Peer Reviews: The heart of WANO’s many programmes
Peer reviews help members compare themselves against standards of excellence through an in-depth, objective review of their operations by an independent team from outside their organisation. The result is a frank report that highlights strengths and areas for improvement in nuclear safety and plant reliability.
Through peer reviews, members learn and share worldwide insights on safe and reliable plant operation and thereby improve their own performance. The same principles extend to companies, as well as stations, in the form of the corporate peer review.
Post-Fukushima, WANO has moved towards a four-year frequency for peer reviews, with a follow-up at the two-year point. WANO is also working with other organisations such as INPO, IAEA and JANSI to determine what other reviews can be judged as equivalent to WANO peer reviews.
Since 1992, WANO has conducted more than 500 operating station peer reviews in 31 countries/areas, including at least one at every WANO member station.
Pre-Startup Peer Reviews
WANO provides all new units with a pre-startup review before initial criticality. A team of specialists has been assembled to manage these reviews, which are increasing at a significant pace, particularly in Asia. A pre-startup peer review team office opened in September 2012 in Hong Kong so the team could be based in the region where the greatest number of pre-startup reviews will be conducted in the next few years.
Corporate Peer Reviews
Safety culture is important from the boardroom to the individual plant operator. With this in mind, WANO carries out corporate peer reviews to examine how decisions made at a member’s headquarters affect nuclear safety across the company. All WANO members will receive a corporate peer review by 2018.
Follow-Up Peer Reviews
The peer review process does not end once the team leaves the site. Member stations interact with WANO between peer reviews through technical support missions and follow-up peer reviews. Follow-up reviews examine the implementation of the areas for improvement identified during peer reviews.