|
ＩＡＥＡ訪日調査団・ウェイトマン団長
８、
•IAEAは、原子力事故の際の「事実調査ミッション」を制度化することが奨励された。
��-23. The IAEA was encouraged to institutionalize the practice of ‘fact finding missions’, in
the case of nuclear incidents/accidents. The criteria for invoking such missions could be
linked to INES.
９、
•日本は、事故の評価と教訓を引き続きオープンに共有することを奨励された。
��-25. Japan was encouraged to continue sharing the results, in the open way they already have,
of evaluations of the accident and lessons learned. This, together with the comprehensive
report already provided by Japan1 to the IAEA, and the results of the fact finding mission2,
will enable a uniform understanding of the facts. It is also important that Japan keep the
international community informed about the implementation of major actions, including
progress in the actions defined in TEPCO’s ‘Road Map’.
１０、
•当局、事業者、技術支援機関の間の協力が強化されるべき旨が留意された。
��-9. Universal implementation of the IAEA Safety Standards on emergency preparedness and
response at the national level would improve preparedness and response, facilitate
communication in an emergency and contribute to harmonization of national criteria for
protective and other actions. It was also noted that cooperation among national authorities,
utilities and technical support organizations could be strengthened. The capabilities and
arrangements of national authorities to communicate risk to the public should be
strengthened. States may wish to consider establishing national rapid response teams that
could also be available internationally.
１１、
•国際的緊急事態への準備・対応の枠組みのための法的文書の強化の方法を検討すべきである。
��-1. Legal instruments for the international emergency preparedness and response framework
were adopted 25 years ago and inevitably reflect the prevailing concerns at that time. Possible
ways to strengthen these instruments should be considered.
１２、
•放射能の影響や対応のIAEAによる分析能力を強化し、右を加盟国と共有する役割を拡大すべきである。
��-26. It was suggested that in response to an emergency the IAEA should expand its role to
include engineering analysis, simulation of technological processes and prediction of how
systems, structures and components will behave. This could be achieved by increasing the
IAEA’s existing capacity or with the involvement of national and international engineering
and research institutions. This information should be shared on a timely basis with all
Member States.
１３、
•緊急時対応ネットワーク（RANET）を強化し、右ガイドラインを改善すべきである。
��-4. To better cope with serious emergencies, international assistance arrangements and
capabilities should be strengthened by enhancing the IAEA’s Response and Assistance
Network (RANET) and by implementing its improved guidelines to ensure assistance
compatibility and effectiveness. States may wish to extend national capabilities registered
under RANET to cover special technical capabilities (e.g. remotely controlled equipment,
robots) and expertise in different areas (crisis management, nuclear power plant designs,
etc.), thus establishing an international pool of experts. Regional RANET coverage needs to
be extended. Registered RANET capabilities and arrangements should be appraised through
regular review missions and through regional and international emergency exercises.
１４、
•原子力計画を有する加盟国が10年ごとに規制の効果に関するピア・レビューを受けることが提案された。IAEAが3年間で10基に1基の割合で国際的な安全レビューを行うことが示唆された。
��-13. It was proposed that Member States with nuclear power programmes receive a peer
review of regulatory effectiveness (e.g. the IAEA’s Integrated Regulatory Review Service)
every 10 years. It was also suggested that, with some reinforcement of its present capabilities,
the IAEA could conduct an international safety review of one nuclear power plant in 10 over
a period of three years, since reviewing all 440 operating nuclear reactors around the world in
a short period of time is not realistic. The results of these assessments, which would include
operational safety peer reviews of nuclear power plants (e.g. OSART missions and
site/design reviews), could then be disseminated to Member States.
|
コメント（0）
無題
