Interview with Mr Chris Dijkens

First of all I would like to thank you for finding the opportunity and time to be interviewed.

After Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents emergency preparedness became a topical question almost in every country in the world. What are the most important requirements nowadays for a country to be prepared for a nuclear emergency situation?

No single aspect of a nuclear emergency response is more important than another. What is critical, is how all those aspects fit together. Valuable lessons arose from Chernobyl and Fukushima, however, both cases clearly demonstrated the importance and the need to be able to implement protective measures quickly such as significant planning and preparedness in advance. As well, the integration of responders at all levels was identified as a very important requirement that helps facilitate a timely and effective response.

You and also Mr Rodrigo Salinas team coordinator from the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that the EPREV mission is not an audit but a peer review. There is a significant difference. Would you give some more explanation about the approach you followed?

First of all it is important to highlight the responsibility of countries to periodically evaluate their own EPR arrangements. There is indeed a significant difference between an audit and a peer review. While an audit is a process where a situation is compared with a rigid set of codes and criteria, a peer review as the EPREV is based on a comparison of its arrangements on preparedness for response to a radiation emergency, with a set of international safety standards on emergency preparedness and response. We also assess the capability of the host country to respond to such situations. The EPREV also takes into account the practical context in the host country and emphasizes the positive features of practices and customs within the country. It is important to mention that an EPREV is not prescriptive.

The method we use is that we ask the host country to carry out a self-assessment. This self-assessment reflects the views of the host country based on the same set of international safety standards on emergency preparedness and response where the EPREV team works with. Based on the self-assessment report and other background documents that were made available for the team, interviews are carried out with representatives of organisations who play a key role in the emergency preparedness and response system. All results were then compared with the international safety standards on emergency preparedness and response and further analysed by the team. The findings of this analysis were transferred into ‘recommendations, suggestions and good practices’.

These two weeks of the EPREV mission are very intensive, a lot of work has been done already, but still there are many tasks ahead. Based on the Agenda of the Mission, what has been completed and what remained for this week?

Indeed, the last week was intensive. We could however carry out our work very efficient due to an outstanding organization of all interviews by the HAEA and a very open and constructive cooperation with all involved key organisations. The interviews have been mainly finished and we are now in the phase of finalising the draft report and to make it available for the organisations of the host country for their review. It also might lead to some extra interviews to clarify issues. After that we will finalise the report and will present it to all involved organisations.

The interview was made by Gábor Körmendi, communication officer of the HAEA.