PROJECT FOR SHARING & GROWING NUCLEAR SAFETY CULTURE COMPETENCE

Final Report Summary - NUSHARE (PROJECT FOR SHARING & GROWING NUCLEAR SAFETY CULTURE COMPETENCE)

Executive Summary:
NUSHARE is a FP7 project implementing a European Education, Training and Information (ETI) initiative proposed by the Commissioner for Research and Innovation and the Commissioner for Energy after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on 11 March 2011 (Fukushima). Its main objective is to develop and implement education, training and information programmes strengthening competences required for achieving excellence in nuclear safety culture. Particular attention is being paid to lessons learned from stress tests conducted on all EU nuclear Power Plants in response to the Fukushima accident and to sharing best practices at the European level.
NUSHARE addresses the specific needs of different stakeholders in nuclear safety by the development and EU-wide dissemination of those programmes for three target groups:
- Target Group 1 (TG1) represented by journalists and civil society representatives;
- Target Group 2 (TG2) represented by staff members of Nuclear Regulatory Authorities and Technical Safety Organisations (TSOs);
- Target Group 3 (TG 3) represented by Electric utilities, systems suppliers, and providers of nuclear services at the level of responsible personnel, in particular managers;

The project is structured into two slightly overlapping phases:

The first phase, with an expected duration of 16 months, is focused on the development of education, training and information concepts supporting the NUSHARE objectives and on the design of relevant basic ETI programmes. Main product of this phase is the “NUSHARE ETI Catalogue”, a catalogue of existing or planned ETI “schemes” supporting the NUSHARE objective of strengthening competences required for achieving excellence in nuclear safety culture. Those schemes may range from short courses related to (nuclear) safety culture up to major programmes consisting of several modules designed for building the competences required for a healthy nuclear safety culture. The catalogue is supplemented by a plan of actions for the implementation, validation and optimization of pilot programmes and for their later EU-wide dissemination.

The second phase of the project, with an expected duration of up to three years, is devoted to the execution of the action plan. This phase includes co-operation with organisations not represented in the initial consortium but sharing NUSHARE objectives and willing to contribute to the project.

Project Context and Objectives:

NUSHARE is a FP7 project implementing a European Education, Training and Information (ETI) initiative proposed by the Commissioner for Research and Innovation and the Commissioner for Energy after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on 11 March 2011 (Fukushima). Its main objective is to develop and implement education, training and information programmes strengthening competences required for achieving excellence in nuclear safety culture. Particular attention is being paid to lessons learned from stress tests conducted on all EU nuclear Power Plants in response to the Fukushima accident and to sharing best practices at the European level.
NUSHARE addresses the specific needs of different stakeholders in nuclear safety by the development and EU-wide dissemination of those programmes for three target groups:
- Target Group 1 (TG1) represented by journalists and civil society representatives;
- Target Group 2 (TG2) represented by staff members of Nuclear Regulatory Authorities and Technical Safety Organisations (TSOs);
- Target Group 3 (TG 3) represented by Electric utilities, systems suppliers, and providers of nuclear services at the level of responsible personnel, in particular managers;

The project is structured into two slightly overlapping phases:

The first phase, with an expected duration of 16 months, is focused on the development of education, training and information concepts supporting the NUSHARE objectives and on the design of relevant basic ETI programmes. Main product of this phase is the “NUSHARE ETI Catalogue”, a catalogue of existing or planned ETI “schemes” supporting the NUSHARE objective of strengthening competences required for achieving excellence in nuclear safety culture. Those schemes may range from short courses related to (nuclear) safety culture up to major programmes consisting of several modules designed for building the competences required for a healthy nuclear safety culture. The catalogue is supplemented by a plan of actions for the implementation, validation and optimization of pilot programmes and for their later EU-wide dissemination.

The second phase of the project, with an expected duration of up to three years, is devoted to the execution of the action plan. This phase includes co-operation with organisations not represented in the initial consortium but sharing NUSHARE objectives and willing to contribute to the project.

The inventory of ETI schemes has been implemented as an ACCESS database with structured information on two types of education, training and information schemes:

• Existing ETI schemes, which have been developed as part of national nuclear safety practices (e.g. training of utility or regulatory staff) or by international organisations (e.g. IAEA) without any link to the NUSHARE project. - NUSHARE
Proposed ETI schemes which are developed and run within the framework of the NUSHARE project.
At the beginning of the project a Task Force was establish to focues the target of the project and decide the scope of the actions:
• 1st Task Force meeting in Paris, France, 4-5 May 2013
• 2nd Task Force meeting in Vienna, Austria, 9-10 July 2013
• 3rd Task Force meeting in Munich, Germany, 27-28 August 2013
• 4th Task Force Meeting, Teleconference, 29 October 2013
• 5th Task Force Meeting, Teleconference, 12 February 2014
With regards to TG1, the actual implementation of phase 1 activities and confident start of Phase 2 was delayed due to several factors:
• The difficulty of addressing the target public with this particular topic. Policy decision makers and opinion leaders didn’t find interesting the topic and it was challenging to find receptive audience.
• Decisions taken by the Task Force on the NUSHARE project, distracting the actions and objective of TG1 works.
• During 2015 the work of the project for Target Group 1 was totally redesigned, and launched with the inclusion of new organizations.
These delays and undefinitions lead to a project recovery plan mainly focused to refocus TG1 activities.
It must be noted that each Target Group had a different implementation pace. Please observe the important description of the implementation of each Target Group:
Target Group 1 Target Group 2 Target Group 3
2013
DESIGN PHASE
DESIGN PHASE DESIGN PHASE 2013
2014 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 2014
IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1
2015 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1
& RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2 2015
IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2
2016 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 3 2016
IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 3
2017 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 3 2017

2 Activities performed for the Target Group 1 (TG 1)

Timeline of the TG1:
• Design phase: Year 2013 and 2014
• Implementation phase Year 1: Year 2015
• Implementation phase Year 2: Year 2016
• Implementation phase Year 3: Year 2017

2.1 Implementation actions in year 1 for the TG 1

The approach taken by CEA-ISNTN, leader of TG1 to design the training programmes and information actions for the TG1 was a “marketing study”. This approach, although considered challenging, had been selected as the most appropriate to elicit the involvement of the civil society in such an unknown topic like the nuclear safety culture. The purpose of the information actions required specific considerations such as:
• Improving the awareness of safety:
o developing the confidence on the fact that safety is properly mastered (on both scientific and human dimensions),
o having a more informed perception of the risk
• Avoiding the pitfalls of propaganda and technocracy.
• Accounting for the vision and requirements of TG1 people (availability, sensitivity, involvement in public debate...).

The steps taken in the work of TG1 were:

1. A joint team INSTN-CEA. Communication had been established to better account for the specific communication features of TG1.
2. Informal discussions had been organized with representative persons of the TG1 targeted sub-groups (medical community, media,...) in order to record initial feedback and to better specify the needs in terms of messages and methods (training/information, «reactivity»,...).
3. Given the specific profile of TG1 and the priority set on civil society stakeholders, the exploration of partners had been mainly focused on partnerships with typical end-users in the political sphere, elected and administrative people
4. Formal discussions had been held with two schools for future administrators and journalists: the ENA (Ecole Nationale d’Administration) and CFPJ (Centre de Formation et de Perfectionnement des Journalistes), both in a French context.

Besides internal meetings of the team in INSTN, the following meetings were held with the Project coordinator to inform, asses and program the evolution of the work focused on TG1:

A critical aspect became to foster the involvement of TG1 (politicians and journalists as the 1st priority) as end-users, so that the information scheme could be attractive to them.
It was necessary to better understand what role the stakeholders of the civil society may play, within the development and dissemination of nuclear safety culture, to consequently design a number of adequate ETI actions.

A tentative classification of TG1 sub-groups could be done according to two main categories of people:

• Persons professionally involved in the decision making process (DM) (political sphere, medical community),
• Persons influential to decision making (IDM) (media, education sector, non-governmental organizations).

2.1.1 Initial feedback

The initial feedback from TG1 showed that:

• The availability of TG1 people was very limited: flexibility was needed and very compact sessions required (days?, hours? the schedule would be finally adapted considering the specific target group).
• It was not clear if the different TG1 sub-groups (politicians, journalists, medical doctors, teachers) could be mixed in the same informative sessions.
• Mixing sub-groups of TG1 (e.g. mixing political actors and journalists) would may be interesting for them to understand the needs of the other professions; but it would be wise to start with relatively dedicated focus on few TG subgroups.
• “Customized” methods were required and should be developed, in particular in relation to wording, information methodology and information tools.
• Making “safety culture” an attractive subject was not too easy. The use of a common language was required to avoid the barrier of science.
• There was a strong will of TG1 sub-groups to be involved in the design process in order to receive acceptance in the implementation.
• The mastering of the language might be an issue during the implementation. The English language is not always mastered by people in TG1 sub-groups. In this regard: can groups from different countries be mixed, for example when informing journalists? This question was to be answered
• The “red line” between information and “propaganda” is very thin. The objective of the information actions should be clear and shared with participants. Therefore, for TG1 actions, the wording "information" seems better than "training".
• The information action should be perceived by journalists as a chance to interact with peers and other concerned groups. Promoting the idea that the information action will provide knowledge and tools that could be applied in future work (hands-on and practice can help).

All the above applied to similar actions focusing on “policy makers”.

The INSTN’s NUSHARE information session was adapted to the target public, switching from a four day session to a less than one day session with the objective to discuss information on nuclear and safety, as described in the revised DoW. Two internal test sessions have been achieved on October 29th and November 5th, 2014. It gathered CEA managers of the CEA/INSTN, specialists of communication at CEA, and two foreign experts (Ann MacLachlan former journalist at Platts Nucleonics Week, and Manfred Haferburg a German expert in nuclear safety culture and its communication) in order to get a first feedback from the public.

2.1.2 Pilot test with ANCLI

Finally, INSTN was been able to reach an agreement with the French Association of the Local Information Commissions (ANCLI) to organize a full size pilot test session with several of its members. Local Information Commissions locally gather opinion leaders and sectional politicians to exchange information with NPP operators.
The session took place on September 2, 2015. It gathered 12 ANCLI people among elected representatives, scientific experts, trade unionist, and from the associative. A feedback experience and comments from this public were shared during the session.

INSTN implemented the actions according following the approach established in its plan for TG1. Due to the work delivered by the Task Force a significant part of the effort was still devoted to the final design.

2.2 Implementation actions in year 1 and Design phase after the recovery for the TG 1

2.2.1 WFSJ as new partner for TG1

The World Federation of Science Journalists, WFSJ, represents 51 science journalists' associations (9,000 science journalists and writers) worldwide and encourages the foundation of new ones. The WFSJ has developed a new range of reporting resources around the toolbox concept. The toolboxes are built by journalists for journalists and to date the WFSJ has released a toolbox on Ebola and another on Hepatitis C. The goal is to provide journalists around the world with the appropriate tools, data sets and education to accurately cover specific topics. This was the approach chosen for NUSHARE’s TG1 approach to opinion leaders and decision makers.

Main Tasks contributed to the NUSHARE Project:

• WFSJ would provide support in TG1 to set up a workshop with European journalists to inform, collect, provide and develop material on Nuclear Safety Culture made by journalists and for journalists and policy makers.

• The creation of a Media Educational Package followed in order to provide material on Nuclear Safety culture written by journalists for journalists, always assessed by nuclear experts. It was presented and disseminated in the organization of events of the project and in the outreach to the different European and worldwide networks of journalists.

The WFSJ would identify the opportunities and needs for a Nuclear Media Educational program on Nuclear Safety Culture.

2.2.2 Media education Workshop outline and content development plan.

The compilation of the workshop course material was developed between the initial meeting and the organization of the workshop. Presentation and any other supporting educational material would be made available for download from the ENEN/WFSJ sites prior to the workshop.
Supporting resources may include fact sheets, multimedia content, and access to Nuclear

Safety experts.

Agenda: The workshop was designed as a two days session, and should include up to three segments:
1) Workshop included an educational portion that was designed to be applicable to all regional settings, a one size fits all format.
2) A discussion/debate portion can be added to the workshop to discuss central topics that have specific relevance to Nuclear Safety.

Target journalists: The workshop was designed for a broad contingent of journalists.
However, securing local nuclear experts to participate in the workshop to be used to increase interest in the workshop among experienced science journalists. Participation in the workshop as a requirement to gain access to the digital series could be another possible strategy for engaging experienced science journalists.

2.2.3 Creation of a Media Educational Package

Initial purpose of the digital series is to provide the media with the information and resources to develop engaging Nuclear Safety stories with the Nuclear Safety Culture embedded in their approach.

Elements that can be part of the digital series: A tool kit that journalists able to be found at the ENEN / WFSJ websites, would continue to be distributed as a media package after the workshop. Access to all digital resources (expert database, tool kit, other educational material) will be provided.

2.2.4 ENS as new partner for TG1

The European Nuclear Society (ENS) was supporting the second phase of the project in:

• Getting access to stakeholders on a national level who agree to get involved in the preparation and execution of NUSHARE seminars/modules at ENS conferences in particular:
- NESTet (May 2016)
- ENC (October 2016)
- TopSafe (Spring 2017, envisaged at the IAEA in Vienna. Although the conference took place after the official end of the project, the organizational part took place in 2016)
- Others...

• Dissemination activities of all the actions in NUSHARE between ENS members. ENS can reach a wide nuclear community through its website (90.000 visitors per month) and its E-News newsletter.

2.2.5 Support from ENSTTI & IRSN

IRSN, the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, the French national public expert in nuclear and radiological risks, as founding member of ENSTTI, provided resources and material to support ENSTTI in the development of the works of TG2 as TG leader, but also supported ENEN providing its expertise on Nuclear Safety Culture’s with society for TG1 objectives. This assistance was provided through the participation of ENSTTI in the project.

2.3 Implementation actions in year 2 for the TG 1

2.3.1 Integration of the TG1 actions with the new project partners
The first TG1 meeting in the year 2 of implementation took place in Amsterdam on 14 April 2016. This meeting was the first opportunity for the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), European Nuclear Society (ENS) and INBEx to join the NUSHARE actions after the amendment. After the meetings with the project coordinator, this was the occasion to coordinate their actions with the rest of the NUSHARE partners

The implementation action plan for the TG1 after the entry of the new partners in the project was developed and agreed in the project management meeting organised in Amsterdam, on 14 April 2016,

The NESTet conference would include a NUSHARE session, around 22 May 2016, with a presentation by Manfred Haferburg as subject matter expert.

By the end of the year 2016 the workshop with journalists would be organised. The best option was considered the EUROSAFE conference, on 7 - 8 November 2016, as a gathering of neutral and independent nuclear regulators and technical support offices in Europe. This two qualities of neutrality and independency became the central point of the action following the experienced advices from the WFSJ colleagues. The support from ENSTTI, TG2 leader, became useful and necessary to implement a workshop programme with the support of the crisis communications team of the IRSN, French TSO, and topic very relevant and attractive to the journalists.

The year 3 actions for TG1 was decided in the meeting in Amsterdam in 2016 and it is reported in Deliverable 2.4.

However as part of the decision outcomes of the meeting in 2016, it is stated here that in the third year of implementation in TG1, the Media Educational Package would be developed following the outcomes of the workshop with the journalists. The digital Media Educational Package will provide the information and resources to develop engaging Nuclear Safety stories with the Nuclear Safety Culture embedded in their approach.

2.3.2 NUSHARE TG1 session at NESTet 2016

The NESTet conference is organised by the European Nuclear Society (ENS) and dedicated to networking in nuclear education and training across the fields of engineering, science and technology. NESTet2016 was organised in Berlin, Germany, on 22 - 26 May 2016,

ENS and ENEN agreed to assign a time slot in the conference programme to host a session dedicated to the Nuclear Safety Culture for the NUSHARE project.

The conference agenda included the NUSHARE session on Wednesday 25 May 2016 in the programme
(www.euronuclear.org/events/nestet/nestet2016/pdf/NESTet2016-programme.pdf)

The presentation by Manfred Haferburg on “How to transmit the Safety Culture Idea to the public” was recorded, subtitled and posted online in YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fD6412Mbo

WFSJ provided a Media Influencer to outline and follow up in social media and email the challenges to be discussed, provide input for the media educational package. The feedback was developed during the year 2017.

2.3.3 Workshop at the EUROSAFE Forum 2016 conference

The organization of the workshop took place as a side event of the EUROSAFE Forum 2016 conference took place in Munich, Germany, on 7 and 8 November 2016.

Key TG1 partners participated in the workshop, highlighting the presence of Prof. Leon Cizelj, president of ENEN; Pedro Dieguez, secretary general of ENEN; Didier Louvat, managing director of ENSTTI; Marie-Pierre Bigot, communication director of IRSN; Pascale Portes, head of press office of IRSN; and Anne Marie Legault, project manager from WFSJ.

IRSN, the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, the French national public expert in nuclear and radiological risks, as founding member of ENSTTI, provided resources, experience and material to support ENSTTI in the development of the works of TG2 as TG leader; but also will support ENEN providing its expertise on Nuclear Safety Culture’s with society for TG1 objectives. This assistance was decided to be provided through the participation of ENSTTI in the project.

Supported by IRSN communications experts, the following lead expert journalists were selected to facilitate the discussion in the workshop and develop materials and activities:
• Ann Mac-Lachlan, 30 years of journalism experience in Nuclear affairs at McGrawHill publications
• Joel Spaes, 20 years of experience as adjoin chief editor at Enerpress and currently 2 years being chief journalist for Energy in Terragram

The workshop was organised as a parallel session of the EUROSAFE conference, allowing the journalists to interview the scientists from the RB and TSOs, according to the following programme:

Day 1: Nuclear Safety Culture: Setting the scene

• Safety culture stakes for journalists.
• Digital revolution influence on crisis situations management, the role of journalists in crisis

Day 2: Drilling session.

Journalist participanted to “live from inside” some crisis situations and elaborate adapted communication strategies. Participants were asked to develop key messages and deliver them through various communication channels (TV interviews, news item, tweets)

A total of 19 persons registered to attend the EUROSAFE conference and participate in the NUSHARE workshop. 15 journalists from 10 countries, 1 Euro parliamentary and several facilitators

It must be highlighted the special participation of Mr. Franc Bogovic , Euro-parliamentary, and former ministry of Minister of Agriculture and Environment in Slovenia, and former mayor of Krsko, a municipality with a Nuclear power plant in Slovenia. His experience enriched the discussions and provided an excellent insight in Safety Culture from the experience of the policy makers.

The whole workshop was recorded producing material to support the development of informative content on Safety Culture with the points of view of scientists, journalists and policy makers . A summary of the recordings was posted online in YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyrSvdPTzfU

The meeting in Amsterdam successfully integrated the actions of the new partners within the actions of the rest of the partners of the project. The workshop was successfully organised and implemented and it provided enough material for the Media Educational Package.

2.4 Implementation actions in year 3 for the TG 1

2.4.1 Outcomes of the Journalist’s workshop for the Media Educational Package

The feedback from the journalists was collected from the journalists’ workshop around November 2016. It was taken into consideration by the project partners and lead journalists to design the content and structure of the MEP. The brainstorming and discussions during the workshop provided the information detailed in this section.

Vocabulary
During the workshop it was noted that the vocabulary had different meaning for engineers and for journalists. In particular the question came around the use of the word “safety”.
Just to establish a reference, the IAEA defines 'Safety' as the achievement of proper operating conditions, prevention of accidents and mitigation of accident consequences, resulting in protection of workers, the public and the environment from undue radiation hazards.

Often the word safety is used as an adjective as in “safety culture”, “safety system” or “safety margin”. Therefore “safety” was largely used as an adjective, in this sense, by the engineers, in the workshop, when referring to parts, systems of the plant with a higher level of requirements, technical particularities as established by the regulatory body, etc. However, for some journalists the use of the word “safety” as an adjective, sounded as a sweetener in a sales speech. As if the intention was to sale the idea of Nuclear.

This aspect of the use of vocabulary reinforced the idea of having the MEP written by journalists for journalists. H

2.4.2 Development of the Media Educational Package

Structure of the Media Educational Package

The group of professionals involved in TG1 conducted a process of several iterations to define the structure and content of the MEP. In the iterative process it was taken into consideration:
• information expected by the journalists
• sources of independent and reliable information
• experience available
• navigability
• easiness to find the information

The final structure of the MEP was design as a website with the following structure:

Design of the Media Educational Package
Having the structure of the MEP defined, the definition of the design took place. The selection of texts and infographics took some time to meet the suggestions from engineers and journalists.

The landing page would show three different fields in the use of the nuclear science: medical applications, energy production and radiation protection.

It looks as follows:

The creation of new infographics explaining complex concepts with easy and visual references was used. You can see in the pictures the responsibility inside and outside a nuclear power plant. And a parallel in the units of radioactivity and radiation with a man getting wet while walking under the rain.

Additionally our contact details were provided to be contacted in the future. More professionals will be added to this list. See how it looks below.

The website will be hosted by the WFSJ and ENEN will keep a copy of it. Being hosted by the WFSJ will preserve the concept of “by journalists, for journalists”.

LAUNCH of the Media Educational Package
In April 2017 the website was launched in the link www.wfsj.org/nuclear by a communication campaign. WFSJ provided a Media Influencer to outline and follow up in social media

The following banner was used by all the partners to publicize the website:

2.4.3 Final remarks

The Media Educational Package was successfully launched after a long process of definition and development. The website will be updated continuously due to the collaboration commitment signed in the Memorandum of understanding between ENEN and WFSJ.

The partners of the TG1 are still excited about the discoveries made in the project:

• The difficulties of explaining the concept of “safety culture”, because it belongs to social sciences and it is still being developed by the subject matter experts. It has been perceived that the wording of the concept itself is now evolving from “nuclear safety culture” to “culture for safety”.

• Communicating “nuclear” to the journalists and politicians, as well as to the general public involves other aspects besides nuclear fields, like politics, personal believes, etc.

Besides that, communicating complex aspects in a simple way has always been a rewarding effort where all NUSHARE TG1 have found a challenging and grateful experience.

3 Activities performed for the Target Group 2 (TG 2)

Nuclear power and nuclear applications are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight and require therefore a sufficient number of highly qualified regulators with in-depth knowledge of nuclear security, nuclear safety and radiation protection and a wide range of skills and competencies. The rapid expansion of nuclear and radiation related activities in many countries highlighted the limited number of skilled and experienced experts available at NRAs and identified the need for using external technical expert support to ensure the availability of adequate technical competence necessary to fulfil regulatory responsibilities. Recent IAEA conferences highlighted the roles, functions and value of technical and scientific support organizations in enhancing nuclear and radiation safety as well as nuclear security. This clearly underlines the importance of external technical and scientific expert support in assisting regulatory bodies in carrying out their designated functions and in ensuring the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear applications.
The need for knowledgeable and skilled human recourses is recognized in a number of documents approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and endorsed by the IAEA General Conference, such as the Nuclear Security Plan 2010-2013 , the Action Plan on Nuclear Safety , as well as in several legally binding instructions agreed by the European Council of Ministers such as Nuclear Safety Directive adopted on 25 June 2009 , the Waste Directive adopted on 19 July 2011 or the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation by explicitly emphasizing the importance of education and training, and by requiring the maintenance and further development of expertise and skills among staff responsible for nuclear security, nuclear safety and radiation protection.
In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the European Commission (EC) took action and launched a project for “Sharing & Growing Nuclear Safety Competences” (NUSHARE project). The NUSHARE project, launched in 2013, originated as a EURATOM education, training and information initiative aims at sharing and growing the nuclear safety culture at all levels in all nuclear sectors. One out of three working packages of the NUSHARE project (Working Package 3) is dedicated to the development of a Basic Training Programme for new entrants and professional staff working at Nuclear Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and Technical Safety Organizations (TSOs). This task is coordinated and implemented by to the European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute (ENSTTI).
The development of a Basic Training Programme under the umbrella of the NUSHARE project should be seen as a first step in systematically developing technical and regulatory competencies among professionals at NRAs and TSOs at the regional and international level and will soon be followed by the development of an Advanced Training Programme.
This section develops the detailed implementation plan of the program catalogue for “Target Group 2” (TG2) which includes: staff members of Nuclear Regulatory Authorities and Technical Safety Organisations (TSOs).

Timeline of the TG2:

• Design phase: Year 2013
• Implementation phase Year 1: Year 2014
• Implementation phase Year 2: Year 2015
• Implementation phase Year 3: Year 2016 and 2017

3.1 Design phase for the TG 2

The target audience of TG2 was defined as professionals working in nuclear regulatory authorities and technical support organizations. In the project DOW, it was also indicated that TG2 will also address those in charge of professional development and training in nuclear safety organizations (“train the trainers”). Ultimately, the program would serve professionals involved in the licensing of all types of activities and facilities from the nuclear cycle and the use of radioactive material in medicine and industry.
Gathering the Catalogue elements
As a first step, ENSTTI developed a study to gain better understanding of the functions and fields of activities NRAs and TSOs are currently involved in and related staff training.
This study was carried out in order to obtain a solid understanding of nuclear regulatory functions, related fields of activities and training of NRAs as well as the role of their Technical Safety Organizations (TSOs) in the EU-28.
Depending on the type of NRA, the State’s legal system and the national nuclear programme, different structures and arrangements may exist. Therefore, some NRAs may work with designated TSOs and others may be assisted by a number of different “providers of safety expert support” in carrying out their regulatory functions which explains the use of the two different terms for technical safety support in this study.
The results of the report were expected to contribute to the design and development of harmonized training programmes for regulators and TSOs in performing their assigned duties. Overall the study determined how all NRAs are assisted, to a greater or lesser degree, by TSOs or other providers of safety expert support in performing their functions.
In view of the specificity of TG2, it was planned to have a TG2 stakeholder meeting to validate the initial study on functions and related training at NRAs and TSOs and evaluate which are the elements that may enter into the Catalogue.
Design of harmonized training schemes
Based on the study’s preliminary findings, the relevant international legal instruments and European directives as well as relevant documents, such as IAEA standards and guidance, NEA publications, a concept for a Training Programme emphasising Safety Culture at Nuclear Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) or Technical Safety Organizations (TSOs) was developed. This programme incorporated as much as possible, the existing elements of the NUSHARE Catalogue.
3.2 Implementation phase for the TG 2
Two different training schemes are planned to be implemented within TG 2, The Basic Training Programme for junior staff of NRAs and TSOs and the training course for regulatory and TSO top managers.
3.2.1 Preliminary Training Scheme for NRAs & TSOs

Objective and Scope
The objective of the Basic Training Programme is to strengthen nuclear safety, radiation protection and nuclear security, to foster a common nuclear safety culture by transferring specific knowledge and skills required to carry out efficiently and effectively regulatory functions, and to support the harmonization of regulatory excellence in the EU-27.
A harmonized approach to training and building-up nuclear regulatory competences will strengthen the networking among European NRAs and TSOs and will ensure a coordinated response to any potential nuclear accident or incident in Europe and beyond. The training of experts from all EU-27 countries will also facilitate the exchange of information and experience which ultimately will accelerate the creation and dissemination of knowledge and skills and foster nuclear safety culture.
In addition, this approach will lead to increased workforce mobility and will contribute to the lifelong learning efforts of the European Union.

The focus of the Basic Training Programme is on the legal framework and regulations, nuclear safety culture, technical concepts governing nuclear safety, nuclear security and radiation protection necessary for regulatory control of nuclear and radioactive materials in all their applications, regulatory practices and soft skills as well as international cooperation with a focus on best practices and sharing of nuclear safety culture.
Target audience
The Basic Training Programme is addressed mainly to new entrants at nuclear regulatory authorities (NRA) and technical safety organizations (TSOs), but should also be of interest for professionals at NRAs and TSOs recently assigned to the nuclear safety, nuclear security or radiation protection sector and professionals involved in the licensing of all types of activities and facilities from the nuclear cycle as well as personnel involved in the regulatory oversight of non-nuclear power applications, such as in research and education, medicine or industry.
The different training modules are designed to build-up basic generic competencies among professionals holding a master degree or higher academic degree such as legal experts, engineers, nuclear scientists, physicians, agricultural engineers, veterinary surgeons, technicians and security professionals to prepare them to carry out regulatory functions or to technically support NRAs in their duties.
Structure of the standard curriculum
The Standard Syllabus consists of five independent modules: an introductory module, with a focus on the historical background, and four thematic modules. Each module is divided into sessions.
• Module I: Legal and Regulatory Framework & Regulatory Functions
• Module II: Technical Concepts governing Nuclear, Radiation and Waste Safety
• Module III: Regulatory Oversight of Safety Culture
• Module IV: Tutoring
For each module the prerequisite is indicated as well as the learning outcomes. Each module will be described by the content, the reference publications and duration. The content of each session will be described by key words. The list of reference publications for each session will also be presented. For each module, a list of practical training sessions will be suggested. These sessions were planned to be face-to-face or eLearning, work in groups or in pairs, simulation exercises, case studies or technical visits.
The prerequisite for the Basic Training Programme is that the learner should have had a formal education to a level equivalent to a university degree in physics, chemistry, life sciences or engineering and should have been selected to work in the field of nuclear safety, radiation protection or nuclear safety at nuclear regulatory authority (NRA) or a technical support organization (TSO).
Macro Learning Outcomes
After the successful completion of the Basic Training Programme, the learner will be able to:
• Explain the fundamental principles that form the system for the protection of human and their environment from ionizing radiation;
• Discuss the legal basis and regulatory process that empower the NRA to govern its operation;
• Explain the basics of regulatory oversight of licenses including the management of safety culture and to compare the different oversight approaches;
• Identify the different steps of the safety culture oversight process and to differentiate between nuclear safety and nuclear security culture;
• Discuss the basic, applied and advanced technical disciplines related to the regulatory control of facilities and activities using ionizing radiation;
• Describe and discuss regulatory practices such as assessment and inspections technologies, investigation and auditing;
• Demonstrate soft skills necessary to carry out regulatory functions such as, communication, analytical thinking, problem solving or decision making;
• Describe relevant international cooperation activities, in particular related to sharing best practices and sustainable nuclear safety culture;

3.2.2 Planning & participation
A pilot session of the Basic Training Programme was planned to be implemented according to the following succession of course modules:
• Module I: Nuclear Law and Regulatory Frameworks; duration of 1 week; tentative date May 2015; tentative host organisation SSM (Swedish Nuclear Regulatory Authorities), Stockholm-Sweden.
• Module II: Technical Concepts governing Nuclear, Radiation and Waste Safety; duration of 3 weeks; tentative date June 2015, tentative host organisation GRS (German TSO), Garching-Germany.
• Module III: Regulatory Oversight of Safety Culture; duration of 1 week; tentative date September 2015; tentative host organisation to be decided; place Bucharest-Romania.
• Module IV: Structured tutoring of a minimum of 3 months in ‘home organization’). 3 months in the organization of the tutee, date depending on organization, potentially between September 2015 and December 2015.
3.3 Basic Training Programme for Professionals at NRAs and TSOs

Objective and scope
The objective of the Basic Training Programme is to strengthen nuclear safety, radiation protection and nuclear security, to foster a common nuclear safety culture by transferring specific knowledge and skills required to carry out efficiently and effectively regulatory functions, and to support the harmonization of regulatory excellence in the EU-27.
A harmonized approach to training and building-up nuclear regulatory competences will strengthen the networking among European NRAs and TSOs and will ensure a coordinated response to any potential nuclear accident or incident in Europe and beyond. The training of experts from all EU-27 countries will also facilitate the exchange of information and experience which ultimately will accelerate the creation and dissemination of knowledge and skills and foster nuclear safety culture.
In addition, this approach will lead to increased workforce mobility and will contribute to the lifelong learning efforts of the European Union.

The focus of the Basic Training Programme is on the legal framework and regulations, nuclear safety culture, technical concepts governing nuclear safety, nuclear security and radiation protection necessary for regulatory control of nuclear and radioactive materials in all their applications, regulatory practices and soft skills as well as international cooperation with a focus on best practices and sharing of nuclear safety culture.

3.3.1 Module I
To implement Module I, ENSTTI will use its existing course on Legal basis and regulatory processes for nuclear and radiation safety. The course is a five day training module covering the EU Acquis and Radiation Protection, Regulation, Licensing and Enforcement, National Regulations on Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection and Relevant Legislation.
Module Name: Legal basis and regulatory processes for nuclear and radiation safety
Date and place: 4 to 8 May 2015, at SSM (Swedish NRA) office, Stockholm, Sweden.

Module Description
This module is based on IAEA safety standards, guides and other relevant IAEA publications as well as EU Directives and EU member states regulations and respective national practices and experience.
The module addresses the knowledge and behaviours required to work in a regulatory body and/or their external expert support organisations and to act within the scope of such institutions. It provides an overview of the relevant international binding and non-binding instruments, standards and guides and the international organisations involved in nuclear safety, security and safeguards. It covers the fundamentals of a national regulatory framework and the essential elements of the regulatory framework. Particular emphasis is placed on policies, principles and associated criteria that guide the regulatory process.

Overview of the course
The course took place from May 4-8 in Stockholm, Sweden and was held at the premises of SSM, The Swedish regulatory authority. It was attended by 18 participants. The training was intended to facilitate an understanding of the nature of radiation hazards associated with nuclear installations and uses of radioactive sources and the philosophies and principles of safety and protection.
The training was conducted according to the programme planned and covered nuclear safety legislation, national infrastructure needs for nuclear and radiation safety, the international conventions and codes of practice, and relevant nuclear, radiation and waste safety Directives. It addressed the regulatory process for all types of nuclear installations and uses of radioactive materials and radiation and also covers the lifecycle of facilities from siting, through design construction and operation to decommissioning. It covered emergency situations and issues related to legacy facilities and lost or orphaned sources of radiation.
The content was a combination of legal and procedural, together with lectures and discussions on international experiences regarding issues such as siting, decommissioning, waste management, radiation protection and transport. Time was included within several of the lectures for open discussion on relevant issues. Different teaching techniques were employed, with many visual aids, discussion and exercises.
A standard multiple-choice exam was held on the final day.

Evaluation from trainees
Each participant filled in an evaluation form. The forms were treated through a standard ENSTTI process described in its quality management system. In this process responses to the satisfaction questionnaire of lectures and organisation of courses are summarized as mark on 20. This allows for comparison in interest between the different chapters of the course and also between course repetitions.
Responses on the service and course environment gave a 17.5/20 demonstrating that the format and the arrangement for the course were adequate.
Responses on interest and value of the different part of the course in terms of knowledge and know-how transfer gave a 19.7/20 for the Regulatory chapter, a 19/20 for the Radiation Protection Principles chapter and a 18/20 for the Legal chapter. The average for the interest in all chapters is 17.8/20.
The overall rating for the course is 17.2/20 which places it among the good ENSTTI standards.
Globally speaking the students’ remarks were positive. In the final and conclusive remarks on the course: 94% of the students would recommend this course to a colleague and 100% of the students found the course to be positive and useful.
At this stage of the Pilot Test Case, only 59% of the participants rated the course as applicable to their daily work.

FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF TEST RESULTS-MODULE I

3.3.2 Module II
To implement Module II, ENSTTI will use its existing Induction to Nuclear Safety course. The course is a twenty days training module covering all the major issues in nuclear safety, nuclear security, and radiation protection. This course has been running since 2010 and has already been attended by more than 100 junior experts from various safety organisations all over the world. The syllabus of this course is attached. To be consistent with the project specifications, the Induction to Nuclear Safety course will be shortened from 20 to 15 days with 12 days common and the 3 last days on 2 options, reactor safety, and waste and radiation safety.
Module Name: Technical Concepts, Techniques, Methods and Tools for the Assessment of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection.
Date and place: 8 to 26 June 2015, at the GRS Center in Garching (Munich area), Germany.
Module Description
The course provides basic training for newcomers to nuclear safety, and young professionals who stand to benefit the most from such a course. The course covers all the major issues in nuclear safety, and radiation and waste safety. It comprises working groups, simulator sessions, technical visits and open discussions. The course is structured to approach the technical and cultural foundations of nuclear safety, nuclear security and radiation protection. These foundations are necessary for those intending to work later as general safety practitioners in a regulatory body or become safety/security specialists within a technical safety organization or the nuclear industry. Themes included are fundamentals of PWR technology-reactor core and fuel; nuclear safety and radiation protection principles; fundamentals of reactor technology-circuits; PWR materials, equipment management; application of safety and radiation protection principles; accidents and nuclear events analysis; design and safety options of new generations of reactors; nuclear fuel cycle safety; radioactive waste management and safety of radioactive waste disposal; safety of decommissioning; radiation protection of people and the environment and emergency preparedness and response; and an understanding of the importance of human and organisational factors and safety culture on nuclear safety.
Overview of the course
The course took place from 8-26 June 2015 in Garching near Munich, Germany and was held at the premises of GRS. It was attended by 16 participants. The course was structured to begin with 12 days of common training followed by a 3-day focus either on Nuclear Safety or Radiation and Waste Safety to be chosen by the participants.
The training was conducted according to the programme planned. In the training course, the following working groups for the duration of approximately three hours each were organized:
● Internal and external hazards (1)
● PSA level 1 and level 2 (separate document)
● Simulation WG “Exercise on how to deal with different transients” (2)
● Safety features of new reactors
● Safety case for radioactive waste disposal (3)
● Radiation protection of workers (4)
● Radiation protection at medical facilities (5)
The group of participants was the same as for Module I minus 2 participants. Two focus group were established, one on Nuclear Safety that counted 11 participants and one on Radiation and Waste Safety that counted 5 participants.

Evaluation from Trainees
Students were given a weekly evaluation of the individual technical chapters and working groups within that week. The participants were asked to grade both their interest in the topic and the quality of the knowledge and know-how transfer.
Regarding the technical chapters of the course, the average mark for the elements pertaining to the quality of the knowledge and know-how transfer is 17.3/20. The highest marks are for the Working-Groups that get marks ranging from 18.5/20 to 19.5/20. When asked to evaluate their interest in the chapters’ topic, the students ranged the different topics from 15.3/20 to 19.4/20 with a mean of 18.2/20.
With respect to the organizational features of the course, the assessment grade is 18.5/20.
The content of the course was evaluated as “well-balanced” by 87% of the trainees. 7% evaluated the content of the course as “too advanced” and 7% as “too general”.
All Working groups were much appreciated and the participants suggest to include more of these into the course. They suggested the following: provide a description of working groups at the beginning and allocate more time for the implementation; a Working Group on Emergency Preparedness is suggested.
The overall rating for the course is 16.9/20 which places it among the good ENSTTI standards.

3.3.3 Module III
The course took place from 8-26 June 2015 in Garching near Munich, Germany and was held at the premises of GRS. It was attended by 16 participants.
The objective of this training module is to provide the participants with understanding of the background of the concept of safety culture, related regulatory requirements and methods for assessment of safety culture. The participants will learn about the importance of human and organisational factors and safety culture for nuclear safety. The course will apply a systems view on safety and will emphasise the need to understand the interactions between human, technology and organisational factors. The training will cover safety culture challenges in different lifecycle stages (e.g. in a construction phase of a new plant) and in different types of organisations (e.g. in a licensee, regulatory body or subcontractor organisation). The links between safety culture and accidents is discussed, as well the Finnish experience on assessing and developing safety culture in safety-critical organizations. The training will include lectures from practitioners and scientists as well as group working, where the participants will have a chance to share their experiences and reflect on the lessons learned.
Overview of the course
This module III consisted on the “Regulatory Oversight of Safety Culture” course which was organised with the support of VT, Finland, and Prof. Petre Ghitescu, from U.P. Bucharest in Bucharest-Romania, on3 7-11 September 2015.
The course is aimed at professionals at Nuclear Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and Technical Safety Organizations (TSOs). The course is suitable for both newcomers and experienced practitioners with a technical background. The theories, methods and tools discussed during the training are suitable for licence holder organisations’ safety culture assessment and development as well.
After the successful completion of the Evaluation of Safety Culture Training Course, the participants were able to:
- sharpen their theoretical and practical understanding of the concept of safety culture;
- improve understanding on the systems view on safety and the interactions between human, technology and organisational factors;
- transfer lessons learned from practical cases and illustrative examples towards their own working activities and context;
- identify links between culture and accidents;
- develop an overview of the methods and tools to assess and develop safety culture;
- comprehend the role of the regulatory body in maintaining nuclear safety culture;
- understand different steps of the regulatory nuclear safety oversight process
- identify safety culture challenges in different lifecycle stages (e.g. in a construction phase of a new plant)
- understand safety culture challenges in different types of organisations (e.g. in a licensee, regulatory body or subcontractor organisation);
- discuss tools for improving safety culture.
Evaluation from Trainees
Students were given a weekly evaluation of the individual technical chapters and working groups within that week. The participants were asked to grade both their interest in the topic and the quality of the knowledge and know-how transfer.
Regarding the technical chapters of the course, the average mark for the elements pertaining to the quality of the knowledge and know-how transfer is 16.5/20.
With respect to the organizational features of the course, the assessment grade is 17.6/20.
The content of the course was evaluated as “well-balanced” by the trainees.
The overall rating for the course is 17.3/20 which places it among the good ENSTTI standards.

3.3.4 Module IV
Module IV takes the form of a three month tutoring course. It will provide the trainees an opportunity to work individually in their daily work together with tutor's support that share their expertise and experience and assist the trainees to meet their specific learning needs. The object of the tutoring will be the day to day work of the trainee (on-the-job training - helping the trainee to manage their daily "problems") and one dedicated specific topic to be commonly agreed by the trainee and the tutor.
A tutorial responds to the participant’s specific learning needs and aims at helping individuals become independent learners. The learning that occurs in a tutorial is not simply content-related. Ideally, tutors also model good learning habits as well as encouraging learners to try out effective techniques or strategies/skills pertinent to learning the subject matter. It aims at providing learners with the opportunity to work together with inspiring tutors who are ready to share their expertise and experience and will assist them to meet their specific learning needs.
The elaboration of a detailed programme of work significantly contributes to ensure the successful outcome of tutoring sessions. It is developed jointly by the tutor and learner, indicating main items such as, objectives, content, deliverables and assessment of this module.
At the conclusion of the tutorial, the tutee’s knowledge is verified by means of a comprehensive assessment to validate skills acquisition, as defined in the original program. Once this has been validated by a jury of experts, ENSTTI issues a Certificate of Competence.
The tutorial preparation and implementation includes the following steps:
• Nomination of the tutor: as the tutee is receiving tutorial from the organisation he works for, it is the responsibility of that same organisation to choose the tutor.
• The ENSTTI Tutoring Manager will contact the tutor and provide him/her with the tutoring guidelines and the template to prepare the tutoring programme;
• Development of its own tutoring programme by each trainee and his tutor; at any time, the support of the ENSTTI management team could be requested in order to complete this exercise;
• Review of the tutoring syllabus by the ENSTTI Tutoring Manager and each trainee during the time of Module II training course;
• At the issue of Module II training course, Implementation of the 3 months tutorial course; During this time, communication, including visit, between the trainee, his tutor and the ENSTTI Training Manager will be maintain at a desired frequency.
Each participant to was due to implement a tutoring period within her/his own organisation of at least 3 months after her/his attendance of the 2 first modules. Each participating organisation assigned a senior staff as tutor and defined a subject for the tutoring.

The list of subject implemented by the 16 participants was as follow:
1. Definition of Nuclear Safety Performance Indicators;
2. Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Regulation;
3. Induction to duties of Radiation Safety Centre inspector;
4. Safety culture inspection;
5. Analysis of processes during short term and intermediate storage of spent nuclear fuel assemblies (2 participants);
6. Regulatory Oversight of NPPs during Operation;
7. Legal Basis and Technical Concepts and Techniques for Nuclear Safety;
8. Introduction and review of inspection programmes and guidelines in the scope of an upcoming IRRS mission;
9. Introduction to the Core Elements of Nuclear Safety;
10. Independent Evaluation of Modified country NPP Fuel Design;
11. Nuclear safety in the country- legislation, requirements, practices;
12. Assessment of Preliminary Safety Information documents of country nuclear power plant;
13. Activity of nuclear safety inspector;
14. Probabilistic Assessment of Nuclear Safety - Research and Application;
15. Should there be any difference in the approaching Safety Performance Indicators of the RR and NPP?
Past experience has shown that a detailed preparation of the tutoring programme significantly contributes to ensure a successful outcome. The ENSTTI Tutoring Manager contacted all tutor and tutees and sent them all relevant material for the preparation of the tutoring file. The tutor and the tutee develop together a structured programme, indicating main items such as, objectives, content, deliverables and assessment of this module.
For the purpose of programme development, the template overleaf was provided to assist in presenting a good overview about the tutoring module and its learning outcomes to learners and tutors.
The ENSTTI tutoring Manager then had a face to face discussion with each trainee during the time of Module II training course. She then visited each organisation to review tutoring programme and programme implementation between September and December 2015.
Tutoring results
Tutoring results were evaluated on the basis of a technical report that participants completed at the term of the tutoring period. Participants presented the results of their activities to a jury of experts, made of the tutor and of other experts of the tutor’s organisation.
In Summary, the results of the tutoring evaluation were excellent ranging from 15/20 to 20/20 as shown on Figure 3. It demonstrates that the tutoring subjects were carefully designed and that both tutor and tutee commitment was high.

Figure 3: DISTRIBUTION OF RESULTS FOR MODULE III

Evaluation from Tutees
The evaluation was both on the general features of the tutoring as defined in the ENSTTI Tutoring Guidelines and on the technical features that were described in each of the tutoring programmes.
The general features include the quality of the tutoring guidelines in terms of information, the logistics and workstation provided to the tutee, the teaching tools used during the tutoring and the time management for the tutoring period.
The technical features include the subject and content of the tutoring, the quality of integration into the working team, the estimation about the level of competences acquired with a specific question on new skills acquisition.
The evaluation summary of general features resulted in a 17.5/20 mark.
The evaluation summary of technical feature resulted in a 19,3/20 mark.
The overall evaluation of all tutoring by tutees gives an average mark of 18.4/20.
In general, the participants appreciated the possibility offered by the tutoring to deepen the competences related to their working position. For most of them, it was also perceived as a way to be prepared for new responsibilities/assignment. However, all of them pointed out the work overload resulting from following a tutoring and being at work at the same time.

3.4 Final remarks
Gain of competences
The marks obtained by the participants for the 3 modules were averaged. The distribution of these average marks is shown in Figure 4.
The very narrow distribution of marks demonstrates the homogeneity of the group of participants at 2 levels:
1. the homogeneity in the initial education level of the participants. It acknowledges the consistency of higher education programmes offered by Universities in the countries of the European Union.
2. the homogeneity in the level of competences acquired during the year of the Pilot Test Case. The fact that these young professionals have the same learning curve during their working year despite they belong to different organisations and occupy different working positions is probably due to their participation in the Pilot Test Case

Figure 4: DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE RESULTS

Possible evaluation of learning
In all its training and tutoring activities, ENSTTI delivers Knowledge/Competence Certificate in line with ECVET Manual for the Conversion of Qualifications. ENSTTI uses the European Qualifications Framework.
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) is a translation tool that helps communication and comparison between qualifications systems in Europe. Its eight common European reference levels are described in terms of learning outcomes: knowledge, skills and competences. This allows any national qualifications systems, national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) and qualifications in Europe to relate to the EQF levels. Learners, graduates, providers and employers can use these levels to understand and compare qualifications awarded in different countries and by different education and training systems.
The Basic Training Programme which was used for the Pilot Test Case covers EQF levels from level 3 to level 5.

The European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is the European instrument to promote mutual trust and mobility in vocational education and training. ECVET supports flexibility of programmes and pathways to achieve qualifications, enhancing the opportunities for lifelong learning. It makes it easier to recognise the learning achievements that young people or adults have gained in other contexts - be it countries, institutions or systems (for example initial or continuous training) but also formal, non-formal, or informal ways of learning.
If the ECVET system were to be in place for nuclear and radiation safety assessors and based on other ECVET implemented or existing projects, a successful completion of the Basic Training Programme could credit them of 16 ECVET: 1 for Module I, 3 for Module II and 12 for Module III.

Validity of the Pilot Test Case
The evaluation by the participants of both the conditions of realisation of the different modules of the Pilot Test Case and of their content results in marks that are all above 17/20. It is an indication that the model designed for the Test Case is fitting well with the expectation of a NRA/TSO junior staff in terms of initial professional development.
Also, in the participants’ comments, no gaps or shortcuts in the Test Case programme seems to have been identified. It can thus be considered that the model adopted for the Pilot Test Case is solid and relevant and enables discussion and evaluation on the results of the feasibility study.
Evaluation of the Pilot Test Case
The Pilot Test Case was arranged to establish a harmonised set of skills and competences for safety assessment carried out by safety authorities/regulators and technical safety organisations in the EU Member States. Conclusions made in the above Chapter 3 show a gain in competences by the participants to the Test Case as defined in the Modules Learning outcomes. They also show a positive evaluation of each module by the participants.
The Module IV-Feedback Session was organized between trainees, their tutors and the European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute, the Test case organiser, with the objective to gather and exchange feedback, experiences, opinions, and suggestions on the whole Pilot Test Case. The Directorate General for Energy of the European Commission was also invited and sent one representative.
Organisation of the session
The session included first a summary from ENSTTI Training and Tutoring Managers of the evaluations made during the different modules as reported in Chapter 3 of this report. It was followed by a presentation by each participant of the work done during the year of the Pilot Test Case with a specific focus on the tutoring development and results, and a conclusion of their experience. A full day was then devoted to feedback assessment in working groups. The last day was used to summarize the working groups results and discuss them. The session was concluded by the delivery of their Competences Certificate to all participants.
The session was attended by the 15 participants, one of them being unable to travel at this time because of the preparation of an IRRS mission to her/his country, 10 of their tutors, and the ENSTTI project team. The number of attendees permitted to split in 4 working groups of 6/7 persons each during the third day of the session.
The session was arranged in a residential format which enables discussion and networking to continue after day-breaks.

Contribution from the Participants
For their presentation, the participants were asked to adopt a standard content: a brief introduction on their education and present working position; what they did learned all along the different steps of the Basic Training Programme in 2015; what was the subject or the main focus of their tutoring and what were the results; how they assess this programme in terms of their own professional development. The presentation should last from 15 to 20 minutes and be summarized in a limited number of slides (10 max).
A 5 minutes’ statement was requested from the tutors after the presentation of their tutee, to express the view of their organisation on the interest of this programme for the professional development of their junior staff and for its contribution to the work of the organisation.
The presentation from the participants were all substantial and well set. It is difficult to reflect accurately all the issues touched upon. What is presented below is a summary of issues that were addressed, though under different extend, in almost all presentations.
There was a common agreement that the poor performance during the test of Module I was due to their little knowledge of the Legal and Regulatory Framework they are working in. Most of the participants recognised that before Module I, they had some notions about their country legal and regulatory framework but that their knowledge was rather superficial. In particular, the EU directives on Nuclear Safety, Waste Safety and Radiation Safety were not familiar to them. There was an agreement to say that even if just after the Module I the gain of competences was not perceive as sensible, there was eventually a realisation that the competence gained in Module I are important to understand the contribution of the assessment or inspection work.
The Module II was well received by all participants as its technical content suited their technical education. The broad coverage of nuclear and radiation safety issues was also appreciated and some participants get actually acquainted with some assessment fields or methods for the first time. Participants coming from nuclear safety units found extremely useful the part dedicated to radiation and waste safety. Everybody enjoyed the working groups and practical exercises implemented during the three weeks. Most of them did not really understand why a large part of the last week was split in two different thematics and would have liked to take part of both instead of selecting only one. Although the length of the module was considered appropriate with regard to the course content, to be away from the office for three weeks was hard to manage for all participants.
Many of the participating organisations have in place a system of initial On-the Job-Training or a system of mentoring of junior staff by a more senior one. However, it was recognised by both tutors and tutees that a structured tutoring as proposed in the Basic Training Programme added more value. The tutor tends to define more precisely the subject and put more attention into the evaluation process. The tutee feels more involved and dedicates more effort into her/his work. Some tutors explained that one of the advantages they found in this imposed and structures tutoring was the possibility to implement some work that is long awaited but not properly resourced. Because of the time, they had to devote to the tutoring, some even proposed a subject to which they would have assigned a more senior staff. This was of direct benefit for the tutee that became more integrated into her/his unit. Many of the tutors indicated that their organisation had incorporated or thought to incorporate a structured tutoring into the process of development of their junior staff.
In their presentation, both participant and tutors, discussed the positive incentive provided by the Pilot Test Case. In most of the participating organisations, the initial professional training, when done, is done internally. The peculiarity of internal training is that it can easily be postponed, cancelled or interrupted when the workload of the trainee’s organisation requires a temporary increase of service. Interruption or cancelation of external training is more difficult if the organisation has paid training fees or has made a commitment as for the Pilot Test Case. In addition, external training provides for more exchanges of experience between participants, sometime, as for the Pilot Test Case, at the international level.
A positive feedback made by the participants on the Basic Training Programme, was that in addition to the gain in knowledge and knowhow that she/he would never get from her/his university education, the programme provided her/him the possibility to meet reference experts in the fields of nuclear and radiation safety and to confront her/his own experience with those of the others participants. In this, they said that they gained additional motivation and self-confidence. It was also for many of them an occasion to start building her/his professional network.
Another positive feedback mentioned was on the value for the organisation of a participant of the knowledge, exchanges and materials she/he brought back from the Basic Training Programme Modules. Some participants were asked to report during internal seminars, some organisation uploaded the Modules’ materials into their intranet.
A general comment was that it was difficult for both the participants and their organisation to accommodate four weeks of training and the additional work generated by the tutoring within the year into their already existing work plan. A Basic Training Programme for a junior staff has to be integrated into the recruitment process to correctly manage the time devoted to this initial professional development. It was also noted that without the Pilot Test Case financial support, small organisations with limited resources couldn’t have participated to the one-year programme.

Results of the Working Groups
The work in working groups was structured around a set of questions dealing with the importance of professional development in enhancing nuclear and radiation safety in Europe, the type of training format suiting the most the professional development of a safety analyst and how a Basic Training Programme such as the one of the Pilot Test Case could be further improved. All questions were the same for all working groups.

Results of Working Group 1
There was a consensus that harmonised training for safety analyst is necessary and beneficial. It is recognised as a long-term process. It is necessary to harmonise not only knowledge of EU legal and regulatory framework but also of knowhow and attitude. It is of particular interest for new nuclear countries, as it will be easier to follow new path (what to do and how to do it).
The Basic Training Programme is a good basis to start consistent professional development of safety analyst. It can be even implemented at the level of single country which runs a large nuclear programme with a regulatory system recruiting several young professionals every year. For countries with medium or small nuclear programme, a shared Basic Training Programme is desirable.
However external training is a burden for the organisation in terms of resources, and the benefit taken back from it must be clear and substantial.
It is very important that the initial training be considered into the recruitment process and be included into the recruited staff work plan.
After the initial year training become more specific to the work position. Here again the existing offer is larger and easier to access when coming from a country with big safety organisations.
Temporary mobility through tutoring in another organisation is seen as way to value both the competences and the carrier.
One advantage of the Basic Training Programme is to provide networking opportunities. Networking is necessary in the long term. Many tools and networks already exist, and should be used in efficient way. Network should be adapted to specific needs. Some communication tools, outside of the organisation channel, seem to be needed to make junior staff aware of current training activities in their own field.

Results of Working Group 2
There was a consensus that a systematic approach of a common training with specified rules, defined levels of advance will improve and facilitate the cooperation across field expertise and countries in EU.
It was considered that due to the lack of structured national training in many EU countries, a training framework should be created and formed taking account of the significant differences between countries, based on different experiences in Nuclear energy, different fields of interest in countries and in differences in employed specific technologies, analysis tools, approaches to specific safety cases. In this case, internal training would cover the specific issues of a country.
European training has to be associated with European reward (credit point, training passport) system to make it more attractive and useful for the trainee. The system could account not only for training but also for mobility periods or participation to international projects or expertise.
Junior experts lack information about possible training initiative that would be of interest for them. A Platform/Network could be set up in that respect.
It was considered that external tutoring is an incentive for mobility (both in case of BTP and other more specialized programs). ETSON (JSP) is good initiative for TSOs, it would be good to have something similar for NRAs as well. There could be a website collecting all mobility, conference etc. information from organisations (ENSRA, WENRA, ENSTTI, HERCA). Also, it would be desirable to set up an alumni or social network platform for former BTP participants (maybe on ENSTTI webpage, or Twitter, Facebook etc.).

Results of Working Group 3
There was a consensus that harmonization of professional development serves enhancement of safety in Europe. Harmonization should be understood as setting a basic level of competences and recognition of training results in different EU Member States. It should cover setting up standards for the development of professionals engaged in safety in nuclear field including safeguards and security and radiation protection. The standards should include international cooperation in education and training and setting up an international set of training courses organized by a dedicated body.
The EC Directives oblige the EU Member States to identify the educational needs, the resources and gaps. However, the Directives do not supply the EU Member States with the details how to apply it in practice taking into account financial and national aspects. Guidelines such as those developed for the Waste Directives help the EU Member States to reach the above mentioned steps.
An initiative following the Pilot Test Case could be set up to follow the professional development of the same group of participant over the coming years.
The participants felt that what constraints the most their professional development in the future is the financial issue.
There is a direct link between harmonization and mobility within the EU. There is no mobility without harmonization of knowledge in the nuclear field. Mobility brings new perspectives and opportunities, but also challenges. Mobility is a fact and cannot be omitted. Although various restrictions apply to employing people, organizations should see mobility as an opportunity to strengthen the organization in the future
Networking possibilities would be beneficial especially for not advanced professionals in nuclear safety. In the future, it would be interesting to find some kind of an (existing) communication platform not limited to regulators, TSO’s etc.

Results of Working Group 4
There was a consensus that harmonised training is beneficial to assure to certain quality level of the safety assessment. It could facilitate the exchange of knowledge/man-power and problem-solving capacities. To develop harmonization would help to allocate more time and money to education and training. The harmonization process encourages idea exchange, development of different approaches
In EU directives, only the establishment for regular training is required. EU directives require training, and do not mention any harmonization or standardization. EU directives should explicitly encourage the harmonization of training. A European strategy for the development of the training needs to be worked out
There was a consensus that continuous training is needed, but in most organisations training is not a high priority due to time and money issues. In that respect countries with large nuclear programme have an advantage.

Remarks for Module IV
From the Working Groups results it can be concluded that a programme such as the Basic Training Programme ran during the Pilot Test Case was seen by the participants as a way to enhance their assessment skills and thus nuclear and radiation safety in Europe. The standard made of a succession of existing training and tutoring within a year, preferably the year of recruitment of the junior staff, was evaluated positively. It filled in a knowledge gap and placed safety assessment in perspective. Participants improved their capability of dialogue (internal, external, stakeholder). It helps them to better understand how and why to build collective judgment to support regulatory decisions.
It appears that even if EU Directives address staff training at NRA and TSO, there are no guidelines, or not known guidelines, supplementing them on developing the staff competences in EU safety organisations.
In line with the above, there is no system recognising at the EU level the safety analyst competences development such as it exists to recognise education levels. There is therefore no formal incentive for the staff of safety organisation to further develop their competences beyond what is required in their own organisation. There is consequently no external incentive nor reward for their organisation to set up training schemes consistent with others EU countries.
The absence of a standardised and organised system of competence building in Europe for staff from NRA and TSO is most detrimental for safety organisations from countries with no or small nuclear programme. The need of at least a common platform of information on capacity building/competence development for staff from EU NRAs and TSOs was pointed out by all Working Groups.
All participants enjoyed this first international experience and wish to prolong it in the future. Everybody acknowledge its importance also in terms of professional networking. However, most of them have doubts about the financial capacity of their own organisation to provide them with international training.

Remarks for INBEx - Nuclear industry leadership training for regulators implementation
Nuclear safety culture cannot be successfully dealt with separated from all other aspects of commercial nuclear power operation. Safety is always and inseparably challenged by realities posed by fiscal matters, staff competence, relations to society at large, and many other aspects. Therefore, successful training on nuclear safety culture needs to take all these important factors into account.
It is not the responsibility of regulators to address financial matters of nuclear power operation, but nevertheless such aspects affect safety. Arguably, the poor profitability in the entire energy sector, where nuclear power is no exception, is one of the most important challenges to safety. When the operators make loss, it is difficult to finance safety upgrades. ”Need-to-have” prevails, but “nice-to-have” is omitted.
INBEx (Institute for Nuclear Business Excellence) has long and deep experience in training leaders in the nuclear industry up to executive level. In contrast to traditional lecturing, this training is based on simulation of realistic scenarios, in which the participants act as the management team of a fictitious nuclear power plant. Within the NUSHARE project, a new simulation, Fermi, has been developed based on prior experience, taking the present-day landscape into account.
The highly acclaimed launching event took place in Madrid January 27-28 2017, at the premises of the Spanish regulator CSN. One of the participants uttered: ”Now I finally understand why industry does not do what I thought they should!”. Since then, events have been organized in Brussels for EC officers, in Helsinki for the regulator STUK and stakeholders in the nuclear industry, and a similar event is planned for autumn 2017 in the UK.
One event in Uppsala, Sweden has been devoted to competence development for academic teachers, open to participants from all EU, and a team from Ukraine was granted access to the event.

Summary of actions:

• 10 May 2016: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx in Oskarsham, Sweden
• 28 Feb.- 2 March 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx training course for Finnish industry and regulator in Manchester, United Kingdom
• 03 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Training tutorial of INBEx in Helsinki, Finland
• 12 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for EC officers in Brussels, Belgium
• 29 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for academic teachers in Uppsala, Sweden
A license agreement for free usage of Fermi for the EC organizations and ENEN (European Nuclear Education Network) has been developed. The agreement will be signed during 2017 and it allows for non-commercial use of the product.

The Fermi training tool has now gained such a recognition that it has become an export product. Two events will take place in Canada during 2017 in collaboration with the CANDU Owners Group, in which Romania is active. Two events have taken place in Nairobi, Kenya. Two shorter events of “try-it-out” type have been organized at the IAEA. Discussions are in progress about developing an Ukranian version, and expressions of interest have come from a range of countries.

4 Activities performed for the Target Group 3 (TG 3)

This section details the implemented actions in years 1, 2 and 3 of the implementation phase of the NUSHARE Project for the “Target Group 3” which includes: Electric utilities, systems suppliers, and providers of nuclear services at the level of responsible personnel, in particular managers.

Timeline of the TG3:
• Design phase: Year 2013 and 2014
• Implementation phase Year 1: from July 2014 – to June 2015
• Implementation phase Year 2: from July 2015 – to June 2016
• Implementation phase Year 3: from July 2016 – to June 2017

As for sharing and developing nuclear safety culture, the industry target group for training and information actions within this project was decided to be restricted to decision makers (i.e. upper and middle line management), safety and quality managers, and research and development managers in industry.
The actual implementation of training was delayed due to the decisions taken by the Task Force on the NUSHARE project. During 2013 and 2014 the work of the Design Phase of the project for Target Group 3 continued.

The leader of TG3, TECNATOM, performed the following activities:

• Complete the ETI Catalogue in terms of topics and learning outcomes.
• Obtain feedback, on the ETI Catalogue, from different recognized experts.
• Consult experts and research data on the use of different learning modalities and their effectiveness.
• Determine the most effective learning approaches to the target group selected.
• Select learning platforms needed to implement the learning approaches.
• Familiarization with the capabilities of the learning platforms.
• Define scope, content and targeted participants, mentors, enlighteners, etc. of the Pilot Program.
• Select, contact and gain acceptance of participants, explaining their role as essentially providing feedback to improve the ETI Catalogue and its practical implementation.
• Identify potential collaborations with international organizations with a European participation (IAEA, WANO, FORATOM).
• Select location of the Pilot Program.
• Select dates convenient to all people involved in the pilot program.
• Prepare part of the materials to be used in the pilot program at the level needed to obtain feedback.
• Preparatory activities for the NUSHARE meeting in Saclay the 17th of July 2015
• Material of the Program was finalized to test it in a Pilot Program.
• A Pilot Program was conducted to test, with an adequate number of participants from the target group, the validity of the program design. The comments were very positive and participants offered many suggestions for improvements.
• After taking into consideration the lessons learned from the Pilot Program the whole material was revised and a First Program was conducted. The comments were positive and some suggestions for improvement were shared.
• The main activity has been to convert the material used in the Pilot, First Program and Internal Program (Tecnatom) in material usable by any organization of the European Union and prepare it as deliverables.
• An additional activity has been to test again the program but this time for its use in-company. The Pilot and First Programs were open to the participation of different organizations.
• Additionally some suggestions to the EC have been included to exploit effectively the high quality material that has been elaborated in the Project.

The actions described have been implemented with the resources of Tecnatom.

4.1 Implentation actions

In the Stakeholders seminar celebrated the 13-14th of March 2014 in Brussels (see Deliverable 1.5) the following question was asked:
Does your company have a training program available on NUSHARE topics? Do you want to share it with the project?
The answer was:
Only for internal needs.

This unexpected result, since the aim of the NUSHARE project was to integrate existing available programs, required a shift in the intermediary objectives of the project, but maintaining the final objective for the project.

Basically the main objectives of this period were: to prepare high quality materials for deliverables; to conduct a Pilot Program; to conduct the First Program and an In-company Program. To achieve these objectives all the material has been developed, deployed and reviewed again to correct remaining glitches and has been provided in a format usable for any organization of the EU wishing to use it.

Moreover an additional test has been conducted with a Second Program, but this time inside own company. This is a significant difference with the Pilot and First Program that were open to many different organizations.

Basically the objectives for the WP 4 were:
• Complete the ETI Catalogue in terms of topics and learning outcomes.
• Obtain feedback, on the ETI Catalogue, from different recognized experts.
• Consult experts and research data on the use of different learning modalities and their effectiveness.
• Determine the most effective learning approaches to the target group selected.
• Select learning platforms needed to implement the learning approaches.
• Familiarization with the capabilities of the learning platforms.
• Define scope, content and targeted participants, mentors, enlighteners, etc. of the Pilot Program.
• Select, contact and gain acceptance of participants, explaining their role as essentially providing feedback to improve the ETI Catalogue and its practical implementation.
• Identify potential collaborations with international organizations with a European participation (IAEA, WANO, FORATOM).
• Select location of the Pilot Program.
• Select dates convenient to all people involved in the pilot program.
• Prepare part of the materials to be used in the pilot program at the level needed to obtain feedback.
• Preparatory activities for the NUSHARE meeting in Saclay the 17th of July.
• Deploy the First Program for designated recipients/end-users.
• Fine tune the WP results and test again using an In-company Program.

It is important to mention that the program of TG3 has as target the Top Managers of the European Nuclear Industry and this target group has very specific characteristics that require a tailor made design of the program. It is widely recognized that this target is both:

• Very much influential on the culture of the organization, and particularly on the safety culture, and therefore is important to address them.
• Suffering significant time limitations and therefore the program has to be adjusted to those limitations.
Several coordination activities have been performed with the ENEN Coordinator of the project aiming at:
- Gaining an overall understanding of the project development at other TGs.
- Benefiting from ideas and approaches of other TGs.
- Explaining the activities being carried out in TG3 to the ENEN Coordinator.
- Obtaining support from ENEN in some actions (f.i. potential participation from NUGENIA).

4.2 Performed steps in the First Year of Implementation (From July 2014 – To March 2015)

Complete the ETI Catalogue in terms of topics and learning outcomes.
The ETI Catalogue contains 11 modules and their corresponding Learning Outcomes. This Catalogue may be revised after the Pilot Course based on the feedback obtained afterwards.

Obtain feedback, on the ETI Catalogue, from different recognized experts.
The ETI Catalogue has been shared in a FISA Workshop and with several experts in the field of safety culture. No significant comments have been received except for the importance of treating Culture as one element, therefore we will stress the holistic view of organizational and safety culture.

Consult experts and research data on the use of different learning modalities and their effectiveness.
Learning modalities have been analysed, taking into account research data, to understand the experience in their use (to ensure that we are selecting tested modalities) and their perceived effectiveness.

Determine the most effective learning approaches to the target group selected.
A combination of different approaches has been selected: webinar, micro-e-learnings, workshop with all the participants present, virtual meetings, mentors, facilitators, journal, personal action plans, etc.
One fundamental consideration is that the final goal of the program aims to produce an important improvement in Safety Culture. To achieve that is important that along the training a Personal Action Plan be developed, with actions to be taken and some follow up measures. Along the micro-e-learnings a “journal” is included by the use of reflection questions that are relevant for the elaboration of the Personal Action Plan.
Recognizing the importance of providing to the participants the opportunity to get together and share experiences a workshop is included in the program. Moreover during the workshop the participants will count on the support of two Mentors with practical experience in achieving important improvements in Organization/Safety Culture. The Mentors will support the participants, with the help also of the facilitators, in their development of the Personal Action Plan.
The workshop will serve also another purpose, to determine how to do a follow up of the Personal Action Plan, in order to reinforce the achievement of the actions planned.

Select learning platforms needed to implement the learning approaches.
E-Doceo has been selected as the platform for micro-e-learning given the experience in Tecnatom with other e-learning training programs. This platform allows for the micro-e-learnings being designed for mobile phones (smartphones) or tablets. The platform allows for the download of the micro-e-learnings and their use off-line. When the connection is recovered all the data is transferred to the platform and therefore it is ensured a tracking of the usage of the materials and responses to questions in the journal by each participant.
For webinars and Virtual meetings the plan is to use Webex.
Given that different participants will use different information systems, previously to the pilot there will be tests conducted to ensure a smooth interaction.

Familiarization with the capabilities of the learning platforms.
A brief familiarization has been performed and a testing module has been fully implemented as part of the practice with the platform.

Define scope, content and targeted participants, mentors, enlighteners, etc. of the Pilot Program.
Recognizing the difficulties of reaching up to top managers, given their essential influence over the Safety Culture, they have been maintained as the target group. Mentors have been selected based on their experience with safety culture improvement, including actual cases of Nuclear Power Plants. The mentors for the pilot program are Dr. Kerstin Dahlgren and Mr. Cesar Candás.
Taking into account the importance of emotional influence to support attitudinal changes, actions have been started to include a motivational speech by a TEPCO manager in the webinar launching the program.

Select, contact and gain acceptance of participants, explaining their role as essentially providing feedback to improve the ETI Catalogue and its practical implementation.
It has taken an important effort to select organizations that are considered at a good level on safety culture, and then convincing their top level managers to spend their valuable time in the Pilot Course.
Part of this work was done taking advantage of our participation in the Management Systems Task Force meeting of the IAEA and FORATOM that took place in the UK from the 22nd to the 26th of June of 205.

Identify potential collaborations with international organizations with a European participation (IAEA, WANO, FORATOM).
Contacts have been maintained with the IAEA and their engagement in the pilot program has been obtained. This collaboration is very important since the IAEA is very active in the topic of Safety Culture, is also experiencing difficulties in reaching up to top managers and are working in supporting its member countries. This collaboration will be a win-win for NUSHARE, the IAEA and safety culture at an international level. There are not economical payment involved in this collaboration, since the IAEA will bear the cost of its participation.
A similar approach has been proposed to WANO Paris centre and it is pending to receive an answer.
With FORATOM there is an understanding that is supporting the dissemination of information to its members (in the order of 800). For the Pilot Course no further input is expected but we will ask for FORATOM support in disseminating information for the next Course.

Select location of the Pilot Program.
Vattenfall kindly agreed to offer the office space needed for the Workshop part of the Pilot Course. It is being considered whether the Vattenfall CEO could make an opening speech at the Workshop.
The rest of the program does not require travelling and therefore its impact in terms of time from top level managers is very limited.

Select dates convenient to all people involved in the pilot program.
Webinar launching the Pilot Course is expected on the week of the 21 of September.
10 micro-e-learning are going to be sent from the 25th of September to the 16h of October.
Workshop is schedule for the 21st of October.
Closing virtual meeting is schedule for the week of 2 November.

Prepare part of the materials to be used in the pilot program at the level needed to obtain feedback.
A good part of the program material is available already, and the work to transfer it to the micro-e-learning has been started in the period of this report.

Preparatory activities for the NUSHARE meeting in Saclay the 17th of July 2015.
Presentation material has been prepared for the aforementioned meeting.

In addition obligations of reporting, TG3 activity management, economic data processing, etc. have been fulfilled.

4.3 Performed steps in the Second Year of Implementation (From April 2015 – To May 2016)

Pilot Program
• Collaboration on the NUSHARE meeting in Saclay the 17th of July 2015. The Strategy and Status of the work was presented. Actions were established for the Pilot Program.
• Preparation of all the material for the Pilot Program.
o Webinar flyer.
o Webinar material. A significant input to the material was a video courtesy of Monica Haague from the IAEA with an interview to Mr. Akira Kawano (Manager for Nuclear Safety Department at TEPCO).
o 10 Micro-mobile e-learnings. It was a significant challenge to have short training modules fully adapted to the needs of top level managers.
▪ Understanding of a Safety Case.
▪ Importance for Safety of the Culture.
▪ Evolution of Regulatory Systems and relation to Culture.
▪ Understanding of Culture.
▪ Developing Safety Culture.
▪ Assessment of Safety Culture.
▪ Learning from Other Industries.
▪ Levers to change the Culture. Main lever is Leadership.
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (I)
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (II).
Each micro-mobile-e-learning includes a Journal that helps the participant to reflect of the status of Safety Culture in its organization. The answers to the questions on the Journal are collected and provided to the participant, during the workshop, to facilitate the development of actions to improve safety culture in his/her organization.
o Workshop flyer.
o Workshop material. The design of the workshop aimed to get the participants to develop effective personal action plans to make valuable improvements in the safety culture of their organizations.
o Follow-up.
• Completion of the selection and engagement of participants representative of the target group. This was a hard task since we aimed to have CNOs, Directors, etc, actively participating in the program.
• Completion of arrangements regarding of location for pilot program and involvement of a CEO in welcoming the participants in the workshop. Vattenfall kindly agreed to provide the facilities and his President and CEO, Magnus Hall, to welcome the participants.
• Confirmation of mentors: Dr. Kerstin Dahlgren (CNSO Vattenfall) and Mr. Cesar Candás (ex Site Vice-president for 3 nuclear sites).
• Confirmation and preparation of Facilitators of the program: Mr. José I. Villadóniga and Mr. Fernando González, both from Tecnatom.
• Preparation for the UE officer of letters recognizing the participation on the Pilot Program.

• Execution of the Pilot Program from 21st September to 31st October 2015 . The participants were:
Brian Cowell – CNO EDF Energy
Jan Boelen – Director General COVRA
Kirsty L. Armer – Director, Quality and Performance Improvement (Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing) Westinghouse
Bernard Fabregat – Programme Manager, Peer Review, WANO Paris Centre.
Kerstin Dahlgren (Mentor and CNSO Vattenfall)
Cesar Candas (Mentor and Ex VP Nuclear Sites)
Jose I. Villadoniga (Facilitator and Manager Division of Safety Management, Tecnatom).
Fernando Gonzalez (Facilitator and Head Leadership and Safety Culture, Tecnatom).
Pedro Dieguez, ENEN Secretary General.

• The participants indicated a positive assessment of the Program and provided several comments for improvement. In fact many changes have been included based on those comments.

4.4 Performed steps in the Third Year of Implementation (From June 2016 – To July 2017)

Implementation of the First Program

• Preparation of all the material for the First Program.
o Webinar flyer.
o Advanced material: Top Nuclear Industry Leaders’ Program on Culture for Safety. Reaping the benefits of a deeper understanding of culture and leadership for safe and efficient performance. This material was to be send to all participants previously to the Webinar. (This is new)
o Webinar material. A definition of Culture was included to facilitate the understanding of the scope of the program.
o 11 Micro-mobile e-learnings. They have been fully revised including a through correction by a native English speaker.
▪ Importance for Safety of the Culture.
▪ Evolution of Regulatory Systems and relation to Culture.
▪ Understanding of Culture.
▪ Developing Safety Culture.
▪ Assessment of Safety Culture.
▪ Learning from Other Industries.
▪ Levers to change the Culture. Main lever is Leadership.
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (I)
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (II).
▪ Creating an Environment of Trust (This is a new module prepared based on the comments of the participants in the pilot program)
▪ Understanding of a Safety Case.
o Workshop flyer.
o Workshop material. The design of the workshop aimed to get the participants to develop effective personal action plans to make valuable improvements in the safety culture of their organizations.
o Follow-up. A Forum has been developed to allow participants to share experience after the end of the program.

• Selection and engagement of participants representative of the target group. Help was sought from the European Nuclear Society and Foratom that included a notice about the program in the ENS web page. There were many other actions to reach for interested persons in the target group.
• Selection of location for first program. This time Tecnatom facilities were chosen for program.
• Selection of mentors: Mr. Cesar Candás (ex Site Vice-president for 3 nuclear sites).
• Facilitators of the program: Mr. José I. Villadóniga and Mr. Fernando González, both from Tecnatom.
• Execution of the First Program from 1st to 23rd June 2016. The enlisted participants were:

❶ Name: Chris Bebbington
Title: Head of Gas Operations
Coal and Gas and Renewables Operation. EDF Energy

❷ Name: Clair Carpenter
Title: Head of People Planning and Development
EDF Energy Generation

❸ Name: Mario Signorini,
Title: CEO Mangiarotti, Westinghouse
Managing Director Nuclear Fuels and Components Manufacturing, Italy operations.

❹ Name: Edward L. Wills
Title: Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Culture Director

❺ Name: Mats Ladeborn
Title: Vice President Fleet Management Vattenfall

❻ Name: Eva Halldén
Title: Senior Executive Advisor Nuclear Vattenfall

❼ Name: Ann Berg
Title: Vice President, Corporate Independent Nuclear Safety Oversight Vattenfall

➑ Name: Christopher Eckerberg
Title: Vice President BU SKB
President Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB

➒ Name: Björn Linde
Title: Vice President BU Nuclear Generation
MD Ringhals AB and Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, Vattenfall.

➓ Name: Javier Montes
Title: Nuclear Fuel Operations Director and Juzbado Fabrication Plant Director, ENUSA

⓫Name: Alfio Vidal Alvarez-Ossorio
Title: Director of Nuclear Oversight, Iberdrola

⓬Name: Julián Andres
Title: Systems and Quality Director ENUSA

⓭Name: Pedro Dieguez Porras
Title: General Secretary ENEN

⓮ Name: Antonio Moruno
Title: Deputy Vicepresident for Safety, Operation and Training, Tecnatom
Although most of them participated in the webinar and micro-mobile-e-learning, most of them did not participate in the workshop due to several reasons:
✓ Only one from Vattenfall was initially coming to the workshop but he had to cancel the trip.
✓ Westinghouse had a significant problem in an installation and had to cancel in the last minute.
✓ Others cancelled close to the workshop date.
The ones attending the workshop are indicated in black letters.
• The participants considered the program of high value.

Implementation of the In-Company Program.

• Preparation of all the material for the In-Company Program.
o Webinar flyer.
o Advanced material: Top Nuclear Industry Leaders’ Program on Culture for Safety. Reaping the benefits of a deeper understanding of culture and leadership for safe and efficient performance. This material was to be send to all participants previously to the Webinar.
o Webinar material.
o 11 Micro-mobile e-learnings.
▪ Understanding of a Safety Case. (It is finally consider that this module should be the first one in the Micro-mobile-e-learnings).
▪ Importance for Safety of the Culture.
▪ Evolution of Regulatory Systems and relation to Culture.
▪ Understanding of Culture.
▪ Developing Safety Culture.
▪ Assessment of Safety Culture.
▪ Learning from Other Industries.
▪ Levers to change the Culture. Main lever is Leadership.
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (I)
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (II).
▪ Creating an environment of Trust.

An animated video was prepared to remind the participants (by the middle of the 11 e-learnings) about the whole content of the program and the importance of their commitment.
o Workshop flyer.
o Workshop material. The design of the workshop aimed to get the participants to develop effective personal action plans to make valuable improvements in the safety culture of their organizations.
o Forum.
• Completion of the selection and engagement of participants representative of the target group. This time it was simpler since the whole Top Management Team of Tecnatom decided to go through the Program.
• Completion of arrangements regarding of location for program. It was conducted at Tecnatom headquarters.
• Confirmation and preparation of Facilitators of the program: Mr. José I. Villadóniga and Mr. Fernando González, both from Tecnatom.
• Execution of the In-company Program from 16th September 2016 to 30th January 2017 in Madrid, Spain. The participants were:
F. Javier Guerra – General Director.
Jose M. Mourin –Economic, Finance and Legal Director.
Javier Alonso – Inspections and tests Director.
Juan Bross – Quality and Environment Director.
Francisco J. Sanchez – Safety, Operation and Training Director.
Coral Gonzalez – Organization, Systems and Human Resources Director.
Juan Ortega – Strategy and Business Corporative Development Director.
Jose R. Fernandez –Technology and Product Development Director.
Jose I. Villadoniga (Facilitator and Manager Division of Safety Management, Tecnatom).
Fernando Gonzalez (Facilitator and Head Leadership and Safety Culture, Tecnatom).
• The participants indicated a positive assessment of the Program.

Preparation of Deliverables
• A full set of deliverables has been completed that includes:
o Examples and Templates for each activity of the Program. Any EU organization could incorporate its logo, dates, places, etc and replicate the Program. The material provided is in English.
o Videos.
o Micro-mobile-e-learnings in Scorn format.
o Suggestions about the use of the material.
• A list of deliverables follows.
o Webinar flyer. (Example and Template)
o Advanced material: Top Nuclear Industry Leaders’ Program on Culture for Safety. Reaping the benefits of a deeper understanding of culture and leadership for safe and efficient performance. (Example and Template)
o Webinar material. (Example and Template). A Video is also provided.
o Instructions to download the Micro-mobile-e-learnings (Example).
o 11 Micro-mobile e-learnings. In SCORN format to be usable in most Learning Management Systems available.
▪ Understanding of a Safety Case.
▪ Importance for Safety of the Culture.
▪ Evolution of Regulatory Systems and relation to Culture.
▪ Understanding of Culture.
▪ Developing Safety Culture.
▪ Assessment of Safety Culture.
▪ Learning from Other Industries.
▪ Levers to change the Culture. Main lever is Leadership.
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (I)
▪ Development of Leadership Competencies (II).
▪ Creating an Environment of Trust
An animated video to remind the participants (by the middle of the 11 e-learnings) about the whole content of the program and the importance of their commitment.
o Workshop flyer (Example and Template).
o Workshop material. (Example and Template)
o Journal Results (Example and Template)
o Action Plan (Example and Template)
o Forum. (Example)

Other activities of the project that provided valuable inputs.

• The Leader of TG3 (José I. Villadóniga) was invited by the IAEA to participate as expert on leadership/safety culture in the OSART of Dampierre (from 31st August to 17th September 2015) being the first time OSART will cover Leadership aspects.
• A member of the Safety Management Team (Montse Fernández) was invited by the IAEA to contribute to an e-learning module on Safety Culture.
• In December of 2015 Jose Villadóniga was invited by the IAEA as consultant to discuss Views on Trends, Needs and Gaps on Integrated Management Systems (IMSs) and Leadership.
• Also in December of 2015 José Villadóniga was invited by the IAEA at the 7th meeting of the Steering Committee on Regulatory Capacity Building and Knowledge Management to present Regulatory Competencies and Training for Leadership.
• A member of the Safety Management Team (Fernando González) had an active participation in the IAEA’s International Conference on Human and Organizational Aspects of Assuring Nuclear Safety – Exploring 30 years of Safety Culture, 22-26 February 2016, with a paper on Experience of Tecnatom in Developing a Strong Leadership for Safety and Performance and a poster, about the micro-mobile-e-learnings, was included in the ENEN Stand during the Conference. The insights from this important conference were considered in the revision of the Program after the Pilot.
• Presentation of Use of Micro-Mobile-Learning for competencies development of Top Managers in Culture for Safety at the Special Event on E-Learning and MOOCS for Nuclear Education and Training of the General Assembly of ENEN in Geel, Belgium. 3rd March 2016. The presentation included a video showing the screens of a micro-mobile-e-learning.
• Presentation of TG3-Status and Development at the NUSHARE meeting in Amsterdam (NL) 14 April 2016.
• Presentation of NUSHARE TG3- A Programme to support Top Level Managers to better understand and improve the Culture for Safety of their Organizations in the NESTet Conference 2016 of the European Nuclear Society. 25th May 2016.
• Jose I. Villadoniga was invited by the IAEA to participate in several Consultant Meetings about Development of Practical Guidance on Models and Approaches to Assess Nuclear Leadership.
• Jose I. Villadoniga and Tecnatom received a Service Agreement from the IAEA to advance a web-based Nuclear Leadership DNA – LeaD –(community of practice). The work supports preparing the guidance to support GSR Part 2 and updating the IAEA-TECDOC-1024 “Selection, competency development and assessment of nuclear power plant managers”. In this activity Jose I. Villadoniga has collaborated with the IAEA staff and well know experts from INPO, WANO and several private organizations.
• Participation of José I.Villadoniga making a presentation about LeaD - Development of a Practical Tool to Support Developing Nuclear Leadership in the 14th IAEA FORATOM Management System Workshop — Leadership and Management: From Standards to Practices, 12-15 December 2016, Vienna. He also played the role of moderator for Issue A3: Assessing Leadership, How Exactly Can We Do This?
• The Safety Management Team has been selected by the IAEA to participate in a Coordinated International Research Program about Organizational Culture and its safety impact.

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS

Along this period, the following results were achieved:

• Flyer of the Programme.
• Participants. Criteria no participate in this training programme
• Advanced Information about the programme.
• Initial Webinar.
• Micro-mobile-e-learnings.
• Middle of Programme information.
• Final Workshop and Action Plan.
• Forum.
• Material used in the Pilot and First Program in material usable by any organization of the European Union and prepare it as deliverables.
• Training programme implemented this time for its use in-company. The Pilot and First Programs were open to the participation of different organizations.
• Some suggestions to the EC have been included to exploit effectively the high quality material that has been elaborated in the Project

During the implementation of foreseen actions in WP 4, several important actions took place.

We can mention:
• Complete the ETI Catalogue and obtain feedback on it;
• Select the appropriate learning modalities and their effectiveness;
• Select learning platforms and make beneficiaries familiar with it;
• Identify and select trainees;
• Select place and date;
• Preparation of materials;
• One Pilot Program was implemented.

From 1st to 23rd June 2016, the First Program was initiated, following the successful implementation of Pilot Program and after reviewing its achievements based on collected observations. The Program was applied to 14 candidates.

The Program was followed by an in-company Program, between 16th September 2016 and 30th of January 2017. It was applied to Tecnatom’s staff, according to TG3 rules. This allowed Tecnatom to better shape the developed scheme, course materials and strategy. Also, applying this to internal staff contributed to fine tuning of provided materials.

5 Dissemination and activity list

E&T&T and other activities dissemination, performed within the NUSHARE project timeline are presented below. With the aid of these activities the project was coordinated, developed and implemented. The dates are representing the activities performed at both levels: beneficiaries of the project and project team.

• 29 May 2017: Technical Group 2 (TG2) Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for academic teachers in Uppsala, Sweden
• 12 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for EC officers in Brussels, Belgium
• 10 May 2017: NUSHARE project Final Management Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
• 03 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Training tutorial of INBEx in Helsinki, Finland
• April 2017: TG1 Launch of the Media Educational Package www.wfsj.org/nuclear by the World Federation of Science Journalists
• 28 February - 2 March 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx training course for Finnish industry and regulator in Manchester, United Kingdom
• 03 March 2017: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Manchester, United Kingdom
• 24-28 January 2017: TG2 INBEx Workshop with top managers of Nuclear regulatory bodies and TSOs at CSN in Madrid, Spain. The In-company training program participants:
• 7-8 November 2016: TG1 EUROSAFE Conference and NUSHARE workshop with Journalists targeting information activities in Munich, Germany
• 22 June 2016: TG1 project meeting in Paris, France
• 23 – 24 June 2016: TG3 Workshop with top managers of the Nuclear industry in Madrid, Spain
• 25 May 2016: TG1 NESTet2016 Conference - NUSHARE Event with the presentation of the technical approach to TG1 by "Culture for Safety in Nuclear" by Manfred Haferburg in Berlin, Germany
• 11 May 2016: 3rd Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement
• 10 May 2016: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx in Oskarsham, Sweden
• 14 April 2016: NUSHARE Management Meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• 4 March 2016: TG3 Presentation of Tecnatom's work for TG3 at the International Conference on Human and Organizational Aspects of Assuring Nuclear Safety, IAEA, in Vienna, Austria
• 5 March 2016: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Geel, Belgium
• 07 February 2016: 2nd Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement
• 5 February 2016: TG2 Implementation of Training Workshop in Paris, France
• 21 October 2015: TG3 Workshop with top managers of the Nuclear industry in Stockholm, Sweden
• 7-11 September 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module III, "How to evaluate Nuclear Safety Culture" in Bucharest, Romania
• 17 July 2015: FP7 Project NUSHARE Management Meeting in Saclay, France
• 23 June 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the European Nuclear Young Generation Forum, ENYGF-2015 in Paris, France
• 8-26 June 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module II in Garching, Germany
• 28 May 2015: TG1 Meeting between ENEN, CEA and WFSJ in Paris, France
• 4-8 May 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module I in Stockholm, Sweden
• 09 April 2015: TG2 Meeting to prepare the training programme implementation in Paris, France
• 06 March 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Helsinki, Finland
• September 2014: TG2 Implementation of Training Program for TG2 in Stockholm, Sweden
• 02 July 2014: TG1 Pilot test in Saclay, France
• 24 June 2014: FP7 Project NUSHARE Meeting in Madrid, Spain
• 17 June 2014: Presentation of NUSHARE project at the ENEF Meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia
• 14 April 2014: Meeting with the World Federation of Science Journalists in Paris, France
• 09 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the NUGENIA Forum and the SNETP Governing board in Ljubljana, Slovenia
• 07 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the EHRON SAG meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• 13 March 2014: NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
• 07 March 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Essen, Germany
• 15 January 2014: 1st Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement
• 18 November 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the FORATOM Leadership Workshop in in Brussels, Belgium
• 18 November 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the FORATOM Leadership Workshop in Brussels, Belgium
• 12 November 2013: Presentation of Nushare at the IAEA Virtual Nuclear Management University (VNMU) in Vienna, Austria
• 17 October 2013: NUSHARE post-FISA-2013 Workshop in Vilnius, Lithuania
• 04 October 2013: TG1 Meeting with CEA in Paris, France
• 09 September 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the IAEA Workshop on Leadership and Safety Culture in Vienna, Austria
• 27 August 2013: 3rd meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Munich, Germany
• 09 July 2013: 2nd meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Vienna, Austria
• 21 June 2013: TG1 Meeting with CEA in Paris, France
• 04 June 2013: 1st meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Paris, France
• 22 May 2013: Management meeting with INSTN-CEA in Paris, France
• 18 April 2013: Meeting with AREVA & EON in Köhl, Germany
• 22 March 2013: Meeting with AREVA & EON in Hannover, Germany
• 14 February 2013: NUSHARE Kick-off meeting in Paris, France

6 Conclusions

The NUSHARE project has achieved its objective in TG1, TG2 and TG3 by having developed and implemented an information programme for the different target groups. The excessively optimist initial scope of the project was reduced to a realistic set of actions with a defined impact during the implementation of the project. The actual results are considered very satisfactory due to the difficulties found during the project with the topic itself and the engagement of the audiences.

Project Results:
This report details the activities performed within General Assembly, EU E&T&T and other disseminating events where NUSHARE project was presented. It also presents meetings, conferences, workshops, seminars, events and other dissemination activities for the project that were attended. This report was included in the amendment of the project where the structure of the deliverable was made.

2 Presentations of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly

This section details the presentations of NUSHARE at the ENEN General Assembly, performed within the project timeline.

07 March 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Essen, Germany

06 March 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Helsinki, Finland

5 March 2016: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Geel, Belgium

03 March 2017: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Manchester, United Kingdom

3 EU E&T&T and related NUSHARE activities

This section details the E&T&T and other activities dissemination, performed within the NUSHARE project timeline, organised by target groups and at the end general presentations of the project.

3.1 TG1

02 July 2014: TG1 Pilot test in Saclay, France

25 May 2016: TG1 NESTet2016 Conference - NUSHARE Event with the presentation of the technical approach to TG1 by "Culture for Safety in Nuclear" by Manfred Haferburg in Berlin, Germany

7-8 November 2016: TG1 EUROSAFE Conference and NUSHARE workshop with Journalists targeting information activities in Munich, Germany
The organization of the workshop took place following the action plan agreed in the project meeting in Munich, Germany.
Together with the support of Marie-Pierre Bigot and Pascale Portes (from the Head of media relations from IRSN), the following lead expert journalists were selected to facilitate the discussion in the workshop and develop materials and activities:
• Ann Mac-Lachlan, 30 years of journalism experience in Nuclear affairs at McGrawHill publications
• Joel Spaes, 20 years of experience as adjoin chief editor at Enerpress and currently 2 years being chief journalist for Energy in Terragram

April 2017: TG1 Launch of the Media Educational Package www.wfsj.org/nuclear by the World Federation of Science Journalists

3.2 TG2

September 2014: TG2 Implementation of Training Program for TG2 in Stockholm, Sweden

09 April 2015: TG2 Meeting to prepare the training programme implementation in Paris, France

4-8 May 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module I in Stockholm, Sweden

8-26 June 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module II in Garching, Germany

7-11 September 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module III, "How to evaluate Nuclear Safety Culture" in Bucharest, Romania
This Module III consisted on the “Regulatory Oversight of Safety Culture” course which was organised with the support of VT, Finland, and Prof. Petre Ghitescu, from U.P. Bucharest in Bucharest-Romania, on3 7-11 September 2015.
The course is aimed at professionals at Nuclear Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and Technical Safety Organizations (TSOs). The course is suitable for both newcomers and experienced practitioners with a technical background. The theories, methods and tools discussed during the training are suitable for licence holder organisations’ safety culture assessment and development as well.
After the successful completion of the Evaluation of Safety Culture Training Course, the participants were able to:
- sharpen their theoretical and practical understanding of the concept of safety culture;
- improve understanding on the systems view on safety and the interactions between human, technology and organisational factors;
- transfer lessons learned from practical cases and illustrative examples towards their own working activities and context;
- identify links between culture and accidents;
- develop an overview of the methods and tools to assess and develop safety culture;
- comprehend the role of the regulatory body in maintaining nuclear safety culture;
- understand different steps of the regulatory nuclear safety oversight process
- identify safety culture challenges in different lifecycle stages (e.g. in a construction phase of a new plant)
- understand safety culture challenges in different types of organisations (e.g. in a licensee, regulatory body or subcontractor organisation);

10 May 2016: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx in Oskarsham, Sweden
For details see Deliverable 3.4 and 3.5.

24-28 January 2017: TG2 INBEx Workshop with top managers of Nuclear regulatory bodies and TSOs at CSN in Madrid, Spain

29 May 2017: Technical Group 2 (TG2) Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for academic teachers in Uppsala, Sweden
The event in Uppsala, Sweden has been devoted to competence development for academic teachers, open to participants from all EU, and a team from Ukraine was granted access to the event. See Deliverables 3.4 and 3.5.

12 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for EC officers in Brussels, Belgium. For details see Deliverable 3.4 and 3.5.

03 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Training tutorial of INBEx in Helsinki, Finland
For details see Deliverable 3.4 and 3.5.

28 February - 2 March 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx training course for Finnish industry and regulator in Manchester, United Kingdom
For details see Deliverable 3.4 and 3.5.

3.3 TG3

18 November 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the FORATOM Leadership Workshop in in Brussels, Belgium

21 October 2015: TG3 Workshop with top managers of the Nuclear industry in Stockholm, Sweden

4 March 2016: TG3 Presentation of Tecnatom's work for TG3 at the International Conference on Human and Organizational Aspects of Assuring Nuclear Safety, IAEA, in Vienna, Austria
Participation of José I.Villadoniga making a presentation about LeaD - Development of a Practical Tool to Support Developing Nuclear Leadership in the 14th IAEA FORATOM Management System Workshop — Leadership and Management: From Standards to Practices, 12-15 December 2016, Vienna. He also played the role of moderator for Issue A3: Assessing Leadership, How Exactly Can We Do This?

23 – 24 June 2016: TG3 Workshop with top managers of the Nuclear industry in Madrid, Spain
From 1st to 23rd June 2016, the First Program was initiated, following the successful implementation of Pilot Program and after reviewing its achievements based on collected observations. The Program was applied to 14 candidates.
1. Chris Bebbington - Head of Gas Operations Coal and Gas and Renewables Operation. EDF Energy
2. Clair Carpenter - Head of People Planning and Development. EDF Energy Generation
3. Mario Signorini - CEO Mangiarotti, Westinghouse. Managing Director Nuclear Fuels and Components Manufacturing, Italy operations.
4. Edward L. Wills - Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Culture Director
5. Mats Ladeborn - Vice President Fleet Management Vattenfall
6. Eva Halldén - Senior Executive Advisor Nuclear Vattenfall
7. Ann Berg - Vice President, Corporate Independent Nuclear Safety Oversight Vattenfall
8. Christopher Eckerberg - Vice President BU SKB. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB
9. Björn Linde - Vice President BU Nuclear Generation. MD Ringhals AB and Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, Vattenfall.
10. Javier Montes - Nuclear Fuel Operations Director and Juzbado Fabrication Plant Director, ENUSA
11. Alfio Vidal Alvarez-Ossorio - Director of Nuclear Oversight, Iberdrola
12. Julián Andres - Systems and Quality Director ENUSA
13. Pedro Dieguez Porras - Secretary General ENEN
14. Antonio Moruno - Deputy Vicepresident for Safety, Operation and Training, Tecnatom

September 2016 - January 2017: TG3 In-company Programme and workshop organised in Madrid, Spain
1. F. Javier Guerra – General Director.
2. Jose M. Mourin –Economic, Finance and Legal Director.
3. Javier Alonso – Inspections and tests Director.
4. Juan Bross – Quality and Environment Director.
5. Francisco J. Sanchez – Safety, Operation and Training Director.
6. Coral Gonzalez – Organization, Systems and Human Resources Director.
7. Juan Ortega – Strategy and Business Corporative Development Director.
8. Jose R. Fernandez –Technology and Product Development Director.
9. Jose I. Villadoniga (Facilitator and Manager Division of Safety Management, Tecnatom).
10. Fernando Gonzalez (Facilitator and Head Leadership and Safety Culture, Tecnatom).

3.4 General presentations of the project

09 September 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the IAEA Workshop on Leadership and Safety Culture in Vienna, Austria

17 October 2013: NUSHARE post-FISA-2013 Workshop in Vilnius, Lithuania

12 November 2013: Presentation of Nushare at the IAEA Virtual Nuclear Management University (VNMU) in Vienna, Austria

07 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the EHRON SAG meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

09 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the NUGENIA Forum and the SNETP Governing board in Ljubljana, Slovenia

17 June 2014: Presentation of NUSHARE project at the ENEF Meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia

23 June 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the European Nuclear Young Generation Forum, ENYGF-2015 in Paris, France

4 NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting

13 March 2014: NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
The purpose of the two days “Stakeholders’ Seminar” (see Annex 1, Agenda of the Stakeholders meeting) was to inform a wider community of experts about NUSHARE objectives and NUSHARE programmes under development and to elicit:
• views on the needs of the target groups,
• expressions of interest in closer links to NUSHARE for the further definition and implementation of these programmes,
• potential contributions to their further (EU wide) dissemination during the following years of the project.
The attending NUSHARE stakeholders provided information about existing ETI programmes related to NUSHARE objectives as well as information about best practices in both private and public organizations.
The aim of this Stakeholders’ Seminar was to complete a first version of the “NUSHARE Catalogue” of ETI Programmes, to be presented at the follow up “Special Event”, planned in April 2015.
Kestin Dahlgren-Persson suggested that a nuclear power plant is a MTO/ITO, what means nuclear safety culture, how it can be implemented and the relevance of leadership (MTO = Man-Technology-Organization // ITO = Individual, Technology, Organization).

Important messages for NUSHARE
• Helps NUSHARE to address the right issues in the ETI actions devoted to strengthening the competences supporting nuclear safety culture
• It is necessary to provide a clear picture of priorities, relevance of regulatory framework
• It is remarkable that indicating that many communities including civil society are relevant for nuclear safety culture
• Basic nuclear knowledge is required to make nuclear safety culture understandable

Issues for further consideration:

• Necessary access to high-level managers could be more difficult in other countries compared to Sweden (relevance for TG3 target group?)

Eberhard Hoffmann explained how safety culture is typically addressed within training programmes for utility staff.

Strengths:

• Safety culture as realization of responsibility
• Technical training of regulatory and TSO staff
• Training of high level managers and regulators

Issues for further consideration

• Can (unused) capabilities of industrial training centres be used for some of the NUSHARE ETI activities?

Joseph-Michel Leblanc explained the concepts used by the French regulator to control safety culture inside the French utility and to ensure safety culture inside ASN itself.

Important messages for NUSHARE:

• Basic approach includes safety culture in ALL organisations
• 8% of budget for training in ASN

Issues for further consideration:

• Safety culture in design and construction of NPPs
• International auditing of regulatory safety culture

Ann MacLachlan provided ideas on how it is possible to tackle the difficult task of successfully convincing Journalists that NUSHARE actions will improve their capabilities to ask the right questions and to judge the answers.
Important messages for NUSHARE:

• Journalists don’t want to be told what to ask
• Approach influential journalists with relevant specialization (environment, economy, energy) by in-person actions
• MOOC for large civil society
• Many further ideas for making difficult actions happen!

Issues for further consideration:

• How to deal with the lack of time (and sometimes money?) of journalists?
• Same difficulty with the policy makers?

General recommendations

• More attention to a MTO/ITO system view in education, training and information
• More attention to
o mixed target (sub-)groups
o specific groups such as Young Generation Network (YGN), future leaders, University professors as credible sources of information, ...
• Analyse better the very helpful input of Ann MacLachlan in view of pilot schemes
• ENSTTI to take a wider role in NUSHARE (not only the ENSTTI programme)
• Freedom required for regulators to choose the training organisation
• Downgrade a bit the near-term ambitions (e.g. not only top management)
• More links with other communities, particularly with radio-medical community:
• Explore mutual benefits!
• Safety leadership academy
• NUSHARE to create a consistent European understanding of safety culture
• Make wide use of what exist already
• Expand the scope to consider
o Safety culture in design and construction
o Safety culture inside NRAs and TSOs

Specific points to work on:

• Closer look at new member states and particularly nuclear new-comer countries
• ENSTTI: collect information from all member states and all training organisations relevant for TG2
• Each target group to develop “smart” concepts for mixed target (sub-)groups
• Accelerate definition of pilots for TG1 and TG3, TG2 in specific situation
• Each target group to write a position paper with concrete plans for pilot exercises
• Establish closer links to other communities, especially links to the medical community could result in win-win-effects (may also help to get attention of journalists and politicians)
• Provide letters of interest, think in contributions for “other” target groups
• TG3 to set priorities among the many good ideas expressed
• Provide input to complement the NUSHARE catalogue
o Information about existing programmes
o Views on priorities
o Proposals for actions

Repeating the NUSHARE Stakeholders’ Meeting on a yearly basis with focus on education, training information related to safety culture could be beneficial and considered.

5 Conclusions

On the side of the NUSHARE consortium, the engagement to make the movement for more Education, Training and Education actions in Europe has been clear and reached numerous stakeholders in Europe, integrating the study of Nuclear Safety Culture in many training courses and educational programmes.

Potential Impact:
This report develops the Communication Action Plan for the NUSHARE project, including and detailing intended conferences, workshops, seminars, events and other dissemination activities for the project.

2 Public Hearing on "The New Nuclear Safety Directive"

12 February 2014: Presentation of Nushare, and the relevance of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Public Hearing on "The New Nuclear Safety Directive" at the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (Itre) of the EU Parliament

• Agenda EC-Parliament-Final-Program.pdf
• Position document released by the Association Notes-EU-Hearing.pdf
• Presentation at the Hearing Presentation-EU-Hearing.pdf

The ENEN Association participated in the Hearing on the new Nuclear Safety directive at the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) in the European Union Parliament, represented by its President, Walter Ambrosini, who remarked the promotion of education, training and research in the nuclear field as an inescapable cross-border commitment not to be discontinued in any European Country.

ENEN defended the support to the Education and Training in the nuclear field as a necessary contribution to assure the Nuclear Safety throughout Europe and beyond, together with the promotion of a healthy Nuclear Safety Culture. Being Nuclear Safety Culture defined by the IAEA as "that assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance”.

ENEN remarked that professionals at any level, and even a wider community of stakeholders in nuclear safety, need appropriate education, training and information to acquire the knowledge, skills and personal attitudes that are needed to behave according to this paradigm, useful also for other technologies besides Nuclear.

The NUSHARE Project, as a service to the European citizens, has aimed at enhancing and better spreading of nuclear safety culture principles, in line with the emphasis on this aspect in the proposed amendments to the new “nuclear safety directive”.

3 Presentations in conferences for ETI actions

3.1 NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting

13 March 2014: NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
The purpose of the two days “Stakeholders’ Seminar” (see Annex 1, Agenda of the Stakeholders meeting) was to inform a wider community of experts about NUSHARE objectives and NUSHARE programmes under development and to elicit:
• views on the needs of the target groups,
• expressions of interest in closer links to NUSHARE for the further definition and implementation of these programmes,
• potential contributions to their further (EU wide) dissemination during the following years of the project.
The attending NUSHARE stakeholders provided information about existing ETI programmes related to NUSHARE objectives as well as information about best practices in both private and public organizations.

The aim of this Stakeholders’ Seminar was to complete a first version of the “NUSHARE Catalogue” of ETI Programmes, to be presented at the follow up “Special Event”, planned in April 2015.
Kestin Dahlgren-Persson suggested that a nuclear power plant is a MTO/ITO, what means nuclear safety culture, how it can be implemented and the relevance of leadership (MTO = Man-Technology-Organization // ITO = Individual, Technology, Organization).

Important messages for NUSHARE
• Helps NUSHARE to address the right issues in the ETI actions devoted to strengthening the competences supporting nuclear safety culture
• It is necessary to provide a clear picture of priorities, relevance of regulatory framework
• It is remarkable that indicating that many communities including civil society are relevant for nuclear safety culture
• Basic nuclear knowledge is required to make nuclear safety culture understandable

Issues for further consideration:

• Necessary access to high-level managers could be more difficult in other countries compared to Sweden (relevance for TG3 target group?)

Eberhard Hoffmann explained how safety culture is typically addressed within training programmes for utility staff.

Strengths:

• Safety culture as realization of responsibility
• Technical training of regulatory and TSO staff
• Training of high level managers and regulators

Issues for further consideration

• Can (unused) capabilities of industrial training centres be used for some of the NUSHARE ETI activities?

Joseph-Michel Leblanc explained the concepts used by the French regulator to control safety culture inside the French utility and to ensure safety culture inside ASN itself.

Important messages for NUSHARE:

• Basic approach includes safety culture in ALL organisations
• 8% of budget for training in ASN

Issues for further consideration:

• Safety culture in design and construction of NPPs
• International auditing of regulatory safety culture

Ann MacLachlan provided ideas on how it is possible to tackle the difficult task of successfully convincing Journalists that NUSHARE actions will improve their capabilities to ask the right questions and to judge the answers.
Important messages for NUSHARE:

• Journalists don’t want to be told what to ask
• Approach influential journalists with relevant specialization (environment, economy, energy) by in-person actions
• MOOC for large civil society
• Many further ideas for making difficult actions happen!

Issues for further consideration:

• How to deal with the lack of time (and sometimes money?) of journalists?
• Same difficulty with the policy makers?

General recommendations

• More attention to a MTO/ITO system view in education, training and information
• More attention to
o mixed target (sub-)groups
o specific groups such as Young Generation Network (YGN), future leaders, University professors as credible sources of information, ...
• Analyse better the very helpful input of Ann MacLachlan in view of pilot schemes
• ENSTTI to take a wider role in NUSHARE (not only the ENSTTI programme)
• Freedom required for regulators to choose the training organisation
• Downgrade a bit the near-term ambitions (e.g. not only top management)
• More links with other communities, particularly with radio-medical community:
• Explore mutual benefits!
• Safety leadership academy
• NUSHARE to create a consistent European understanding of safety culture
• Make wide use of what exist already
• Expand the scope to consider
o Safety culture in design and construction
o Safety culture inside NRAs and TSOs

Specific points to work on:

• Closer look at new member states and particularly nuclear new-comer countries
• ENSTTI: collect information from all member states and all training organisations relevant for TG2
• Each target group to develop “smart” concepts for mixed target (sub-)groups
• Accelerate definition of pilots for TG1 and TG3, TG2 in specific situation
• Each target group to write a position paper with concrete plans for pilot exercises
• Establish closer links to other communities, especially links to the medical community could result in win-win-effects (may also help to get attention of journalists and politicians)
• Provide letters of interest, think in contributions for “other” target groups
• TG3 to set priorities among the many good ideas expressed
• Provide input to complement the NUSHARE catalogue
o Information about existing programmes
o Views on priorities
o Proposals for actions

Repeating the NUSHARE Stakeholders’ Meeting on a yearly basis with focus on education, training information related to safety culture could be beneficial and considered.

3.2 NUSHARE session at NESTet 2016

The NESTet conference is organised by the European Nuclear Society (ENS) and dedicated to networking in nuclear education and training across the fields of engineering, science and technology. NESTet2016 was organised in Berlin, Germany, on 22 - 26 May 2016,

ENS and ENEN agreed to assign a time slot in the conference programme to host a session dedicated to the Nuclear Safety Culture for the NUSHARE project.

Conference agenda

The conference agenda included the NUSHARE session on Wednesday 25 May 2016 in the programme
(www.euronuclear.org/events/nestet/nestet2016/pdf/NESTet2016-programme.pdf)

The presentation by Manfred Haferburg on “How to transmit the Safety Culture Idea to the public” was recorded, subtitled and posted online in YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fD6412Mbo

3.3 Workshop at the EUROSAFE Forum 2016 conference

The organization of the workshop took place as a side event of the EUROSAFE Forum 2016 conference took place in Munich, Germany, on 7 and 8 November 2016.

18 journalists participated in the workshop with great success. A lot of audio visual material was created and published online.

Videos

The whole workshop was recorded producing material to support the development of informative content on Safety Culture with the points of view of scientists, journalists and policy makers . A summary of the recordings was posted online in YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyrSvdPTzfU

It must be highlighted the special participation of Mr. Franc Bogovic , Euro-parliamentary, and former ministry of Minister of Agriculture and Environment in Slovenia, and former mayor of Krsko, a municipality with a Nuclear power plant in Slovenia. His experience enriched the discussions and provided an excellent insight in Safety Culture from the experience of the policy makers.

The feedback from the journalists was collected from the journalists’ workshop around November 2016. It was taken into consideration by the project partners and lead journalists to design the content and structure of the MEP. The brainstorming and discussions during the workshop provided the information detailed in this section.

3.4 Launch of the Media Educational Package

In April 2017 the website was launched in the link www.wfsj.org/nuclear by a communication campaign. WFSJ provided a Media Influencer to outline and follow up in social media

The following banner was used by all the partners to publicize the website:

4 General presentations of the project

09 September 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the IAEA Workshop on Leadership and Safety Culture in Vienna, Austria

17 October 2013: NUSHARE post-FISA-2013 Workshop in Vilnius, Lithuania

12 November 2013: Presentation of Nushare at the IAEA Virtual Nuclear Management University (VNMU) in Vienna, Austria

07 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the EHRON SAG meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

09 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the NUGENIA Forum and the SNETP Governing board in Ljubljana, Slovenia

17 June 2014: Presentation of NUSHARE project at the ENEF Meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia

23 June 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the European Nuclear Young Generation Forum, ENYGF-2015 in Paris, France

5 Conclusions

On the side of the NUSHARE consortium, the engagement to make the movement for more Education, Training and Education actions in Europe has been clear and reached numerous stakeholders in Europe, integrating the study of Nuclear Safety Culture in many training courses and educational programmes.

ANNEX I: PROJECT TIMELINE
(from newest to oldest)

29 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for academic teachers in Uppsala, Sweden

12 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the INBEx Training Course for EC officers in Brussels, Belgium

10 May 2017: NUSHARE project Final Management Meeting in Brussels, Belgium

03 May 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Training tutorial of INBEx in Helsinki, Finland

April 2017: TG1 Launch of the Media Educational Package www.wfsj.org/nuclear by the World Federation of Science Journalists

28 Feb.- 2 March 2017: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx training course for Finnish industry and regulator in Manchester, United Kingdom

03 March 2017: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Manchester, United Kingdom

24-28 January 2017: TG2 INBEx Workshop with top managers of Nuclear regulatory bodies and TSOs at CSN in Madrid, Spain

7-8 November 2016: TG1 EUROSAFE Conference and NUSHARE workshop with Journalists targeting information activities in Munich, Germany

September 2016 - January 2017: TG3 In-company Programme and workshop organised in Madrid, Spain

22 June 2016: TG1 project meeting in Paris, France

23-24 June 2016: TG3 Workshop with top managers of Nuclear industry at Tecnatom's offices in Madrid, Spain

25 May 2016: TG1 NESTet2016 Conference - NUSHARE Event with the presentation of the technical approach to TG1 by "Culture for Safety in Nuclear" by Manfred Haferburg in Berlin, Germany

11 May 2016: 3rd Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement

10 May 2016: TG2 Implementation of the Pilot course of INBEx in Oskarsham, Sweden

14 April 2016: NUSHARE Management Meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

04 March 2016: TG3 Presentation of Tecnatom's work for TG3 at the International Conference on Human and Organizational Aspects of Assuring Nuclear Safety, IAEA, in Vienna, Austria

05 March 2016: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Geel, Belgium

07 February 2016: 2nd Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement

05 February 2016: TG2 workshop in Paris, France

Sept. - Dec. 2015: TG2 Implementation of Module IV "Tutoring programme" in several locations in Europe

21 October 2015: TG3 Workshop with top managers of the Nuclear industry in Stockholm, Sweden

28 September 2015: TG3 Participation and presentation of NUSHARE at the IAEA workshop on "Leadership and Culture for Safety" hosted by EDF in Paris, France

7-11 September 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module III, "How to evaluate Nuclear Safety Culture" in Bucharest, Romania

02 September 2015: TG1 Implementation of Information programme by INSTN-CEA to ANCCLI (Association Nationale des Comités et Commissions Locales d'Information; in English, National Association of Local Information Committees and Commissions) in Paris, France

17 July 2015: FP7 Project NUSHARE Management Meeting in Saclay, France

23 June 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the European Nuclear Young Generation Forum, ENYGF-2015 in Paris, France

8-26 June 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module II in Garching, Germany

28 May 2015: TG1 Meeting between ENEN, CEA and WFSJ in Paris, France

4-8 May 2015: TG2 Implementation of Training program Module I in Stockholm, Sweden

09 April 2015: TG2 Meeting to prepare the training programme implementation in Paris, France

06 March 2015: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Helsinki, Finland

September 2014: TG2 Implementation of Training Program for TG2 in Stockholm, Sweden

02 July 2014: TG1 Pilot test in Saclay, France

24 June 2014: FP7 Project NUSHARE Meeting in Madrid, Spain

17 June 2014: Presentation of NUSHARE project at the ENEF Meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia

14 April 2014: Meeting with the World Federation of Science Journalists in Paris, France

09 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the NUGENIA Forum and the SNETP Governing board in Ljubljana, Slovenia

07 April 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE Project at the EHRON SAG meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

13 March 2014: NUSHARE Stakeholders' Meeting in Brussels, Belgium

07 March 2014: Presentation of the NUSHARE project at the ENEN General Assembly in Essen, Germany

12 February 2014: Presentation of Nushare, and the relevance of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Public Hearing on "The New Nuclear Safety Directive" at the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (Itre) of the EU Parliament

▪ Agenda EC-Parliament-Final-Program.pdf
▪ Position document released by the Association Notes-EU-Hearing.pdf
▪ Presentation at the Hearing Presentation-EU-Hearing.pdf

15 January 2014: 1st Amendment of the NUSHARE Grant Agreement

18 November 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the FORATOM Leadership Workshop in Brussels, Belgium

12 November 2013: Presentation of Nushare at the IAEA Virtual Nuclear Management University (VNMU) in Vienna, Austria

17 October 2013: NUSHARE post-FISA-2013 Workshop in Vilnius, Lithuania

04 October 2013: TG1 Meeting with CEA in Paris, France

09 September 2013: Participation of NUSHARE in the IAEA Workshop on Leadership and Safety Culture in Vienna, Austria

27 August 2013: 3rd meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Munich, Germany

09 July 2013: 2nd meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Vienna, Austria

21 June 2013: TG1 Meeting with CEA in Paris, France

04 June 2013: 1st meeting of the NUSHARE Task Force in Paris, France

22 May 2013: Management meeting with INSTN-CEA in Paris, France

18 April 2013: Meeting with AREVA & EON in Köhl, Germany

22 March 2013: Meeting with AREVA & EON in Hannover, Germany

14 February 2013: NUSHARE Kick-off meeting in Paris, France

List of Websites:
http://www.enen.eu/en/projects/nushare.html

Final Report Summary - NUSHARE (PROJECT FOR SHARING & GROWING NUCLEAR SAFETY CULTURE COMPETENCE)

Share this page

Download