 of the ILK review), that the Ministry of the Environment should ensure that there is always sufficient knowledge about the results of research and developments in the fields of nuclear safety technology and radiation protection. Due to this recommendation, the following measures are strengthened: Participation in symposia and conferences, advanced training courses within the division, evaluation of technical journals and research reports, participation in initiatives on rules and regulations of the BMU and the Nuclear Safety Standards Commission (KTA), monitoring of international developments and participation in initiatives of IAEA, NEA, WENRA or others. Increased participation in the international exchange of experiences is a subject area in the action plan. Assessment: 2 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 77 of 261

81 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The pending issues related to question 96 are implemented with the measures 1 and 2 of the UM BW Action Plan. The implementation of these measures is described in summary in the statement on suggestion S1 of the IRRS report (Chapter 3.3, suggestion S1). See statement on suggestion S1. 2. Assessment The measures derived from No. 96 have been implemented. 3. Documents Staffing of committees, sub-committees and working groups (MS-OH-158-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 1: Co-operation in international working groups and committees (IAEA, OECD/NEA, EU/WENRA) as well as co-ordination between BMU and UM BW. Action Plan No. 2: Co-operation in international projects and actions (e.g. IAEA missions, workshops). Measure No. 1 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestion S1 and measures No. 1 and 2 implement requirements of question 67 of the IRRSquestionnaire. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 78 of 261

82 Question No. 105 Question No. 105: Has the State established arrangements for the exchange of safety related information: bi-laterally or regionally, with neighbouring States and other interested States, and with relevant intergovernmental organizations, both to fulfil safety obligations and to promote cooperation? The safety of facilities and activities is of international concern. Several international conventions relating to various aspects of safety are in force. National authorities, with the assistance of the regulatory body, as appropriate, shall establish arrangements for the exchange of safety related information, bilaterally or regionally, with neighbouring States and other interested States, and with relevant intergovernmental organizations, both to fulfil safety obligations and to promote co-operation. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The Ministry of the Environment Baden-Württemberg participates intensively in the bilateral commissions DFK (German-French commission) and DSK (German-Swiss commission) for the safety of nuclear installations. Assessment: 3 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Question No. 105 des IRRS-questionnaire addresses the exchange of experiences and information with national and international authorities and organisations. The measures derived by the UM BW in connection with these requirements are based on a recommendation by the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (ILK), referring to the national experience exchange with other Länder. According to the ILK review, a lively exchange is practised, including cross-inspections, with the neighbouring countries France and Switzerland, but the exchange with other Länder still can be intensified. The objectives of the measures are, on the one hand, to IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 79 of 261

83 contribute the supervisory experience of the UM BW and, on the other hand, to learn from the experience of other Länder. With the strategic objective to further develop the technical competence of the members of the supervisory authority, the UM BW intends to conduct at least two cross-inspections per year with other Länder. Since 2008, the following crossinspections have been carried out: 2008: Cross-inspection with Rhineland-Palatinate at the nuclear power plants Mülheim-Kärlich and Philippsburg 2009: Cross-inspections with Hesse at the nuclear power plants Biblis and Philippsburg 2010: Cross-inspections with Rhineland-Palatinate at the nuclear power plants Obrigheim and Mülheim-Kärlich In addition, the exchange of experiences and information exchange with other Länder has further been intensified in the relevant committees and working groups of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy (LAA), such as by the presentation of the supervision instrument KOMFORT developed at the UM BW in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee for supervision in the field of safety culture, information of the other Länder on the supervision by the UM BW on the safety management system of the plant operators; the relevant documents were made available in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee, two special meetings of the members of the main committee for information on the results of the IRRS mission Germany 2008, and exchange of information on the IRRS process on a regular basis in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee. Furthermore, the UM BW is represented in numerous national and some international bodies and participates in many special events such as symposia and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 80 of 261

84 workshops with its own contributions. The staff of the Division also take part in many technical and training events; the annual training budget is used up regularly. 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 105 have been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 8: Cross-inspections with other Länder. Action Plan No. 9: Intensification of the exchange of experience in the LAA committees and working groups. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 81 of 261

85 3.5 Module IV Authorization Recommendation R5 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall issue guidance on the format and content of documents to be submitted by the operator in support of applications for authorization. The operator shall be required to submit or make available to the regulatory body, in accordance with agreed time-scales, all information that is specified or requested.. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that Guides, of a non-mandatory nature, on how to comply with the regulations shall be prepared, as necessary. These guides may also provide information on data and methods to be used in assessing the adequacy of the design and on analyses and documentation to be submitted to the regulatory body by the operator. R5 Recommendation: The BMU should initiate the development, in collaboration with the Länder regulators, of formal guidance to define how the operators categorize modifications and apply for the authorization of modifications. This should include all the criteria and definitions that are necessary. BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The recommendation of the IRRS review team was discussed in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee (FARS) of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy (LAA) for finalisation at the meeting in December Regarding modification procedures, a fundamental distinction is made between modifications subject to nuclear licensing according to 7 of the Atomic Energy Act and modifications classified as non-essential according to 7 of the Atomic Energy Act. Modification licences are performed in all Länder according to the provisions of the Nuclear Licensing Procedure Ordinance (AtVfV). Non-essential modifications are dealt with within the supervisory procedure. During the consultations in the FARS, it was noted unanimously that: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 82 of 261

86 in all Länder, categorisation of non-essential modifications takes place according to the safety significance of the planned modification, the modification procedures differ, depending on the category, the terms and definitions used may vary in particular cases, and the categories and applicable modification procedures are defined in a legally binding manner by the licence or the respective operating manuals. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents Minutes of the FA RS of December 2010 on agenda item Top 21 with Appendix (R5_Anlage 1_FARS_55_Beschluss_TOP21) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None 5. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 83 of 261

87 Suggestion S6 (1) BASIS: NS-G states that Regarding safety analysis, para in Ref. [1] states that A safety analysis of the plant design shall be conducted in which methods of both deterministic and probabilistic analysis shall be applied. S6 Suggestion: The UM BW should take into account probabilistic insights where appropriate, in addition to existing deterministic criteria, in decision-making on authorizations. UM BW statement 1. Implementation Background of this recommendation is that the supervisory authority in Baden- Württemberg - as usual in Germany mainly uses deterministic criteria for its decisions. A probabilistic assessment is limited to individual cases. A probabilistic safety analysis is conducted by the plant operator only for the 10-year safety review and evaluated by the supervisory authority. For the implementation of suggestion S6 it was checked by the UM BW for which decisions and evaluations, new knowledge is gained by a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). The greatest gain in knowledge is to be expected by probabilistic assessments regarding plant modification. The principles of classification and management of modifications are regulated in in the Land-wide standard modification procedure ( Landeseinheitliches Änderungsverfahren ). Therefore, this was adjusted accordingly. The application of probabilistic methods for other decisions and evaluations is presented in the document on the status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses. It has been included in the Land-wide standard modification procedure that in case of essential modifications and non-essential modifications of Category B the plant operator has to check whether a probabilistic assessment of the planned IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 84 of 261

88 modification will be appropriate and, if so, has to submit such an assessment enclosed to the modification documents. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Excerpt from the Land-wide standard modification procedure (MS-AH-548-R) Document on the status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses (S6_S12_S25_S26_PSAUVM_ ) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 10: Supplementary use of probabilistic methods in licensing and supervision in Baden-Württemberg. Measure No. 10 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestion S12. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 85 of 261

89 Suggestion S7 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall formally record the basis for these decisions. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that In connection with its review and assessment activities, the regulatory body shall define and make available to the operator the principles and associated criteria on which its judgements and decisions are based. S7 Suggestion: For all categories of non-essential modifications, the UM BW should also include the bases and the rationale for the regulatory decisions in the documentation that is referenced in the authorization. UM BW statement 1. Implementation Background of the suggestion is the finding that the criteria in the Land-wide standard modification procedure leave much room for interpretation. Since the reasons for the decision of the authority on the classification of a planned modification and on the technical evaluation of the modification are neither documented internally nor will be disclosed to the applicant in the approval letter, they are not comprehensible. The following strategy has been chosen: Determination to what extent the existing classification criteria need to be concretised. Identification of interface problems between the authorities involved. Obtaining information from the two plant-related sections on the methods for documenting the classification decision and the technical admissibility of the project applied for. Development of proposals for improvements. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 86 of 261

90 Checking of developed proposals for improvements with regard to comprehensibility and clarity of the procedure through discussion within the Division and with other authorities, and through discussion with the authorised experts and licensees with a view to practical implementation. Review of the new criteria and procedures for applicability on the basis of concrete modification projects; where required, another revision of the Landwide standard modification procedure. For the implementation of suggestion S7, the criteria of the Land-wide standard modification procedure have been revised after identification of the shortcomings and the approaches specified regarding the interfaces to other authorities (mainly building authorities) and the application in terms of the Landwide standard modification procedure to decommissioned nuclear plants, fuel interim storage facilities and nuclear installations. This step was completed in The first draft had already been discussed during the IRRS mission in This draft was then discussed in 2009 within the Division, with the licensees and the authorised expert. The discussion led to a new comprehensive review of the classification criteria of the Land-wide standard modification procedure. This step was completed in 2010 with a second round of consultation. In parallel, Chapter of the supervision manual was revised. The obligation to apply the Land-wide standard modification procedure had been included. For classification and performance of non-essential modifications, reference is now made to the procedural instruction Land-wide standard modification procedure". This step was completed in Furthermore, in Chapter of the supervision manual, the obligation was included to state the reasons for the decision on the classification of a planned modification and the technical evaluation in the approval letter in case of modification procedures according to Category B and the corresponding chapter of the Land-wide standard modification procedure supplemented by a IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 87 of 261

91 procedural instruction regarding the preparation of an approval letter. This step was completed in The description of a modification procedure with the participation of the authorities for construction permit and construction supervision was included in the Land-wide standard modification procedure agreed with the competent Ministry of Economic Affairs at the end of The applicability of the new Land-wide standard modification procedure is to be reviewed in mid-2011 by means of concrete modification notifications. The supervision manual is to include a procedural instruction regarding the performance of a licensing procedure (licensing procedure guideline). The procedural instruction is in progress. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Excerpt from the Land-wide standard modification procedure (MS-AH-548-R) Supervision Concept - Chapter (MS-AK-050-K) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: Revision of the Land-wide standard modification procedure. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of question No. 130 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 88 of 261

92 Suggestion S8 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The regulatory body shall establish and implement appropriate arrangements for a systematic approach to quality management which extend throughout the range of responsibilities and functions undertaken. S8 Suggestion: The UM BW should track all issues that require regulatory body action related to authorizations by using its instruments systematically. Also, for the lower level issues the use of an appropriate tracking tool should be mandatory and not be up to individual persons. UM BW statement 1. Implementation The IRRS team criticised the unsystematic tracking of processes (modification notifications, conditions, information notices, ) dependent on individual persons and the open issues. The introduction of a modern instrument was required which will particularly help the management level in the tracking of open issues. For the implementation of S8, the following strategy was chosen: critical consideration of the existing approach for the various process types and determination of the need for action, information about the existing workflow systems at the side of the authorised experts and EnBW, advancement of the introduction of a new process tracking system (system with workflow), further development of the existing database system for tracking of open issues, where required, development of binding regulations in the Division for tracking and completion of processes. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 89 of 261

93 A working group was established with the task to analyse the procedures applied so far for the various process types and to determine the need for action. Information and data were collected on existing workflow systems of authorised experts and EnBW. In parallel, an attempt was made to replace the existing database system with a newer product with workflow capabilities. Due to the integration of Division 3 in the Land administration it was not possible to introduce new systems for electronic file management, so that the improvement of the existing database system together with the concretisation of the Division regulations was chosen as a viable approach. So far, the existing database system covered the processes relating to the fulfilment of conditions, modification (Cat. A, B, C), supervision, reports from the integrated safety information system (ISIS) and remote monitoring system for nuclear power plants (KFÜ), GRS Information Notices, obligation to report on a regular basis and reportable events. The existing database system was supplemented by the processes relating to KeTAG (Nuclear Technology Assessment Consortium for Baden-Württemberg) walk-downs and safety reviews not included in it before. For each process type, fields are defined which must be dealt with by each person handling a process. Open issues are presented in the context of the corresponding process so that the origin of the open issues can be identified at any time. For a quick overview of open processes, the categorisation of processes is important. A catalogue of criteria was developed for the categorisation and tested within the Division using actual processes. The possibilities for the listing of processes, particularly for the management level, will be improved. The following issues will be included in the supervision manual and thus be regulated in a binding manner: Instruction which process types are to be recorded in the existing database system and how recommendations from statements, open issues from processes and supervisory visits, etc. are to be dealt with, IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 90 of 261

94 categorisation of the processes by means of a criteria catalogue, definition of completion of processes and specification how remaining issues will have to be dealt with. Status talks with authorised experts and operators on the completion status of processes and open issues have been introduced and take place regularly (at least annually). Thus, a comparable level of process tracking is guaranteed for all parties involved. 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 39: Development of a global electronic document filing and process tracking system. Measure No. 39 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestion S34 and question No. 220 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure is in progress. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 91 of 261

95 3.6 Module V Review and Assessment Suggestion S9 (1) BASIS: GS-G (j) states that The management of review and assessment (by the regulatory body) should include responsibility for collecting and disseminating the overall findings of the regulatory body following the completion of the review and assessment process (2) BASIS: GS-G states that A regulatory system should include both types of regulations, striking an appropriate balance between performance based and prescriptive regulations (or guides) to match the anticipated workload and the skills of the regulatory body s staff. S9 Suggestion: BMU and UM BW should agree on the information to be shared before UM BW s formal examination of a PSR report is completed. The PSR, including PSA, should be shared more timely to all the relevant organizations so that they will have a common view on the current state of safety of the plants. BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, the BMU and the UM BW have come to a general agreement. Accordingly, the early forwarding of important information of the PSR, including PSA, to relevant institutions (BMU, BfS, GRS and TÜVs) is possible. The responsibility for licensing and supervision of the nuclear power plants lies with the nuclear regulatory authorities of the Länder. Accordingly, the results of the PSRs carried out by the plant operators are reviewed and assessed by the supervisory authorities of the Länder on the basis of the safety review guidelines. For the assessment of the PSR, the UM BW consults authorised experts. As a basis for the PSR, the respective latest state of the art in science and technology has to be taken into account. After overall assessment of the PSR with due consideration of the opinion of the authorised experts, the UM BW defines the necessary measures and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 92 of 261

96 provisions. The UM BW reports to the BMU on the results of the PSR and its regulatory assessment, accompanied by the relevant documents. Should the UM BW gain new knowledge on optimisation potential already during the review, corresponding measures will be implemented without delay. Independent of the further proceeding, findings that are of nation-wide importance are fed into the corresponding advisory committees at the federal level through the BMU, such as the technical committees of the LAA or the RSK, and discussed there. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents See Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder Periodic safety review PSR (MS-AH-536-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 9: All important information affecting the safety of the nuclear installations as well as all important information on generic safety issues will be exchanged between Federation and Länder. A documentation system is established which is to give the entire regulatory body direct electronic access to all important technical documents. Measure No. 9 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 13, 47, 83, 85, 86, 98 and 119 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements the first part of measure No Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 11: Co-ordination between Federation and Länder within the LAA on the passing-on of PSR documents prior to conclusion of the review. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 93 of 261

97 Suggestion S10 (1) BASIS: GS-R (7) states that the regulatory body shall ensure that operating experience is appropriately analysed and that lessons to be learned are disseminated. S10 Suggestion: BMU DG-RS and UM BW should cooperate in progressing an agreement by the LAA of a process to ensure that the information required by BMU to fulfil its function regarding OEF, such as IRS and WL (Information Notice), is provided in a suitable format and content by each Land. The objective of this agreement should be to give DG-RS confidence in the data accuracy and to enable it to contribute more input and strengthen the OEF process within Germany. The agreement should include a mechanism to enable communications between DG-RS and each Land (including their respective advisory bodies) to clarify the details of the events. BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation An agreement that the Länder submit the required information in an appropriate format and content with regard to operating experience feedback (OEF) has been concluded. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. The process for forwarding and feedback of operating experience is applied by all those involved. Optimisation and review of the process takes place by consultations in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee of the LAA. 3. Documents German operating experience feedback (OEF) processes (S10_Dt_OEF_Prozess) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 94 of 261

98 Resolution of the Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy - General Committee (LAA) main committee Experience feedback from Information Notices (S10_LAA_Beschluss_Vereinb) Agreement on the structuring of reporting for the implementation of the recommendations made in the GRS Information Notices (S10_Berichterst_LaenderWLN) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 17: Information Notices (WL) process-optimized (PDCA) A programme shall be set up by the end of 2008 to involve Länder authority representatives in international co-operation. Action Plan No. 18: Revision of the criteria for reporting events in German plants to the IRS until 2009 (jointly with GRS) with the aim to increase their number. Measures No. 17 and No. 18 of the Action Plan also implement additional requirements of questions 59, 67 and 69 of the IRRS-questionnaire. Measure No. 17 for improving the OEF process has been implemented by the agreement with the Länder and the process description. A review of the process will be performed within the consultations of the Reactor Safety Technical Committee. Measure No. 18 for improving the use and entry of results into the IRS system has also been implemented with the OEF process description. 5. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 12: Co-ordination between Federation and Länder within the LAA on the subject matter and form of the information and communication in the area of experience feedback. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 95 of 261

99 Suggestion S11 (1) BASIS: NS-G states that Managing the ageing of SSCs important to safety requires the age related degradation of the SSCs to be controlled within defined limits. Effective control of ageing degradation is achieved by means of a systematic ageing management process consisting of the following ageing management tasks, based on the understanding of ageing of SSCs S11 Suggestion: BMU should complete its action plan to develop the guide for ageing management. BMU statement: 1. Implementation The BMU Action Plan has been supplemented accordingly (cf. measure No. 20). For the implementation of suggestion S11 and measure No. 20 of the extended BMU Action Plan, the KTA safety standard on ageing management was developed based on an RSK recommendation and the international state of the art in science and technology in the years 2008 to 2010 by a KTA working group. The KTA safety standard on ageing management was adopted in November 2010 by the KTA and published in the Federal Gazette in January Like all KTA standards, this KTA standard will be checked for up-to-dateness and validity every five years. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents KTA safety standard on ageing management (KTA 1403) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 96 of 261

100 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 20: Preparation of a KTA safety standard on ageing management. Measure No. 20 in the BMU Action Plan has been implemented with safety standard KTA 1403 on ageing management. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 97 of 261

101 Suggestion S12 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The main purposes of regulatory inspection and enforcement are to ensure that (6) the operator is managing safety in a proper manner. (2) BASIS: GS-G states that To ensure that all nuclear facilities in a State are inspected to a common standard and that their level of safety is consistent, the regulatory body should provide its inspectors with written guidelines in sufficient detail. The guidelines should be followed to ensure a systematic and consistent approach to inspection while allowing sufficient flexibility for inspectors to take the initiative in dealing with new concerns that arise. Appropriate information and guidance should be provided to the inspectors and each inspector should be given adequate training in following this guidance. Consideration should be given to the extent to which this guidance should be made available to the operator or to the public. Appropriate subjects for guidance and instructions for inspectors could include: (a) how to develop an inspection programme; (b) the legal basis for regulatory inspection and the scope of the inspector s authority; (c) the use of regulatory requirements, regulations and guides and industrial standards; (d) implementation of the inspection programme, including: areas to be subject to inspection, method of inspection to be used, methods for selection of inspection samples, relevant technical information and questionnaires; (e) reporting requirements and practices for inspectors; (f) policies of the regulatory body as they may affect inspection; (g) standards of conduct of inspectors; (h) enforcement policy, procedures and practices. S12 Suggestion: UM BW should develop an approach to the inspection and assessment process that facilitates a more systematic and consistent method to assess operator performance. In considering such an approach, due regard should be given to the benefits of using state of the art evaluative tools, including probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), to plan inspections, determine the safety significance of inspection findings, assess the significance of operational events and plant conditions. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 98 of 261

102 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Implementation of the quoted IAEA Safety Standards by the UM BW Below it is first shown how the above quoted requirements of 5.13 of the IAEA requirements GS-R-1 and of 4.1 of Safety Guide GS-G-1.3 have already been implemented through the existing Division regulations. Supervision manual and mission statement contain consistent specifications for the supervision of oversight nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg including the issue of on-site inspections. The supervision manual provides the following contents to the inspectors: Specifications on the number of on-site inspections and the areas to be inspected (inspection programme, see supervision manual Chapter /1), Information about the legal basis of inspections and the powers of inspectors (supervision manual Chapter 6) as well as the enforcement of measures (supervision manual Chapter 8), Details of the review criteria applied, such as licences or the nuclear rules and regulations (supervision manual Chapter 5), Specifications on the documentation of inspection findings (supervision manual Chapter /1), Fundamentals, guides and guidelines for action (included in the supervision manual Chapter 1 and 4 and in the mission statement of the Division). To ensure uniform application of the common standards, team inspections are performed (cf. supervision manual /1, para 2.5) and, in the context of advanced training, workshops on supervisory practice conducted. New inspectors are trained according to individual introductory programmes (cf. organisational manual MS-OH-164-K and MS-OH-165-U) which, among other IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 99 of 261

103 things, include the supervision manual and the practical introduction into inspection activities by experienced colleagues. Thus, generally there are far-reaching regulations at the UM BW for the inspection procedure in terms of the IAEA Safety Standards referred to, so that a fundamental reorganisation of the UM BW is not deemed to be necessary. For individual issues, however, there is need for improvement which has been addressed by the UM BW as follows. Dealing with the topic in Modules V and VI The existing regulations were presented during the IRRS mission when dealing with Module VI. Regarding the topic of inspection procedures, the IRRS team made a recommendation (R6) and several suggestions (S12 in Module V, S13 to S16 as well as S18 and S19 in Module VI). Based on the recommendation and suggestions, the UM BW performed and initiated improvement measures for the inspection procedure. Except for suggestion S12, the implementation of the recommendation and suggestions is presented in Module VI. Implementation of suggestion S12 Suggestion S12 relates to the procedure for assessing the safety performance of the plant operator ( assessment of operator performance ) occurring in connection with inspections. Concrete examples for inspection activities to be considered are inspection planning, and assessment of inspection findings, operational events and plant conditions. a) Optimisation of inspection planning For inspection planning, there is a process at the UM BW that is outlined in the manual supervision in Chapter /1. To ensure that findings from other supervisory activities (e.g. evaluation of the KOMFORT data or safety performance indicators) are considered in the inspection planning in a timely and systematic manner, the processes have been revised and better coordinated. For this purpose, the supervision manual has been supplemented IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 100 of 261

104 accordingly. For details, reference is made to the explanations on suggestion S16 in Module VI. b) Optimisation of classification of inspection findings For the assessment of inspection findings and plant conditions, the supervision manual includes a number of specifications and assistance, but they were not always tailored specifically to the issue of inspection. So, there were general presentations of the review criteria to be considered (licence, rules, guidelines) in Chapter 5, and of the classification of findings according to the AtSMV in Chapter In addition, a concept has now been developed specially for the classification of inspection findings which provides for a division into four categories (Deficiency 1, Deficiency 2, Deviations and Advice) and refers to documents by means of which operational management and plant condition can be examined specifically. For the details on this concept and its integration in the supervision manual, reference is made to the explanations on recommendation R6. c) Discussion of increased use of probabilistic methods The discussion in the UM BW following suggestions S6 and S12 on the increased use of the PSA in the licensing and supervisory procedure in Baden- Württemberg is still ongoing. Concepts, for which the UM BW commissioned PSA experts from the TÜV, showed both the possibilities in principle and the prerequisites for an extended PSA use. As a main prerequisite for safety assessments, up-to-dateness of the PSA is mentioned there. However, in the German nuclear rules and regulations it is not laid down that after submission of the SR according to 19a of the Atomic Energy Act, the PSA contained in it will be continued as a living PSA. Thus, for the UM BW as nuclear supervisory authority, there is no legal basis yet according to which the plant operator could be obliged regarding a living PSA. The possibility of probabilistic assessments of inspection findings, operational events and plant conditions in Baden-Württemberg is currently under discussion IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 101 of 261

105 at the UM BW with the assistance by the TÜV. Final results on this issue are not yet available so far. The idea of a risk-based inspection planning is no longer pursued by the UM BW. The optimisation of inspection planning mentioned under a) is deemed to be sufficient. d) Safety classification On behalf of the KTA subcommittee on programme-related and fundamental issues, the safety classification working group proposed a concept for the safety classification of SSCs (systems, structures and components) in nuclear power plants. Based on the recommendations of this working group, the KTA initiated the new standard project 3001 Categorisation and Classification of SSCs in Nuclear Power Plants. The aim of the new KTA safety standard is to nationwide standardise and systemise safety classifications of the individual plants, which have developed over time in the course of the individual licensing procedures, under consideration of the international state of the art. The UM BW was represented in the working group and will monitor the progress of the work of the KTA. After adoption of the new KTA safety standard, it will be referred to by the UM BW for the safety-related assessment of inspection findings, operational events and plant conditions within the framework of inspections. Individual measures An improvement of inspection planning by optimising the time- and contentrelated co-ordination of different assessment processes has been carried out and implemented by amendments to the supervision manual (for details see S16). Chapter /1 of the supervision manual (check list for on-site inspections) was supplemented by concrete references to review criteria to be applied by the inspectors. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 102 of 261

106 A classification system for inspection findings was developed and implemented by amendments to Chapter /1 of the supervision manual (for details see R6). The extended use of probabilistic assessments has been examined in detail with the support of PSA experts of TÜV SÜD. The related discussion has not been completed in all respects; however, the objective of a risk-based inspection planning is not expected to be pursued. Discussions will continue on the probabilistic assessment of inspection findings, operational events and plant conditions. The new KTA standard project on safety classification will be pursued by the UM BW and considered for own safety assessment approaches after official adoption. 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents Supervision manual /1 (MS-AH-501-R: On-site inspections) Notation on the status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses ( Stand der Umsetzung der Hinweise zur erweiterten Anwendung probabilistischer Untersuchungen ) of (S6_S12_S25_S26_PSAUVM_ ). Safety classification draft of the KTA working group (S12_SachstandsberichtSKL_TOP4_UA-PG-EL_ZUS_EMPF) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 10: Supplementary use of probabilistic methods in licensing and supervision in Baden-Württemberg. Action Plan No. 16: Development of a procedure on the performance of an overall assessment of the respective plant. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 103 of 261

107 Action Plan No. 17: Accompaniment of the work of the KTA on "Safety-related classification of SSCs". Action Plan No. 18: Supplementation of the supervision manual with regard to the adherence to the written form when communicating found deviations to the operator. Measure No. 10 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestion S6, measure No. 16 of the Action Plan implements requirements of suggestion S16 and question No. 132 of the IRRS-questionnaire; measure No. 18 implements requirements of recommendation R6. Measures No. 10, 16 and 18 have been implemented, measure No. 17 is in progress. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 104 of 261

108 Question No. 123 Question No. 123: Does the Regulatory Body satisfy itself that: 1. the available information provided by the applicant demonstrates the safety of the facility or proposed activity or practice; 2. the information contained in the applicant s submissions is accurate and sufficient to enable confirmation of compliance with regulatory requirements; and 3. the technical solutions, and in particular any novel ones, have been proven or qualified by experience or testing or both, and are capable of achieving the required level of safety? A primary basis for review and assessment is the information submitted by the operator. A thorough review and assessment of the operator s technical submission shall be performed by the regulatory body in order to determine whether the facility or activity complies with the relevant safety objectives, principles and criteria. In doing this, the regulatory body shall acquire an understanding of the design of the facility or equipment, the safety concepts on which the design is based and the operating principles proposed by the operator, to satisfy itself that: i. the available information demonstrates the safety of the facility or proposed activity; ii. the information contained in the operator s submissions is accurate and sufficient to enable confirmation of compliance with regulatory requirements; and iii. the technical solutions, and in particular any novel ones, have been proven or qualified by experience or testing or both, and are capable of achieving the required level of safety. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: Yes. The operator has to show that the technical solutions applied to fulfil the safety requirements in line with the state of the art in science and technology. In this respect he has to present documents on the suitability and proof testing or on proven service records. The correctness and suitability as well as the completeness of the documents and safety demonstrations presented are examined and assessed by the regulatory authority. The regulatory authority guarantees this by a corresponding structural and procedural organisation (see Oversight Manual and Module III). If necessary, authorised experts are consulted. Furthermore, the authority staff and experts apply additional measures to review the information provided in the documents, such as on-site inspections, interviews with the operator's personnel in charge, and inspection of additional documents. The examinations are partly supported by the authorised expert's own calculations. The number of authority staff in charge of managing the authorised experts is too low in relation to the number of experts at the TSOs. BMU and UM BW hold the view that each regulatory authority is entitled to have at least one trained expert at its disposal for each IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 105 of 261

109 of the major specialist areas (material science, systems engineering, instrumentation and control, thermal hydraulics, etc.). At present, this demand is only partly fulfilled. The ability to ask the authorised experts and the operators the right questions and to deal with key technical issues to a sufficient degree is therefore limited. Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation See statement on suggestion S2. Due to the personnel recruitments, technical staff were recruited for the specialist areas of mechanical engineering/mechanical components, heavy current engineering and materials science/corrosion chemistry. More staff will still be required in the specialist areas of control engineering/instrumentation, heavy current engineering and industrial/organisation science. The regulations in the statement on suggestion S2 ensure that the objective of having experts in the main specialist areas at the authority will be pursued systematically and achieved permanently. 2. Assessment The measure derived from question No. 123 has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: Winning new personnel (appropriate recruiting methods) to replace retired staff and to ensure that experts trained in the key areas of nuclear safety (main specialist areas) are available in the Division. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 106 of 261

110 Measure No. 7 also implements requirements of suggestions S2, S3 and S4 and question No. 94 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 107 of 261

111 3.7 Module VI Inspection and Enforcement Recommendation R6 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Deviations from, or violations of, requirements, or unsatisfactory situations which have minor safety significance, may be identified at facilities or in the conduct of activities. In such circumstances, the regulatory body shall issue a written warning or directive to the operator which shall identify the nature and regulatory basis of each violation and the period of time permitted for taking remedial action (2) BASIS: GS-R states that All enforcement decisions shall be confirmed to the operator in writing R6 Recommendation: UM BW should review and enhance the enforcement system to ensure that deviations from, or violations of, requirements are documented in writing to the operator. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The results of supervision visits are fully documented by the authority in notations in an internal database (nuclear licensing and supervision procedures - AGAVE). In case where it appears necessary for safety reasons, they are submitted to the plant operator in redress letters. Additionally, all results from supervisory visits will be communicated verbally to the plant operator at the end of the supervisory visit and before leaving the plant. During the final discussion, the plant operator also has the possibility of making comments. As a follow-up, the results of supervisory visits are discussed in the authority in a multistage process and assessed. Depending on this assessment, the authority determines whether and what further supervisory measures are necessary. Beyond the existing practice, all supervisory results are to be categorised in future according to their safety significance and more detailed regulations for the authority IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 108 of 261

112 on how to proceed on the basis of this classification are to be included in the internal regulations of the authority to implement the recommendation. Proceeding: The existing practice in the USA, Canada, France and Switzerland was evaluated and compared with the categorisation system used by the KeTAG, consisting of representatives from various expert organisations on behalf of the UM BW. On this basis, a proposal was developed in which cases redress letters are to be prepared and on a corresponding sample how such a redress letter could look like. Further, proposals were developed on concrete amendments to the supervision manual. Assessment and classification of inspection findings: As a preparatory measure for establishing a classification system for inspection findings in Baden-Württemberg, the approach in other countries was determined, based on the procedures applied in the USA, Canada, France and Switzerland. In principle, it can be stated that in these countries, a very formal procedure with differentiated specifications for the classification of findings is introduced. In the USA (NRC), there is also a component with a very strong probabilistic orientation. Often, several hierarchies or "quality circles" are involved in the assessment/classification. Altogether, these approaches seem - compared with the approach in Baden-Württemberg - difficult to handle and rather suitable for large organisations. In addition to the assessment of inspection findings in other countries, the proceeding of the KeTAG was also considered in the plant walkdowns. Appendix 1 to R6 shows an exemplary comparison of the classification criteria of Canada, Switzerland and the KeTAG. These three methods seem to be roughly comparable. As a result of the evaluation, a classification was developed that is largely based on the definitions of KeTAG. This also has the advantage that the inspection results of the KeTAG are comparable with those of the inspections of the UM BW. Similar to the KeTAG, no further differentiated specifications have been IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 109 of 261

113 made on when an inspection finding falls into which class. For this purpose, comprehensive documents/specifications would be required, as is the case for the above mentioned countries, to cover all aspects/specialist areas of an inspection. In addition, the application would have to be formalised, as for example in the form of extensive selection lists (with check boxes). As a pragmatic solution, the classification should be solely based on the expertise and experience of individual inspectors. As a QA/control step serves the agreement of the inspection findings and the resulting letters with the competent section head. According to the above explanations, the following categorisation has been introduced: Deficiency 1 Safety-relevant findings on systems, components and buildings to an extent that their function or integrity (activity retention) is no longer ensured. Essential deviations from the conditions for a safe operation of the installation (e.g. GKN 1, Operating Manual (BHB) Part 2 Chapter 1) also have to be classified as Deficiency 1. The deficiency is so severe that accident management or compliance with the protection goals in case of demand are most probably not granted. The finding will lead to the shutdown of the plant and most likely to a classification as Category E or S pursuant to the Nuclear Safety Officer and Reporting Ordinance (Atomrechtliche Sicherheitsbeauftragten- und Meldeverordnung AtSMV) and an INES categorisation equal to or above 1. Deficiency 2 Safety-relevant findings on systems, components and buildings to an extent that their function or integrity (activity retention) is no longer ensured without limitation. Deviations from the conditions for a safe operation of the installation have to be classified as Deficiency 2. Due to the deficiency, accident management is impaired, but not generally at risk. The plant can be kept in operation within the scope of the safety specifications (SSP) or with contingency measures. The finding will most IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 110 of 261

114 likely lead to a classification as Category N pursuant to the Nuclear Safety Officer and Reporting Ordinance (AtSMV) and a categorisation below the INES scale. Category 1 and 2 deficiencies are dealt with according to the provisions in the respective licences and supervision manual processes. Deviations Findings on systems, components and buildings to an extent that their function or integrity (activity retention) is only marginally impaired. Relevant deviations from the provisions of the operating regime, especially from SSPs, also fall in this category. However, findings of this category put the safe operation at risk only indirectly. A classification pursuant to AtSMV or INES is not required. The UM will follow up the measures derived from the findings by means of a list of requirements (list of points at issue LOP). Advice Findings that have no influence on the safe operation by themselves, but should be remedied by the operator for reasons of good safety culture. Advice is given to the operator only verbally within the scope of the inspection. "Good practice", as provided for, e.g., by Switzerland and the KeTAG, should generally not be done by the nuclear supervisory authority in writing. However, assessments of this kind can be communicated to the nuclear power plant staff on site. Inspection benchmarks for classification Basis for the safety-related assessment and thus for classification are, besides the nuclear regulations, mainly the operating regime, specifications and the provisions laid down in the licences. These documents have been reviewed by the UM and the consulted authorised experts. They include the plant-specific implementation of the relevant rules and guidelines. The most important examples for this are: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 111 of 261

115 Licensing provisions and directions, e.g. for operation and process engineering radiation protection transfer of radioactive materials accident management measures refuelling Operating manual (Betriebshandbuch BHB): requirements/provisions for the operation plant regulations (e.g. control room and shift regime, maintenance regime, radiation protection regime, guard and access regime n) Shift instructions Testing and maintenance manual list of testing and maintenance intervals instructions for the performance of tests and maintenance measures Operating and technical instructions subject to inspection Quality assurance manuals and instructions System specifications and circuit diagrams AtSMV/INES scale (for the classification as Deficiencies 1/2) Deviations from the operating regime or general deviations from the licensed condition identified during on-site inspections have to be classified according to the categories described above. Implementation of the results: Supplementations of the supervision manual The supervision manual has been supplemented as follows. In Section 2.5 of Chapter /1 ("On-site inspections"), the last paragraph has been amended as follows: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 112 of 261

116 On-site inspections are reviews. The results of the on-site inspections are classified according to the following four categories: Deficiency 1 Explanation see above Deficiency 2 see above Deviations see above Advice see above Inspection benchmarks for classification see above Depending on the result of the inspections, different measures come into consideration. These are described in Chapter 8 of the supervision manual. In case of Deficiencies 1 and 2, a so-called redress letter will be prepared. With this letter, the operator is informed in writing about the findings and may be demanded to remedy the shortcomings by a deadline specified. In case of deviations, a supervisory redress letter may also become necessary depending on the measures to be initiated which are followed up as part of a list of requirements. Advice may also be given verbally and on-site. If no shortcomings were identified, it suffices to verbally inform the operator about the inspection results on-site. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 113 of 261

117 The operator has to be informed about Deficiency 1 and 2 findings and deviations without delay and always in writing by way of a standard letter. The further handling of the findings by the authority depends on the category. In correspondence with the explanations, Deficiency 1 and 2 findings are further processed as reportable events and deviations as LOP (list of points at issue). Advice is independently handled by the operator within the scope of alarms. Standard letter For the information on inspection findings, a standard letter has been drafted (MS-AH-509-F). The communication of the findings to the plant operator is to be limited to the three categories Deficiency 1 and 2 and deviations since minor deficiencies indicated during the inspection in general are beyond dispute and are recorded by the plant operator in writing and dealt with within the scope of the proven system of alarms. The processing of indications can be monitored within the scope of further supervision visits. A subsequent written notification should be limited to cases in which an accurate tracking by the UM BW and the authorised expert is deemed to be necessary. Deficiencies 1 and 2 must be reported by definition and are handled within the framework of the processes provided for this purpose. For deviations, an LOP should be created and this should be communicated in the standard letter. Legal basis for UM BW letters The legal basis for a letter of the authority is, as explained in detail in the supervision manual Chapter 8, 19 para 3 of the Atomic Energy Act. This legitimises the corrective intervention by the authority to ensure compliance with provisions and conditions and the safe operation of the installations. In accordance with the proceeding with regard to supervisory directions explained in Chapter 8.2/1 Corrective direction, the planned written notification of findings is limited to Deficiency 1 and 2 and deviations. Advice is still given to the plant operator only verbally. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 114 of 261

118 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. The recommendation has to be seen in conjunction with the suggestions S15 and S Documents Table of classification criteria of Canada, Switzerland and the KeTAG (R6_Anlage 1_ Vergleich Klassifizierung Inspektionsbefunde) On-site inspections (MS-AH-501-R) Notification of inspection findings (MS-AH-509-F) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 18: Supplementation of the supervision manual with regard to the adherence to the written form when communicating found deviations to the operator. Measure No. 18 also implements requirements from suggestion S12. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 115 of 261

119 Suggestion S13 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Regulatory inspection and enforcement activities shall cover all areas of regulatory responsibility. The regulatory body shall conduct inspections to satisfy itself that the operator is in compliance with the conditions set out, for example, in the authorization or regulations. S13 Suggestion: UM BW should review and expand the scope of the inspection programme, as appropriate, to assure that all areas of regulatory responsibility are covered. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The responsibilities of the UM BW as well as the interfaces to other authorities such as the Ministry of the Interior of Baden-Württemberg (area of physical protection) or the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Economic Affairs (area of construction law) are clearly regulated in the concept for regulatory supervision and in the supervision manual. All major responsibilities are shown there. The responsibility for the supervision strategy and for the inspection programme lies with the UM BW To implement the suggestion, the inspection programme was again mirrored against the provisions of GS-G-1.3. In addition, further inspection programmes (e.g. of ENSI) were considered with regard to possible optimisation potentials for the UM BW programme and evaluated. Mirroring against GS-G-1.3 The inspection areas stated in the Appendix are as follows: Operations (divided into operating procedures, operators training programme, safety systems, management) Outages IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 116 of 261

120 Radiation protection and radioactive waste management (divided into organisational structure for radiation protection, records of occupational radiation doses, effluents, environmental monitoring, waste management) Maintenance and testing Engineering Modifications Emergency preparedness Physical protection Quality assurance programme Effectiveness of management systems The result of mirroring is shown in a comparative table (S13_Anlage 1). The review showed that all relevant areas are covered. For the purpose of further optimisation, the inspection programme has been extended by the following two elements: Supplementation of the programme by the topic unannounced inspections Inspection for review of data acquisition by the plant operator for safety performance indicators (supervision manual /1) 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Comparative table: GS-G-1.3 with UM BW inspection programme (S13_Anlage 1_Vergleichstabelle Inspektionsprogramm UVM vs GS-G-1.3) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 117 of 261

121 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 19: Review and if necessary extension of the inspection programme. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 118 of 261

122 Suggestion S14 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that To ensure that all nuclear facilities in a State are inspected to a common standard and that their level of safety is consistent, the regulatory body should provide its inspectors with written guidelines in sufficient detail. The guidelines should be followed to ensure a systematic and consistent approach to inspection while allowing sufficient flexibility for inspectors to take the initiative in dealing with new concerns that arise. S14 Suggestion: UM BW should develop more detailed procedures for inspection activities to enhance the consistency of inspections. Such detailed procedures would be particularly helpful in the context of a future work force that includes staff with less experience than the current staff. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The objective of the suggestion was to demonstrate that the authority has to ensure by appropriate methods that the results of inspections carried out in the same topic area are similar (as independent as possible of the inspectors carrying out the inspection). One way to achieve this objective, namely the development of detailed procedures for the performance of inspections, was specifically mentioned in the suggestion. The topic of development of detailed procedures was intensively discussed at the management level. As a result, further detailing in addition to the existing procedures was considered not to be appropriate. However, the objective of the suggestion was considered to be appropriate and adopted. In order to achieve the objective, various actions were defined. In addition, it should be pointed out here that apart from the supervisory visits of the UM BW, there are also activities performed on behalf of the UM BW by the authorised experts of TÜV (SV) and KeTAG consulted according to 20 of the Atomic Energy Act. These are performed according to tasks clearly defined by the UM BW and that are highly formalised (check list character). The activities of the IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 119 of 261

123 expert are described in detail and leave no leeway. In contrast, it is the strategy of the UM BW that the supervisory visits purposely leave room for deviations from a formal approach and an overall view. The presence of the authorised expert in the plant is also significantly higher than that of the UM BW. With this combination of fixed routine activities and overall activities of the UM BW, the overall objective can well be achieved. The following measures have been defined: Uniform and good training of inspectors Workshops on supervisory practice Participation in supervisory visits of colleagues Participation by section heads and project leaders in supervisory visits of colleagues Intensive discussion of findings/indications in the Division (project, Section, Division) Rotation within the Division By the sum of the above measures, the necessary coherence can be achieved from the point of view of the UM BW. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Introductory training plan (MS-OH-165-U) Concept for workshops on supervisory practice (Q163_Anlage_1_Workshop Aufsichtspraxis) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 120 of 261

124 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 20: Guaranteeing objectivity in on-site inspections. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 121 of 261

125 Suggestion S15 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that Inspection reports should typically contain: identification of the facility inspected, the purpose and date of the inspection and the inspectors names; a record of any deficiency or violation found in regulatory inspections, including a record of which requirements or regulations have been contravened;... S15 Suggestion: UM BW should enhance the content of inspection reports to include reference to the applicable regulatory requirements associated with inspection findings. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The inspection protocols are structured as defined in the supervision manual. The contents to be documented there are structured according to the following items: 1. Subject of supervision 2. Findings 3. Assessment of the findings 4. Measures initiated 5. Inspection result All inspection findings will be documented and then stored in a database (AGAVE). All inspection findings will be categorised. Depending on the category, the supervision manual specifies further handling of the findings. In cases where a redress letter is required, it is clearly stated in the redress letter on which legal provision the finding is based. In cases where inspection findings are only communicated verbally and then will be documented in the inspection protocol, the legal basis of the finding has to be stated in the inspection protocol itself. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 122 of 261

126 Regarding the assessment of the findings, the supervision manual was structured more precisely. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Supplementation of the supervision manual in chapter On-site inspections (MS-AH-501-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 21: Inclusion of the inspection basis in the inspection protocols and classification of the results there. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 123 of 261

127 Suggestion S16 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The main purposes of regulatory inspection and enforcement are to ensure that: (1) facilities, equipment and work performance meet all necessary requirements; (2) relevant documents and instructions are valid and are being complied with; (3) persons employed by the operator (including contractors) possess the necessary competence for the effective performance of their functions; (4) deficiencies and deviations are identified and are corrected or justified without undue delay; (5) any lessons learned are identified and propagated to other operators and suppliers and to the regulatory body as appropriate; and (6) the operator is managing safety in a proper manner. (2) BASIS: GS-G states that Different methods may be used in establishing or modifying an inspection programme, with associated priorities, to achieve the objectives of regulatory inspections. The regulatory body should consider the following: the results of previous inspections; the safety analysis performed by the operator and the results of regulatory review and assessment; performance indicator programmes or any other systematic method for the assessment of the operator s performance; operational experience and lessons learned from operating the facility and other similar facilities as well as results of research and development; S16 Suggestion: UM BW should enhance the annual assessment process used to evaluate plant performance and define the inspection program for the upcoming year, such that it more clearly and systematically incorporates relevant performance information available to the regulator (e.g., the annual operator reports on the Safety Management System Performance, the KOMFORT system data, the results of inspections and enforcement, as well as performance indicators). Particular attention should be given to the schedule and activities for obtaining all relevant information to enable an integrated assessment. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 124 of 261

128 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Within the framework of different meetings some of them held annually with the plant operator, the UM BW receives information on the safety management system (Sicherheitsmanagementsystem - SMS) and the integrated event analysis (ganzheitliche Ereignisanalyse GEA) being relevant for the preparation of the annual inspection programme. Based on the site-specific reports on the SMS and the GEA submitted by the plant operators for evaluation, findings derived from it are discussed at annual meetings. Moreover, the evaluations of the KOMFORT and safety performance indicators (SPIs) are discussed with the plant operator as part of the discussion on the SMS. The results of the discussion on the SMS are documented, in accordance with the supervision manual, in an inspection protocol/agave; for the discussion on the GEA, an inspection protocol is usually prepared. The evaluation of the annual inspection programme of the previous year is carried out at the beginning of the new year and documented, in accordance with the supervision manual, in an evaluating annotation and a table. Further, discussions will take place at the management level where, among other things, issues for the planning of inspections are discussed, which can then be taken into consideration in it. Findings from plant operator reports or supervision visits are also taken into consideration. For the implementation of the suggestion, a time frame was set, in addition to the existing regulations, in which the respective evaluations and discussions will have to be performed. This time frame had to be observed with regard to the existing regulation for setting up the annual inspection programme. Based on this IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 125 of 261

129 supplementation, a defined process for the necessary modification of the annual inspection programme has been integrated where required at the beginning of the second half of the year or put in concrete terms. Additionally, a location was specified where relevant findings for the annual inspection programme are stored (list of noted items in the corresponding technical section s file). Besides the aforementioned evaluations, findings from other areas relevant for the inspection programme can be documented at the competent section in this way. In detail: Adaptation of the process flow diagram of the annual inspection planning with regard to the input parameters for the preparation of the annual inspection programme and the timetable (where required, modification at the beginning of the second half-year). Introduction of a storage location for the list of noted items continuously followed up with findings that are relevant for the modification of the annual inspection programme. Following these measures, the supervision manual has been supplemented by details on the respective completion date and on the storage location for findings and information to complete the documentation in the following chapters: Safety management system (Chapter / MS-AH-514-R): Specification of the date by which the SMS discussion has to be completed, storage location for findings and for the evaluation of the SPIs. KOMFORT (Chapter /2 / MS-AH-503-R): Specification of a time frame for the annual meeting and of a storage location for the evaluation. GEA (Chapter / MS-AH-526-R): Specification of a date by which the GEA discussion has to be completed and of a storage location for the resulting findings. Annual inspection programme (Chapter /1 / MS-AH-501-R): Supplementation with timetable (date for modification), storage location for the IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 126 of 261

130 annotation and the table as well as for the list of noted items for the next annual inspection programme. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Supervision manual chapter, see above Revised process flow diagram of the annual inspection planning (supervision manual Chapter /1 / MS-AH-507-P) 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 16: Development of a procedure on the performance of an overall assessment of the respective plant. Measure No. 16 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestion S12 and of question No. 132 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 127 of 261

131 Suggestion S17 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The main purposes of regulatory inspection and enforcement are to ensure that: (1) facilities, equipment and work performance meet all necessary requirements; (2) relevant documents and instructions are valid and are being complied with; (3) persons employed by the operator (including contractors) possess the necessary competence for the effective performance of their functions; (4) deficiencies and deviations are identified and are corrected or justified without undue delay; (5) any lessons learned are identified and propagated to other operators and suppliers and to the regulatory body as appropriate; and (6) the operator is managing safety in a proper manner. S17 Suggestion: UM BW should review its performance indicators to confirm that the (72) safety indicators and the (8) safety culture indicators provide relevant and meaningful insights. The regulator should inspect the inputs used for the operators performance indicators to verify their accuracy. The merits of a more frequent (e.g., quarterly) review and trending of the safety performance indicators should be considered to enable a more timely response to a declining trend in operator performance. In addition, UM BW should consider the merits of benchmarking the use of safety culture attributes of other regulatory bodies to optimize its approach to assessing safety culture. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation For the supervision of nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg, the UM BW used two different types of indicators. Indicators in the field of safety performance (safety performance indicators - SPIs) Indicators in the field of safety culture (KOMFORT indicators) For the two areas of safety performance and safety culture, the UM BW developed an own set of indicators that takes into account the international IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 128 of 261

132 practice. The indicators should primarily serve as an information source in terms of an early warning system that initiates inquiries or in-depth investigations. It is not intended to derive a direct safety assessment from the indicators. The results from the evaluation of the indicators are discussed, together with other findings from supervision, in an annual meeting with the plant manager and the person competent for safety management and thus referred to for an assessment of the safety management of the plant. The safety performance indicators have been applied since The indicators are partly developed by the UM BW itself and partly by the authorised expert or the plant operator and evaluated the UM BW on an annual basis. The supervision instrument KOMFORT has been introduced in It comprises 8 indicators which are also evaluated on an annual basis. In accordance with suggestion S17, the UM BW reviewed and adapted the two indicator sets with regard to validity and use for supervision, quality of data acquisition and the frequency of acquisition and evaluation. The supervision instrument KOMFORT was presented on numerous occasions and discussed in the national and international context. Validity and use for supervision The technical sections concerned reviewed the safety performance indicators together with key sections competent for cross-site evaluation of the indicators in several meetings on the basis of experience gained in applying the indicators. Here, the focus was on the validity of the individual indicators and potential difficulties concerning data acquisition (are the definitions unambiguous and clear, how have the values been determined?). The aim was to sort out indicators of low validity and - where necessary - to make adaptations. With first interim results, the UM BW then had a discussion with the plant operators in order to learn about their experiences in the acquisition of indicators and to discuss further opportunities for improvement. During this discussion it was also determined whether and in case of which indicators shorter acquisition and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 129 of 261

133 evaluation cycles would be possible. In addition, the plant operators expressed the wish to directly retrieve the data from the electronic management system if possible, which is also in the interest of the UM BW regarding data quality and in terms of the suggestion. The revised set of safety performance indicators was finally determined in an internal UM BW meeting. As a result, the size of the set of indicators was considerably reduced (42 indicators) and some indicator definitions defined more specifically. Quality of data acquisition The reliability of data acquisition could be improved by clarifications on the definitions of the safety performance indicators. The quality of the safety performance indicator data acquired by the plant operators has also been improved in that the values of many indicators in future can directly be retrieved from the electronic management system. In addition, the UM BW made spot checks during the annual discussion of the safety management system on how the data are acquired. Frequency of acquisition and evaluation As part of the revision of the indicators it was also examined whether shorter acquisition and evaluation cycles may lead to an additional gain of information or an additional use for supervision (e.g. by shorter reaction times) and what indicators would be suitable for it. In principle, it should be noted here that the indicators developed by the UM BW are aimed at identifying undesirable trends in the field of safety performance or safety culture as early as possible in terms of an early warning system even before serious weaknesses can manifest themselves. This requires, on the one hand, a very careful evaluation and cautious interpretation of the data and, on the other hand, a statistically sound data base and correspondingly long periods of observation. From the point of view of the UM BW, shorter evaluation cycles are not useful for the KOMFORT indicators since, on the one hand, trends in the area of safety IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 130 of 261

134 culture do not take place in the short run but rather slowly and over a longer period and, on the other hand, the number of acquisitions of some indicators is too low. Regarding the safety performance indicator, some indicators were identified during the discussion with the plant operators that could be displayed with tothe-day or to-the-month accuracy and in trend curves. It was agreed to maintain an annual evaluation cycle for the time being, but to use the corresponding trend curves for selected indicators instead of the annual values on a trial basis. Should some of the indicators show sufficient validity by this, the UM BW considers to evaluate some of the safety performance indicators quarterly. Comparison of different supervision approaches in the field of safety culture (KOMFORT benchmarking) There is an intensive exchange of information between the UM BW and the supervisory authorities of other Länder and from abroad. With the sections of the Swiss and the Dutch supervisory authorities responsible for the field of MTO, detailed discussions have meanwhile been held on the respective supervisory practices in the area of safety culture. Moreover, the supervision instrument KOMFORT was also presented and discussed in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee of the Federation-Länder Committee for Nuclear Energy as well as during a symposium of the TÜV SÜD on the topic of safety management. In May 2010, the UM BW participated in a workshop of the Working Group on Inspection Practices (WGIP) of the OECD/NEA in Amsterdam. There, two working groups have been committed two days exclusively to the issue of supervision in the field of safety culture. In this respect, the supervision instrument KOMFORT met with an extremely positive response. It showed that the supervision approach in the field of safety pursued by the UM BW with KOMFORT is generally recognised and confirmed. For the UM BW, the suggestions of the colleagues from other supervisory authorities in IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 131 of 261

135 connection with KOMFORT and experience made elsewhere with the supervision instrument e.g. at the Dutch supervisory authority are of particular interest for the further development of KOMFORT. So, for example, it became clear during discussions with the Dutch authority how important welldesigned assessment tools are, and that for the user a user-friendly design of the instrument is of great importance (e.g. reduced documentation efforts and easy data entry into an electronic data collection system). The UM BW uses the opportunities to exchange experience at the national and international level. The knowledge gained on these occasions is used, just like the regular internal experience exchange within the UM BW (workshops on supervisory practice), for continuous improvement of the supervision instrument. Altogether, it can be stated that the regulatory approaches in the field of safety culture everywhere are more or less in development. With the supervision instrument KOMFORT, the UM BW pursues the currently perhaps most systematic approach for the collection of information on aspects of safety culture from on-site inspections and for evaluation. This is also shown by the great interest KOMFORT worldwide. The review team also made the suggestion to take trending of the safety performance indicators into consideration. In accordance with the supervision manual, both the KOMFORT indicators and the safety performance indicators are in principle also evaluated with respect to the identification of trends. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 132 of 261

136 3. Documents List of SPIs and definitions (S17_Anlage_1_SPI) Safety management system (MS-AH-514-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 22: Review and if necessary adaptation of the SPI and KOMFORT indicators. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 133 of 261

137 Suggestion S18 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Regulatory inspection and enforcement activities shall cover all areas of regulatory responsibility. The regulatory body shall conduct inspections to satisfy itself that the operator is in compliance with the conditions set out, for example, in the authorization or regulations. In addition, the regulatory body shall take into account, as necessary, the activities of suppliers of services and products to the operator. Enforcement actions shall be applied as necessary by the regulatory body in the event of deviations from, or noncompliance with, conditions and requirements. (2) BASIS: GS-G states that Reactive inspections, by individuals or teams, are usually initiated by the regulatory body in response to an unexpected, unplanned situation or incident in order to assess its significance and implications and the adequacy of corrective actions. A reactive inspection may be occasioned by an isolated incident or a series of lesser events occurring at the particular facility under consideration. Similarly, a reactive inspection may be made in response to a generic problem encountered at another plant or identified by the review and assessment staff of the regulatory body. Unlike planned inspections, which are scheduled, reactive inspections are only partly subject to planning by the regulatory body and may disrupt regulatory programmes and schedules. The regulatory body should assume that there will be a need for reactive inspections and should plan to meet its needs for staff and consultants accordingly. For example, in implementing the inspection programme, the regulatory body should establish a graded approach in responding to unforeseen circumstances. All available resources may be needed in responding to a serious event, whereas in the simplest of cases only one inspector may be needed. This pre-established graded approach in responding to special circumstances will assist in determining the appropriate level of resources for use in inspections. S18 Suggestion: UM BW should develop a procedure, that include criteria, for reactive inspections UM BW statement: 1. Implementation In the supervision manual (Chapter ), event-induced supervision is described as a part of supervision in the phase of operation: Event-induced oversight describes the kind of control activity that is triggered from outside the regulatory authority either by reportable events in the plant concerned or by events in other IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 134 of 261

138 plants. Such events in other plants are analysed by way of so-called information notices and quarterly reports. Occurrences in conventional plants are considered as well. As another part of reactive control carried out by the UM BW, on-site inspections are also performed in response to findings from the nuclear power plants (e.g. from the remote monitoring system for nuclear power plants (KFÜ), the integrated safety information system (ISIS), in-service inspections, ) within the framework of basic supervision or the ten-yearly safety review (SR) and indications identified during inspection activities If the UM BW receives information about an event in a plant in the area of responsibility, the competent section will check the safety significance (verification of the obligation to report pursuant to AtSMV). In case of a (potentially) reportable event, the clearing agency will be informed and the process will be dealt with according to the supervision manual (Chapter ), usually in connection with a supervision visit which serves above all to provide on-site information and to assist in the evaluation of the event. Events that are not reportable are followed up by the competent section depending on the potential safety relevance. The procedure for dealing with information notices is regulated in the supervision manual. For the implementation of the suggestion, a process flow diagram was prepared for reactive supervision taking into account existing processes and lived processes. The safety-related assessment of the events performed in the competent section was concretised by using the clearing agency's (CS) standardised list of questions and inspection catalogue. Supplementary to the applicable regulations, criteria were defined within this framework, based on the classification of the event (according to AtSMV or INES) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 135 of 261

139 that largely correspond to the approach applied so far and according to which follow-up of the event by the competent section of the UM BW, by team inspections or by the establishment of a supervision priority is recommended. Supervision visits which are carried out directly following an event for information on site as a contribution to the safety assessment are not explicitly shown in the process flow diagram. The procedure applied by the UM BW regarding the assessment of the safety relevance of events was documented and also expanded by the introduction of the process flow diagram. The process flow diagram includes, on the one hand, a possible probabilistic analysis of an event and, on the other hand, the aspects to be considered in an in-depth analysis. The corresponding regulations for team inspections (under Chapter 1.6) and supervision priorities (Chapter ), and the chapter on event-induced supervision (Chapter ) in the supervision manual have been adapted to the modifications. The following documents have been adapted or created: Development of a process flow diagram on reactive supervision Adaptation of the corresponding supervision manual chapters for standardisation Chapter 1.6: Inclusion of criteria for team inspections Chapter : Inclusion of criteria for establishing a supervision priority Chapter : Inclusion of a process flow diagram in the chapter on eventinduced supervision 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 136 of 261

140 3. Documents Process flow diagram on reactive supervision (MS-AH-550-P) Supervision manual Chapter section 2.3 (MS-AH-550-R section 2.3), Chapter (MS-AH-550-R), Chapter (MS-AH-534-R) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 23: Definition of a graded procedure for event-induced supervision. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 137 of 261

141 Suggestion S19 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that - The main purposes of regulatory inspection and enforcement are to ensure that (6) the operator is managing safety in a proper manner. (2) BASIS: GS-G states that To ensure that all nuclear facilities in a State are inspected to a common standard and that their level of safety is consistent, the regulatory body should provide its inspectors with written guidelines in sufficient detail. The guidelines should be followed to ensure a systematic and consistent approach to inspection while allowing sufficient flexibility for inspectors to take the initiative in dealing with new concerns that arise. Appropriate information and guidance should be provided to the inspectors and each inspector should be given adequate training in following this guidance. Consideration should be given to the extent to which this guidance should be made available to the operator or to the public. Appropriate subjects for guidance and instructions for inspectors could include: (a) how to develop an inspection programme; (b) the legal basis for regulatory inspection and the scope of the inspector s authority; (c) the use of regulatory requirements, regulations and guides and industrial standards; (d) implementation of the inspection programme, including: areas to be subject to inspection, method of inspection to be used, methods for selection of inspection samples, relevant technical information and questionnaires; (e) reporting requirements and practices for inspectors; (f) policies of the regulatory body as they may affect inspection; (g) standards of conduct of inspectors; (h) enforcement policy, procedures and practices. S19 Suggestion: UM BW should plan and schedule inspections outside the normal working hours (i.e., nights and weekends), and increase the number of such inspections. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 138 of 261

142 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The requirement that both announced and unannounced inspections have to be carried out is included in the concept for regulatory supervision (Chapter ). The unannounced inspections have been carried out, but were in principle not explicitly listed in the annual inspection programmes and not shown explicitly/separately in the evaluation of the annual inspection programmes. Further, it was not explicitly stated in the internal regulations of the Division that such inspections also have to be carried out outside normal working hours, especially at night and at weekends. The internal regulations of the Division have been amended accordingly. Supplementary to the procedures applied so far, the unannounced inspections (number, performance) have been included in the programme of objectives of Division 3. In addition, the wordings the concept for regulatory supervision and the supervision manual have been amended accordingly. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Concept for regulatory supervision (MS-AK-050-K - Chapter ) Strategic orientation and objectives of Division 3 (S19_Anlage_2_Strategische Ausrichtung und Ziele der Abteilung) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 24: Supervision at night and at weekends. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 139 of 261

143 Suggestion S20 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Enforcement actions are designed to respond to non-compliance with the specified conditions and requirements. The action shall be commensurate with the seriousness of the non-compliance. S20 Suggestion: The BMU and UM BW should review the enforcement tools available to assure proportionality between enforcement actions and the safety significance of violations. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Corresponding discussions within the Division Presentation of the existing sanction instruments of the authority Assessment from the point of view of supervision experience The sanction instruments of the German law The German law provides a wide range of instruments to enforce legal and regulatory requirements of operators of nuclear power plants. In addition there are specific nuclear regulatory instruments. In detail: Administrative enforcement measures Should the operator of an installation violate legal provisions or administrative orders, then it is the responsibility of the supervisory authority to ensure that legality is restored. If the operator does not voluntarily restore legality, the authority issues an order and - if it is not adhered to - enforces compliance by way of administrative enforcement. The most common instrument of compulsory enforcement of the authority s will is the so-called "penalty payment" that may be imposed for any act of infringement of an administrative IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 140 of 261

144 order to the amount of up to 50,000. The authority determines the penalty payment in relation to the severity of the violation and to the public interest in enforcement of the administrative order. Up until now, it has not been necessary to impose a penalty payment for the enforcement of administrative orders within the framework of nuclear supervision. Administrative offences procedures and fines The Atomic Energy Act in conjunction with the Administrative Offences Act imposes fines of up to 50,000 for the violation of a variety of plant operator s which are imposed either personally on those who act contrary to duty, or directly on the operating company. These sanctions, which may be imposed for violations of minor gravity, are imposed by the nuclear regulatory authority. The prerequisites for these sanctions are clearly specified in the atomic energy law. The authority has some sentencing discretion that has to be used according to the aspects, in particular, of the gravity of the offence and the kind of accusation against the offender. So far, the imposition of fines in the few cases in which administrative offences have led to administrative fine proceedings did not cause any other problems. Thus, no need is seen for the establishment of rigid regulations for determining the amount of the fine. Criminal sanctions The Criminal Code (StGB) contains a series of punishable offences according to which intentional or negligent offences in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants are subjected, as a rule, to imprisonment of up to five years. Thus, whoever, in violation of duties under administrative law, releases ionising radiation ( 311 StGB), defectively constructs a nuclear facility ( 312 StGB) or operates it without the required permit ( 327 StGB) or deals with radioactive substances without the required permit ( 328 StGB) shall be punished with imprisonment for up to five years. These penalties are mainly imposed on acts in breach of statutory or administrative regulations - in particular those of nuclear law that may cause dangers to health or the environment. Terms and scope of the criminal offences are clearly described; IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 141 of 261

145 gaps in punishability have not been detected so far. Sentencing is the task of the courts; the range of sentences includes sufficient differentiation of the sanctions by the severity of the offence. Here again, there is no need for further classification of offences or for further differentiation of the statutory sentencing rules. Removal of unreliable or unqualified personnel of the plant operator from plant operation 7 para 2 No.1 of the Atomic Energy Act requires particular reliability of responsible management personnel of the plant and also the requisite qualification of the persons responsible for the erection and management of the installation and the supervision of its operation. 7 para 2 No.2 of the Atomic Energy Act requires that persons otherwise engaged have the necessary knowledge concerning the safe operation of the installation, the possible hazards and the protective measures to be taken. If deficiencies in the operation of the plant are detected, the authority, having regard to these provisions, has the possibility - and this has already happened of working towards the removal of those responsible for it from the staff of the installation or - if the plant operator is opposed to it to order such removal. Assessment from the point of view of supervision experience The system of sanctions under administrative law, administrative offences law and criminal law provided in the German law is comprehensive, complete and specific enough to sanction plant operators violations of nuclear law or administrative orders in an appropriate way. There is no need for a fundamental expansion of the system towards legally defined sanction catalogues. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. Suggestion S20 has to be seen in conjunction with suggestion S21. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 142 of 261

146 3. Documents Chapter 8 in the supervision manual (MS-AK-050-K Chapter 8) 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 25: Review of the adequacy of penalties by Federation and Länder The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 143 of 261

147 Suggestion S21 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that. The regulatory body shall adopt clear administrative procedures and guidelines governing the use and implementation of enforcement actions. All inspectors and other staff of the regulatory body should be trained and should be knowledgeable about the procedures and guidelines. S21 Suggestion: UM BW should develop administrative procedures and guidelines for implementation of the enforcement process. UM BW inspectors and staff should be trained on the use and application of these documents. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The suggestion was given due to the slightly different handling by the authority, compared internationally, in case of deviations identified or essential findings in plant operation. Generally, the number of formal procedures performed by the competent authorities is higher abroad, while the approach of the Baden- Württemberg supervisory authority provides for the removal of deviations in case of minor or less purely formal deviations of minor significance by way of co-operative administrative action. Accordingly, fine proceedings or other coercive measures are only applied in exceptional cases. Co-operative administrative actions are not aimed at the prevention of hazards. Therefore, it was necessary from the point of view of the international review board that formal enforcement procedures required to a small extent should be summarised and documented in an appropriate manner and supervisory staff of the Land should be knowledgeable about the application of these procedures. Thus, the suggestion covers both the written addressee-oriented representation for the implementation of corrective actions (Section 3) and imparting and refreshing of knowledge on the application of these procedures (Section 4). IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 144 of 261

148 Additionally, it seems to be appropriate to verify whether the available documents provide an adequate representation beyond the information required. Review of the representation of possibilities and powers of regulatory supervision in the concept for regulatory supervision and in the supervision manual For the supervisory staff of Division 3, the supervision manual is the guideline and basis for supervisory actions. Consequently, the procedures that may be necessary are described there in Chapter 8 ( Possibilities and powers of corrective intervention and sanctions in the regulatory supervision process ). These descriptions comprise 1. the legal framework, 2. the legality and prerequisites for the application of the corresponding measure or intervention, 3. the requirements for the content-related and formal implementation of the measure, and (among other things), 4. the application of the procedure in the Division. These information are available throughout the Division for all supervisory staff via the Intranet and in paper form. In addition, the position can be assigned within the supervisory system. The representation has a very systematic structure and thus provides - especially for younger staff - a useful structuring of the available means on the basis of the cited legal provisions. The application of the described means, i.e. in particular an exemplary illustration of the plant operator s failures according to these means, is not the subject of the representation. The assignment of deficiencies to an appropriate means cannot be provided by the supervision manual, because their management is often within the discretion of the supervisory staff and therefore cannot be defined per se in advance. Furthermore, the form of the "supervisory example (except sample letter) does not conform to the system of the supervision manual. In addition, not all IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 145 of 261

149 situations occurring during plant operation can principally linked with predefined instructions or "if-then" decision trees. Thus, all the relevant information needed for measures of corrective intervention are available Impartment of competence Besides the development and implementation of the legal systematics and procedures in the Division, utilisation and information on how to utilise them is an essential element in the overall structure. New staff is therefore acquainted with the main regulations in the Division from the beginning, including, in particular, the supervision manual. This is done in separate meetings and as part of introductory training by training-on-the-job. Regarding the introduction to the daily work, the contents of the supervision manual will be linked to practical issues and in this way put the partly abstract provisions and procedures in concrete terms. For all staff, mandatory workshops on supervisory practice are held on an annual basis. Within this framework, topics and issues arising from the supervisory activities are dealt with and possible options for action developed and discussed in short training sessions. Thus, they serve the on-site exchange of supervision experience across sections and promote a common understanding. In 2009, corresponding workshops were held with a focus on instructions for regulatory intervention on and This element of impartment and maintenance of competence proved to be particularly useful due to the broad participation in and communicative character of the events. Assessment from the point of view of supervision experience The subsequent review did not reveal any information related to administrative procedures that require supplementation. The procedural provisions in the Division are fully described. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 146 of 261

150 The routine training courses within the workshops on supervision practice in 2009 again informed the supervisory staff on the provisions and deepened them in discussions. Since the workshops always include also the actions of the supervisory staff in special situations, the required refreshment takes place on a regular basis. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 26: Review of the instructions on regulatory intervention. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 147 of 261

151 Question No. 130 Question No. 130: Notwithstanding the legal requirement, how in practice does the Regulatory Body ensure that regulatory inspections do not diminish the operator s prime responsibility for safety or substitute for the control, supervision and verification activities the operator must carry out? The main purposes of regulatory inspection and enforcement are to ensure that: (1) facilities, equipment and work performance meet all necessary requirements; (2) relevant documents and instructions are valid and are being complied with; (3) persons employed by the operator (including contractors) possess the necessary competence for the effective performance of their functions; (4) deficiencies and deviations are identified and are corrected or justified without undue delay; (5) any lessons learned are identified and propagated to other operators and suppliers and to the regulatory body as appropriate; and (6) the operator is managing safety in a proper manner. Regulatory inspections shall not diminish the operator s prime responsibility for safety or substitute for the control, supervision and verification activities that the operator must carry out. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The principle of responsibility of the licensee for safe operation is based on the regulations of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) on licensing and supervision. According to 7 AtG, a licence for erection and operation will only be granted if the applicant proves that he has taken the necessary technical and organisational precautions for safe operation. During operation, the plant operator has to fulfil his responsibility for safe operation continuously. This is verified and ensured by the regulatory authorities which have the means of 17 and 19 of the Atomic Energy Act at their disposal. Uninterrupted supervision by the government both in terms of time and subject matter is not possible and, moreover, would not be conformable with the constitutional order and the legal position of the operator based on it. Further, one hundred percent control would also lead to inappropriate shifting of responsibilities. According to the principle of self-responsibility, the safety of a nuclear power plant lies within the responsibility of the plant operator who has to ensure safe plant operation by adequate control measures that comply with the requirements of monitoring performed by the operator (see Section of the oversight concept). The task of the regulatory authority, however, is to use suitable tools to control on a random basis whether the operator fulfils his responsibility. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 148 of 261

152 The regulatory inspection procedures provide both inspections which are relatively independent of the monitoring by the operator (e.g. on-site inspections, remote monitoring of nuclear reactors) and those which are based on the monitoring by the operator (e.g. preventive maintenance, safety management systems). The responsibility of the operator for functioning monitoring by the operator remains unaffected by the applied inspection procedures of the regulatory authority. In practice, this means the following: The scope of the on-site oversight activities performed by the authority with 1 to 2 man days per week and nuclear power plant unit is a control on a random basis. Within the framework of its activities, the regulatory authority therefore pays increased attention to whether the operator has a functioning system for monitoring and application of his processes. In this respect, emphasis is laid on controlling the monitoring by the operator. The regulatory authority ensures in particular that the operator himself removes the deficiencies identified by him in due course. As a matter of principle, it is expected that the operator himself proposes or initiates the necessary measures for removal of deficiencies and deviations, proposes improvements and not primarily relies on the authority or the authorised expert. The initiative should always be taken by the operator. The regulatory authority pays special attention to appropriate measures to avoid recurrence of events and will, in case of recurrence, be more responsive to it. Assessment: 3 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation According to the ILK review conducted in 2006 it was recommended to strengthen the responsibility of the plant operator by increasing the scope of activities that can be performed by the operator independently, and to place greater confidence in the quality assurance of the plant operator. For strengthening the operator's own responsibility, the following measures have been defined and included in the Action Plan: IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 149 of 261

153 Revision of the Land-wide standard modification procedure with the following objective: New clearer definition of the classification criteria for modifications so that some more modifications fall into Category D (without review by the authorised expert and without official approval). The variant of deleting Category C, discussed and tested, did not prove to be practical. See also statement on suggestion S7. Extension of the scope of documents that may be modified without regulatory approval: In a project conducted by UM BW and plant operators, criteria have been established to determine in which cases documents so far classified as subject to review can be released from this classification and which modifications in written operating documentation are subject to review or approval. Some documents (operating procedures) have been released from mandatory review. The criteria have been incorporated into the Land-wide standard modification procedure. The adaptation of the operational documents to the new organisational structure (EnKK organisational change as of ) has been performed at the plant operator s own responsibility. Regular strategic talks with the expert organisations on further development and effective co-ordination of the activities of authorised experts: In recent years (2008, 2009 and 2010), the annual target specified and practised was to conduct 2 strategic talks with the expert organisations. In these talks, the management level of the expert organisations is and has been informed about the objectives and expectations of the supervisory authority (such as strengthening the operator's own responsibility, avoidance of taking over responsibility, avoidance of taking over QA tasks from the plant operator). The strategic talks with plant operators and authorised experts serve to counteract tendencies of a responsibility shift. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 150 of 261

154 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 130 have been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: Revision of the Land-wide standard modification procedure. Action Plan No. 14: Procedure to release documents from mandatory regular review. Action Plan No. 15: Regular strategic talks with the expert organisations. Measure No. 13 also implements requirements of suggestion S7. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 151 of 261

155 Question No. 132 Does the frequency and extent of the inspection depend of potential magnitude and nature of the hazard associated with the facility or activity or practice? The regulatory body shall establish a planned and systematic inspection programme. The extent to which inspection is performed in the regulatory process will depend on the potential magnitude and nature of the hazard associated with the facility or activity. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: Yes. Due to the high hazard potential of the nuclear power plants in operation, the inspection density for these plants is higher than that for decommissioned plants or other nuclear facilities (research laboratories, training reactors, interim storage facilities, etc.). However, for research reactors in operation (not existing in the Land of Baden- Württemberg), the same requirements on inspection density are generally imposed as for nuclear power plants, but in practice it will be considerably lower due to the considerably less number of components, safety-relevant systems and equipment and personnel. The scope of inspection activities for the different inspection areas provided in the annual inspection programmes of the nuclear power plants is based on many years of experience and practice and thus reflects the safety relevance of individual plant equipment, systems, components or operational processes in the selection of inspection areas and scope of inspection. There are discussions to consider the results of the probabilistic safety analyses for all plants in the further development of the annual inspection programme (risk-informed approach, see Action Plan). In case of special plant-internal events or significant occurrences at other plants, or in order to be able to perform in-depth reviews on specific areas within the framework of oversight priorities, additional inspections are performed, as required. Finally, the operator is requested in all cases where deficiencies were identified, to determine the cause and to provide corrective measures or improvements and to submit a corresponding report including their description to the regulatory authority. This report of the operator will be subject and starting point of further regulatory activities. Assessment: 2 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 152 of 261

156 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation See statements on S12, S16 and S18. As explained in the answer to question 132, the inspection effort principally depends on the safety relevance of the different inspection areas. The supervisory activities are based on an annual inspection programme. The system contains sufficient flexibility to allow early incorporation of new findings into the planning of inspections (also see S12 and S16). In addition to the regulatory supervision, there are also inspection activities that are performed in particular by KeTAG on behalf of the UM BW that are primarily risk based. The discussion about increasing the use of probabilistic methods in the supervisory and licensing procedures in Baden-Württemberg is described in the statement on suggestion S12. In addition to the routine activities, the UM BW conducts additional inspections in connection with event-induced or reactive supervision or in connection with supervision priorities. The corresponding procedures have been adapted on the basis of suggestion S18 and are described more detailed in the statement on S Assessment The measures derived from question No. 132 have been implemented. 3. Documents See statements on S12, S16 and S18 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 16: Development of a procedure on the performance of an overall assessment of the respective plant. Action Plan No. 23: Definition of a graded procedure for event-induced supervision. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 153 of 261

157 Measure No. 16 also implements requirements of suggestions S12 and S16 and measure No. 23 implements requirements of suggestion S18. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 154 of 261

158 3.8 Module VII Development of Regulations and Guides Recommendation R7 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The legislative and governmental mechanisms shall ensure that such regulations are developed and approved in accordance with appropriate time-scales. R7 Recommendation: The existing administrative process to issue BMU regulatory documents should be reviewed and modified in order to ensure that regulations can be issued and implemented in a timely manner. BMU statement: 1. Implementation The preparation of regulatory documents of the BMU is based on a co-operative decision making process between the Federation and the Länder. Thus, fixed time scales in the documents of the BMU on quality management with regard to the agreement on drafts and publication of the documents would not be appropriate. The Federation and the Länder have agreed on the division of tasks and roles in the strategy for the update of rules and regulations. Against this background, it is to be expected that in the future the production of new regulatory documents of the BMU on licensing and supervision with the participation of the Länder will also take place within an appropriate time frame. The corresponding quality management process on the strategy for the update of rules and regulations will be prepared after completion of the mission and integrated into the quality management manual. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 155 of 261

159 3. Documents Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder Strategy for the update of rules and regulations 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 156 of 261

160 Recommendation R8 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The main purpose of regulations is to establish requirements with which all operators must comply. Such regulations shall provide a framework for more detailed conditions and requirements to be incorporated into individual authorizations. (2) BASIS: GSG 1.4, states that The principal purpose in establishing a system of regulations is to codify safety requirements of general applicability. The development of any particular regulation will involve a balance between the need for flexibility (to permit easy adaptation of the regulation to developing circumstances and technology) and the need to include detailed requirements (to facilitate determination of whether the requirements have been met). R8 Recommendation: An ordinance on nuclear safety should be adopted as soon as possible to provide a legally binding basis for the fundamental safety objectives and basic requirements corresponding to these objectives. BMU statement: 1. Implementation The technical requirements relating to the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" will be revised in co-operation with the Länder in a further revision step after completion of the Green Paper process. For the implementation of additional safety provisions in German nuclear power plants, an obligation of the licensee regarding further precaution against risks has been included in the Atomic Energy Act. After revision, the binding regulation of the specific technical requirements will, as it has been regulated in the German legal system so far, be realised by the general listing of requirements to be complied with or measures of the non-mandatory guidance instruments and their legally binding implementation by licensing acts or supervisory measures to maintain the necessary flexibility. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 157 of 261

161 2. Assessment The recommendation has been considered in the new measures; however, the proven existing German legal system will be maintained. 3. Documents Atomic Energy Act (AtG) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 6: Modern standard criteria for reviewing the installations are available (safety requirements). Measure No. 6 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 17, 85, 150 and 152 of the IRRS-questionnaire. Measure No. 6 will be implemented in conjunction with the completion of the Green Paper process and another revision of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. The regulation on further precaution against risks will be implemented in conjunction with the act also stipulating the regulations still required for the implementation of Directive 2009/71/EURATOM into German law. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 158 of 261

162 Recommendation R9 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that In developing regulations and guides, the regulatory body shall take into consideration comments from interested parties and the feedback of experience. Due account shall also be taken of internationally recognized standards and recommendations, such as IAEA safety standards. (2) BASIS: GS-G states that The regulatory body should ensure that regulations and guides are kept up to date, and procedures should be established for their periodic review. Experience in implementing the regulations should be examined, and any problems or difficulties which may have arisen should be duly considered. R9 Recommendation: The existing administrative process to issue and update BMU regulatory documents should be modified to include internal procedures to account for the feedback of experience from all interested parties, in relation to the use of regulatory documents. BMU statement: 1. Implementation With suggestion S22 and recommendation R9, the review team proposed, among other things, that a federal strategy should be adopted in consultation with all Länder hosting nuclear power plants for the production and the revision of regulations and guides, including all BMU and RSK documents and to account for the feedback of experience from all interested parties. Suggestion S22 and recommendation R9 will jointly be dealt with, since the part of operating experience feedback of those involved (cf. Green Paper process) represents an important source of knowledge. For the implementation of suggestion S22 and recommendation R9, the BMU developed a draft strategy for the update of rules and regulations. The draft was presented to the Länder at the 55 th meeting of the Reactor Safety Technical Committee on 30 November The Länder submitted their comments on the BMU draft in writing. For consultation of the Länder and for taking into account the statements by the Länder, a meeting of an ad hoc working group on the strategy for IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 159 of 261

163 the update of rules and regulations was held on 18 January 2011 with participation of the BMU and the Länder. The results of the consultation of the Länder have been taken into consideration by the BMU. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents Strategy paper on the revision of rules and regulations 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 160 of 261

164 Suggestion S22 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that The regulatory body should follow a consistent procedure for establishing, revising and revoking regulations and guides.the procedure followed by the regulatory body for establishing regulations should include the following steps.. S22 Suggestion: A federal strategy should be adopted in consultation with all Länder hosting nuclear power plants for the production and the revision of regulations and guides, including all BMU and RSK documents. This strategy should include the following elements: determination of the need for the new regulations or the revision of the existing documents, including all relevant information (IAEA, generic safety issues, operating experience, etc ); setting the priority for development of the regulations; determination of the scope of the proposed regulations or revisions; and determination of the resources to be employed, depending on the resources available and on the time-scale for the preparation and establishment of regulations and guides As a part of the strategy, the steering role of BMU should be strengthened. Furthermore, a formal document review process should be developed and implemented to assure that the documents remain consistent with the current national and international practice. BMU statement: 1. Implementation With suggestion S22 and recommendation R9, the review team proposed, among other things, that a federal strategy should be adopted in consultation with all Länder hosting nuclear power plants for the production and the revision of regulations and guides, including all BMU and RSK documents and to account for the feedback of experience from all interested parties. Suggestion S22 and recommendation R9 will jointly be dealt with, since the part of operating experience feedback of those involved (cf. Green Paper process) represents an important source of knowledge. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 161 of 261

165 For the implementation of suggestion S22 and recommendation R9, the BMU developed a draft strategy for the update of rules and regulations. The draft was presented to the Länder at the 55 th meeting of the Reactor Safety Technical Committee on 30 November The Länder submitted their comments on the BMU draft in writing. For consultation of the Länder and for taking into account the statements by the Länder, a meeting of an ad hoc working group on the strategy for the update of rules and regulations was held on 18 January 2011 with participation of the BMU and the Länder. The results of the consultation of the Länder have been taken into consideration by the BMU. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Strategy paper on the revision of rules and regulations 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 10: An annual common strategic programme for the treatment of generic safety issues will be determined by the Federal and Länder Regulators. Measure No. 10 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of question 124 of the IRRS-questionnaire. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 162 of 261

166 Suggestion S23 (1) BASIS: GSG 1.4, states that The principal purpose in establishing a system of regulations is to codify safety requirements of general applicability. The development of any particular regulation will involve a balance between the need for flexibility (to permit easy adaptation of the regulation to developing circumstances and technology) and the need to include detailed requirements (to facilitate determination of whether the requirements have been met). S23 Suggestion: The proposed regulatory guide entitled Sicherheitsanforderungen für KKW, outlining safety reference levels and criteria corresponding to the state of the art in science and technology should be used to define the fundamental safety objectives and basic requirements in the nuclear safety ordinance. BMU statement: 1. Implementation The suggestion has been considered within the framework of the approach presented in connection with recommendation R8. The technical requirements relating to the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" will be revised in co-operation with the Länder in a further revision step after completion of the Green Paper process. For the implementation of additional safety provisions in German nuclear power plants, an obligation of the licensee regarding further precaution against risks has been included in the Atomic Energy Act. After revision, the binding regulation of the specific technical requirements will, as it has been regulated in the German legal system so far, be realised by the general listing of requirements to be complied with or measures of the non-mandatory guidance instruments and their legally binding implementation by licensing acts or supervisory measures to maintain the necessary flexibility. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 163 of 261

167 2. Assessment The recommendation has been considered in the new measures; however, the proven existing German legal system will be maintained. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 6: Modern standard criteria for reviewing the installations are available (safety requirements). Measure No. 6 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 17, 85, 150 and 152 of the IRRS-questionnaire. Measure No. 6 will be implemented in conjunction with the completion of the Green Paper process and another revision of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. The regulation on further precaution against risks will be implemented in conjunction with the act also stipulating the regulations still required for the implementation of Directive 2009/71/EURATOM into German law. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 164 of 261

168 Suggestion S24 (1) BASIS: GSG 1.4, states that The principal purpose in establishing a system of regulations is to codify safety requirements of general applicability. The development of any particular regulation will involve a balance between the need for flexibility (to permit easy adaptation of the regulation to developing circumstances and technology) and the need to include detailed requirements (to facilitate determination of whether the requirements have been met). S24 Suggestion: To assist with the interpretation and implementation of proposed safety reference levels and criteria to define regulatory safety targets and potential safety improvements to existing power plants, it should also be considered to issue a nonmandatory guide on identification and disposition of any deviations identified as a result of the safety review. Both documents should be issued and implemented in a timely manner. BMU statement: 1. Implementation After completion of the Green Paper process for the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and preparation of a new Revision, an approach for the development of a potential implementation guide will be discussed with the Länder. As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, supervision in terms of the IRRS mission is performed by the Länder, and application of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants in practice may require decisions on cases by the Länder if a potential implementation guide should also be developed by the Länder. 2. Assessment The suggestion cannot be implemented before preparation of a new Revision of Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. 3. Documents None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 165 of 261

169 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 166 of 261

170 Suggestion S25 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that As a complement to the deterministic approach, the regulatory body should require an evaluation of the risks arising from the facility. S25 Suggestion: A policy document should be developed on the use of risk insights in the regulatory framework and decision making to achieve a proper balance between deterministic and performance based approaches. BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The review team made various suggestions (suggestions S6, S12, S25 and S26) on the use of probabilistic methods in the licensing and supervisory procedure. The document on S25 and S26 summarises the status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses. For the implementation of the suggestions and the preparation of a first draft of a possible approach, the following has been agreed between the BMU and the UM BW: The BMU clarifies jointly with GRS the fundamental questions related to the introduction and application of existing international approaches to the possible use of probabilistic methods in the safety assessment IRiDM (Integrated Risk-Informed Decision Making, also see INSAG 25). This applies, in particular, to the clarification of the relationship between deterministic and probabilistic methods and the specification of procedures for the use of probabilistic methods in the supervisory and licensing procedure. The potential fields of application and the methods to be used are to be described. Further, the concept has to outline the next steps for implementation. The results will be co-ordinated between the BMU and the UM BW. Since supervision in terms of the IRRS mission is performed by the Länder, as described in Chapter 3.1, it is appropriate to use the experiences of the Länder in IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 167 of 261

171 the field of nuclear energy supervision for the development of potential approaches. Therefore, it has been agreed upon with the UM BW that a first draft will be submitted in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee by the BMU to be dealt with by the Länder. 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents Status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses (S25_S26_PSAUVM) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None 5. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 168 of 261

172 Suggestion S26 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that the insights from PSA should be considered together with those from other analyses in making a decision on the acceptability of the safety of a facility. An important aspect of PSA is that, apart from giving an estimate of risks, it also provides information on whether the design is balanced, on the interaction between design features of the facility, and on where there are weaknesses. These additional aspect should be given due consideration by a regulatory body reviewing a PSA. S26 Suggestion: The PSR and PSA guidelines should be reviewed and revised, as necessary, according to the policy document on the use of risk insights in the regulatory oversight, to clarify the role of PSA in the current regulatory framework. BMU and UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The review team made various suggestions (suggestions S6, S12, S25 and S26) on the use of probabilistic methods in the licensing and supervisory procedure. The document on S25 and S26 summarises the status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses. For the implementation of the suggestions and the preparation of a first draft of a possible approach, the following has been agreed between the BMU and the UM BW: The BMU clarifies jointly with GRS the fundamental questions related to the introduction and application of existing international approaches to the possible use of probabilistic methods in the safety assessment IRiDM (Integrated Risk-Informed Decision Making, also see INSAG 25). This applies, in particular, to the clarification of the relationship between deterministic and probabilistic methods and the specification of procedures for the use of probabilistic methods in the supervisory and licensing procedure. The potential fields of application and the methods to be used are to be described. Further, the concept has to outline the next steps for implementation. The results will be co-ordinated between the BMU and the UM BW. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 169 of 261

173 Since supervision in terms of the IRRS mission is performed by the Länder, as described in Chapter 3.1, it is appropriate to use the experiences of the Länder in the field of nuclear energy supervision for the development of potential approaches. Therefore, it has been agreed upon with the UM BW that a first draft will be submitted in the Reactor Safety Technical Committee by the BMU to be dealt with by the Länder. 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents Status of implementation of the suggestions on extended application of probabilistic analyses (S25_S26_PSAUVM) 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None 5. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 170 of 261

174 Suggestion S27 (1) BASIS: GS-G states that The establishment and periodic review of a system of regulations and guides tailored to the specific needs of a State entail a continuing effort. S27 Suggestion: It is suggested to perform an impact assessment of the proposed safety reference levels and criteria on the existing regulatory framework. In particular, the documents that may require revision on the basis of the proposed requirements need to be clearly identified and an action plan developed for inclusion in the overall strategy for the development of regulatory documents. BMU statement: 1. Implementation Revision C/D of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants will be substantially revised, so that with Revision E there will be no inconsistencies with the existing nuclear regulations as a whole. In 2003, the BMU initiated an update of these nuclear rules and regulations and submitted a draft (Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision D) in In Germany, the nuclear rules and regulations are applied by the nuclear supervisory authorities of the Länder. In order to determine the experience feedback regarding the use of these new rules and regulations, a so-called Green Paper process has been agreed upon by the Ministers of the Länder (Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein) and the Federal Minister in June From October 2009 to July 2010, the drafts were applied in agreed procedures in parallel to the old rules and regulations. The nuclear supervisory authorities of the Länder reported their experiences to the BMU at the end of the third quarter of These were evaluated and a new draft (Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision E) is being prepared. It is planned that the Federation and the Länder will jointly publish the new draft. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 171 of 261

175 The other parties, i.e. the plant operators and the authorised experts of the Land authorities, have been involved in the Green Paper process by the corresponding Land authority and requested to report on their experiences. Since no process descriptions for the consideration of the experience feedback regarding the use of the higher-level rules and regulations have been available so far, the BMU will evaluate the selected approach after completion of the Green Paper process and adopt it, if appropriate, in the process described in the quality management manual. 2. Assessment The suggestion will be implemented with the completion of the Green Paper process, the evaluation of the reported experiences and the update of Revision D with the participation of all those concerned. Germany will than have an updated nuclear regulatory framework in accordance with the state of the art in science and technology. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 7: The Regulatory Body shall strengthen its steering function in the drafting of KTA Safety Standards on the basis of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants". The Safety Review (PSR) Guidelines (Fundamentals and Safety Status Analysis) shall be updated on the basis of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" by Measure No. 7 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 150 and 154 of the IRRS-questionnaire. Measure No. 7 will be implemented in conjunction with the completion of the Green Paper process and another revision of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 172 of 261

176 Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 173 of 261

177 Question No. 150 Question No. 150: Does the Regulatory Body develop regulations and guides in accordance with the legal system of the State and take account of the nature and extent of the facilities and activities and practices to be regulated? The system of regulations and guides shall be chosen so as to suit the legal system of the State, and the nature and extent of the facilities and activities to be regulated. Where regulations are not issued by the regulatory body, the legislative and governmental mechanisms shall ensure that such regulations are developed and approved in accordance with appropriate time-scales. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: A system of regulations and guides exists in Germany. A detailed complete view of the regulatory situation in Germany is given in the CNS Report ( 7 (2 i)). The latter shows that in some areas, the system of regulations and guides is no longer in line with the state of the art in science and technology. The body of German regulations and guides is currently in a process of being revised to update them and close existing gaps, e.g. in the areas of lowpower and shutdown operation, safety management, etc. The following projects are currently underway: a) Fundamental safety requirements for nuclear power plants are currently being prepared by BMU and the Länder and will be defined in a statutory ordinance (see also Chapter 4.2 for links to modules 1-11). b) General assessment criteria for the assessment of the safety of nuclear power plants according to the state of the art in science and technology are being drafted on behalf of the BMU. Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation From the IRRS self-assessment and the ILK review conducted in 2006, the UM BW had derived an increased participation in the work on national rules and regulations. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 174 of 261

178 The objective is to use the existing experience of the UM BW from licensing and supervision for the further development of the rules and regulations. The following activities related to the rules and regulations have been selected as measures and participation has been laid down in the Action Plan: Preparation of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" (Modules) by BMU and the Länder. Drafting of a Nuclear Plant Safety Ordinance (AtASiV) by BMU and the Länder. Co-operation in the KTA 1403 committee on Ageing Management. Co-operation in the KTA 1402 committee on Management System for the Operation of Nuclear Facilities. Staff of the UM BW permanently participated in the above activities in working groups. The "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" were subjected to application on a trial basis ("Green Paper process ). Work on a Nuclear Plant Safety Ordinance (AtASiV) has been suspended by the BMU. Instead, safety requirements and measures have been defined in a Federation/Länder working group that will be applicable for nuclear power plants in case of a lifetime extension. The KTA safety standards have been drafted. The drafts are currently being discussed in the KTA committees or subjected to a public hearing. In addition to the activities in connection with the rules and regulations, staff of the UM BW also participate in other KTA committees. Staffing of committees, subcommittees and working groups is specified in document MS-OH-158-R. 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 150 have been implemented. 3. Documents Staffing of committees, subcommittees and working groups (MS-OH-158-R) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 175 of 261

179 4. Related measure(s) in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 27: Preparation of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" (Modules) by BMU and the Länder. Action Plan No. 28: Drafting of a Nuclear Plant Safety Ordinance (AtASiV) by BMU and the Länder. Action Plan No. 29: Co-operation in the KTA 1403 committee on Ageing Management. Action Plan No. 30: Co-operation in the KTA 1402 committee on Management System for the Operation of Nuclear Facilities. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 176 of 261

180 3.9 Module VIII Management System of the Regulatory Body Recommendation R10 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The processes of the management system that are needed to achieve the goals, provide the means to meet all requirements and deliver the products of the organization shall be identified, and their development shall be planned, implemented, assessed and continually improved. R10 Recommendation: BMU DG RS and UM BW should incorporate the work identified in the suggestions and recommendations of all chapters of this report into their management systems. BMU statement: 1. Implementation After completion of the IRRS mission, all processes that result from the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions that are relevant and appropriate for the BMU will be included in the quality management manual of Directorate-General RS. So far, the following potential processes result from the current state of implementation of the recommendations and suggestions: Maintenance of competence / GRS Academy National and international OEF process Strategy for the update of rules and regulations Knowledge management Document management Information event Green Paper process IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 177 of 261

181 2. Assessment Process documentation will take place after completion of the follow-up mission. 3. Documents None, since process documentation will not take place before completion of the follow-up mission. 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The UM BW decided to take up all suggestions and recommendations made to the UM BW and to implement them until the follow-up mission as far as possible. The work resulting from the suggestions and recommendations was included in the Action Plan. The implementation was monitored through the section heads meeting. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 178 of 261

182 It has been or is checked for the implementation of each measure to what extent this results in modifications to the documents of the management system. In detail: Immediately after the IRRS mission, the UM BW derived measures taken to implement the suggestions and recommendations. The initial Action Plan submitted for the IRRS mission has been updated and supplemented accordingly. The work was performed as provided for in the management system of Division 3 of the UM BW: Definition of the section responsible, target date, specification of the individual steps at the section heads meeting, where appropriate; inclusion in the section s work programme, carrying out the work in the section; monitoring of the state of implementation through the section heads meeting. The Action Plan and the measures stated in it were also an important item of the past leadership workshops which are held annually for the performance of the management review and the definition of the Division s objectives. In some cases the measures were implemented by reviews or activities to be carried out only once. In most cases it means the continued application of a particular procedure. To ensure this long-term application, the procedure has been included in the specifications and regulations (processes) of the management system. The supplementations and modifications to the management system documents performed for it are contained in the statements on the individual suggestions and recommendations and, where appropriate, documented accordingly. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 179 of 261

183 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 31: Adoption of the modifications and improvements into the written procedures of Division 3. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 180 of 261

184 Recommendation R11 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that A management system shall be established, implemented, assessed and continually improved. It shall be aligned with the goals of the organization and shall contribute to their achievement. The main aim of the management system shall be to achieve and enhance safety by: Bringing together in a coherent manner all the requirements for managing the organization; Describing the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that all these requirements are satisfied; Ensuring that health, environmental, security, quality and economic requirements are not considered separately from safety requirements, to help preclude their possible negative impact on safety. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The management system shall identify and integrate with the requirements contained within this publication: The statutory and regulatory requirements of the Member State; Any requirements formally agreed with interested parties (also known as stakeholders 7); All other relevant IAEA Safety Requirements publications, such as those on emergency preparedness and response [8] and safety assessment [9]; Requirements from other relevant codes and standards adopted for use by the organization. (3) BASIS: GS-R states that The organization shall be able to demonstrate the effective fulfillment of its management system requirements. R11 Recommendation: BMU DG RS should continue in developing the management system using the IAEA safety requirements GS-R-3 in respect to the following aspects: an integrated management system covering policy statements, description of the organization and the processes for regulatory functions of the BMU DG RS as well the support functions important for the management to achieve the goals of BMU DG RS; incorporate into the management system a process describing the development and maintenance of the management system;. incorporate into management system a document describing the format and content of the management system descriptions; and IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 181 of 261

185 implement a transparent, systematic way of assessing compliance and effectiveness of the management system and looking for possibilities for improvements. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission is the responsibility of the Länder. Since GS-R-3 of the IAEA addresses the supervisory authorities, it is primarily to be implemented by the UM BW. The potential obligations of the BMU therefore refer to the tasks in Modules I and VII. Nevertheless, with the quality management manual and the draft federal oversight manual, the BMU has created process-based instruments in recent years with the aim to implement or supplement a management system for an authority, especially in the areas of Module I and Module VII. The processes within the quality management system are tailored to the tasks of Directorate-General RS. 2. Assessment The recommendation will be implemented within the task of the BMU. 3. Documents Central QM document of Directorate-General RS 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 182 of 261

186 Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. The supplementation of the processes resulting from the implementation of the recommendation by the BMU will also implement measure No. 13 in terms of a continual monitoring of the QM manual. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 183 of 261

187 Recommendation R12 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Senior management shall establish goals, strategies, plans and objectives that are consistent with the policies of the organization. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that Senior management shall develop the goals, strategies, plans and objectives of the organization in an integrated manner so that their collective impact on safety is understood and managed. (3) BASIS: GS-R states that Senior management shall ensure that measurable objectives for implementing the goals, strategies and plans are established through appropriate processes at various levels in the organization. (4) BASIS: GS-R states that Senior management shall ensure that the implementation of the plans is regularly reviewed against these objectives and that actions are taken to address deviations from the plans where necessary. (5) BASIS: GS-R states that Senior management shall determine the amount of resources necessary and shall provide the resources9 to carry out the activities of the organization R12 Recommendation: BMU DG RS should develop its long and short term planning processes so that: a strategy plan is developed covering several years ahead along with the related programme of tasks to implement this plan; and all the activities of the BMU DG RS, with the needed resources, are included in the annual plan. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission is the responsibility of the Länder. Since GS-R-3 of the IAEA addresses the supervisory authorities, it is primarily to be implemented by the UM BW. The potential obligations of the BMU therefore refer to the tasks in Modules I and VII. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 184 of 261

188 Nevertheless, with the quality management manual and the draft federal oversight manual, the BMU has created process-based instruments in recent years with the aim to implement or supplement a management system for an authority, especially in the areas of Module I and Module VII. The processes within the quality management system are tailored to the tasks of Directorate-General RS. The recommendation on planning and development of planning has been implemented by the process on Planning and control in the Directorate-General RS. 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents Central QM document of Directorate-General RS Planning and control in the Directorate-General RS Annual objectives 2011 of Directorate-General RS 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. The supplementation of the processes resulting from the implementation of the recommendation by the BMU will also implement measure No. 13 in terms of a continual monitoring of the QM manual. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 185 of 261

189 Recommendation R13 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that A management system shall be established, implemented, assessed and continually improved. It shall be aligned with the goals of the organization and shall contribute to their achievement. The main aim of the management system shall be to achieve and enhance safety by: Bringing together in a coherent manner all the requirements for managing the organization; Describing the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that all these requirements are satisfied; Ensuring that health, environmental, security, quality and economic requirements are not considered separately from safety requirements, to help preclude their possible negative impact on safety. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The management system shall identify and integrate with the requirements contained within this publication: The statutory and regulatory requirements of the Member State; Any requirements formally agreed with interested parties (also known as stakeholders 7); All other relevant IAEA Safety Requirements publications, such as those on emergency preparedness and response [8] and safety assessment [9]; Requirements from other relevant codes and standards adopted for use by the organization. (3) BASIS: GS-R states that The organization shall be able to demonstrate the effective fulfillment of its management system requirements. (4) BASIS: GS-R states that The documentation of the management system shall reflect: The characteristics of the organization and its activities; The complexities of processes and their interactions. R13 Recommendation: UM BW should continue the development of its management system using the IAEA safety requirements document GS-R-3 in the following respect: include the processes needed to manage the organization into the management system; include the processes for the development and maintenance of the management system; describe its strategic and annual planning process in the management system; IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 186 of 261

190 develop a standard format and content of the management system descriptions; implement a transparent, systematic way of assessing compliance and effectiveness of the management system and looking for possibilities for improvements; and develop a process for reviewing in regular basis the changes in the regulations and guides as well as implementing into the oversight. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The reviewers of the IRRS mission in Germany acknowledged the developments in Division 3, but they also made it clear that the management system of the Division does not yet fulfil the requirements of GS-R-3. Therefore, they have made a recommendation and not a suggestion. It was determined that the Division will further develop the management system according to the concrete suggestions in R13. The following strategy has been chosen: There will be a stepwise proceeding on the basis of the existing regulations (supervision manual, emergency manual, etc.) and in accordance with the provisions of R13. It is important that the new regulations are made comprehensible to the members of the Division. Tasks will not be assigned to external parties since a higher level of understanding and acceptance is expected if further development takes place using internal manpower. It has been agreed upon, that the further development of the management system will be one of the main tasks of Section 32. The depth of regulation will be limited to a reasonable level, overregulation and a web of rules should be avoided. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 187 of 261

191 The following measures have been implemented: 1.1 Specifications on the structure and form of the management system The structure of the management system, the layout of the documents and the electronic management of the documents were described in a concept and discussed within the Division. The specifications have meanwhile been included in the top document on contents, structure and basic principles of the management system MS-AT-001-R. Further, it has been specified which additional processes are required in the management system. 1.2 Process Management review and objectives A process description, graphical process representation and documents were created for the annual management review definition of objectives. The management review is the central bundling of measures to check for compliance and effectiveness of the management system and to identify opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, with the process, the strategic objectives are reviewed and adjusted and objectives defined on an annual basis. The process has been applied since 2009 in this manner. 1.3 Process Organisational specification and modification In this process, the organisational specifications, which accounted for a large part of the organisational manual so far, have been incorporated. Organisational modifications, e.g. the introduction of the emergency preparedness group, are performed according to this process. 1.4 Other management processes The process "Information and communication regulates the processes of internal communication as well as information of the Head of the Ministry, the press and the public. The process of "Staffing and human resources management" takes up the suggestions from suggestion S2. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 188 of 261

192 1.5 Support processes The existing regulations for further training have been supplemented by aspects of knowledge management and are described in the process "Knowledge and advanced training". The process "Documentation of the management system, which regulates the requirements for documents of the management system and their modification and documentation, has been introduced. The procedures and requirements for the preparation of letters, notes for the files, etc., for the management of administrative files and their storage are summarised in the process "Drawing up and archiving of documents" (MS-OH-170-R). The process "Review and improvement" (MS-OH-190-R) describes how the processes, workflow and tools of the Division are reviewed, improvement proposals are taken up and improvement measures are derived and implemented. 1.6 Follow-up and implementation of innovations in rules and guidelines Regulation MS-AH-456-R specifies how innovations and changes of rules and guidelines are followed up, how they are implemented vis-à-vis the operators and how the regulations are incorporated in the management system. 1.7 Adaptation of the supervision manual and emergency manual to the new structure and form The documents of the supervision manual and the emergency manual that represent the core processes "Supervision, monitoring and licensing" and "Coping with special events" of the management system were adapted to the new form and structure. 1.8 Overviews and electronic navigation aids To increase clarity, overviews and directories have been developed. As with the supervision manual, a structure chart has also been created for the organisational manual that allows for electronic access to all documents with a single mouse click. The same is also provided for the emergency manual. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 189 of 261

193 2. Assessment The recommendation has been implemented. 3. Documents Bullet 1: Notation of Proposal for a standard layout of MS documents (R13_Anlage_1_Vermerk Weiterentwicklung des Managementsystems), MS manual Part A: General part Bullet 2 to 5: MS manual Part C: Organisational manual Bullet 6: Follow-up and implementation of innovations in rules and guidelines (MS-AH-456-R and MS-AH-456-P) Bullet 8: Structure charts of the supervision manual and structure charts of the organisational manual 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 32: Further development of the management system of Division 3. Measure No. 32 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of questions No. 159 and No. 196 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 190 of 261

194 Suggestion S28 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Safety shall be paramount within the management system, overriding all other demands. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The management system shall be used to promote and support a strong safety culture by: Ensuring a common understanding of the key aspects of safety culture within the organization; Providing the means by which the organization supports individuals and teams in carrying out their tasks safely and successfully, taking into account the interaction between individuals, technology and the organization; Reinforcing a learning and questioning attitude at all levels of the organization; Providing the means by which the organization continually seeks to develop and improve its safety culture. S28 Suggestion: BMU DG RS should consider on the basis of the good practice of international regulatory bodies and the experience of the UM BW to develop a method to assess its own safety culture. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission is the responsibility of the Länder. Since GS-R-3 of the IAEA addresses the supervisory authorities, it is primarily to be implemented by the UM BW. The potential obligations of the BMU therefore refer to the tasks in Modules I and VII. Since the BMU does not present the supervisory authority in terms of the IRRS mission, it is appropriate if first the UM BW as the supervisory authority performs a self-assessment of its safety culture so that the BMU can learn from the experiences of the UM BW and then introduces a method relevant for the BMU. Nevertheless, with the quality management manual and the draft federal oversight manual, the BMU has created process-based instruments in recent years with the IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 191 of 261

195 aim to implement or supplement a management system for an authority, especially in the areas of Module I and Module VII. It should further be noted that all good practices formulated by the reviewers in the missions already performed in other states and the corresponding recommendations and suggestions are tailored to the specific needs of the supervisory authority under review. A direct comparison of good practices without exact knowledge of the organisation and structure of the corresponding supervisory authority of other states is not suitable for improving the own work. Nevertheless, the BMU reviewed all good practices known to it in the field of management that apply in particular to the tasks of the BMU within the framework of Module I and Module VII. None of these good practices could be applied to the regulatory system in Germany (Federation/Länder) and the resulting tasks of the BMU. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been reviewed. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 192 of 261

196 Suggestion S29 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Safety shall be paramount within the management system, overriding all other demands. (2) BASIS: GS-R states that The management system shall be used to promote and support a strong safety culture by: Ensuring a common understanding of the key aspects of safety culture within the organization; Providing the means by which the organization supports individuals and teams in carrying out their tasks safely and successfully, taking into account the interaction between individuals, technology and the organization; Reinforcing a learning and questioning attitude at all levels of the organization; Providing the means by which the organization continually seeks to develop and improve its safety culture. S29 Suggestion: BMU DG RS should review its safety goals and quality principles to take account of the recommendations of the IRRS review and then incorporate these, in the QM manual. The manual should include an explanation of how these goals and principles are expected to be implemented in the work and interaction of BMU DG RS with stakeholders. BMU statement: 1. Implementation As explained in Chapter 3.1 "Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder in detail, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission is the responsibility of the Länder. Since GS-R-3 of the IAEA addresses the supervisory authorities, the potential obligations may only partly (Module I and Module VII) be applicable to the BMU. Nevertheless, with the quality management manual and the draft federal oversight manual, the BMU has created process-based instruments in recent years with the aim to implement or supplement a management system for an authority, especially in the areas of Module I and Module VII. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 193 of 261

197 Within the process Planning and control in the Directorate-General RS the objectives of Directorate-General RS are discussed in an interactive process across the Directorates on an annual basis and redefined, if required. As already stated with regard to recommendation R10, all processes that result from the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions that are relevant and appropriate for the BMU will be included in the quality management manual of Directorate-General RS after completion of the IRRS mission. So far, the following potential processes result from the current state of implementation of the recommendations and suggestions: Maintenance of competence / GRS Academy National and international OEF process Strategy for the update of rules and regulations Knowledge management Document management Information event Green Paper process 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents Planning and control in the Directorate-General RS Annual objectives 2011 of Directorate-General RS 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 194 of 261

198 application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 195 of 261

199 Suggestion S30 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The expectations of interested parties shall be considered by senior management in the activities and interactions in the processes of the management system, with the aim of enhancing the satisfaction of interested parties while at the same time ensuring that safety is not compromised. S30 Suggestion: BMU DG RS should collect, in a systematic manner, the expectation of its stakeholders, including Länder regulatory bodies, to improve its regulatory processes. BMU statement: 1. Implementation A concept has been developed to determine the expectations of the interested parties. The evaluation of these expectations in order to improve the regulatory procedures is an ongoing task. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Concept for the determination of the expectations of the interested parties, including the authorities of the Federation and the Länder 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 196 of 261

200 Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 197 of 261

201 Suggestion S31 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The information and knowledge of the organization shall be managed as a resource. S31 Suggestion: BMU DG RS should consider the commissioning of the appropriate knowledge management system and incorporate it into the QM handbook. BMU statement: 1. Implementation Directorate-General RS uses an IT management system for information and document management as well as for co-operation on the basis of Microsoft SharePoint 3.0. In future, the whole intranet of the BMU will be realised on this platform. The applications go far beyond typical intranet applications: Structured information about competencies, areas of responsibility and environment of the Directorate-General RS Structured access to documents, documentations, process descriptions and work instructions, specific tools and reference documents Platform for information exchange, discussions, collaboration, projects and knowledge management Direct integration of MS Office applications and processing in Outlook, Word and Excel, in particular for the organisation and execution of deadlines, recording and provision of s In addition, the system allows comprehensive electronic file management. The RS intranet portal is also linked through secure interfaces with external networks of authorised expert organisations, subordinate authorities and with international organisations and facilitates co-operation and shared maintenance and use of common contents (networking). IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 198 of 261

202 With these tools, knowledge management functions can be realised both by providers and users of knowledge for the tasks of Directorate-General RS. Five end products will be introduced by mid-2011: 1) IntranetPortal RS - Websites for all current RS main tasks (strategic objectives) 2) IntranetPortal RS -/InfoServer Websites for all national and international committees that are important for the success of Directorate-General RS 3) Provision of all general documents (legal basis and research projects) on the websites of the IntranetPortal RS/InfoServer or the related SharePoint network that are important for the work of Directorate-General RS 4) IntranetPortal RS -/InfoServer Websites for important specialist fields or fields of knowledge of Directorate-General RS and for basic and advanced training 5) Electronic documentation system for processes of special importance as preparation for electronic file management. The kind and extent of use is generally decided on by the head of the Directorate- General in the Directorate heads meeting. For the practical development and implementation, an editorial team has been established. The work of the editorial team is regulated by the quality management manual. 2. Assessment The suggestion is in progress. 3. Documents Work instruction RS Portal 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan Action Plan No. 13: The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 199 of 261

203 application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Measure No. 13 of the Action Plan also implements additional requirements of questions 170, 174, 199, 205, 206, 247 and 248 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The implementation of the suggestion also implements parts of the process for the review of the QM rules, as explained in measure No. 13 of the BMU Action Plan from the 2008 mission. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 200 of 261

204 Suggestion S32 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Records shall be specified in the process documentation and shall be controlled. All records shall be readable, complete, identifiable and easily retrievable. S32 Suggestion: BMU DG RS should develop a records management system which supports their experts work. BMU statement: 1. Implementation At present, the files in the BMU are kept in paper form. The everyday work is increasingly dominated by "electronic records". Electronic filing is applied by the staff in different ways to support ongoing work in various forms. With the IntranetPortal RS, electronic file management can be realised comprehensively and organised according to standardised principles. This is achieved in particular by the possibility to access all relevant basic documents of everyday working life. Each electronic document can easily be retrieved via a search function using its metadata and clearly be identified via its electronic signature. The search also covers documentation contents. In addition, any changes to documents are performed in real time and it is possible to directly inform all staff about changes by Assessment The suggestion is in progress. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 201 of 261

205 3. Documents None 4. Related measure(s) in the BMU Action Plan None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 202 of 261

206 Suggestion S33 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that The expectations of interested parties shall be considered by senior management in the activities and interactions in the processes of the management system, with the aim of enhancing the satisfaction of interested parties while at the same time ensuring that safety is not compromised. S33 Suggestion: UM BW should consider collecting in a systematic manner the expectation of its stakeholders, including the federal regulatory body, to improve its regulatory processes. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation For the implementation of suggestion S33, Division 3 uses the various talks and contacts with "stakeholders". Surveys on stakeholders expectations are carried out regularly within the scope of the discussions and contacts with the stakeholders that take place anyway. Of particular importance are the discussions at the management level. In contrast to the use of questionnaires, this approach allows to clarify uncertainties through direct communication. Another objective is, above all, to identify potential for improvement. Definition of the stakeholders An overview lists the stakeholders and talks suitable to identify stakeholders expectations and satisfaction (MS-OH-113-U). Evaluation of Eurostat surveys In order to determine the expectations of the population and to derive potential for improvement from it, the representative surveys performed by Eurostat are evaluated. Form for surveying stakeholder expectations In the past, feedback received with general and particular importance was presented orally within the framework of the annual management review. Since IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 203 of 261

207 2010, a form has also been available for the systematic collection of feedback (MS-OH-114-F). Process Management review and objectives The assessment of feedback takes place in the process Management review and objectives (MS-OH-110-R). Important issues from stakeholders feedback are presented by Section 32 in the management review and assessed there. 2. Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents Bullet 1: List of stakeholders of Division Nuclear Supervision, Radiation Protection (MS-OH-113-U) Bullet 3: Form for surveying stakeholder expectations (MS-OH-114-F) Bullet 4: Management review and objectives (MS-OH-110-R) 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 38: Identification of the expectations of the stakeholders from the activities of the supervisory authority. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 204 of 261

208 Suggestion S34 (1) BASIS: GS-R states that Records shall be specified in the process documentation and shall be controlled. All records shall be readable, complete, identifiable and easily retrievable. S34 Suggestion: UM BW should investigate in the AGAVE enhancement process possibilities to improve the interface with the official record keeping so that inspectors need to spend as little as possible time feeding record keeping data and that the requirements to the licensee can be easily followed. UM BW statement: 1. Implementation Background of this suggestion was the approach pursued by the UM BW to use an IT system for the documentation of relevant procedure states of supervisory processes. The database system for process data tracking (Vorgangsdatenverfolgung - VDV) should be as user-friendly as possible and require little effort. This task of documenting relevant procedure states had been performed through the project databases that were assigned to the individual power plant units and that successively had been established in the last 18 years, used with different focuses, different content characteristics and different strategies for use. This resulted in the need to standardise and further develop the databases and to lay down a generally applicable use strategy. In this context, it was required to consider a fundamental redesign of the system structure and the adjustment to the state of the art in software engineering. In line with suggestion S34, the following approach has been chosen: Inventory Outline of possibilities IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 205 of 261

209 Decision on the approach to the further development of the process data tracking Establishment of a working group for further development of the process data tracking Collection of the requirements and functions for the new version Outline of a procedure specification implementation by the in-house IT department in dialogue with Division 3 Individual measures: The inventory showed that the basic structure of the existing databases fulfils the basic requirements. However, a number of details the occasion gave reason to initiate the development of new basis for the current system. It was soon clear that the further development with the aim of standardisation has to result in a shared database for the entire Division. With a Division-wide database it will be much easier to meet the requirements with regard to central evaluations, e.g. by the leadership of the Division. Further, the user interface and the dataset content should be the same for all users dealing with a process type. So far the use of a communications software program led to a great dependency on corresponding upgrades and upgrades of operating system enhancements. The new database can be realised according to the state of the art in web technology (i.e. browser-based) using any database (including an open source solution) and thus independently of common operating systems and browsers. Two ways to realise the project had been discussed. Instead of contracting external parties for the project, it was decided to accept the offer of the in-house IT services section. The advantages of the in-house solution were obvious. The task (procedure specification) could be discussed directly with the developer, development can take place in dialogue and thus in a targeted manner, there are no additional costs and subsequent database maintenance measures can be realised much easier. The outline of the further development also considers the discussion on the part to enable an easy and fast access to documents. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 206 of 261

210 This is directly related to a change of record keeping from paper to electronic media (workflow system). Due to the integration of Division 3 in the Land administration it was not possible to introduce new systems for electronic file management, so that the improvement of the existing database system for process data tracking (VDV) was chosen as a viable approach. For above reasons, the planned VDV cannot establish an automatic connection to the collection of files. However, it will be possible to link any documents (manually) from individual datasets and store them centrally. As sources for electronic documents, the documents of the EnKK document portal (plant operators), soon the integrated information system (IIV) of TÜV ET (authorised experts) and even scanned documents are available. The standardisation of the VDV process data tracking is primarily supported by a Division-wide database with a uniform structure, secondarily by the individual fields of duty to be defined and, last but not least, by the administrative requirements in the supervision manual (AHB). The design of the database is so flexible that in the future other process types, evaluations or reports can be added. Due to the restructuring of the Land administration (Cabinet shuffle) the inhouse IT services section responsible for the development of the database also had a large workload. This led to a significant delay in the realisation of the database project. Meanwhile, the work has been launched, the data model discussed and implemented and individual program modules developed. The completion of the new version is planned for summer Assessment The suggestion has been implemented. 3. Documents None IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 207 of 261

211 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 39: Development of a global electronic document filing and process tracking system. Measure No. 39 of the Action Plan also implements requirements from suggestion S8 and question No. 220 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure is in progress. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 208 of 261

212 Question No. 159 Question No. 159: Does the Management System describe the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that all these requirements are satisfied? A management system shall be established, implemented, assessed and continually improved. It shall be aligned with the goals of the organization and shall contribute to their achievement. The main aim of the management system shall be to achieve and enhance safety by: Bringing together in a coherent manner all the requirements for managing the organization; Describing the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that all these requirements are satisfied; Ensuring that health, environmental, security, quality and economic requirements are not considered separately from safety requirements, to help preclude their possible negative impact on safety. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The organisational manual, in particular the schedule of responsibilities (cf. Chapter 0 and Chapter 1.1 of the organisational manual) specifies the tasks of the sections. Review and further development of rules and regulations in Division 3, i.e. of the management systems, is a task of Section 32 and defined in its section working programme. Within this framework, it is also checked to which extent the management system as a whole has to be further developed. In addition to these internal reviews and dealing with opportunities for improvement, the management system in Division 3 is subjected to external reviews from time to time. So, for example, a major review was performed in 2002 by the Kienbaum consulting company. In 2006, the activities of Division 3 were subjected to a review by the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (Internationale Länderkommission Kerntechnik - ILK). Regarding the management system, the ILK proposed to continue the activities towards a more formal management system. On the basis of the ILK review, Division 3 derived measures. The lived management processes are to be fixed in the organisational manual in written, reviewed for their completeness and completed, where required. Measures for further development of the management system are provided in the action plan. Recommendations resulting from the IRRS review shall also be included in the further development of the management system. Assessment: 2 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 209 of 261

213 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The measures provided for in the initial Action Plan for the further development of the management system and a higher degree of written specifications on management processes have been implemented together with the measures related to recommendation R13. See also statement on recommendation R Assessment The measure derived from question No. 159 has been implemented. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 32: Further development of the management system of Division 3. Measure No. 32 of the Action Plan also implements requirements from recommendation R13 and question No. 196 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 210 of 261

214 Question No. 163 Question No. 163: Does the Management System promote & support a strong safety culture by: ensuring a common understanding of the key aspects of safety culture?; providing the means to support individuals and teams to carry out their tasks safely and successfully?; reinforcing a learning and questioning attitude at all organizational levels?; providing the means to continually develop and improve its safety culture? The management system shall be used to promote and support a strong safety culture by: Ensuring a common understanding of the key aspects of safety culture within the organization; Providing the means by which the organization supports individuals and teams in carrying out their tasks safely and successfully, taking into account the interaction between individuals, technology and the organization; Reinforcing a learning and questioning attitude at all levels of the organization; Providing the means by which the organization continually seeks to develop and improve its safety culture. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The central aspects of the safety culture of the regulatory authority in Baden- Württemberg (oversight culture) are subject matter of the mission statement of the Division Nuclear Supervision, Environmental Radioactivity. The mission statement was developed in numerous workshops with involvement of all division staff at the end of 2000 until the beginning of After an introduction phase, a review was performed in 2004 in form of staff interviews. On the basis of the staff interviews, the single statements in the mission statement were identified which were considered to have a high relevance for the daily work but, at the same time, were judged to be weakly developed in practice. On these statements, further implementation workshops of the whole division were performed as well as a one-day consultation by section heads and the division head. Based on the recommendations of the ILK review, workshops on oversight practice were introduced. These workshops are aimed at the development and consolidation of a common understanding of oversight safety culture, the exchange of experiences on oversight practice and training of the application of the oversight tool KOMFORT (cf. Chapter /2 of the oversight manual). IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 211 of 261

215 For promotion and self-assessment of the safety culture/oversight culture, measures are provided in the action plan. Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The measures derived by the UM BW in connection with the requirements of GS-R are based on a recommendation by the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (ILK) and refer to the further development of the concept of safety culture within Division 3 of the UM BW. In this respect, the ILK confirmed that the Division shows and excellent understanding and commitment. For the implementation of the ILK recommendation, the following measures have been defined and included in the UM BW Action Plan: Performance of workshops on supervisory practice Systematic training events on safety culture/supervision culture of the authority Performance of a self-assessment of safety culture/supervision culture Explanations on the individual measures: Performance of workshops on supervisory practice With the strategic objective to further develop the technical competence of the members of the supervisory authority, the UM BW intends to conduct two to three Division-internal workshops on supervisory practice. Thus, each Division member has the opportunity to attend one of the workshops. The aim of the workshops is to promote the exchange of experience within the Division, to develop a common understanding of supervision and a strong safety culture/supervision culture. The workshops are generally divided into two parts, a case example from supervisory practices and a part on safety culture where, for example, the experiences and problems regarding the application of a IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 212 of 261

216 selected KOMFORT indicator are discussed. The workshops offer the opportunity to discuss own knowledge and practices by means of concrete examples in a larger round, thus making them available to other Division members and, vice versa, to benefit from their know-how. Since 2008, such workshops have been conducted on a regular basis. Experiences with the performance of these workshops are all positive. Systematic training events on safety culture/supervision culture of the authority In addition to the above-mentioned performance of workshops on supervisory practice that, in terms of a uniform application of the concept of safety culture, also serve the training of Division members, special multi-day training seminars were conducted by MTO in the years 2007 and In 2007, the MTO Mensch-Technik-Organisation GmbH & Co. Consulting KG (MTO GmbH, Berlin) conducted an in-house training at the UM BW for the staff of Division 3 on the topics "Basics of system safety" (basic seminar) and "Introduction of the integrated event analysis with SOL" (advanced seminar) The SOL method (safety through organisational learning) for the integrated event analysis is based on a socio-technical system approach and is used by operators of the German nuclear power plants. Staff of the MTO GmbH were also involved in the development of the SOL method. In 2009, the MTO GmbH conducted an in-house training at the UM BW for the staff of Division 3 on the topics "Contribution of human behaviour to safety" (basic seminar) and "Influence of management on safety" (advanced seminar - Module I) and "Possibilities of information acquisition during plant inspections" (advanced seminar - Module II). With the MTO GmbH, a very competent and very experienced provider of training in the field of nuclear technology on the MTO approach has been won. With the two training events in 2007 and 2009, all Division members had the opportunity to attend a basic seminar. With the advanced seminars, special IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 213 of 261

217 knowledge has been imparted on selected topics that are relevant for the supervisory practice in the field of MTO. The in-house seminars have proven to be effective, since a large number of participants can be reached and the benefits of such training can thus be optimised. For 2011, a further training course on the topic of MTO is provided. Performance of a self-assessment of safety culture/supervision culture For several years, Division 3 of the UM BW has been paying special attention to the issue of safety culture. The Division developed its own supervision tool with the participation of all Division members for the systematic collection and evaluation of aspects of the plant operator s safety culture from on-site inspections (KOMFORT). The development of the supervision tool KOMFORT and its introduction lasted about 3 years. During this process, there have been intensive and sometimes controversial discussions within the Division on how to deal with the issue of safety culture. The own view and the daily practice had been reflected and reviewed critically in terms of a self-assessment. The supervision tool KOMFORT has meanwhile been established and has become an integral part of supervisory activities. This, together with the regular performance of workshops on supervisory practice and a comprehensive training programme on safety culture, significantly contributed to the development a common understanding of safety culture. Thus, a supplementary self-assessment of supervisory and safety culture seems not to be a priority issue at present. However, the issue will still be pursued by Division 3 as a longer term project. In this respect, the MTO group of Division 3 deals with the questions if, for example, it could be checked, as a continuation of the mission statement process, to what extent the contents of the mission statement and attributes of a high safety culture have been implemented and if, with regard to a self-assessment, the support of external parties would be helpful and could be used, for example for a survey based on the development and evaluation of questionnaires. The MTO group is trying to establish corresponding contacts IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 214 of 261

218 with organisations that carry out such reviews or already have them carried out in their own organisation. However, due to the numerous reviews of Division 3 in the last years, the MTO group is of the opinion that a self-assessment of the supervisory and safety culture should not take place before Assessment The measures derived from question No. 163 have been implemented. 3. Documents Concept for workshops on supervisory practice (Q163_Anlage_1_Workshop Aufsichtspraxis) Seminars offered by MTO GmbH (description of the scope of services) (Q163_Anlage_2_MTO-Seminar 2009_Angebot) 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 33, 34 and 35 Action Plan No. 33: Systematic training events on safety culture/supervision culture of the authority. Action Plan No. 34: Performance of a self-assessment of safety culture/supervision culture. Action Plan No. 35: Performance of workshops on practical supervision. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 215 of 261

219 Question No. 195 Question No. 195: Does senior management determine, provide, maintain and reevaluate the infrastructure and the working environment necessary for work to be carried out in a safe manner and for requirements to be met? Senior management shall determine, provide, maintain and re-evaluate the infrastructure and the working environment necessary for work to be carried out in a safe manner and for requirements to be met. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The reviews in the management system also comprise the necessary infrastructure and the work place conditions. For example, rooms and equipment for the emergency task force have been extended in recent years as experience from the emergency exercises. The revision and optimization of the documents for emergency preparedness is dealt with in the action plan. The improvement of the IT tools is a strategic objective of Division 3. Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation According to the ILK review conducted in 2006 it was recommended to further improve emergency preparedness by increasing the number of joint exercises of the UM BW and the installations supervised by it. In addition, a larger exercise involving the nuclear power plant, the UM BW and the Regional Council should be carried out from time to time. For improvement of emergency preparedness, the following measures have been defined and included in the Action Plan: Revision and optimisation of the documents relating to the emergency organisation, and the preparation of a long-term exercise plan. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 216 of 261

220 To implement the measures, a concept has been developed for the performance of emergency exercises, and in January 2007, a Division-internal "emergency exercises group" has been set up with the task to implement this approach. The working group started its activities with the optimisation and supplementation of the Division-internal structures and regulations for emergency preparedness. The activities comprised, among others, the development of work place descriptions for each task force work place in order to increase flexibility in work place staffing. J Every year, an exercise plan has been prepared in consultation with the plant operators. On the basis of the concept for the performance of emergency exercises, the working group organised, managed and evaluated at least two major emergency exercises throughout the task force organisation per year. These exercises were conducted with the involvement of the nuclear power plants in Baden-Württemberg and, in parts, also with the involvement of the regional councils. In addition, individual task forces of the Division participated in other exercises. Furthermore, the infrastructure for emergency preparedness measures has been improved through the planning and provision of new task force rooms and the introduction of an electronic situation display (ELD). In 2011, the infrastructure will be further improved through the completion of a new task force room for the task force leaders of the Division. The establishment of a permanent group for emergency exercises in 2010 ensures that the regular exercises are continued in high quality and with the recommended frequency. 2. Assessment The measures derived from question No. 195 have been implemented. 3. Documents OHB regulation Emergency exercises group (MS-OH-142-R) IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 217 of 261

221 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 36: Revision and optimisation of the documents relating to the emergency organisation. Action Plan No. 37: Preparation of a long-term exercise plan. The measures have been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 218 of 261

222 Question No. 196 Question No. 196: Are the processes of the Management System that are needed to achieve the goals, provide the means to meet all objectives and deliver the plans of the Regulatory Body identified? The processes of the management system that are needed to achieve the goals, provide the means to meet all requirements and deliver the products of the organization shall be identified, and their development shall be planned, implemented, assessed and continually improved. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: The management system consists of regulations and documents included in the organisational manual, oversight manual and emergency manual. It is a grown system developed by own personnel which has been continuously improved. In recent years, graphical representations (process representations) were developed and process indicators defined for the main processes in the oversight procedures. The process representations include the requirements on the processes, input and output of the processes, the connections with other processes and the responsibilities for these as well as process parameters. Further development of the management system is provided. The management system shall comply with the structure and size of the division. A certified system is not strived for. The completion of processes, process descriptions and process indicators is provided in the action plan. Assessment: 2 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation See statement on recommendation R Assessment See statement on recommendation R13. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 219 of 261

223 3. Documents None 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 32: Further development of the management system of Division 3. Measure No. 32 of the Action Plan also implements requirements from recommendation R13 and question No. 159 of the IRRS-questionnaire. The measure has been implemented. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 220 of 261

224 Question No. 220 Question No. 220: Are records specified in the process documentation and are they controlled? Are they readable, complete, identifiable and easily retrievable? Records shall be specified in the process documentation and shall be controlled. All records shall be readable, complete, identifiable and easily retrievable. SS Ref.: GS-R Answer: Document management is subject of Chapter 3.2 of the organisational manual. It is oriented towards the requirements of file clarity, file completeness and file availability. Files are kept in paper form in the filing department of the division by specially qualified personnel. The classification system is a standardised filing plan applicable in Baden-Württemberg. The retention periods are defined. For example, they ensure that the files are kept beyond the time of dismantling of the plant. Assessment: 3 UM BW statement: 1. Implementation The measure in the Action Plan related to question No. 220 should support easy and quick access to filed items/documents. In this context, the question arose as to the establishment of a modern electronic system for archiving of files and a workflow system for handling of the files/processes. Due to the integration of Division 3 in the Land administration it was not possible to introduce new systems for electronic file management, so that the improvement of the existing database system for process data tracking (VDV) was chosen as a viable approach. For this reason, the planned VDV cannot establish an automatic connection to the collection of files. However, it will be possible to link any documents (manually) from individual datasets and store them centrally. As sources for electronic documents, the documents of the EnKK document portal (plant operators), soon the integrated information system (IIV) of TÜV ET (authorised experts) and even scanned documents are available as an alternative. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 221 of 261

225 For details, reference is made to the statements on suggestions S34 and S8. 2. Assessment The measure derived from question No. 220 is in progress. 3. Documents None 4. Related measure in the UM BW Action Plan Action Plan No. 39: Development of a global electronic document filing and process tracking system. Measure No. 39 of the Action Plan also implements requirements of suggestions S8 and S34. The measure is in progress. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 222 of 261

226 3.10 Improvement process Improvement process of the BMU development and implementation of the Action Plan The Directorate-General for Reactor Safety of the BMU sees itself as a learning organisational unit that strives for continuous improvement. With the aim of continuous further development, the regulatory bodies for supervision of nuclear power plants in Germany, represented by the BMU and the UM BW, subjected themselves to a review by an international team of experts within the framework of the 2008 IRRS mission. In the run-up to this IRRS mission, there was a self-assessment on the basis of the 248 questions of the IRRS-questionnaire of the IAEA based on the IAEA Safety Standards Series. As a result of the self-assessment, a total of 19 improvement measures was developed by the entire Directorate-General RS (RS I, RS II and RS III). These measures were the basis for the development of the BMU Actions plan. The 19 actions of the Action Plan defined this way were assigned to different topics. This socalled "Initial Action Plan" was made available to the review team in June 2008, together with the answers to the 248 questions of the IRRS-questionnaire and further documents, as "Advance Reference Material" (ARM) to prepare for the IRRS mission. The Initial Action Plan was confirmed by the review team during the IRRS mission. The review team showed up further possible improvements that are contained in the final report by the IAEA (IRRS Report) in the form of recommendations and suggestions. Based on the insights from the mission, the BMU has reviewed its Action Plan and identified that many recommendations and suggestions made to the BMU and on the relationship between the Federation and the Länder are based on the measures of the BMU Action Plan. Thus, the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions received also results in the implementation of the measures from the BMU Action Plan. However, implementation of all measures is no longer required due to the reassessment of the distribution of roles and tasks between the Federation and the Länder (Chapter 3). IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 223 of 261

227 Since, compared to the 2008 mission, the conditions have fundamentally changed as a result of the reassessment, some measures are no longer or only partially to be implemented by the BMU. The entire IRRS process is graphically represented in the illustration on next page. The following table shows the Action Plan of the BMU, providing brief descriptions of the individual measures. The illustration that follows is an overview of the state of implementation in the form of a matrix. It also provides links of the individual measures of the Action Plan with the recommendations and suggestions made to the BMU as a result of the IRRS mission. As described further above, the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions also results in the implementation of measures in the Action Plan. The Action Plan has been supplemented by Action No. 20 Ageing management. During the implementation it showed that some individual measures concern several recommendations and/or suggestions at the same time or, vice versa, several measures of the Action Plan together lead to the implementation of one single recommendation or one single suggestion. The guideline within the improvement process was to implement the recommendations and suggestions of the IRRS review team thus implementing at the same time all measures of the 2008 Action Plan being relevant for the BMU after the reassessment. The measures marked in red and the recommendations and suggestions do no longer have to be implemented after reassessment of the distribution of roles and tasks between the BMU and the Länder. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 224 of 261

228 IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 225 of 261

229 Action Plan of the BMU Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status 5, 6, 10 18, 47 59, , 180, 181 Chapt The number of personnel of the Federal Regulator including support of Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) shall be enhanced by implementing a 3-year plan. Each regulatory authority has at least one trained expert at its disposal for each of the major specialist areas (material science, systems engineering, instrumentation and control, thermal hydraulics, etc.). Human resources and knowledge management As explained in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, in Germany, regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants in terms of the IRRS mission falls within the competence of the Länder. Only in the context of Module I "Legislative and Governmental Responsibilities" and Module VII "Development of Regulations and Guides", the BMU has additional tasks that also represent a service function for the Länder. Thus, for the BMU there is no further need to provide additional resources for regulatory supervision of nuclear power plants beyond the current framework R3 2. A human resources development concept shall be prepared for and by the Federal Regulator (on the basis of the graduated scheme for to improve staffing levels as approved by the senior level at the Federal Regulator in 2008). Human resources and knowledge management Implementation within the framework of implementation of recommendation R3. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 226 of 261

230 Reference Action / Aim R3 3. Creation of a nuclear academy at GRS. Actions: A catalogue of requirements for the technical qualification of authority personnel is available. A "nuclear academy" training centre for authority personnel and experts is to be set up in cooperation with GRS. The nuclear academy shall specialise in issues of supervision and assessment. The academy shall be open to the Länder regulatory authorities. This training programme shall include different training stages (Land, Federation, expert, international) For personnel with technical qualification, a Senior Trainee Programme shall be defined at the end of each year. Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Human resources and knowledge management Implementation Implementation of the first and fourth item within the framework of implementation of recommendation R3. Second and third item have already been implemented. See answer to recommendation R3. Status IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 227 of 261

231 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status 81,82 R4 4. The responsibility on federal level for research on nuclear safety issues shall be with the Federal Regulator. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The efforts of the BMU have not yet been implemented. The implementation of the action will continue to be pursued. Research on nuclear safety in Germany is divided between the BMU, BMBF and the BMWi. In order to co-ordinate research at the Ministries, a process of early co-ordination exists General objectives, policies and principles shall be published on the BMU homepage. Decisions by the Federal Regulator shall be published on the Internet. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence All relevant documents will be published on the BMU homepage. ( Documents which are important for nuclear safety shall be published. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 228 of 261

232 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status R8, S23 6. Modern standard criteria for reviewing the installations are available (safety requirements). Basic safety principles and requirements are laid down in an ordinance. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The technical requirements of the "Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" have been revised in cooperation with the Länder in a further revision step. In addition, the "state-of-the-art backfitting technology" is to be anchored in the Atomic Energy Act as a technical requirement. For maintenance of the necessary flexibility, the specification of the state-ofthe-art backfitting technology is to be made, as so far practiced in the German legal system, by general listing of the requirements to be complied with or measures of the non-legally binding regulatory guidance instruments and their legally binding implementation by licensing acts or supervisory measures The Regulatory Body shall strengthen its steering function in the drafting of KTA Safety Standards on the basis of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants". Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence Revision C/D of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants has been thoroughly revised. The BMU has introduced resulting specifications in the KTA subcommittees. S27 The Safety Review (PSR) Guidelines (Fundamentals and Safety Status Analysis) shall be updated on the basis of the "Safety Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" by The PSA guideline will be revised subsequent to the publication of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 229 of 261

233 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status The regulations applied in Germany shall be better adapted to the principles of adequacy, liquidity and transparency of financial resources (taking into account to COM- Recommendation No. C (2006) 3672 of 24 October 2006). Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The considerations on the adaptation of the regulations regarding the financial resources have not been concluded yet R4, S9 9. All important information affecting the safety of the nuclear installations as well as all important information on generic safety issues will be exchanged between Federation and Länder. A documentation system is established which is to give the entire regulatory body direct electronic access to all important technical documents. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence As laid down in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, the BMU and UM BW agreed on the exchange of all safety-relevant information in due time. As explained in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, supervision in terms of the IRRS mission falls within the competence of the Länder. Accordingly, the responsibility for electronic documentation of all important technical documents lies with the Länder. Due to this agreement (see Chapter 3.1) it is ensured that the BMU will receive all safety-relevant documents. 124 R4, S An annual common strategic programme for the treatment of generic safety issues will be determined by the Federal and Länder Regulators. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence Such a strategy paper is being prepared within the framework of the consultations of the Länder. This action is implemented together with recommendation R4 and suggestion S22. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 230 of 261

234 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status 84, 87 91, 97 Chapt All essential inspections on-site shall be physically attended and led by staff of the supervisory authorities. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence As explained in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, supervision in terms of the IRRS mission falls within the competence of the Länder. Therefore, this action cannot be implemented at the federal level Regulations to ensure the independence and quality of the work of authorised experts. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The existing standards for authorised experts and the DIN and ISO standards are extensive. Additional quality standards, if required, are to be laid down by the Länder. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 231 of 261

235 Reference Action / Aim S1, S27, R10, R11, R12, S29, S30, S The existing QM system will be reviewed annually in a report by the QM Officer with respect to completeness application and related problems The resulting proposed changes shall be implemented during the following year. Continual monitoring of QM will take place regularly during Directorate Heads meeting. Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence Implementation After completion of the IRRS mission, all processes that result from the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions that are relevant and appropriate for the BMU will be included in the quality management manual of Directorate-General RS. So far, the following potential processes result from the current state of implementation of the recommendations and suggestions: Maintenance of competence / GRS Academy National and international OEF process Strategy for the update of rules and regulations Knowledge management Document management Information event Green Paper process This action also implements the following recommendations and suggestions: S1, S27, S29, S30, S31, R10, R11 and R12. Status IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 232 of 261

236 Reference Action / Aim 45,46, , , , , 248 R2 14. A Federal Supervision Manual will be available by the end of 2009, defining General objectives and policies Principles Basic Processes taking into account the cooperation/interaction with the Länder authorities. Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence Implementation The first draft of a Federal Oversight Manual is available and will be presented and discussed in the Federation-Länder committees. This procedure ensures the involvement of the supervisory authorities of the Länder. A first discussion started in spring This action implements recommendation R2. Status The Federal regulator's technical infrastructure shall be improved by: 1) state-o-the-art software and hardware; specialist software 2) doing away with the limit on the amount of data that can be sent in e- mails 76 Chapt The Federal Regulator reviews whether safety management systems (SMS) have been implemented in all German NPPs. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence Management of safety The action is pursued in a continuous process. As explained in Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder, supervision in terms of the IRRS mission falls within the competence of the Länder. Therefore the Länder control the implementation of safety management systems (SMS) in German nuclear power plants and report on it regularly in the Federation-Länder committees. This action cannot be implemented on the federal level. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 233 of 261

237 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status 59, 67 S Information Notices (WL) processoptimized (PDCA) A programme shall be set up by the end of 2008 to involve Länder authority representatives in international co-operation. Use of insights from operation experience feedback (OEF) into the regulatory process Action was implemented in conjunction with suggestion S10. A process for operating experience feedback (OEF) is implemented. Division RS I 5 regularly informs the Länder about safety issues being relevant at the international level in the Federation-Länder committees. The Länder were asked to increase their participation in international events. 69 S Revision of the criteria for reporting events in German plants to the IRS until 2009 (jointly with GRS) with the aim to increase their number. Use of insights from operation experience feedback (OEF) into the regulatory process Action was implemented in conjunction with suggestion S10. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 234 of 261

238 Reference Action / Aim Reg. Pol. Issues Mission 2008 Implementation Status The Länder Regulators not involved in the Mission should perform a selfassessment on the basis of the IRRS-questionnaire. b) In this context, a national Mission of federal and Länder representatives and a special commission consisting of Federation, Länder and RSK could hold additional talks with the supervisory authorities of the Länder, the operators, and the authorised experts and should subsequently prepare a report. Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The BMU invited the Länder to participate in the follow-up mission. The performance of the selfassessment is the responsibility of the Länder. Within the framework of the implementation of the EU Directive establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, Germany committed itself to carry out a review mission every 10 years. This commitment also applies to the Länder. 20 New action S KTA standard on ageing management Enhancing regulatory effectiveness and competence The KTA standard on ageing management has been issued for application by the plant operators, authorised experts and authorities. Like all KTA standards, it will be checked for up-to-dateness every five years. Implementation also in conjunction with suggestion S11. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 235 of 261

239 Action Plan BMU As at May 2011 Modules I II III IV V VII VIII Rec. R1* R2 R3 R4 R5 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 Sugg. S1 S3 S4 S5 S9 S10 S11 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 Actions Chapter 3.1* x* x* x* x* x* x* x* x* Action 1 Action 2 No further need / Chapter 3.1 x Action 3 x Action 4 x Action 5 Action 6 x x Action 7 x Action 8 Adaptations have not been completed yet Action 9 x x Action 10 x x Action 11 Action 12 No further need / Chapter 3.1 Existing DIN regulations are sufficient Action 13 x x x x x x x x Action 14 x Action 15 Action 16 Action is a continous process No further need / Chapter 3.1 Action 17 x Action 18 x Action 19 Länder participation in Follow-up Mission Action 20 x Separate Paper** x** x** implemented in progress not implemented * Chapter 3.1 Roles and co-operation of the Federation and the Länder The recommendations and suggestions as well as action marked in red do no longer have to be implemented according to Chapter 3.1 ** Separate paper explaining the use of deterministic and probabilistic approaches in the supervisory and licensing procedures IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 236 of 261

240 Improvement process of UM BW development and implementation of the Action Plan The "Nuclear Supervision, Radiation Protection" Division of the UM BW sees itself as a learning organisational unit that strives for continuous improvement. In the past ten years, there have been a large number of reviews of the organisation and activities of the Division, both external and internal. In 2006, the supervisory activities of Division 3 were closely scrutinised and assessed by the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (Internationale Länderkommission Kerntechnik - ILK). In its final report, the ILK made a number of recommendations on how the work of the Division could be further improved. Division 3 has taken up the recommendations of the ILK and defined a range of specific improvement measures. With the aim of constantly developing nuclear energy supervision in Baden- Württemberg, the Division subjected itself to a further review by an international team of experts within the framework of the 2008 IRRS mission. In the run-up to this IRRS mission, there was a self-assessment on the basis of the 248 questions of the IRRSquestionnaire of the IAEA. The results of this self-assessment were added to the insights from the ILK review, together yielding a total of 27 derived improvement measures that were included in an Action Plan. This so-called "Initial Action Plan" was made available to the review team in June 2008, together with the answers to the 248 questions of the IRRS-questionnaire and further documents, as "Advance Reference Material" (ARM) to prepare for the IRRS mission. The Initial Action Plan was confirmed by the review team during the IRRS mission. As a result of the IRRS mission, the review team showed up further possible improvements that are contained in the final report by the IAEA (IRRS Report) in the form of recommendations and suggestions. Based on the insights from the Mission, the UM BW has updated its Action Plan and supplemented it by additional measures for the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions made by the review team. In its most recent version, the Action Plan comprised 39 measures. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 237 of 261

241 The entire Division was involved in the development of suitable improvement measures. The individual measures were discussed and agreed among the leadership of the Division. The Action Plan itself as well as the implementation of the measures it contains was a regular topic of the meetings at management level. If the need arose, e.g. if there were any new findings, the Action Plan was adapted. Hence this improvement process is not a singular and rigid one but a dynamic and above all continuous process that leaves room for adaptation to current developments to a sufficient degree. A further important element of this process is the constant feedback of the individual steps to the entire Division, which thus participates as a whole in the development process. The entire IRRS process is graphically represented in the illustration below. IRRS Germany Advance Reference Material Page 238 of 261