IAEA Report on

Capacity Building for

Nuclear Safety

@
 IAEA REPORT ON
CAPACITY BUILDING FOR
NUCLEAR SAFETY
 The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

AFGHANISTAN GERMANY OMAN

ALBANIA GHANA PAKISTAN
ALGERIA GREECE PALAU
ANGOLA GUATEMALA PANAMA
ARGENTINA GUYANA PAPUA NEW GUINEA
ARMENIA HAITI PARAGUAY
AUSTRALIA HOLY SEE PERU
AUSTRIA HONDURAS PHILIPPINES
AZERBAIJAN HUNGARY POLAND
BAHAMAS ICELAND PORTUGAL
BAHRAIN INDIA QATAR
BANGLADESH INDONESIA REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
BELARUS IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA
BELGIUM IRAQ RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELIZE IRELAND RWANDA
BENIN ISRAEL SAN MARINO
BOLIVIA, PLURINATIONAL ITALY SAUDI ARABIA
STATE OF JAMAICA SENEGAL
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SERBIA
BOTSWANA JORDAN SEYCHELLES
BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SIERRA LEONE
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM KENYA SINGAPORE
BULGARIA KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SLOVAKIA
BURKINA FASO KUWAIT SLOVENIA
BURUNDI KYRGYZSTAN
SOUTH AFRICA
CAMBODIA LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC
SPAIN
CAMEROON REPUBLIC
SRI LANKA
CANADA LATVIA
SUDAN
CENTRAL AFRICAN LEBANON
SWAZILAND
REPUBLIC LESOTHO
SWEDEN
CHAD LIBERIA
SWITZERLAND
CHILE LIBYA
CHINA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
LIECHTENSTEIN
COLOMBIA LITHUANIA TAJIKISTAN
CONGO LUXEMBOURG THAILAND
COSTA RICA MADAGASCAR THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAWI REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
CROATIA MALAYSIA TOGO
CUBA MALI TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
CYPRUS MALTA TUNISIA
CZECH REPUBLIC MARSHALL ISLANDS TURKEY
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UGANDA
OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UKRAINE
DENMARK MEXICO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
DJIBOUTI MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF
DOMINICA MONGOLIA GREAT BRITAIN AND
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONTENEGRO NORTHERN IRELAND
ECUADOR MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC
EGYPT MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA
EL SALVADOR MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ERITREA NAMIBIA URUGUAY
ESTONIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN
ETHIOPIA NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN
FIJI NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC OF
FINLAND NICARAGUA VIET NAM
FRANCE NIGER YEMEN
GABON NIGERIA ZAMBIA
GEORGIA NORWAY ZIMBABWE

The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the
IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The
Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the
contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’.
 IAEA REPORT ON
CAPACITY BUILDING FOR
NUCLEAR SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA, 2015
 COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of
the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised
in 1972 (Paris). The copyright has since been extended by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (Geneva) to include electronic and virtual intellectual
property. Permission to use whole or parts of texts contained in IAEA publications
in printed or electronic form must be obtained and is usually subject to royalty
agreements. Proposals for non-commercial reproductions and translations are
welcomed and considered on a case-by-case basis. Enquiries should be addressed
to the IAEA Publishing Section at:

Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section

International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna International Centre
PO Box 100
1400 Vienna, Austria
fax: +43 1 2600 29302
tel.: +43 1 2600 22417
email: sales.publications@iaea.org
http://www.iaea.org/books

© IAEA, 2015

Printed by the IAEA in Austria

September 2015
IAEA/REP/CAP


 FOREWORD

By Denis Flory
Deputy Director General
Department of Nuclear Safety and Security

In response to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,

IAEA Member States unanimously adopted the Action Plan on Nuclear Safety.
Under this Action Plan, the IAEA Secretariat was asked to organize International
Experts Meetings to analyse all relevant technical aspects and to learn the lessons
from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Capacity building is an area that is represented in many of the actions of the
Action Plan, and includes education and training, human resource development
and knowledge management. In 2014, the IAEA Secretariat organized the
International Conference on Human Resource Development for Nuclear Power
Programmes: Building and Sustaining Capacity, which brought together leading
experts from areas such as industry, regulatory control, technical support,
research and development, and academia. The conference, held in Vienna,
Austria, provided a forum for the experts to share lessons learned, including
those related to the accident, and to identify relevant best practices.
This IAEA Report on Capacity Building for Nuclear Safety is part of a
series of reports on the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
It draws on the information provided at the 2014 Conference, on insights from
relevant IAEA Secretariat activities undertaken since 2011 and on information
provided in relevant International Experts Meetings. It is possible that additional
information and analysis related to the accident may become available in the
future, and will need to be considered.
I am grateful to the participants in the conference and in all the other
meetings and activities who contributed their valuable input. I hope that this
report will serve as a valuable information tool and reference for governments,
regulatory bodies, technical support organizations, nuclear operators, the media
and the general public, and that it will contribute to further capacity building for
nuclear safety.
 EDITORIAL NOTE
The presentations on the attached CD-ROM (including the figures, tables and references)
have not been reviewed by the editorial staff of the IAEA. The views expressed remain the
responsibility of the named authors or participants. In addition, the views are not necessarily
those of the governments of the nominating Member States or of the nominating organizations.
This report does not address questions of responsibility, legal or otherwise, for acts or
omissions on the part of any person.
Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained
in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for
consequences which may arise from its use.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any
judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of
their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as
registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed
as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
The authors are responsible for having obtained the necessary permission for the IAEA
to reproduce, translate or use material from sources already protected by copyrights.
Material prepared by authors who are in contractual relation with governments is
copyrighted by the IAEA, as publisher, only to the extent permitted by the appropriate national
regulations.
This publication has been prepared from the original material as submitted by the
authors. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA, the governments of
the nominating Member States or the nominating organizations.
The IAEA has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third party Internet web sites referred to in this book and does not guarantee that any content
on such web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
The depiction and use of boundaries, geographical names and related data shown on
maps do not necessarily imply official endorsement or acceptance by the IAEA.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. DISCUSSIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
FOR NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Insights from the conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. INSIGHTS FROM THE IAEA PEER REVIEW SERVICES . . . . . . . 8

4. INSIGHTS FROM OTHER INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS

MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. LESSONS LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Education and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Human resource development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Knowledge management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Knowledge networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ANNEX A: CHAIRPERSON’S SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ANNEX B: SUMMARY OF RELATED IAEA ACTIVITIES

DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ANNEX C: CONTENTS OF THE ATTACHED CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . 32

 1.  INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power

plant (the Fukushima Daiichi accident), the IAEA Director General convened the
IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in June 2011 to direct the process
of learning and acting upon lessons to strengthen nuclear safety, emergency
preparedness and radiation protection of people and the environment worldwide.
Subsequently, the Conference adopted a Ministerial Declaration on Nuclear
Safety, which requested the Director General to prepare a draft Action Plan1.
The draft Action Plan on Nuclear Safety (the Action Plan) was approved by the
Board of Governors at its September 2011 meeting.2 On 22 September 2011, the
IAEA General Conference unanimously endorsed the Action Plan, the purpose
of which is to define a programme of work to strengthen the global nuclear
safety framework.
The Action Plan includes 12 main actions. One of the actions is focused
on communication and information dissemination, and includes six sub-actions,
one of which mandates the IAEA Secretariat to “organize international experts
meetings to analyse all relevant technical aspects and learn the lessons from the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident”.3
Another action focuses on strengthening and maintaining capacity building,
including two sub-actions:

“Member States with nuclear power programmes and those planning

to embark on such a programme to strengthen, develop, maintain and
implement their capacity building programs, including education,
training and exercises at the national, regional and international levels;
to continuously ensure sufficient and competent human resources necessary
to assume their responsibility for safe, responsible and sustainable use
of nuclear technologies...”.4

“Member States with nuclear power programmes and those planning

to embark on such a programme, to incorporate lessons learned from the
accident into their nuclear power programme infrastructure...”.4

1
Declaration by the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in Vienna on
20 June 2011, INFCIRC/821, IAEA, Vienna (2011), para. 23.
2
Draft IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, Report by the Director General,
GOV/2011/59-GC(55)/14, IAEA, Vienna (2011).
3
Ibid., p. 6.
4
Ibid., p. 5.

1
 Given that there has not been a specific International Experts Meeting (IEM)
on the subject of strengthening and maintaining capacity building, this report
considers the discussions and the outcomes of the conferences and meetings that
addressed this subject following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The aim is to
share with Member States the most significant lessons learned to date regarding
strengthening and maintaining capacity building in the light of the Fukushima
Daiichi accident.
This report considers the discussions and the conclusions of the
International Conference on Human Resource Development for Nuclear Power
Programmes (the 2014 Conference), held on 12–16 May 2014, the insights
gained from IAEA peer review and support services relating to capacity building
for nuclear safety, and the discussions at relevant IEMs on this topic. The
report is expected to contribute to the ongoing efforts to assist Member States
in strengthening capacity building for nuclear safety and constitutes an integral
part of implementation of the Action Plan. The report is part of a series of IAEA
reports from IEMs that summarize the lessons learned from the Fukushima
Daiichi accident.

1.1. BACKGROUND

Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the international community

addressed, among other things, the issue of strengthening capacity building for
nuclear safety. In the Declaration by the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear
Safety in Vienna on 20 June 2011, the Ministers of the IAEA Member States
underlined the need for States operating nuclear power programmes and the
IAEA to promote capacity building, including education and training for both
regulators and operators.
Capacity building is a major first step in the process of ensuring a sustainable
supply of competent human resources capable of applying nuclear technologies
in a safe, responsible and sustainable manner. The building of competence for all
parties with responsibilities for the safety of nuclear facilities is a requirement
of the IAEA safety standards.5

5
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Governmental, Legal and
Regulatory Framework for Safety, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1, IAEA,
Vienna (2010).

2
 The importance of human resources was highlighted by the International
Nuclear Safety Group (INSAG)6, which recognized that education in nuclear
science and technology needs to be stabilized in order to maintain sufficient human
resources in sciences and engineering relating to nuclear safety. In addition, the
Contracting Parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety are committed to taking
the appropriate steps to ensure that sufficient numbers of qualified staff with
appropriate education, training and retraining are available for all safety related
activities in or for each nuclear installation, throughout its life.
INSAG also noted that for Member States embarking on a nuclear
power programme:

“The responsibility for safety requires that the new entrant operator establish
and maintain the necessary competencies of both staff and management
for safe operations. This entails providing adequate training and effective
knowledge management, establishing the culture and methodologies
to maintain safety under all conditions, and verifying that all activities and
processes are safe.”7

Capacity building has been defined8 as a systematic and integrated approach

to develop and continuously improve the governmental, organizational and
individual competencies and capabilities necessary for achieving a safe, secure
and sustainable nuclear power programme. The lessons learned that are presented
in this report relate to the four essential elements of the umbrella approach
(see Fig. 1) for capacity building, which include:

—— Education and training;

—— Human resource development;
—— Knowledge management;
—— Knowledge networks.

6
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP, Maintaining
Knowledge, Training and Infrastructure for Research and Development in Nuclear Safety,
INSAG-16, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
7
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY GROUP, Licensing the First Nuclear
Power Plant, INSAG-26, IAEA, Vienna (2012).
8
MALLICK, S., MOLLOY, B., “Capacity Building”, CN-215, paper presented at
IAEA Int. Conf. on Human Resour. Dev. for Nucl. Power Programmes Vienna, 2014.

3
 FIG. 1.  Capacity building, the umbrella approach.

In 2012, the IAEA Secretariat and an advisory group of Member States

developed an integrated strategy for education and training in nuclear safety for
the period 2013–2020 to strengthen support for capacity building in Member
States. The IAEA Secretariat’s capacity building programmes cover all areas
related to nuclear safety including safe operation, emergency preparedness and
response, infrastructure development and regulatory effectiveness.

1.2. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to highlight the relevant lessons learned

in the light of the Fukushima Daiichi accident for strengthening capacity building
for nuclear safety in Member States. This report was prepared by the IAEA
Secretariat and is intended to serve as a reference for government officials,
technical experts, diplomats, the media and the general public. It is expected that
the report will contribute to Member States’ efforts in building and sustaining
capacity for nuclear safety.

4
 2.  DISCUSSIONS AT
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
FOR NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMMES

2.1. BACKGROUND

The IAEA organized two international conferences, in 20079 and 201010

that addressed the issues of human resource development and knowledge
management. These conferences emphasized the importance of the role
of the national government, educational institutions, industry and international
organizations toward meeting the challenge of strengthening capacity
building through adequate human resource development.11 A major outcome
of the 2010 Conference was the recognition of the need for local, national
and international cooperation for human resource development for nuclear
power programmes.
The 2014 Conference was attended by around 300 experts and senior
officials from 65 Member States and 5 international organizations. The objectives
of the conference included:

—— To review global progress in human resource development, education and

training, knowledge management and knowledge networks;
—— To emphasize the importance of capacity building at the national and
organizational levels for achieving safe, secure and sustainable nuclear
power programmes;
—— To exchange information on international, national and organizational
approaches, programmes and experience gained to date.

9
The International Conference on Knowledge Management in Nuclear Facilities was
held from 18 to 21 June 2007 in Vienna.
10
The International Conference on Human Resource Development for Introducing and
Expanding Nuclear Power Programmes was held from 14 to 18 March 2010 in Abu Dhabi.
11
Human Resource Development for Introducing and Expanding Nuclear Power
Programmes (Proc. Int. Conf. Abu Dhabi, 2010), IAEA, Vienna (2012).

5
 The Chairperson’s summary of the conference along with all conference
papers and presentations can be found in the Annexes to this report and on the
conference web site12 and on the attached CD-ROM.

2.2. INSIGHTS FROM THE CONFERENCE

The highlights of the technical presentations, conclusions and

recommendations discussed at the 2014 Conference as they relate to capacity
building are presented below.
Conference participants recognized that capacity building programmes need
to cover the full scope of nuclear activities. These programmes require the active
involvement of government, regulatory bodies, industry, academia, research and
development organizations and technical and scientific support organizations
(TSOs). Capacity building in Member States is being addressed on many levels:

—— The individual level: Individual capacity building is the development

of the knowledge and skills of individuals to enable them to fulfil specific
responsibilities in specific organizations.
—— The organizational level: The key organizations for capacity building
include government ministries, nuclear energy programme implementing
organizations, regulatory bodies, operating organizations, technical and
scientific support organizations, and education and training institutions.
—— The national level: The role of government is crucial to the development
of integrated and comprehensive national approaches to capacity building.
—— The international level: Globalization of the nuclear industry has led to a
number of international cooperative programmes in the area of networks
on nuclear education, training, knowledge management, safety and security.

The 2014 Conference recognized that there are many factors affecting
capacity building activities in Member States depending on the status or maturity
of the nuclear power programme. Those Member States embarking on new
nuclear power programmes need to establish and develop capacity. Member
States with expanding programmes need to respond to the need for additional
human resources, while Member States with mature programmes need to ensure
a stable capacity of human resources.

12
See http://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/46084/International-Conference-on-
Human-Resource-Development-for-Introducing-and-Expanding-Nuclear-Power-Programmes-
Building-and-Sustaining-Capacity.

6
 The Conference participants emphasized that human resources are the
backbone of every nuclear power programme and require a significant variety
of skills and training. The conference highlighted the key role governments
have in integrating education and training programmes into an overall strategy
for building and maintaining capacity. Such an overall strategy needs to involve
all relevant stakeholders13 and cover the medium or long term to ensure
intergenerational knowledge transfer.
The results of national human resource requirements analysis contribute
to the effectiveness of strategies to develop and strengthen capacity building, and
are extremely useful for estimating education and training needs in the short and
medium term. A number of participants reported on the progress of systematic
analyses of human resource needs, which are being conducted for new and
mature nuclear programmes at the national and regional levels.
Several good examples of managing and improving education and training
systems were presented, including training needs analysis and the systematic
approach to training14. The systematic approach to training comprises five
interrelated phases including:

—— Analysis of training needs;

—— Design of training programmes;
—— Development of training material;
—— Implementation of training;
—— Evaluation of training effectiveness.

Given that nuclear power programmes can span many generations,

the 2014 Conference emphasized the importance of addressing knowledge
management over the life cycle of a nuclear power plant from design through
construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning or closure. Proper
knowledge management is vital for operating organizations, regulatory bodies,
and design and construction organizations for countries with mature nuclear
programmes as well as for newcomer countries. The importance of international
support for capacity building efforts in newcomer countries was highlighted.
The participants noted that networks have proven to be a key mechanism
to support knowledge management and capacity building and have helped
to foster harmonization and cooperation among stakeholders. A number

13
Stakeholders include governments, regulators, operators, research and development
design organizations and academia.
14
INTERNATIONALATOMIC ENERGYAGENCY, Experience in the Use of Systematic
Approach to Training (SAT) for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1057, IAEA,
Vienna (1998).

7
of successful existing and new networks that work at the organizational, national
and international levels were presented during the conference.

3.  INSIGHTS FROM THE IAEA PEER REVIEW SERVICES

The insights from a number of IAEA peer review and assessment services
that focused on capacity building or one of its components, such as education and
training, human resource development, knowledge management or knowledge
networks, are presented in the following.
The Education and Training Appraisal (EduTA) service was introduced
in 2005 to provide an assessment of the national legal and regulatory
infrastructure related to education and training in radiation protection and
the safety of radiation sources. To date, EduTA has been used in 17 missions
to 14 Member States. This service has shown that not all Member States have
a national strategy for education and training for radiation protection and safety.
The service highlighted the importance of involving all relevant stakeholders,
particularly the regulatory body, in establishing requirements for education
and training in radiation protection and safety. Criteria and procedures for the
recognition and designation of qualified experts and radiation protection officers
need to be clearly established by the regulatory body or other governmental
authorities. Information on national infrastructures and capabilities for education
and training in radiation protection and safety from EduTA missions need
to be disseminated for the benefit of all Member States to support their efforts
to develop and strengthen their education and training infrastructure.
The Education and Training Review Service (ETReS) was established
in 2012 to assist Member States in developing and maintaining a sustainable
and adequate education and training programme in nuclear safety. The ETReS
complements the EduTA service. To date, the ETReS has been used in three
Member States. Experience with this service has highlighted the importance
of systematic analyses of education and training needs for capacity building for
nuclear safety. The systematic approach to training is important to a number
of organizations, including operators, regulatory bodies, TSOs and research and
development organizations. The analysis of education and training gaps needs
to be comprehensive and needs to involve all relevant stakeholders in order
to minimize gaps in education and training programmes and in human resources.
To that end, a national integrated human resource development plan needs to be
developed, regularly evaluated and updated.

8
 The Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) is designed to strengthen
and enhance the effectiveness of the national regulatory infrastructure of Member
States for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety and security.
The first IRRS missions were conducted in 2006 and more than 50 initial and
follow-up IRRS missions have been carried out worldwide to date. The service
has highlighted the importance of a national policy and strategy for nuclear safety
that includes provisions for ensuring that the necessary capacity is developed
and competence is maintained. The systematic approach to training needs
to be used for the development of regulatory body staff, and formal qualification
programmes should ideally be in place along with a regulatory inspector refresher
training programme. A systematic competence needs assessment, as supported
by the Systematic Assessment of Regulatory Competence Needs (SARCoN),
is important in order to improve regulatory competence building programmes.
The SARCoN methodology15,16,17 has been used by Member States since
2005. To date, the IAEA Secretariat has provided SARCoN training seminars
in over 20 Member States, including more than ten embarking countries.
Strategies for capacity building need to be supported by adequate education and
training programmes as well as management systems and knowledge management
programmes. Such strategies need to be developed systematically based on the
identification of needs followed by the design, development, implementation and
final evaluation of activities. The self-assessment approach of SARCoN supports
capacity building, promotes ownership and facilitates follow-up actions, while
ensuring that national priorities are taken into account.
Other related IAEA services and reviews that have a component related
to capacity building for nuclear safety include the Operational Safety Review
Team (OSART) programme, and the Emergency Preparedness Review (EPREV)
and the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) services.
The OSART programme was established to assist Member States
in enhancing safe operation of nuclear power plants18. More than 180 OSART

15
Systematic Assessment of Regulatory Competence Needs for Regulatory
Bodies of Nuclear Facilities SARCoN Guidelines, available at:
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/training/sarcon/sarcon_rev14_adec6.pdf.
16
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Regulatory Body
Competence, Safety Reports Series No. 79, IAEA, Vienna (2013).
17
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Methodology for the Systematic
Assessment of the Regulatory Competence Needs (SARCoN) for Regulatory Bodies of Nuclear
Installations, IAEA-TECDOC-1757, IAEA, Vienna (2015).
18
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, OSART Mission Highlights
2010–2012: Operational Safety Practices in Nuclear Power Plants, available at:
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/s-reviews/osart/osart-mission-highlights%202010-2012.pdf.

9
missions to nuclear power plants and corporate organizations have been
performed to date. These missions have highlighted the need to systematically and
periodically evaluate the effectiveness of training programmes and the training
methods used for continuous improvement of the operational safety of nuclear
power plants. Nuclear power plant staff need to be given the opportunity for
refresher training, and nuclear power plant simulator facilities need to reflect the
current status of the specific plant in order to achieve the desired training results.
EPREV missions have been conducted in Member States since 1999
to review national emergency preparedness and response arrangements and
capabilities. The missions have shown that, to achieve globally harmonized
capabilities and responses to emergencies, there is a continuing need for greater
awareness of the international safety standards and compatibility requirements
for all Member States, both those with and without nuclear power programmes.
Regional and interregional education and training programmes are needed
on assessment and decision making during an emergency to promote a harmonized
and consistent global response. There is a need for better educational programmes
in both public and risk communications to adequately communicate health
risks during nuclear emergencies. There is also a need for knowledge networks
to provide a platform for emergency preparedness professionals to share their
knowledge and experience on capacity building.
The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) supports Member
States embarking on nuclear power programmes in the preparatory phase leading
to the introduction of a first nuclear power plant. The main objective of an INIR
mission is to assist the Member State in determining its infrastructure status and
to identify further development needs. By 2015, 15 INIR missions had been
conducted in 10 Member States.
The INIR missions have shown the importance of clearly specifying the
scope and timeline of a national nuclear power programme so that capacity
building programmes can be based on sound predictions of future needs. The roles
and responsibilities of the different organizations involved in capacity building
programmes need to be clearly identified, and effective national coordination
of capacity building activities is required to ensure that the necessary resources
are available when they are needed by the nuclear power programme.
INIR missions have also highlighted the need to clearly distinguish
education activities that are usually a governmental issue, such as a national
education plan, from human resource development, of which the latter builds
on an initial educational background and is provided by individual organizations
such as the nuclear energy programme implementing organization, the regulatory
body, or nuclear power plant owners or operators. Capacity building for the
regulatory body or TSOs can be a major challenge for embarking countries.
These organizations manage their own development either nationally or through

10
bilateral arrangements. Capacity building for the operating organization
is typically provided by the nuclear power plant vendor.
In 2005, the IAEA introduced assistance missions (‘assist missions’)
through Knowledge Management Assist Visits (KMAVs) for nuclear industry
operating organizations. These missions cover knowledge management policy,
strategy and culture, human resources, training and human performance,
document management and IT solutions as well as external collaboration. To date,
26 KMAV missions have been conducted to 17 Member States. Experience
from these missions has shown that nuclear safety knowledge management
needs to be included in an organization’s management system so that it is
consistently embedded in business processes across the organization. The KMAV
missions have also highlighted that nuclear safety related topics need to be
incorporated into the education and training curricula for nuclear engineers and
for other technical and non-technical disciplines of relevance to nuclear facilities
or activities. A sound understanding of topics related to nuclear safety needs to be
embedded in the whole nuclear workforce.

4.  INSIGHTS FROM OTHER

INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS MEETINGS

While the need to strengthen and maintain capacity building is specifically

highlighted in the Action Plan, the elements of capacity building relate to a number
of other actions. The importance of capacity building activities in strengthening
nuclear safety was identified at a number of IEMs; the relevant lessons learned
and observations of the experts are summarized in the following.
Regulatory bodies19 need to be independent and competent and need
to have strong legislative authority and adequate human and financial
resources. Achieving and sustaining these characteristics is the responsibility
of national governments.

19
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on Strengthening
Nuclear Regulatory Effectiveness in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant, IAEA, Vienna (2013), available at:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/regeffectiveness0913.pdf.

11
 Capacity building efforts to effectively meet the needs of recovery actions
that follow a nuclear or radiological accident,20 or to deal with nuclear legacy
facilities can be costly and take a long time. These efforts require the mobilization
of sufficient and competent personnel and resources for extended periods of time.
Member States making the transition to large scale decommissioning of nuclear
power plants face many challenges in maintaining a stable and skilled workforce.
Research and development21 activities are important for the identification
of gaps in scientific and technical capacity including knowledge, research,
expertise, and education and training. Research and development can be used
to identify the needs for infrastructure development and ongoing capacity building
activities at the national, regional or international levels.
All Member States would benefit from a programme of capacity building
in radiation protection. An accident similar in scale to the Fukushima Daiichi
accident would pose a significant challenge to the radiation protection capabilities
of many Member States, including States without a nuclear power plant.22
Consequently, well trained people and adequate equipment are needed to respond
to a nuclear or radiological accident and its aftermath. The decommissioning and
remediation activities following the Fukushima Daiichi accident will last several
decades, and radiation protection expertise is one of the key skills required for
the implementation of these activities.
The importance of training, particularly related to response capabilities,
was a common lesson learned that was highlighted at a number of IEMs.
The continuous training of staff in severe accident mitigation capabilities
is essential to improve the overall response capability of both staff at the nuclear
power plant and the experts in support centres.23

20
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on Decommissioning
and Remediation after a Nuclear Accident, IAEA, Vienna (2013), available at:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/decommissioning0913.pdf.
21
IAEA Report on Strengthening the Effectiveness of Research and Development in the
Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, IAEA, Vienna (2015).
22
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on the International
Experts Meeting on Radiation Protection after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Promoting
Confidence and Understanding, IAEA, Vienna (2014), available at:
http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/radprotection0914.pdf.
23
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on the International
Experts Meeting on Reactor and Spent Fuel Safety in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, IAEA, Vienna (2012), available at:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/spentfuelsafety2012.pdf.

12
 Human and organizational factors24 play a significant role in the
identification of specific training for nuclear power plant operating personnel.
The Fukushima Daiichi accident highlighted the need to better understand and
implement an integrated, or systemic, approach to safety so as to ensure proper
preparation and training of those who will be dealing with an unexpected nuclear
or radiological event. A review of major accidents yields insights into the human
and organizational factors involved in their occurrence. Some of these factors
relate to failures in training to deal with the unexpected.
Dedicated training is also essential for those responsible for communicating
with the public and the media in the event of a nuclear or radiological
emergency.25 Spokespeople, public information officers, executives and experts
must be included in the preparedness phase. In addition, the establishment of a
systematic, effective and regular training programme is necessary for all national
and local responders to an emergency (from national experts to security guards).
Continuous education and training, including the involvement of stakeholders,
are essential to creating and maintaining emergency preparedness and awareness.

5.  LESSONS LEARNED

The lessons learned presented below are summarized within the framework
of the four pillars of capacity building and are preceded by some general
cross-cutting lessons.

5.1. GENERAL

Human resource capability and knowledge are essential for a safe, secure
and sustainable nuclear power programme and require dedicated programmes
at the global, national and organizational levels.

24
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on the International
Experts Meeting on Human and Organizational Factors in Nuclear Safety in the Light of the
Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, IAEA, Vienna (2014), available at:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/humanfactors0914.pdf.
25
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Report on the International
Experts Meeting on Enhancing Transparency and Communication Effectiveness in the Event of
a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency, IAEA, Vienna (2012), available at:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/enhancetransparency180612.pdf.

13
 Nuclear safety requirements underscore the importance of capacity
building, as the abilities of all nuclear operators, regulators and other relevant
organizations require sufficient numbers of competent staff. The safety
requirements established in Governmental, Legal and Regulatory Framework
for Safety (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1)26 require that
at the national level, “[t]he government shall make provision for building and
maintaining the competence of all parties having responsibilities in relation to the
safety of facilities and activities.” GSR Part 1 also requires that “[a]s an essential
element of the national policy and strategy for safety, the necessary professional
training for maintaining the competence of a sufficient number of suitably
qualified and experienced staff shall be made available.”
In addition, the operating organization is to ensure that all activities that
may affect safety are performed by suitably qualified and competent persons, and
a regulatory body is to be established and maintained with the competence and
the resources necessary to fulfil its statutory obligations.27
To meet these needs, capacity building for nuclear safety needs to be
promoted through activities at the individual, organizational, national and global
levels. Activities need to be designed to take advantage of the strengths of each
of these levels. Each of the four pillars of capacity building requires a targeted
programme that addresses nuclear safety needs.
The life cycle of a nuclear power plant usually spans more than one
generation and government support is essential to develop a nationally coordinated
strategy for capacity building that encompasses all relevant stakeholders.
Capacity building for nuclear safety needs to be supported by governments
and through a national strategy to ensure that all stakeholders are involved during
the full life cycle of a nuclear power programme. National strategies can help
to identify the gaps in capacity building efforts at the national level, and can
also help to contribute to higher level objectives, such as a strong safety culture,
safety leadership and transparency.

26
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Governmental, Legal and
Regulatory Framework for Safety, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1, IAEA,
Vienna (2010).
27
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety of Nuclear Power
Plants: Commissioning and Operation, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSR-2/2, IAEA,
Vienna (2011). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Governmental, Legal
and Regulatory Framework for Safety, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1, IAEA,
Vienna (2010).

14
 The IAEA peer review services and their associated self-assessments, such
as SARCoN or ETReS, allow for the identification of capacity building needs
and provide a means of monitoring progress in building and sustaining capacity
in nuclear safety.
Peer review services are an important mechanism for exchanging
information and experience to strengthen nuclear safety in a harmonized and
transparent manner, both at the organizational and national levels. There is a
need for enhanced sharing of peer review mission findings for the benefit of all
Member States as a means to provide an improved knowledge base for capacity
building efforts.
The self-assessments that are associated with IAEA peer reviews are
important tools as they increase ownership and facilitate follow-up actions, while
ensuring that national priorities are taken into account.
Member States need to consider hosting peer reviews or conducting
self-assessments, sharing results in a transparent manner and ensuring that
appropriate follow-up actions are implemented.

5.2. EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Education and training infrastructure and processes are fundamental

to the capacity building strategy of Member States, as they provide a structure
to develop the capacity of those individuals involved in the application of nuclear
technologies. Education and training provide the basis for human resource
development, knowledge management and knowledge networking.
A systematic approach to training, including quality assurance and
continuous improvement, needs to be a component of the management system
of all organizations relevant for nuclear safety.
Nuclear power plant operating organizations are required to ensure that all
activities that may affect safety are performed by suitably qualified and competent
personnel. A suitable training programme is to be established and maintained for
the training of personnel which is to include provision for periodic confirmation
of the competence of personnel and for refresher training on a regular basis. The
content of each programme is to be based on a systematic approach. The training
programmes are to be assessed and improved by means of periodic review.28

28
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety of Nuclear Power
Plants: Commissioning and Operation, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSR-2/2, IAEA,
Vienna (2011).

15
 The systematic approach to training needs to be embedded in the
organization’s management system, which allows for continuous improvement
and the ability to address issues such as quality management, staff development
and lifelong learning. While some qualifications included in the systematic
approach to training need to be formalized and codified, others, such as team
cooperation and gender or cultural awareness, need to be promoted as soft skills.
In both cases, regulatory oversight of the development and implementation of the
systematic approach to training is important.
Technical experts may have specific needs in terms of continuous learning,
and require a tailored systematic approach to training programmes. These needs
can be met through specific skills development plans, drills and exercises,
particularly for areas where prompt decision making is needed to implement
emergency response actions and accident mitigation measures.
A harmonized understanding of nuclear safety education and training, skills,
and competence standards is instrumental to building a sustainable and strong
safety culture, to which experts from a wide range of disciplines, both technical
and non-technical, can make important contributions. This understanding can also
facilitate the transfer of staff and knowledge between organizations or Member
States. This can contribute to individual career development based on established
qualification schemes, and contributes to nuclear safety worldwide.
Systematically conducted human resource needs analyses are useful
to identify capacity building needs in the short and medium term as well as to
assess and evaluate the effectiveness of current efforts.
Safety issues need to be incorporated into the training not only for nuclear
engineering, but also for other related technical and non-technical disciplines
so that the nuclear workforce, as a whole, has a sound understanding of safety
issues. Experts from non-technical disciplines, such as the behavioural sciences,
can significantly contribute to understanding the interaction of human,
organizational and technical factors and how they contribute to nuclear safety.

5.3. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Human resource development is a means to ensure that sufficient

competent human resources are available for the activities that may affect safety.
This includes the adoption of a structured approach for the development of an
effective workforce at the national and organizational levels. This approach will
enable Member States to estimate the human resource needs for a nuclear power
programme, assess the existing capability, identify competency gaps, if any, and
plan and implement activities to fill these gaps.

16
 Increased emphasis needs to be placed on medium and long term planning
of capacity building and human resource development, particularly for those
Member States embarking on a nuclear power programme.
An integrated national human resource development plan needs to be
developed and regularly updated. The national government plays an important
role in initiating or leading the development of such a national plan. The plan
needs to include the current and expected human resource demand for the
different qualification levels and technical areas and be based on the overall plan
for the national nuclear power programme.
For Member States embarking on a nuclear power programme, a clear
understanding of the programme timeline and the implications for human resource
needs is essential. This understanding will allow the provision of sufficient
qualified and competent staff at the right time. In addition, greater attention needs
to be directed to the capacity building needs of regulatory bodies and TSOs.
It is important to clearly define and distinguish the roles of the government
and other relevant organizations for human resource development and
education and training. While education is primarily a national governmental
responsibility, individual organizations maintain human resource development
plans and recruitment programmes, which, in turn, are fed by the national human
resource pool.
The migration of the workforce between Member States has increased
and needs to be taken into account in any national or organizational planning.
Monitoring national workforce migration and organizational staff recruitment
trends, and consolidating the findings at the national level can contribute
to appropriately address these increases in migration.

5.4. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management is essential for effective implementation of capacity

building programmes. It combines the people, processes and technology aspects
of knowledge under one integrated approach. Knowledge management deals
with capturing, structuring, retaining and transmitting knowledge and requires
an understanding of the concepts of organizational knowledge and individual
knowledge. The transfer of knowledge can be of crucial importance for nuclear
safety; for example, it is essential for knowledge to be transferred from a vendor
country to a Member State embarking on a nuclear power programme. Knowledge
transfer across generations is necessary for countries with mature nuclear power
programmes and with an ageing workforce.

17
 Medium and long term knowledge management planning is needed
to effectively manage knowledge transfer to future generations. The life cycle
of a nuclear power plant can span several decades and many generations;
consequently, knowledge transfer to future generations is needed from normal
operation through to decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Intergenerational
transfer of knowledge, experience and skills is important to inform the education
and training programmes for subsequent generations.
In addition, the activities undertaken to recover from a nuclear power
plant accident, as well as to deal with nuclear legacy situations, will also require
knowledge management and knowledge transfer over a period of decades. These
activities need the mobilization of knowledgeable and experienced national and
international personnel for extended periods of time. Sustaining these efforts
for decades is a challenge that requires medium and long term knowledge
management planning.
Nuclear safety knowledge needs to be managed proactively through
programmes at the national and organizational levels, particularly programmes
for regulatory bodies and TSOs.
At the national level, knowledge management requires the inclusion of all
relevant stakeholders. The processes for the creation, preservation and sharing
of knowledge need to be aligned with the nuclear power programme timelines
to ensure the right knowledge is available at the right time. These processes need
to be sustainable and need to take into consideration any anticipated technological
and societal changes.
At the organizational level, the availability of nuclear safety knowledge
is crucial for both operating organizations and regulatory bodies. Nuclear
safety knowledge needs to be managed by every relevant organization,
and the knowledge management process needs to be embedded into the
management system.
Although the responsibility for safety rests primarily with the operating
organization, governments and regulatory bodies also have an important
responsibility to establish standards and the regulatory framework to protect
people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
Knowledge management is essential for regulatory bodies to effectively fulfil
their functions. IAEA safety standards require that a process be established
to develop and maintain the necessary competence and skills of staff of the
regulatory body, as an element of knowledge management.29

29
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Governmental, Legal and
Regulatory Framework for Safety, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1, IAEA,
Vienna (2010).

18
5.5. KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS

Knowledge networks can be composed of networks of people

or organizations that are linked by a common infrastructure for coordination
or collaboration. Knowledge networks have been established to manage the
knowledge and experience in an organization and to promote the pooling,
analysis and sharing of knowledge at the national, regional and international
levels. Knowledge networks allow for continuous improvements in nuclear
safety related knowledge.
Knowledge networks are an effective mechanism to share knowledge, pool
resources and develop a harmonized understanding of nuclear safety. Connecting
all networks and initiatives under the Global Nuclear Safety and Security
Network (GNSSN)30 needs to be an important objective of future work.
Capacity building for nuclear safety can be supported through increased
networking to share lessons learned, to expand the knowledge base and
to increase transparency. Regional and global knowledge networks can also
be instrumental for building a harmonized understanding of safety culture as an
overarching objective.
Global networks such as the GNSSN have been instrumental in promoting
a global nuclear safety and security framework and in connecting, under
one umbrella, the activities of the various participating global, regional and
national networks and initiatives. Member States should consider fostering and
strengthening their participation in this initiative.
Knowledge networks require a technical infrastructure to share knowledge
in a structured manner. National platforms with a shared information and
communication technology infrastructure, such as the national safety knowledge
platforms under the GNSSN, have proven to be good tools that can be used
widely. A shared infrastructure, such as this, can be a powerful tool to support
national, regional and global cooperation and capacity building for nuclear safety.
Knowledge networks can help share the available knowledge nationally,
regionally or globally, and can thereby reduce costs. For example, systematically
implemented ETReS reviews at the national level, supported by regional
cooperation mechanisms and knowledge networks, can help share training
resources among participating national institutions in the region and can provide
enhancements for existing training courses.

30
A complete overview of the GNSSN is available at:
http://gnssn.iaea.org/More/Home.aspx.

19
 Dissemination of nuclear safety knowledge is important in order to improve
and enhance public information and outreach, and can be facilitated through
nuclear safety knowledge and education networks.
Knowledge networks are useful mechanisms for reaching out to society and
building bridges between the nuclear sector and the public. Capacity building
programmes need to include public outreach and interaction with the community
so that basic nuclear knowledge becomes available to, and is shared by, a broader
societal group. This can also help to reduce boundaries between nuclear and
non-nuclear professions and to build a stable scientific and technical human
resource reservoir for nuclear professions.
Public perception and confidence depend on the availability and
communication of information. The regulator is often considered the main trusted
source of information. Regulatory bodies need to enhance communication,
transparency and sharing of regulatory knowledge and experience with interested
parties such as industry and the general public.
Existing regional nuclear safety knowledge networks, such as the Asian
Nuclear Safety Network, the Ibero-American Forum of Radiological and Nuclear
Regulatory Agencies, the Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators and the Forum
of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa, can be used as models of efficient and
effective nuclear safety knowledge management mechanisms to share nuclear
safety information, good practices and practical experience. They can also
provide for a capacity building framework and enhance sustainable national
and regional nuclear safety infrastructures. Existing regional nuclear education
networks, such as the Asian Network for Education in Nuclear Technology,
the Latin American Network for Education in Nuclear Technology and the
AFRA Network for Education Science and Technology are equally important
mechanisms in this context.

6.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Action Plan, unanimously adopted by Member States following

the Fukushima Daiichi accident, identified capacity building as one of the key
areas for strengthening nuclear safety. This IAEA Report on capacity building
for nuclear safety draws on the discussions of the 2014 Conference as well
as on experience from IAEA peer review services. The report summarizes the
lessons learned in each of the essential elements of capacity building, namely,
education and training, human resource development, knowledge management
and knowledge networks.

20
 Both nuclear power plant operating organizations and regulatory bodies
require suitably qualified and experienced staff. The life cycle of nuclear facilities
usually spans more than one generation, and an overarching lesson is that human
resource capacity and knowledge management are essential for nuclear safety
and require ongoing programmes at the organizational, national and global
levels over the long term. National governments play a key role in supporting
the development of a nationally coordinated strategy for capacity building that
encompasses all relevant stakeholders.
National strategies can also help promote higher level objectives, such
as strong safety culture, safety leadership and transparency. The national
government is to make provisions for building and maintaining the competence
of human resources. National governments can be instrumental in developing
a harmonized understanding of nuclear safety education and training to which
experts from a wide range of disciplines, both technical and non-technical, can
make important contributions.
The challenges of capacity building differ depending on whether a Member
State is embarking, maintaining or expanding a nuclear power programme
or undertaking decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
The IAEA peer review services and associated self-assessments provide
a good means of monitoring progress and identifying gaps and areas for further
work and improvements in capacity building. Member States should consider
hosting such peer reviews or conducting self-assessments, sharing results in a
transparent manner and ensuring appropriate follow-up on recommendations.
A systematic approach to training needs to be integrated into the
management systems of all organizations relevant to nuclear safety. Safety issues
need to be incorporated into the curricula of higher education and training, not
only for nuclear engineering, but also for related technical and non-technical
subjects. In addition, expertise from non-nuclear disciplines can provide valuable
insights into the interaction of human, organizational and technical factors and
how they can contribute to nuclear safety.
Nuclear safety knowledge needs to be managed through programmes
at both the national and the organizational levels, including regulatory bodies
and TSOs. Nuclear regulators need to maintain the necessary nuclear safety
knowledge to carry out their legal function as regulator, both in terms of having
independent knowledge themselves and making informed decisions regarding
the appropriate knowledge of operators.
Knowledge networks are an effective mechanism to share knowledge,
to pool resources and to develop a harmonized understanding of nuclear safety
culture and leadership. One important objective of future work needs to be the
connection of all networks and initiatives under one single umbrella, such as the

21
GNSSN. Knowledge networks are also useful mechanisms that can help reach
out to society and build bridges between the nuclear sector and the public.

22
 Annex A

CHAIRPERSON’S SUMMARY1

International Conference on Human Resource Development

for Nuclear Power Programmes

Thank you for participating in this conference and remaining until the
end. I would like to begin my closing remarks by looking back four years.
The 2010 Conference on Human Resource Development for Introducing and
Expanding Nuclear Power Programmes highlighted the importance of human
resources, the need to broaden nuclear curricula, emphasized governmental and
societal support, requested more cooperation in building human resources and
proposed a follow-up conference to be held to monitor progress.
In response, the IAEA organized this conference we are about to conclude.
It has focused on capacity building, human resource development, attracting
the next generation, education and training, nuclear knowledge management
and knowledge networks. I am pleased to say that the conference was very
successful. It was attended by more than 300 participants from 65 Member States
and 5 international organizations, a very good turnout, and an increase from
the 2010 Conference. Participation was also very broad and covered all types
of countries: newcomers, countries with expanding nuclear power programmes
and ‘mature’ countries. It also covered all types of institutions: from industry
to regulators to academia. This is clear evidence that capacity building and human
resource development continues to be of high interest to many Member States.
Let us now review the work we have done in the course of the last five days.
The first insight is that the drivers for capacity building are manifold:
countries with new programmes need to build up new capacity, countries with
expanding programmes need to recruit additional workforce and countries with
mature programmes need to ensure stable capacity and turnover. In addition,
nuclear safety and security requirements provide strong drivers, and the
importance of capacity building was rightly underlined in the IAEA Action Plan
on Nuclear Safety.

1
The opinions expressed in this Summary — and any recommendations made — are
those of the Chairperson and do not necessarily represent the views of the IAEA, its Member
States or other cooperating organizations.

23
 A second insight is that in terms of nuclear activities, the world has
changed since the 2010 Conference. New nuclear power programmes have
started in several countries, we see a continuing globalization in nuclear power,
we expect the decommissioning of additional plants in countries with phase-out
policies and the Fukushima accident has led to additional safety enhancement.
I am pleased that an impressive number of activities in Member States
that address these challenges were presented, and that the IAEA has responded
to these developments as well with a host of activities. In all areas we heard about
this week — nuclear energy, nuclear safety and nuclear security — the IAEA
has active programmes that support capacity building in Member States. New
IAEA services and guidance have been developed, for example, the Capacity
Building Self-Assessment Methodology. New networks have been established
for nuclear education and training and nuclear safety and security. Other IAEA
services continue to play an important role, for example, the expanding catalogue
of training and e-learning courses. The IAEA’s technical cooperation programme
will remain essential in this area.
Against this background, and while we will continue to need to learn from
each other, we are now in a phase of implementing capacity building programmes
based on proven mechanisms.
A third important insight is that capacity building programmes need to cover
the full scope of the nuclear programme. They should encompass fuel, power
and waste facilities; consider government, regulators, industry, academia and
research; include all academic subjects needed; and cover nuclear programme
management and outreach into society at large.
As a fourth insight, we heard this week that capacity building is a real need
and is being addressed on many levels, all of which need to be considered:

—— On the individual level, development of staff and lifelong learning

are important. New multidisciplinary curricula complement the
traditional engineering curricula, and training schemes supplement
university education.
—— On the corporate level, we see a growing culture of corporate knowledge
management and recruitment programmes. The nuclear sector at present
offers a very supportive environment for the younger generation and
new employees.
—— On the national level, we heard about the importance of an integrated
and comprehensive national approach for capacity building. The role
of governments is crucial for such an approach.

24
 —— On the global level, the globalization of the nuclear industry is mirrored
by an increased internationalization of university programmes, recruitment
and professional careers. A growing number of international cooperative
programmes, for example, in the area of networks in nuclear education,
safety and security, were presented.

As a fifth insight, I would like to comment on progress made in reducing

boundaries between nuclear and non-nuclear professions. Professionals outside
the nuclear sector increasingly benefit from having basic knowledge of nuclear
technology, safety and security, for example in governmental organizations, trade
unions, commerce and local authorities, achieved and supported by training offers,
proactive outreach and communication. Nuclear professionals, in turn, often
have additional qualifications in non-nuclear subjects, such as law, economics,
management, social sciences, communication and public administration, and
we heard good examples of new or multidisciplinary curricula that support this
trend. In addition to these challenges on the level of professionals, a greater general
understanding by the public of nuclear technologies was deemed desirable.
From the five sessions we followed in the course of the past five days,
we made the following important findings:

—— Human resource needs analyses are now conducted more systematically

both by mature and new nuclear programmes and sometime even
at a regional level, e.g. in Europe. These analyses are extremely useful
to education and training efforts in the short and medium term. Human
resources are the backbone of every nuclear energy programme, and
a significant variety of personnel in terms of skills and training are required.
—— Progress in human resource development has been made by considering
both vocational training and academic education; by considering interfaces
between technical, safety and security issues; by recognizing the importance
of non-nuclear knowledge and by reaching out to society.
—— We heard several good examples of managing and improving the education
and training pipelines. We looked at training needs analysis, the systematic
approach to training process, national programmes and international
support to newcomer countries. Key conclusions were that education and
training is strengthening across all levels of the skills pyramid with good
blending of theory, practical and hands-on experience.

25
 —— Strategic outreach plans are crucial for workforce development,
commitment of the next generation and for building acceptance of nuclear
energy. Organizations should maintain and further develop pathways ‘from
education to employment’ and be ready to inspire, develop and encourage
the next generation. There is also a need to engage better with the public
so that dialogue with prospective future nuclear professionals becomes
more attractive.
—— Education and training programmes should be integrated into an overall
strategy for building and maintaining capacity, supported by governments.
For regulators, management of competencies is of particular importance,
and the Systematic Assessment of Regulatory Competence Needs was
presented as a useful tool in that regard.
—— Networks have become a proven and key mechanism to support knowledge
sharing and capacity building and to foster harmonization and cooperation.
A large number of successful existing and new networks working
at corporate, national and international levels were presented this week.
—— Nuclear programmes are large scale and long term. The knowledge
required for the safe, reliable and efficient operation of nuclear facilities
is an asset that should be properly managed. Knowledge management
should address each area of a nuclear programme from design through
construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning or closure
of nuclear facilities. Proper knowledge management contributes to meeting
a company’s strategic and business objectives. It is vital not only for
operating, design and construction companies, but also for regulatory
bodies, technical support organizations and for countries with mature
nuclear programmes as well as for newcomer countries.

The IAEA is to be commended for this timely and fruitful conference,

organized jointly by the Departments of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safety
and Security. The conference concluded that capacity building is a major and
important step in the process of ensuring a sustainable supply of qualified human
resources for safe, secure and sustainable nuclear power programmes.
The IAEA is invited to further develop its support for capacity building,
to document good practices, to continue to develop tools and guidance, to provide
services and assistance and to continue to facilitate international coordination
and cooperation.
Member States, in turn, are invited to join existing networks and make
use of the available IAEA services, including the new capacity building
self-assessment methodology.

26
 There have been significant, practical developments since the
2010 Conference and we all look forward to the next occasion to continue our
discussions, possibly at another follow-up conference four or five years from now.
My thanks go in particular to all speakers, session chairs and co-chairs and
to the conference rapporteur. I also thank all participants for their valuable time,
attendance and contributions.
It was your participation that made this conference a success. Thank you.

Marta Ziakova
16 May 2014

27
 Annex B

SUMMARY OF RELATED IAEA ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED

AT THE CONFERENCE

In the area of capacity building for nuclear safety, the IAEA is implementing
a number of activities, which were reported on at the 2014 conference. The
following chapter provides a brief summary of these activities.

B–1. NUCLEAR SAFETY

The IAEA Secretariat has developed a strategic approach to education and

training in nuclear safety over the period 2013–2020, in line with and in support
of the Action Plan1. Activities specifically related to supporting the efforts
of Member States to strengthen the technical and managerial competencies
of their regulatory bodies include:

—— The development of Guidelines for Systematic Assessment of the Regulatory

Competence Needs (SARCoN) to identify gaps in the competencies
of regulatory bodies to perform their functions, and gaps in their related
training needs. A software tool to facilitate the application of SARCoN has
been made available to Member States.
—— The publication of IAEA Safety Report No. 79, Managing Regulatory
Body Competence.2
—— The ongoing revisions of the textbook and workbook titled, Regulatory
Control of Nuclear Power Plants, for the basic professional training course
on nuclear safety.
—— The development of packages of exemplary training material, based
on IAEA safety standards and practical case studies, to support workshops
and expert missions tailored to the needs of regulatory bodies of countries
embarking on nuclear power programmes.
—— New safety services that include the Education and Training Review
Service and the Safety Assessment Advisory Programme, which use the
Safety Assessment Education and Training Programme.

1
Draft IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, Report by the Director General,
GOV/2011/59-GC(SS)/14, IAEA, Vienna (2011).
2
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Regulatory Body
Competence, Safety Reports Series No. 79, IAEA, Vienna (2013).

28
 The approach to education and training outlined here complements the
Strategic Approach to Education and Training in Radiation, Transport and
Waste Safety until 2020 that was established by the IAEA, which calls upon
Member States to develop national strategies for education and training in this
area. The related Education and Training Appraisal service has been hosted
by 14 Member States.
The IAEA has also invested efforts in strengthening capacity building
in the area of emergency preparedness and response, particularly in the light
of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. A recent achievement is linked to the IAEA
Response and Assistance Network (RANET) and the designation of the IAEA
RANET Capacity Building Centre in Fukushima Prefecture. This project
commenced in December 2012, following the signing of the Practical
Arrangements between the IAEA and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
under the Memorandum of Cooperation between the IAEA and the Fukushima
Prefecture. Since then, a number of workshops related to nuclear and radiological
emergency preparedness and response have been conducted in this centre.

B–2. NUCLEAR SECURITY

As with safety, capacity building is critical for sustaining and advancing

national nuclear security regimes. In pursuit of this goal, the IAEA has made
several important advances in its nuclear security education and training
programmes, including inter alia:

—— The development and implementation of a comprehensive training

programme offered to Member States in a variety of disciplines covering all
aspects of nuclear security. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 300 national,
regional and international training courses based on publications and
recommendations in the IAEA Nuclear Security Series were implemented.
These publications have been developed in conjunction with the Member
States and represent internationally accepted standards.
—— A model Master of Science academic curriculum based on IAEA Nuclear
Security Series No. 12, Educational Programme in Nuclear Security3,
developed jointly with a large group of international experts, and the
creation in 2010 of the International Nuclear Security Education Network
(INSEN). A growing number of universities and departments offer new

3
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Educational Programme in
Nuclear Security, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 12, IAEA, Vienna (2010).

29
 programmes or courses in nuclear security using the materials developed
by INSEN experts and institutions, including a consortium of European
universities offering a pilot Master of Science programme which was
inaugurated by the Director General in 2014. Non-European universities
are following this lead.
—— The establishment of the international network of Nuclear Security Training
and Support Centres (NSSC), which helps to ensure sustainable nuclear
security by acting as a resource base to facilitate national training. This
network also provides technical support services for life cycle equipment
management and scientific support services for the detection of and
response to nuclear security events. Some 50 States have established such
centres or have plans to do so. The IAEA coordinates the activities of the
NSSC network with a view to strengthening nuclear security training and
support services as a cornerstone of national, regional and international
capacity building activities.

The value of this work and the importance of capacity building for nuclear
security was recognized in the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the International
Conference on Nuclear Security, which was organized by the IAEA and held
in Vienna in 2013, as well as by IAEA Member States through IAEA General
Conference resolutions and other international fora such as the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit in The Hague4.

B–3. THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY NETWORK

One of the main functions of the IAEA under its Statute is to “foster
the exchange of scientific and technical information on peaceful uses
of atomic energy”. Therefore, the IAEA is committed to facilitating the exchange
of information, experience and knowledge among its Member States.
While international cooperation has increased in recent years, nuclear
safety and security knowledge remains scattered all over the globe. Different
experiences, competencies and needs at the individual, organizational and
national levels continue to exist. In addition, countries with limited technical
infrastructure are embarking on nuclear power programmes. In this complex
environment, the Global Nuclear Safety and Security Framework (GNSSF)
represents a good and proven instrument for achieving a high level of nuclear
safety and security worldwide. The Global Nuclear Safety and Security

4
See http://www.nss2014.com/en.

30
Network (GNSSN), in this context, constitutes the heart of the GNSSF, and
brings together international legal instruments with the national nuclear safety
and security infrastructure. Moreover, the GNSSN supports the IAEA’s nuclear
safety and security programme. In line with the Action Plan, the GNSSN, as a
knowledge network, supports capacity building in Member States and contributes
to enhancing international cooperation and dialogue in the field of nuclear safety
and security.
Over the past few years, the GNSSN has become a worldwide gateway
to sharing nuclear safety and security knowledge and services to facilitate
capacity building among IAEA Member States. The IAEA has brought together
existing and new knowledge networks in nuclear safety and security under the
GNSSN. These networks include global networks such as the International
Regulatory Network, the Technical and Scientific Support Organization Forum
and the Global Safety Assessment Network. The GNSSN includes regional
networks such as the Asian Nuclear Safety Network, the Arab Network
of Nuclear Regulators, the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa and
the Ibero-American Forum of Radiological and Nuclear Regulatory Agencies.
It also includes thematic networks such as the Regulatory Cooperation Forum,
the Forum for Senior Regulators of CANDU Reactors, the WWER Regulators’
Forum and the Control of Sources Network. Under the GNSSN, the IAEA
Incident and Emergency Centre launched the Emergency Preparedness Network
(EPnet) in September 2014. This serves as a collaborative network for emergency
preparedness and management professionals at all levels to share knowledge,
identify common issues and exchange solutions.
The GNSSN is an inclusive concept that links, complements and brings
together all existing networks and initiatives and is recognized as instrumental
in harmonizing approaches and adopting best practices to achieve sustainable
nuclear safety and security infrastructures. It is considered as the means to sustain
the implementation of the international legal framework and focuses on assisting
Member States in meeting their national responsibilities as well as their
international obligations. Since 2011, over 350 capacity building regional and
national activities were implemented under the GNSSN framework, gathering
together more than 3500 experts from 120 Member States.

31
 Annex C

CONTENTS OF THE ATTACHED CD-ROM

The following papers and presentations from the International Conference on

Human Resource Development for Nuclear Power Programmes (2014)
are available on the attached CD-ROM.

OPENING SESSION

Opening Remarks
D. Flory
Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and
Security, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Opening Remarks
A. Bychkov
Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Speech on the 2010 Conference Outcomes

H. Alkaabi
Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the United Arab Emirates to the IAEA,
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Capacity Building
S. Mallick and B. Molloy
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Self-evaluation on Capacity Building in Finland: Report of the Committee for

Nuclear Energy Competence in Finland
J. Isotalo and J. Aurela
Posiva Oy, FINLAND

32
PRESENTATIONS

Session 1A (Monday): Human Resources and Capacity Building

(Introduction) Capacity Building in the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety

G. Caruso
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Strategic International Cooperation of Fukui Prefecture Government in Human

Resource Development for Nuclear Power Programmes
I. Nishikawa
Governor of Fukui Prefecture, JAPAN

The Nuclear Power Institute Programs for Human Resource Development for the
Nuclear Industry
K.L. Peddicord
Texas A&M University, USA

Human Resource Development in a Newcomer Country: Malaysia Nuclear

Power Corporation’s Experience as a Dedicated Nuclear Energy Programme
Implementing Organization (NEPIO)
Mohd Zamzam Jaafar
Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC), MALAYSIA

Method of Competence System Estimation for the Ukrainian NPP Personnel

M. Gushchyna
Certification Body “RosUkrSert”, UKRAINE

Japan Nuclear Safety Institute’s Activities for Reflecting Lessons Learned from
the Fukushima Daiichi Accident
A. Kugo
Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI), JAPAN

Human Capital Management Concept

J.-C. Veyre and V. von Atzigen
Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI), SWITZERLAND

Human Resources Development for Jordan’s Nuclear Energy Programme

S. Malkawi and D. Amawi
Jordan University of Science and Technology, JORDAN

33
Challenges in Building Capacity for a Nuclear Programme in the Philippines
E.M. Bacarra
Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology, Research
and Development, Department of Science and Technology (PCIEERD-DOST),
PHILIPPINES

Sudan Country Profile — Human Resource Development (HRD) for the First
Nuclear Power Programme
E.H. Elneel Yousif
Ministry of Science and Technology, SUDAN

Design and Safety Assessment Review Service (DSARS): The Safety Assessment
Advisory Programme (SAAP)
P. Hughes
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Capacity Building in Emergency Preparedness and Response

P. Kenny
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Session 1B (Tuesday): Human Resources and Capacity Building

Fostering of Innovative Talents Based on Disciplinary Construction: Human

Resource Development Strategy of the Chinese Nuclear Power Industry
Ye Yuanwei
Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute, CHINA

Human Resources Development Challenges for Nuclear Newcomers

R. Geisser and X. Perrette
AREVA GmbH, GERMANY and AREVA University, FRANCE

European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector

M. Flore
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, EU

Building Capacity through Leadership Development Programmes in the

Nuclear Industry
A. Afonin and T. Terentyeva
Corporate Academy of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ‘Rosatom’,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION

34
Session 1C (Tuesday): Human Resources and Capacity Building

Manpower Development to Support the Indian Graduate Training School

Programme of BARC and its Incorporation in the University System
B.K. Dutta
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), INDIA

Human Resources Development by the Eastern European Research Reactor

Initiative (EERRI)
H. Böck, et al.
Vienna University of Technology, AUSTRIA

Progress in Human Resources Development of the Office of Atoms for Peace,

Thailand
P. Ampornrat
Ministry of Science and Technology, THAILAND

Session 2A (Tuesday): Preparing the Next Generation of Nuclear

Professionals

(Introduction) Capacity Building in the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation

Programme
O. Acuña
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Plans for Competency-based Human Resources Management in KINS

Young-Joon Choi
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), REPUBLIC OF KOREA

From Education to Employment — Inspiring and Strengthening the Pathways

to Secure our Nuclear Future
L. Matthews
EDF Energy, UK

Bridge of Generations: Project of OJSC Atomenergomash

M. Komarova
JSC Atomenergomash, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

35
European Master in Innovation in Nuclear Energy (EMINE), Developed in the
Framework of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology,
KICINNOENERGY
J. Dies, et al.
Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), SPAIN

Session 2B (Tuesday): Preparing the Next Generation of Nuclear

Professionals

A Chance for Young Nuclear Professionals in Slovenské elektrárne, a Member

of the Enel Group
J. Zlatnansky
Slovenské elektrárne, SLOVAKIA

Initiatives of the Belgian SCK•CEN Academy to Attract Young Talent in Nuclear

Research and Technology
M. Coeck
Belgium Nuclear Research Centre (SCK•CEN), BELGIUM

Human Resources Requirements for New Nuclear Power Programs

C.T. Goodnight
Goodnight Consulting, Inc., USA

Training Courses in Support of GEN-IV Development — The Case of SVBR

Technology
A. Kondaurov, N. Zaitseva, A. Yunikova and V. Artisiuk
Rosatom Central Institute for Continuing Education and Training
(Rosam-CICE&T), RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Training Solutions to Support Embarking Countries in the Framework of Practical

Arrangements with the IAEA: Lessons Learned in ROSATOM Central Institute
for Continuing Education and Training
V. Artisiuk
Rosatom Central Institute for Continuing Education and Training
(Rosam-CICE&T), RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Human Resources Development for the Rooppur Nuclear Power Programme

in Bangladesh
K. Hossain
Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, BANGLADESH

36
Human Resources Development in Tajikistan
U. Mirsaidov
Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency (NRSA), TAJIKISTAN

The Gulf Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Institute (GNEII) Four Years On

R.J. Finch, A.H. Mohagheghi, A. Solodov, P.A. Beeley and D.R. Boyle
Sandia National Laboratories, USA

Developing National Capacity to Initiate a Nuclear Power Programme

M.M. Ndontchueng
National Radiation Protection Agency (NRPA), CAMEROON

Management of Human Resources in CNCAN

P. Ghinea and C. Goicea
Romanian National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control (CNCAN),
ROMANIA

EU Activities for Training and Tutoring of Nuclear Regulatory Authorities and

Technical Support Organisations Outside the EU
H. Pauwels, P. Daures and Y. Stockmann
EuropeAid, European Commission, EU

Establishing Sustainable Infrastructures for Education and Training in Radiation,

Transport and Waste Safety: IAEA’s Approach to Support Member States
J. Wheatley
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Human Resources Capacity Building as a Strategy in Strengthening Nuclear

Knowledge Sustainability in the Experimental Fuel Element Installation
of BATAN-Indonesia
R. Langenati, B. Herutomo and A.S. Adhi
National Nuclear Energy Agency (BATAN), INDONESIA

The Value of the Junior Professional Officer Program to the IAEA and its
Member States
S.E. Pepper
Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA

Nuclear Education in Sudan with Emphasis on the Atomic Energy Council

A.M.E. Hassan
Ministry of Science and Technology, SUDAN

37
Educational Network Environment: Models and Implementation
H. Zhivitskaya
Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, BELARUS

Guarding the Gates: Confronting Social Engineering in Nuclear Power

J. LeClair
National Cybersecurity Institute at Excelsior College, USA

Building Newcomer Competence for NPP Safety Assessment through Learning

by Doing: Development of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Research
Reactors
I. Kuzmina
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Education and Training Networks as a Tool for Nuclear Security Human Resource
Development and Capacity Building
D. Nikonov, A. Durczok and I.Y. Suh
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Session 3A (Wednesday): Building and Sustaining Capacity through

Education and Training

(Introduction) Education and Training

J.K. Park
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Nuclear Education and Training for Building and Sustaining Capacity from
Korean Experience
Youngmi Nam
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Overview of the NRA Human Resource Development Center and NRA

Cooperation and Support for IAEA/ANSN
S. Sato
Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), JAPAN

Hungarian-Vietnamese Nuclear Energy Train the Trainers Course

A. Aszódi, I. Boros, S. Czifrus and I. Kiss
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, HUNGARY

38
EDF Skills Management for Operations
C. Poizat
Electricité de France (EDF), FRANCE

Session 3B (Wednesday): Building and Sustaining Capacity through

Education and Training

The WINS Academy Security Certification Programme: The Route

to Demonstrable Competence
R. Howsley
World Institute for Nuclear Security (WINS), AUSTRIA

Human Resources Management in the Belgian TSO Bel V

M. Roobaert, B. Bernard and P. Mignot
Bel V, BELGIUM

Strengthening Technical Specialist Training for an Expanding Nuclear Power

Programme in the UK
J. Robertson
GEN II Engineering & Technology Training Ltd, UK

Session 3C (Wednesday): Building and Sustaining Capacity through

Education and Training

Systematic Approach to Training and Professional Development Specialists

of Physical Protection, Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials in Ukraine
N. Klos
Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry, UKRAINE

Human Resource Development for the Proposed 9.6 GW Nuclear Build

Programme in South Africa
J.F.S. Larkin
University of the Witwatersrand, SOUTH AFRICA

Improving Education, Training and Communication with the Public on Ionizing

Radiation
N. Železnik
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC),
SLOVENIA

39
Nuclear Training Excellence Project in Slovenské elektrárne
A. Kvočková, M. Tonkovičová and M. Baláž
Slovenské elektrárne, SLOVAKIA

Session 3D (Wednesday): Building and Sustaining Capacity through

Education and Training

The Nuclear Technology Education Consortium: Helping to Build and Maintain

Nuclear Capacity Globally
J. Roberts
The University of Manchester, UK

Nuclear Business Acumen Training for Executives

J. Blomgren
Institute for Nuclear Business Excellence, SWEDEN

Lessons Learned in Performing and Implementing the Results of Training Needs

Assessment in a Newly Developed Regulatory Body with a Mandate to Regulate
the Country’s Expanding Nuclear Power Programme: A Case Study of PNRA
M. Shahzad
Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA), PAKISTAN

New Initiatives for International Cooperation for Nuclear Education in the

Russian Federation
M. Strikhanov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

SEC NRS Experience in Development of Training Programs in Nuclear Safety

Regulation
E. Sokolova
Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (SEC NRS),
RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The Concept of a Training System for Newly Established Operators in Embarking

States
Y. Seleznev, V. Aspidov and V. Artisiuk
Rosatom Central Institute for Continuing Education and Training
(Rosam-CICE&T), RUSSIAN FEDERATION

40
The Role of Computer-based Educational Laboratories in Nuclear Engineering
University Programmes
S.A. Korolev, A.N. Kosilov, E.V. Chernov and S.B. Vygovskiy
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Nuclear Security Education in ‘Non-nuclear’ Countries — Inseparable

Component of the Global Nuclear Security Scheme: Example of Montenegro
S. Jovanovic
University of Montenegro, MONTENEGRO

Nuclear Energy Management Curriculum

Y. Yanev
Nuclear Knowledge Management Institute, AUSTRIA

Multimedia Course on Nuclear Reactor Physics, Application to a Tailored on the

Job Training Course
J. Dies
Nuclear Engineering Research Group (NERG), Technical University of Catalonia
(UPC), SPAIN

ISIS Training Reactor: A Reactor Dedicated to Education and Training for

Students and Professionals
F. Foulon
French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), FRANCE

The Safety Assessment Education and Training Programme (SAET)

M. Mellinger-Deroy
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

IAEA Strategic Approach to E&T in Nuclear Safety 2013–2020

M.J. Moracho Ramirez
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

International Training Program on Nuclear Engineering at Kinki University

S. Hohara, G. Wakabayashi, H. Yamanishi and T. Itoh
Kinki University, Atomic Energy Research Institute, JAPAN

41
Policy, Development and Delivery of Education and Training Programmes
in Radiation Protection: A Crucial Contribution to the Safe Use of Ionising
Radiation
M. Coeck
SCK•CEN Academy, BELGIUM

Establishing Requirements for Nuclear Engineering Educational Programs

N.I. Geraskin, A.N. Kosilov and M.M. Sbaffoni
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Approaches to Education and Training for Kenya’s Nuclear Power Program

H.A. Kalambuka
University of Nairobi, KENYA

Contribution of a Master’s Program to Building Competencies in Nuclear

Sciences in Morocco
O.K. Hakam
University of Ibn Tofail, MOROCCO

Country Presentation
N. Kone
Malian Radiation Protection Agency (AMARAP), MALI

Human Resource Development for Nuclear Power Programme in Uganda

O. Henry
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, UGANDA

E-learning for Newcomers on the IAEA Milestones Approach

L. Halt
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Systematic Assessment of Regulatory Competences (SARCON) V18a

M. Zimmermann
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Session 4A (Thursday): Knowledge Management

(Introduction) How IAEA Nuclear Knowledge Management Approaches

Support the Building and Sustaining of Nuclear Capacity in Member States
J. de Grosbois
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

42
Knowledge Management at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
J. Hudson
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), USA

A Knowledge Transfer Program for Engineering Students at Master Level at the

Technical University of Madrid
G. Jimenez and E. Mínguez
Technical University of Madrid (UPM), SPAIN

Evolution of Knowledge Management: From Expert Systems to Innovation 2.0

D. Karagiannis
University of Vienna, AUSTRIA

How Knowledge Mapping is Being Used to Integrate Plans for Safe and Reliable
Operations
J. Day
Sellafield Ltd, UK

Session 4B (Thursday): Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management: The Case of Turkey as a Newcomer

Ş. Udum
Hacettepe University, TURKEY

Human Resource Development Activities in Japan and Contribution to the Global

Standards
M. Uesaka
Nuclear Professional School, University of Tokyo, JAPAN

Nuclear Knowledge Loss Risk Management: Lessons Learned, Implementation

Experiences
R. Květoňová
ČEZ, a.s., CZECH REPUBLIC

Approaches to Maintaining and Building Organisational Knowledge

T. Juurmaa
Fortum Nuclear and Thermal, FINLAND

43
Session 4C (Thursday): Knowledge Management

Managing Knowledge for Innovative Development

V. Pershukov
State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Knowledge Management Strategy Adopted by PNRA: A Case Study

Z.A. Baig, F. Ansari and A. Awan
Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA), PAKISTAN

Knowledge Management Integration into Strategic Human Capital Management

Systems
T. Marco and D. Heler
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, USA

Session 5A (Thursday): Knowledge Networks

(Introduction) Education and Training, and Knowledge Networks for Capacity-

building in Nuclear Security
K. Mrabit
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

European Technical Safety Organisations Network (ETSON) as Important Part

of International Nuclear Safety Knowledge Networks
H. Teske, F. Dierschow and C. Eibl-Schwäger
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit mbH (GRS), GERMANY

Contribution of IAEA, FNRBA and ANNuR as Networking in Developing and

Maintaining Capacity Building for a Nuclear Power Programme: Comparative
Study
O. Elsiddig Ali Osman
Sudanese Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority (SNRRA), SUDAN

AFRA-NEST: A Tool for Human Resource Development

E. Amanor, E.H.K. Akaho and Y. Serfor-Armah
Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, GHANA

The Importance of Knowledge Management in Human Resource Development

S. Pleslic
University of Zagreb, CROATIA

44
Knowledge Management Course for Master Program in Nuclear Engineering
N.I. Geraskin, A.N. Kosilov and E.G. Kulikov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

ROSATOM Knowledge Management System

A. Dub
State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Knowledge Management (KM) Risk Assessment of Critical Knowledge Loss

in an Organization with an Expanding Nuclear Power Program
M. Mohsin
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), PAKISTAN

Knowledge Pipeline: A Task Oriented Way to Implement Knowledge

Management
Jiajie Pan
Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute, CHINA

Integrating Knowledge Management into Everyday Practices: The Case of the

Intellectual Capital Section (ICS) at CNEA
A.T. Chavez Flores
National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA), ARGENTINA

Capacity Building Challenges for Safety Culture Improvements: Strategies for

Training and Practices
N. Afghan
Institute of Business Administration (IBA), PAKISTAN

E-Catalogue: Knowledge Management Practices in Nuclear Organizations

Z. Pasztory and S. Sheveleva
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

International Nuclear Management Programmes

F. Adachi
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Promoting Intercultural Competencies

K.M. Bachner
Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA

45
The Storer System: A Tool for Traceability and Radioactive Wastes Record
Preservation
C.L. Vetere, P.R. Gomiz and M.B. Lavalle
National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA), ARGENTINA

Nuclear Regulatory Authority Personnel Educating and Training within the

National Nuclear Program Development
V. Potapov, T. Goryaeva, A. Moiseenko, E. Kapralov and A. Museridze
Federal State Unitary Enterprise VO “Safety”, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Nuclear Knowledge Management Implementation Issues in Sri Lanka

H.M.N.R. Bandara
Atomic Energy Authority, SRI LANKA

Knowledge Management in the Development and Use of Radiation Technologies

E.R. Kartashev, A.V. Egorkin, N.A. Sumina and M.V. Kheteev
Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics and Automation (JSC NIITFA),
RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Knowledge Management: Applications for Nuclear Facilities

E. Volkov
State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Cyber Learning Platform for Nuclear Education and Training

M. Vojtela
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Session 5B (Friday): Knowledge Networks

Attracting and Retaining Talent in the Global Nuclear Industry

C. Thomas
Thomas Thor Associates, NETHERLANDS

European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN), Ten Years of Experience

J. Dies, W. Ambrosini and P. Dieguez
Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), SPAIN

National Nuclear Regulatory Portal (NNRP) — A Useful Regulatory Knowledge

Network
A. Georgieva
Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA), BULGARIA

46
Nuclear Education, Training and Outreach in Latin America and the Caribbean
Region
A.T. Chavez Flores, R.O. Barrachina, J.L. François and M. Sbaffoni
National Atomic Energy Commission, ARGENTINA

Creation of Knowledge Networks — the Best Practices from Russian Communities

of Practice
N. Belenkaya
State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Knowledge Management for Business Process Management

R. Woitsch
BOC Asset Management GmbH, AUSTRIA

Knowledge Sharing through Virtual Modes: The Influenced Factors for

KM Development among the Researchers in Nuclear Malaysia
H. Adnan, M.S. Sulaiman, M.H. Yusof and I. Ali
Nuclear Malaysia, MALAYSIA

Education and Training of Nuclear Energy Personnel: The Nigerian Initiative

E.C. Agedah
Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC), NIGERIA

Developing an Education Capability Assessment and Planning (E-CAP)

Framework for Establishing National Educational Networks
U.N. Ugbor
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

CLOSING SESSION

Summary and Conclusions: Slide Presentation

M. Žiaková
President of the Conference, Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak
Republic (ÚJD SR), SLOVAKIA

Summary and Conclusions: Paper Presentation

M. Žiaková
President of the Conference, Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak
Republic (ÚJD SR), SLOVAKIA

47
Closing Remarks for the International Conference on Human Resource
Development for Nuclear Power Programmes: Building and Sustaining Capacity
A. Bychkov
Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Closing Remarks for the International Conference on Human Resource

Development for Nuclear Power Programmes: Building and Sustaining Capacity
D. Flory
Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and
Security, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

15-22481

48
IAEA Report on

Strengthening Research and

Development Effectiveness in
the Light of the Accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant

International Experts Meeting

16–20 February 2015, Vienna, Austria