1
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS BY EXPERTS
GENERAL ISSUES
SE&HM: The current course is too much about teaching the SS and their content, and too little about
how to be a performant IRRS team member during a mission. Most of our detailed comments are
related to this. We should seek for a better balance between the two
The questions below need consideration.
Is it necessary to make any change in the
1. scope/contents of the course?
Luc Baekelandt: Scope and contents look OK to me. It might be good to have an introductory
presentation with an overview of the lectures to come
Andrej Stritar: I cannot comment as I did not take part of the whole course and I don’t have overall
impression. However, the responses of participants do not show any major problem
Georg Schwarz: The general feedback is very good. Scope and content, duration organization and
schedule of the course seem to be adequate
Steve Evans &Hilaire Mansoux: Yes: the first course was far too heavily weighted towards teaching
technical stuff to participants who should already be expert in these areas. The emphasis should be
more on the purpose, process and procedures of the IRRS, especially reviewers’ actions, such as
interviewing and report writing.
2. duration of the course?
LB: The course should not take more than four days
Erik Jende: The course is rather long and ambitious. There are many presentations covering all
essential aspects of IRRS. Relatively little time for discussions. There is a risk that the participants get
too passive and have problems to absorb all information. One option to deal with this would be to
maximize time for each presentation to 30 min (40 min for the largest) and put the freed time on
discussions or practical exercises. Every presentation could end with some issues to discuss. Issues
which have shown to create problems during missions. This would activate the participants. The
evaluation also shows that the participants want more practical examples
AS: No, I would not make it either shorter nor longer. The first time the responses were quite
positive. Although there were some ideas of making it longer ot even developing an advanced
course, I would not follow that advice. The next step after this training should be the mission itself
and on-the-job training!
GS: see at 1.
SE&HM: Maybe too long. 2-3 days should be plenty if the content is focussed on IRRS rather than
technical issues. Depends if we go for plenary then parallel sessions
3. organization of the course?
LB: It might be helpful to distribute hand-outs of the lectures at the beginning (easier to take notes
and to take part in the discussion). One could also envisage to provide some time to discuss the
answers to the questions
EJ: Another issue worth discussing is to divide the participants into smaller groups when presenting
the review of specific IRRS modules. This could be done as parallel sessions during the Wednesday
and Thursday to save time. It may not be necessary to present all modules with the same level of
2
detail for all participants. The division could follow the review group structure used in IRRS missions.
To divide the participants like this would require an indication of interest in certain review areas
already when applying for participation in the course
AS: No comment
GS: see at 1.
4. schedule of the course?
LB: Liaison officers should be stimulated to participate in the training course.
AS: No comment
GS: see at 1.
5. general format of the presentations?
LB: Lectures must be reviewed carefully to avoid unwanted repetitions
EJ: I support the proposal given in the evaluation to provide a list of documents to participants to
read prior to the course, such as the IRRS Guidelines and the most relevant IAEA safety standards.
This would reduce some burden on the presentations even if you can never rely on that people do
their homework
AS: This comment from the participant I would support: “A short review should be simulated during
the training course to practice review of documents”!
GS: I agree with Eric that the course is rather long and that there is relatively little time for
discussions. For that we should try to reduce the length of the presentations in order to allow for a
discussion on practical examples. I also support the proposal given in the evaluation to provide a list
of documents to participants to read prior to the course, such as the IRRS Guidelines and the most
relevant IAEA safety standards
SE&HM: Too technical. Not enough room given to discussion on the business of being a reviewer. A
more conversational, interactive event would enable the participants to feel more comfortable with
the concept of being a reviewer
6. mode(s) of presenting?
AS: People like lively presentations with a lot of practical examples and the lecturer, who is showing
his/her enthusiasm, not only knowledge. Not every expert is a good lecturer. However, for the
purpose of this training course it would not make sense to start with the training of lecturing
techniques. We simply should continue with current arrangements.
I would still propose to develop a standalone version of this course similar to the ASITF and BSITF
trainings of UN!
GS: see at 5.
SE&HM: Formal and one way. Little participation by the audience
7. participation in the course?
AS: I have found it strange that there were participants from really exotic countries at the course.
Certainly they have learned something but I expected that we were targeting other people.
On the other hand it is hard to get to the course more experienced people, who are also the best
mission members. They are simply too busy to spend almost a week at the course. For them the
standalone version of the course would be beneficial
3
GS: The course is very successful right now. The goal should be that all reviewers of IRRS missions
should participate in such a course as well as the liaison officers and other representatives of IRRS
host countries.
8. other attributes/character of the course?
AS: This training course could also easily be converted into the Basics of Nuclear Regulatory Control
course. During the lecturing I have realized that this kind of training would be very beneficial to all
employees of our regulatory bodies, especially younger ones
GS: We should revise the questions that were too difficult to answer and optimize the presentations
SPECIFIC ISSUES
The individual training and information presentations may need review and revision. In order to
initiate and perform this, the following questions/issues need attention for each presentation:
A. Correction of errors recognised in the presentation
SE&HM: The correction process is a matter for each author, coordinated by Ivan
B. Any topics missing from the presentation?
SE&HM: Once again, a much stronger emphasis on the IRRS itself and what it means in practice, to
be a reviewer.
Hands on training on drafting a R/S/GP
C. Any topics need more detail in the presentation?
SE&HM: Advanced reference material including the self-assessment – what is it, why is it sent two
months prior to the mission, how to read it, how to develop first impressions and the importance of
referencing it throughout the mission itself – the reviewer is validating the self-assessment.
Interview process, staying within the scope of the mission (i.e. regulatory infrastructure only) making
technical notes, developing observations, recommendations, suggestions and good practices,
contributing to the group editing of the report, purpose of site visits
D.
E.
F.
G.
Any topics need more explanation (i.e. for poor test questionnaire responses)?
Any details that are unnecessary in the presentation?
Correction of errors recognised in the test questions
Does the test questionnaire need more questions on certain topics?
SE&HM: Probably, but this should be developed by a working group
H. Does the test questionnaire need correction (i.e. for poor responses)?
SE&HM: Yes – it is not focussed primarily on the business of being an IRRS reviewer. See attached
I. Any other specific issues.
LB: lecture 2
see revised version + add note to slide 61: “More about transport in lecture 16” delete questions 8,
9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 correct question 14: last line should read “development and operation of
radioactive waste management facilities”
lecture 13
suggest to delete slide 12 + minor corrections (see attachment 1) test questions are OK for me
lecture 16 (transport)
suggest to delete slide 40 and to modify slides 35 and 39 (see attachment 2)test questions are OK for
me
4
EJ: TM 5
The presentation needs a general revision. There is a potential to reduce from 96 to about 75 slides.
There are overlaps between the introductory parts about general review principles and later parts
about team work methodology and expectations. The slides about ARM could be simplified and the
points made clearer. (Should a standardized structure of the ARM be recommended)? The slides
about the daily team meeting could be rationalized. The many slides on data collection methods
contain a lot of text and could be simplified. It could be discussed to take out the final section on
“Effective communication” and make it an interactive mini course supplied for home work on a USB
stick or website for download.
Some Test Questions clearly need clarification, especially TQs 1, 8, 14, 15 and 16 proved to be
difficult. TQ 6d is unclear. Also the presentations could be made clearer in these cases. Several TQs
are now designed to ask for the negative examples: what is not right. This is quite confusing in some
cases, better to ask for the positive examples: what is right.
TM 10
I see no need to revise this presentation as long as GS-R-3 is the valid Management System standard.
The presentation time can be shortened by making fewer comments to some of the slides.
Also the Test Questions seem to be OK. The right answering frequency to TQ 7 is however quite low
(0.41) surprisingly since this question is quite clear and easy. The presentation of the related slide
obviously needs to be improved
GS: As said before the presentations should generally be shortened in order to have room for more
discussions. Potential for shortening was identified in the area of background information (e.g.
requirements of GSR Part 1). We should also try to eliminate overlapping content.
An overall introduction to describe the scope of presentations to come would be needed. In addition
the fonts of all slides should be checked for readability.
We should revise the questions that were too difficult to answer and optimize the presentations.
REFRESCHER COURSES
GS: I agree with the concept for the refresher courses.
Maybe you should consider deleting lecture 2 in order to have a little bit more time for the other
topics. I think the lecture programme is very condensed and this more fundamental lecture comes a
little late. If an expert doesn’t already know how to review its too late for the training anyway.
For follow-up missions I would suggest to have a very similar training that is specific about the
special aspect of such a mission (schedule, modules, evaluation of progress, scope etc.)
28-04-2014