2. ORGANIZATION OF THE IERICS MISSION
2.5. Reporting and documenting
The mission report is the deliverable of the IERICS team for the mission. It presents the background, objective and scope of the mission, the system under review, the review basis and reference, and the findings made by the team during the review. A suggested report format is provided in Appendix II of this document.
Findings may be classified into two categories: Issues and good practices, and are discussed in more details in the following sections. Figure 2 provides an overview of how the mission findings will be resolved and documented in the mission report.
2.5.2. Issues and issue sheets
An issue is an identified concern or an area of improvement, which has been identified on the basis of the review basis and reference and/or the internationally recognized good practices in the subject. Each issue is presented in an issue sheet which addresses the following topics:
(1) Issue identification, with issue number and title, mission name, reviewed area.
(2) Issue clarification, with issue description, issue origin (IAEA review team or counterpart), source documents, reference to any other relevant documents.
(3) Counterpart’s view on the issue.
(4) Assessment by the IERICS team, with comments, recommendations and suggestions.
(5) Counterpart’s response on recommendations and suggestions.
(6) Counterpart’s actions taken after the mission and prior to the follow-up assessment.
(7) Follow-up assessment by the IERICS team, with possibly new comments, recommendations and suggestions.
(8) Status of the issue (no action, actions planned or under way, issue partially resolved, issue completely resolved).
An issue sheet template is given in Appendix III.
Sections 3 and 5
The purposes of Sections 3 and 5 of the issue sheets are to reflect the views of and the measures taken by the counterpart for the issue resolution. They are optional, and the counterpart may choose not to fill them in.
Sections 4 and 7
The purposes of Sections 4 and 7 of the issue sheets are to reflect the discussions with the counterpart experts, to record the conclusions, to issue possible Recommendations and Suggestions, and to synthesize the IERICS team judgment on the resolution of the issue under discussion. However, the IERICS team should not be too prescriptive in the methods to resolve the issue, and suggest only the goals to be reached. However, advice can be given if requested.
Sub-Sections 4.1 and 7.1 - Comments
They are observations of the IERICS team based on the review and the discussions during the mission. It is for information only, no action or response is required from the counterpart.
Sub-Sections 4.2 and 7.2 - Recommendations and Suggestions
A recommendation is an advice from the IERICS team on what improvements should be made that would contribute to resolve an issue. Follow-up action is required for a recommendation.
A suggestion is also an advice from the IERICS team on what improvements may be made that would contribute to resolve an issue. Follow-up actions are optional for a suggestion, as suggestions are primarily made to bring design and/or procedures more in line with internationally recognized good practices.
If an item is not considered significant enough to meet the criteria of a ‘suggestion’, but the IERICS team feels that mentioning it is still considered significant, a comment regarding on the item may be made in the text of the mission report (e.g. “the team encouraged the operating organization to…”)
Recommendations, suggestions, and comments, are numbered in sequential order for further reference. The reviewed documents (corresponding specifically to the issue under consideration) are also listed.
As much as possible, each recommendation and suggestion should be referenced to the relevant requirement/recommendation of respective review basis and reference documents.
FIG.2. Resolution of the mission findings.
Status of the Issue
The status of the issue under consideration is assessed and the respective resolution degree is assigned to reflect the judgment of the IAEA review team. The degree is scaled from 1 to 4, as indicated in the issue sheet template.
The urgency degree of the issue resolution should also be evaluated and indicated in the corresponding part of the issue sheet. Promptness in the resolution of the issue may be assessed through a scale of the urgency degree, from I to II in relation to a specific deadline or critical event.
The first date in the resolution degree and urgency degree tables is the date when the issue is developed. The second date in the tables is the date when the status of the issue is checked during the follow-up mission.
2.5.3. Good practices and good practices sheets
A good practice is an outstanding and proven performance, programme, activity or design element in use that contributes directly or indirectly to system safety and sustained good performance. A good practice is markedly superior to other practices observed elsewhere, not just in its fulfilment of current requirements or expectations. It should be sufficiently superior and have broad enough application to be brought to the attention of other NPPs, suppliers, assessors, integrators, etc. and be worthy of their consideration in the general drive for excellence. A good practice has the following characteristics:
⎯
It is novel.⎯
It has a proven benefit.⎯
It can be used at other plants.⎯
It does not contradict an Issue.The attributes of a given good practice (e.g. whether it is well implemented, or cost effective, or creative, or it has good results) should be explicitly stated in the description section of the good practice sheet.
Note: An item may not meet all the criteria of a good practice, but still be worthy to take note of. In this case it may be referred as ‘good performance’, and may be documented in the text of the report. A good performance is a superior objective that has been achieved or a good technique or programme that contributes directly or indirectly to system safety and sustained good performance, that works well at the plant. However, it might not be necessary to recommend its adoption by other NPPs, because of financial considerations, differences in design or other reasons.