MENU
|
| Activities and Results until FY1999 |
 FNCA1999 Workshop
| 1) Date : |
May 17-19, 1999 |
| 2) Place : |
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
| 3) Sponsored by : |
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT) |
| 4) In Cooperation with : |
Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) |
| 5) Attendance : |
32 participants from Australia (5), China (1), Indonesia (2), Japan (7),
Korea (2), Malaysia (11), The Philippines (1), Thailand (1),
Viet Nam(1), IAEA (1) |
6)Outcomes and Future Activities
| |
a) |
IAEA programs in safety culture |
| |
b) |
The Nuclear Safety Convention Articles 7-10 |
| |
c) |
Reporting against safety policies and safety culture activities |
| |
d) |
Result of the safety culture attitudinal surveys |
| |
e) |
The concepts of stages in safety culture development in IAEA Safety Report Series No.11 |
| |
f) |
Reporting against the 6 safety culture activity indicators |
| |
g) |
Communication with the public |
| |
h) |
Discussion on future activities |
7) Outcomes and Future Activities
| |
a) |
The workshop recognized the benefits in all FNCA countries being contracting parties to the Nuclear Safety Convention. |
| |
b) |
The participants considered that the Nuclear Safety Convention meeting and discussion on the related articles were useful in providing information from various countries about safety and safety culture. The participants agreed to provide a report at the next workshop against the Nuclear Safety Convention Articles 7-10. |
| |
c) |
The result of safety culture attitudinal surveys in Australia, Indonesia, Japan and Korea were very valuable. The other countries showed their willingness to consider the application of the questionnaire in their countries. |
| |
d) |
The concepts of stages in safety culture development in IAEA Safety Report Series No.11 were seen as useful in assessing the state of an organization and determing targets for improvement. The participants agreed to use the concepts to identify good practices and potential areas for improvement in their organizations and provide a report at the next workshop. |
| |
e) |
The reporting against the safety culture activity indicators was valuable in encouraging activities and sharing of successes. Countries had begun some initiatives as a result of this process. This was seen as a very constructive outcome. The participants agreed to update the report against the 6 safety culture activity indicators at the next workshop. |
FNCA1997 Workshop
| 1) Date : |
January 27-29, 1998 |
| 2) Place : |
Sydney, Australia |
| 3) Sponsored by : |
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) |
| 4) In Cooperation with : |
Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) |
| 5) Attendance : |
33 participants from Australia (18), China (1), Indonesia (1), Japan (7),
Korea (2), Malaysia (1), The Philippines (1), Thailand (1), Viet Nam (1) |
6) Reports and Discussions
| |
a) |
Reporting against research reactor facilities and safety culture activities |
| |
b) |
Working groups on operational aspects, behavioural aspects and regulatory aspects of safety culture on research reactor |
| |
c) |
Safety culture activity Indicators for research reactor |
| |
d) |
Lessons learned from PNC bituminisation plant incident |
| |
e) |
Study on safety culture at HIFAR |
| |
f) |
Analysis of human behavior during abnormal occurrences at research facilities |
| |
g) |
IAEA programs in safety culture |
| |
h) |
Discussion on future activities |
7) Outcomes and Future Activities
| |
a) |
The participants agreed that the application of safety culture to research reactors was important, since public concern exists over any nuclear incident regardless of the size or consequence of the incident. |
| |
b) |
6 safety culture activity indicators, considered appropriate with research reactors, were agreed. (See below.) The participants agreed to provide a report against these indicators at the next workshop. |
| |
c) |
The participants agreed to provide information about safety policies at the next workshop. |
| |
d) |
Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Viet Nam undertook to conduct the survey in their research reactor based on the questionnaire developed by Australia. |
 6 Safety Culture Activity Indicators for Research Reactor
| |
1. |
Meetings between management and employees to discuss and enhance the safety culture of the organization. |
| |
2. |
A system for analysis of incidents to determine human factors and lessons learned to improve safety culture. |
| |
3. |
Training activities related to improving safety culture. |
| |
4. |
Meetings or activities with regulators, contractors and reactor users to discuss safety culture. |
| |
5. |
Survey, behavioural studies etc carried out to determine employee attitudes. |
| |
6. |
Adequacy of resources allocated to promote safety culture activities. |
FNCA1996
Workshop
| 1) Date : |
January 28-31, 1997 |
| 2) Place : |
Sydney, Australia |
| 3) Sponsored by : |
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) |
| 4) In Cooperation with : |
Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) |
| 5) Attendance : |
39 participants from Australia (21), China (1), Indonesia (1),
Japan (7),
Korea (4), Malaysia (1), The Philippines (1), Thailand
(1), Viet Nam (2) |
6) Reports and Discussions
| |
a) |
Outline and objectives for the nuclear safety culture workshop |
| |
b) |
Established safety culture programs for nuclear power |
| |
c) |
Safety culture in non-power nuclear activities |
| |
d) |
Working groups on the role of regulator, requirement of operating
organization and safety culture indicators |
| |
e) |
Visit to ANSTO and Nuclear Safety Bureau |
| |
f) |
Discussion on future activities |
7)Outcomes and Future Activities
| |
a) |
The workshop recognized that safety culture was an
important issue for all FNCA countries, given the contribution
to demonstrate that nuclear facilities could be operated
in safety. |
| |
b) |
The lessons learned by the countries with nuclear power
plants were considered to be of value to other countries
wishing to pursue nuclear power. The workshop recommended
further collaboration on this topic between the countries. |
| |
c) |
It was important to adopt the experiences of safety
culture in nuclear power plant to non-power reactor facilities
and to cooperate in promoting safety culture in the non-power
reactor countries. The workshop considered that safety
culture programs should be extended to reserch reactors
and other fuel cycle facilities. |
| |
d) |
The workshop encouraged developing appropriate indicactors
of safety culture for research reactors. 112 indicators
were suggested for research reactors and other facilities
at this workshop. |
| |
e) |
The participants agreed to discuss safety culture in
research reactors at the next workshop. |
|
|
page top↑ |
