1

SADRWMS

Fifth Plenary Meeting

23rd

– 27th

June 2008

Chairman’s Report

Background

The International Project on Safety Assessment Driving Radioactive Waste

Management Solutions (SADRWMS) is designed to examine the application of safety

assessment methodology to predisposal waste management practices and facilities

including waste storage. SADRWMS will complement the experience gained with

the IAEA‟s projects “Improvement of Long-term Safety Assessment Methodologies

for Near Surface Disposal Facilities” (ISAM) completed in 2000, and “Application of

Safety Assessment Methodologies for Near Surface Disposal Facilities” (ASAM)

completed in 2007.

This meeting follows the previous plenary meetings that were held at the IAEA‟s

Headquarters in Vienna in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. During the last meeting, the

project reviewed the safety assessment methodology developed within the project and

the work carried out on the development of a software tool (SAFRAN) to assist with

use of the methodology. A three-phase approach to test and refine the safety

assessment methodology and software tool was proposed, and during the past months

a series of test cases were performed during special workshops within host Member

States.

Introduction

The 5th Plenary Meeting of the international SADRWMS project was held in

Stubičke Toplice, Croatia. The meeting was attended by over 35 specialists from 25

countries and was chaired by Mr Geoff Williams (Australia). The main goals of the

SADRWMS Plenary Meeting were:

- to present and review the status and outcomes of the Project (SAFRAN Tool, and

Regulatory Review and Safety Assessment Methodology Safety Reports);

- to provide input to the draft IAEA Safety Guide DS284 “Safety Case and Safety

Assessment for Predisposal Radioactive Waste Management Facilities and

Activities”; and

- to develop a work plan for future activities.

The meeting was conducted according to the agenda presented in Attachment 1. The

meeting was opened with a welcome to Croatia by Mr. Dejan Trifunović, Croatia

State Office for Radiation Protection. Introductory remarks were made by Mr Phil

Metcalf of the IAEA, who detailed where the SADRWMS Project fits within the

Agency work on safety of radioactive waste.

2

Participants

Massimo Altavilla (Italy), Helena Antić (Croatia), Mohammad Reza Assadi (Iran),

Rodolfo Avila (Sweden), Gabriela Bejarano (Sweden), Peter Burrows (UK),

Romouald Chaternik (Belarus), Daniela-Maria Dogaru (Romania), Eric Fillastre

(France), Reinaldo Gil Castillo (Cuba), Andrey Guskov (Russia), Dmytro Hofman

(Sweden), David Hutchinson (UK), Peter Keyser (Sweden), Monika Kinker (IAEA

Scientific Secretary), Frédéric Ledroit (France), Mario Mejia López (Mexico), Philip

Metcalf (IAEA Scientific Secretary), Milan Petrovic (Serbia), Elsa Piumetti

(Argentina), Eyad Rajab Qutishat (Jordan), Valdas Ragaisis (Lithuania), Jagos

Raicevic (Serbia), Nataliya Rybalka (Ukraine), Peter Salzer (Slovakia), Azucena

Sanhueza – Mir (Chile), Nina Shiryaeva (Belarus), Anne Sørensen (Denmark), Isabel

Steyn (Sth Africa), Liselotte Tiberg (Sweden), Alexey Tkachenko (Russia), Marcelo

Mallat Tostes (Brazil), Dejan Trifunović (Croatia), Geoff Williams (Australia),

Nanthavan Ya-anant (Thailand), Svetlana Yacko (Belarus), Nadja Železnik (Slovenia)

Meeting Record

(i) SAFRAN Tool:

Ms. Monika Kinker presented the current status of SADRWMS, the work done during

the past year, and outcomes of the test cases performed over the past year. The most

significant of these outcomes were

the evolution of the software tool over the past year (including the integration

of a limited version of Ecolego and the merging of the SADRWMS and DeSA

versions of the software),

the development of a work plan to consolidate and prioritize other changes to

the software, and

the creation of the SAFRAN Sponsor‟s Group to support the further

development of the tool.

Mr Wolfgang Goldammer presented the latest version of the SAFRAN software tool.

He indicated support for the merging of the SADRWMS and DeSa versions of the

software, as it provides added benefits for predisposal waste management including

adding dynamic elements (time dependency) and the possibility to address retrieval

operations. Possible extension of scope of the software tool includes disposal, an

experience-feedback module and additional tools to assist regulators.

Mr Peter Keyser introduced the new SAFRAN Sponsor‟s Group (SSG) to provide

additional financial support to the IAEA in its ongoing development and maintenance

of the SAFRAN software. The software tool will remain the intellectual property of

the IAEA, and the IAEA will provide technical advice for the SSG to make decisions

on the use of allocated membership funds according to the SSG meeting protocol.

Technical decisions will be aided by input from test cases and expertise provided by

international projects such as SADRWMS.

3

Mr Dmitry Hofman presented the latest version of SAFRAN Tool (June 2008), which

is now available on the internet (http://www.project.facilia.se/safran/) in two

languages (English and Russian). He presented the modified software tool modules,

including site and facility descriptors, activities, safety assessment, framework, waste

stream, regulatory tutorial, and „Help‟. He reviewed the sub-modules dealing with

calculations and the SAFREQ safety requirements questionnaire tool, and noted that

the report can be produced in MS Word (2003 and 2007) in the national language.

The current version also supports the possibility for the regulator to review the

documentation – shown as track changes comments in the document.

(ii) Working Groups: Attachment 2 provides the list of participants in each WG.

Ms Isabel Steyn presented the results of the Questionnaire WG and the development

of the SAFREQ module of the software tool during the meeting in Harwell in 2007,

together with subsequent work on the module during the conduct of the other test

cases. The intent of the module is that it will produce the whole array of information

needed in order to prepare the safety assessment. There are also proposals for further

development; the current weak point being repetition of some questions. The future

work plan for the Questionnaire WG is presented in Attachment 3.

Mr Andrey Guskov presented the report of the SAFRAN User Group, reviewing the

test cases performed in the last 18 months. He again raised the issue of the SA

flowcharts and their interrelations with the software tool, asking whether it could still

be used to help waste management facilities in identifying when it would be

beneficial to use the software tool, either in the form of a “wizard” or some other user

friendly road map interface.

Mr Valdas Ragaisis presented the results of the Calculation Tool WG, reviewing the

status of the Calculation Tool methodology description and user‟s manual, and

soliciting comments and proposals for the structure of document, the models selected,

the data bases, parameter dependencies, and the approaches. The ongoing work of the

Calculation WG will feed into future versions of SAFRAN.

Mr Peter Burrows presented the results of the Safety Assessment Methodology WG,

which had developed the original flowcharts to aid in decision-making during

performance of safety assessment, and reviewed the implementation of the flowcharts

in the development of the software tool. The focus of this WG during this meeting

was to advise on developing and harmonising the draft safety guide DS284 with

SADRWMS methodology. The summary notes from the Methodology WG are

presented as Attachment 4.

Mr Peter Keyser presented the results of the Operational Waste WG, which conducted

a workshop in Sosnovy Bor to evaluate the SAFRAN Tool for operational waste from

the Leningrad NPP, and its translation into the Russian language. Priorities for

further development of SAFRAN include provision of a database of typical containers

and incorporation of appropriate waste classification schemes. The summary notes

from the Operational WG are presented as Attachment 5.

Ms Nadja Železnik presented the results of the Small Volumes and Disused Sealed

Sources WG, which addressed the questions: where we are and what we still have to

4

do, and do we need to restructure the project? The group has remained very focussed

throughout, helped by the various relevant test cases, but has experienced difficulties

in communication in the absence of WG meetings. Ms Železnik also reviewed the

experiences of the test case conducted in Ljubljana. Ms Železnik highlighted the need

for better information, communication and coordination within the WG in order to

conclude the work on small volume waste and disused sealed sources. Details of the

proposed work plan are given in Attachment 6.

Ms Helena Antić presented the results of the Large Amounts/NORM WG, and

focussed on the use of SAFRAN tool in case of the Kaštela NORM test case. The

improvements and corrections necessary for use of the SAFRAN tool with NORM

situations were highlighted. The quantitative analysis was particularly problematical

and questions were raised about how effectively the current version of SAFRAN can

assess NORM cases.

Ms Elsa Piumetti presented the results of the Regulatory Review WG, which basically

followed the regulatory review process outlined in ch.7 of DS284 (a revised chapter to

replace the original ch.7 was presented for the IAEA for consideration). A template

for the regulatory review report was developed, based on the international standards –

mainly the IAEA guides, standards, technical documents and requirements. The

difficulty but necessity of incorporating the graded approach into the SAFRAN

methodology was highlighted. A plan to improve the regulatory framework of

SAFRAN was presented. The suggested improvements were to allow incorporation

of country-specific regulations, to improve the endpoints (consideration of

alternatives), effluents and clearance (introduction of the concept of effluent liberation

to the environment, in addition to clearance which is already included), include

criteria for accident situations, and to include the graded approach concept.

During the meetings of the working groups, Mr Dmitry Hofman conducted a hands-

on training workshop on use of the SAFRAN software tool for a small number of

interested participants.

(iii) Draft IAEA Safety Guide DS284:

Ms. Kinker presented the status of the draft safety guide DS284 under development,

including its history and other IAEA documents relevant to the development of the

safety guide. Issues facing the document include a lack of consistency within the

IAEA in terminology (safety case and graded approach), and the lack of guidance for

conducting safety assessments for predisposal facilities. Ms Kinker proposed that the

document could benefit from the SADRWMS project outcomes and experience in the

development and application of safety assessment methodology.

Mr Williams proposed that the SADRWMS plenary meeting spend considerable time

on developing and implementing improvements to DS284. In particular, SADRWMS

members would provide input to the drafting of DS284 based on the work done and

lessons learned to date by the SADRWMS project during development of the

SAFRAN tool and project methodology.

The meeting divided into two working groups depending on relevant expertise

(methodology of safety assessment or regulatory review of safety assessment) and

then reviewed the whole of DS284 and identified shortcomings. A revised version of

DS284 was drafted based on the collective SADRWMS experience, and with the

5

intent on being consistent with the complementary IAEA Draft Safety Guide DS355

“Safety Case and Safety Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal”.

In particular, members of the Methodology WG focussed on chapters 4 & 5 (“Safety

Assessment” and “Specific Issues”), details are presented in Attachment 4. Members

of the Regulatory Review WG worked through ch.7 (“Regulatory Review Process”)

and also through the “Template of Regulatory Review Report” (Annex C). In all

cases, the text was refined and made as consistent as possible with other relevant

IAEA documents. The Methodology WG proposed that the SADRWMS report on

the flowcharts, together with explanatory notes, be attached to DS284 as Annex D.

The Regulatory Review WG also suggested an additional annex “Topical issues for

safety assement review” for consideration by the IAEA.

(iv) Test Cases: Reports were presented of the previous test cases conducted to test the SADRWMS

methodology and reporting framework and to aid in developing the SAFRAN tool for

performing safety assessments. Experience and lessons learned were shared during

the plenary discussions.

With the focus of future test cases being on the application rather than development of

the tool, it was proposed to limit the number of new test cases to two robust facilities

that would allow for more in-depth application of the software tool. Five nations gave

presentations of potential test cases to aid in the development of the close-to-finalized

SAFRAN tool. The following test cases were presented to the plenary:

1. Sweden: Studsvik HM – ILW Treatment facility

2. Serbia: Vinca storage facility for low and intermediate level radioactive waste

3. Jordan: Proposed Centralized Interim Storage Facility

4. Thailand: Chatuchak Facility

5. Ukraine: ChNPP Site – RW Management and Decommissioning

The Studsvik HM-ILW treatment facility, which is currently being funded by SSI as

part of a separate project, presented an ideal test case for the next year‟s work, while

the Thailand Chatuchak Facility was recommended as the other test case. Pending

funding decisions, the Ukrainian ChNPP Site was chosen as either alternative or

additional to the Chatuchak Facility.

Meeting Outcomes and Future Activities

(i) SAFRAN Tool:

The current version of the SAFRAN Tool has benefited greatly as a result of the test

cases conducted over the past year, and it is envisaged that the planned improvements

to the user interface and calculation tool will greatly enhance its usefulness and value

to the Member States. The tool is currently available on the internet and feedback on

its use is encouraged.

The plenary meeting endorsed the merging of the SADRWMS and DeSA versions of

the SAFRAN tool, and its ongoing development will now continue on the single

version. The work programmes of the various SADRWMS working groups to

continue to test and refine SAFRAN over the next 12 months were mapped out.

6

A strong recommendation was the need for a SAFRAN user‟s manual after redesign

of the user interface (possibly by use of a “wizard”). The need for verification and

validation of the SAFRAN software was emphasised.

A week-long training session on use of the SAFRAN Tool is to be organised in South

Africa by Ms Isabel Steyn.

(ii) Working Groups:

All working groups met during the meeting to plan the project outcomes, timelines,

and to further develop the necessary calculations and reporting.

The Questionnaire WG proposes a meeting of six members to be held in Sweden in

September 2008, prior to finalisation of the next version of SAFRAN.

The SAFRAN User Group will continue its work from home bases and during the

conduct of the two proposed test cases. The group will definitely need to meet to

finalise its reporting prior to the next plenary meeting. The User Group was

considered by plenary to be the best means of getting feedback to the developers of

SAFRAN. The work of the User Group will focus on collating and analysing all

problems from use of SAFRAN by October 2008, and reviewing the SAFRAN user

manual. The User Group will also closely monitor the implementation in SAFRAN

of proposals arising from the test cases, current and future. It was proposed too that

the User Group will test each updated new version of SAFRAN, with a particular

emphasis on the user-friendliness.

The Calculation Tool WG plans a meeting of four or five members, either at the end

of September or early October 2008 with a view towards the structure of user‟s

manual, the models selected, the data bases, parameter dependencies, and the

approaches. The work of this meeting will feed into the new version of SAFRAN.

The main outstanding task for the Safety Assessment Methodology WG is to finalise

reporting of the original framework methodology group, including flow charts and

ongoing provision of advice on harmonisation with SADRWMS methodology of the

draft safety guide DS284. The section on “remediation”, present in the first

SADRWMS report, should probably be reinstated. The issue of retrievability, active

surveillance and human intrusion is still to be resolved.

The Operational Waste WG presented six final recommendations and has now been

disbanded (Attachment 5).

The Small Volumes and Disused Sealed Sources WG will distribute a draft report on

the work of the WG, collate all reports from relevant test cases, and plans for a small

focus group to meet in Vienna in October to develop a final report. It is proposed to

have the final draft report from this WG ready by January 2009, after which a further

meeting will finalise the work of this WG preparatory to the next SADRWMS plenary

meeting.

A report will be prepared summarising the work and test case of the Large

Amounts/NORM WG. The adequacy of the SAFRAN calculations with NORM

materials is still to be resolved.

7

The Regulatory Review WG will continue to develop the outline of the proposed

Safety Report on guidance for regulatory review of safety assessments in pre-disposal

waste management. The WG will also further develop the regulatory reporting and

review aspects of the SAFRAN Tool, and in particular advise on how best to

incorporate guidance on a graded approach into SAFRAN. The WG will prepare a

detailed proposal for upgrading the regulatory aspects of SAFRAN by beginning of

September 2008. These proposed improvements will be checked during the next test

case. The WG propose to meet after that test case.

(iii) Draft IAEA Safety Guide DS284:

Incorporating SADRWMS work and expertise into DS284 is a new project outcome;

this was developed substantially by the plenary. As a result of the work during this

plenary, it is believed that there is now harmonisation of the SADRWMS work with

the current draft of DS284, such that all important aspects have been addressed in a

consistent manner. However, it is important to note that some work is still required to

ensure consistency and harmonisation of DS284 with other key IAEA documents.

Section 3 of the document, as well as the tables at the end of Annex D “SADRWMS

Framework for the Overall Process” still need to be carefully checked.

(iv) Test Cases: PowerPoint presentations of the reports of previous test cases are available on the

SADRWMS web site.

The third series of test cases will be conducted during the next 12 months. The

primary focus of these is to test a close-to-finalised SAFRAN tool, including a review

of each case by the WGs in order to prove (“validate”) the SAFRAN software.

The Studsvik HM-ILW treatment facility and the Thailand Chatuchak Facility were

recommended as the two test cases. Pending funding decisions, the Ukrainian ChNPP

Site was chosen as either alternative or additional to the Chatuchak Facility.

(v) Communication: The need for improved communication, especially within the working groups, was

raised. This was especially significant in those working groups that had not managed

to meet during the year. As SADRWMS moves into its final stages, improved

communication is necessary in order to effectively collate and prepare the necessary

reports. As well as more opportunities for face to face meetings in the next year, it

was suggested that the SADRWMS web site can be improved for communication and

information exchange.

Concluding the SADRWMS Project

The final plenary meeting is proposed for October/November 2009 in Vienna. At this

meeting, both Safety Reports will be finalised including final reports from each of the

Application Working Groups. The SAFRAN tool and user manual will be made

available after final improvements, especially to the documentation.

8

Agreed Project Outcomes: 1) The SAFRAN software tool for applying safety assessment methodology to

predisposal radioactive waste management, including user manual.

2) Safety Report on safety assessment methodology for pre-disposal waste

management, including the calculation tool manual and chapters from each of the

three Application Working Groups (Operational Wastes, Small Volumes and Disused

Sources, and Large Amount/NORM).

3) Safety Report providing guidance on regulatory review of safety assessments in

pre-disposal waste management (particularly providing guidance on the graded

approach to safety assessment).

4) A harmonised version of the safety guide DS284 “Safety Case and Safety

Assessment for Predisposal Radioactive Waste Management Facilities and Activities”.

9

ATTACHMENT 1

International Atomic Energy Agency

Safety Assessment Driving Radioactive Waste Management Solutions

(SADRWMS)

5th

Plenary Meeting

Scientific Secretaries: Mr. Phil Metcalf and Ms. Monika Kinker

23-27 June 2008

Hotel Matija Gubec, Stubtóke Toplice, Croatia

AGENDA

MONDAY, 23 June 2008

Time Topic Presenter

9.30

Opening: Welcome and Introductions D. Kubelka

10.00

Introductory Remarks P. Metcalf

10.30

Adoption of Agenda (Objectives, Expected Outcomes) G. Williams

11.00

Presentation of SADRWMS Status and Test Case Results M. Kinker

11.30

Presentation of SAFRAN Sponsor’s Group P. Keyser

11.45

Presentation of the Latest Version of the SAFRAN Tool W. Goldammer

12.15 Lunch

14.00 Presentations and Discussions on Status of Project Outcomes:

1. Safety Assessment Methodology Safety Report:

Draft Safety Guide DS284, “Safety Case / Safety Assessment

for Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste”

M. Kinker

Safety Assessment Methodology Working Group P. Burrows

Operational Waste Working Group P. Keyser

Small Volumes and Disused Sealed Source Working Group N. Zeleznik

Large Amounts/NORM Working Group H. Antic

10

2. Regulatory Review Safety Report:

Regulatory Review Working Group E. Piumetti

3. SAFRAN Tool:

Calculation Tool Working Group V. Ragaisis

Questionnaire Working Group I. Steyn

Users Working Group A. Guskov

17.00

Status Review of SADRWMS Project Outcomes

G. Williams

TUESDAY, 24 June 2008

9.00

Presentation, Practical Demonstration of Latest SAFRAN Features D. Hofman

12.30 Lunch

14.00

Plenary Discussion on Working Group Activities:

1. Safety Assessment Methodology Safety Report

2. Regulatory Review Safety Report

3. SAFRAN Tool

15.00

Working Group Sessions

WEDNESDAY, 25 June 2008

09.00

Working Group Sessions

12.30 Lunch

14.00

Working Group Sessions

17.00

Plenary Discussion on Working Group Activities

THURSDAY, 26 April 2008

09.00

Working Group Sessions

12.30 Lunch

14.00

Working Groups present Results, Schedule for Report Finalization

11

FRIDAY, 27 April 2008

09.00

Plenary Discussion on Proposed Activities and Test Cases:

1. Sweden: Studsvik HM –ILW Treatment facility

2. Serbia: Vinca storage facility for low and intermediate level

radioactive waste

3. Jordan: Proposed Centralized Interim Storage Facility

4. Thailand: Chatuchak Facility

5. Ukraine: ChNPP Site – RW Management and

Decommissioning

10.00

Review and update work plan for the next year G. Williams

12.00

Closing M. Kinker

12

ATTACHMENT 2

WORKING GROUP LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Cross-Cutting WGs User Questionnaire

Andrey Guskov (GL) Milena Christoskova (GL)

Nadja Zeleznik (Dep) Isabela Steyn (Dep)

Phil Hallington Peter Burrows

Farid Asgharizadeh Phil Hallington

Irene Zinger Dmitry Hofman

Vladimir Lockner Mario Lopez

Jagos Raicevic Reinaldo Castillo

Azucena Sanhueza Frederic Ledroit

Anne Sørensen

Marcelo Tostes Calculation

Daniela Drogaru Valdas Ragaisis (GL)

Dejan Trifunovic Nadja Zeleznik

David Hutchinson Farid Asgharizadeh

Nataliya Rybalka Phil Hallington

Svetlana Yacko Vladimir Lockner

Mohammad Assadi Jagos Raicevic

Nanthavan Ya-anant Azucena Sanhueza

Eric Fillastre Anne Sørensen

Alexey Tkachenko David Hutchinson

Rodolfo Avila

Dmitry Hofman

Massimo Altavilla

Application WGs

Small Amounts Operational

Milena Christoskova (GL) Peter Burrows (GL)

Nadja Zeleznik (Dep) Phil Hallington (Dep)

Daniela Drogaru Massimo Altavilla

Reinaldo Gil Castillo Peter Keyser

Andrey Guskov Valdas Ragaisis

Jagos Raicevic Marcelo Tostes

Azucena Sunhueza Gabriela Bejarano

Anne Sørensen Liselotte Tiberg

Nanthavan Ya-anant David Hutchinson

Mario Lopez Milan Petrovic

Eric Fillastre Frederic Ledroit

Eyad Qutishat

Nina Shiryaeva NORM

Romouald Chaternik Vladimir Lockner (GL)

13

Alexey Tkachenko Farid Asgharizadeh (Dep)

Nataliya Rybalka Isabela Steyn

Geoff Williams

Helena Antic

Wolfgang Goldammer

Dejan Trifnovic

Mohammad Assadi

DS284/SAFRAN Review

DS284 Methodology DS284 Regulatory Review

Peter Burrows (GL) Elsa Piumetti (GL)

Wolfgang Goldammer (Dep) Marcelo Tostes (Dep)

Reinaldo Gil Castillo Daniela Dogaru

Valdas Ragaisis Mario Lopez,

Andrey Guskov Peter Salzer

Nina Shiryaeva Peter Keyser

Romouald Chaternik Eric Fillastre

Rodolfo Avila Eyad Qutishat

Nadja Zeleznik

Jagos Raicevic SAFRAN

Isabella Steyn Dmitry Hofman

Azucena Sanhueza Milan Petrovic

Nanthavan Ya-anant Svetlana Yacko

Gabriela Bejarano Massimo Altavilla

Liselotte Tiberg Anne Sorensen

Alexey Tkachenko Dejan Trifonuvic

Mohammad Assadi Helena Antic

Frédéric Ledroit Eric Fillastre

David Hutchinson

Nataliya Rybalka

Milan Petrovic

14

ATTACHMENT 3

Questionnaire Working Group Plan – June 2008 1. Finalise the report (Isabel and Milena) 2. Improvements proposed for the Questionnaire:

a. Eliminate repetition and refine questions b. Ensure full incorporation in SAFRAN c. Check ability of SAFRAN to create a report on the answers

provided from the questions d. Test of questionnaire report

3. The regulatory review section must be updated and a set of questions developed which are specifically applicable to the regulatory review process.

4. It is proposed that a small group of people get together (in Sweden) to finalise the questionnaire before SAFRAN is next revised.

5. Possible timeframe: September 2008 The following persons belong to the Questionnaire Working Group: Eyad R. Qutishat-Jordan Milena Christoskova, SE RAW, Bulgaria Peter Burrows Phill Hallington Reinaldo Gil Castillo Mario Mejia Lopez Elsa Plunetta Dimitri Hoffmann Frederic Ledroit Isabel Steyn Juan Tomas Zerquera, CPHR, Cuba

15

ATTACHMENT 4

Notes from the Methodology Working Group for chairman’s report The Methodology Working Group was established as a subgroup during the SADRWMS Meeting in Croatia over the period 23 – 27 June 2008. The group was essentially convened to supplement the work of the original framework methodology group, which had operated several years previously at the time when the flowcharts were the main focus of the SADRWMS work. It was quickly realised that the original flowcharts used in the beginning meetings of SADRWMS had swiftly morphed into the SAFRAN tool and considerable progress had been achieved in refining SAFRAN into a sophisticated, elegant and practical software tool. In order to sustain progress, the aim of this working group during the June meeting in Croatia needed to change so as to review DS284 and ensure that the SADRWMS work and associated software program are consistent with the requirements stipulated in DS284. The group specifically focussed on Sections 4 and 5 and specific issues were identified. These issues were allocated for discussions in four (4) subgroups. The subgroups presented their proposals on DS284 to the working group and the following is a summary of the changes: 1. Minor changes to reflect the correct Annex numbers and changes to the

some headings to be more reflective of the content; 2. Figure 2 was revised and compared with Section 4 to ensure a consistent

approach; 3. Figure 1 was corrected (asterisks removed); 4. The introduction of the report was revised to be reflective of the

SADRWMS work as well as several places in the document; 5. The SADRWMS report on the flowcharts, together with explanatory notes,

was attached to the report as Annex D; 6. Section 5 was revised to include the section on Options Appraisal, which

was included in a previous draft of DS284; 7. Minor changes to the document to reflect the necessary reference

documentation; the eliminate repetition; consistent terminology and to ensure that it is consistent with the SADRWMS approach;

8. The scenario generation and justification section was revised to be reflective of the flowchart (Figure 2);

9. The defence in depth was revised and it is proposed that the Agency revisit this section;

10. The long term storage section was revised but human intrusion is an issue that needs to be followed up by the Agency;

As a result of the above initiatives, it is believed that there has been harmonisation of the SADRWMS work with the work carried out by the DS284 working group, such that all important aspects have been addressed in a consistent manner.

16

It is important to note that some work is still required to check consistency and harmonisation and whether our working group output is consistent with DS284 and other key IAEA documents. This is urgent and may need consideration of adding or removing some of our suggested changes and the associated implementation. A revised DS284 document is available, containing all the proposals compiled during this week.

17

ATTACHMENT 5

Notes from the Operational Working Group for chairman’s report

1) The original focus of the Operational working group was to test the SADRWMS SA

methodology, which evolved into the SAFRAN Tool. The original work of the

OWG has now morphed into something a little different due to the innovation

provided by SAFRAN. The SAFRAN Tool has now matured from its original form

into a sophisticated model aided by a number of test cases representing different

operational waste, decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel, legacy waste...

2) Due to this fact, there are a number of recommendations that fall out of a review of

the work of the operational working group:

i) It now needs to be considered whether a form of version control and change

control needs to be implemented, such that the formal recording of change is

captured when additional test cases offer challenge as the tool is operated. In

other words a form of change control becomes mandatory.

ii) It has to be decided the depth of testing that the software has to go to. It has

been noted that there is a need to further check the full capabilities of the

tool. If such a direction is taken there has to be improved recording of test

cases for SAFRAN development to be optimally refined. It also needs to be

checked what still requires to be tested by the tool, including the output. One

way of affecting this is by comparing an existing safety case against the

output from the tool, for the same situation. This appears to be compatible

with existing initiatives for the development of the tool (see protocol Dec

2007, Mar 2008).

iii) It also needs to be checked whether the INIS database work on operational

waste was incorporated into the tool.

iv) The proper hierarchy offered by the Graded approach may need to be

checked within the tool. This may already be incorporated within the

auspices of the Regulatory review group.

v) Maybe possible to dissolve the working group?

18

ATTACHMENT 6

Notes from the Small Volumes and Disused Sealed Sources WG:

Milena Christoskova (GL)

Present:

Nadja (Dep), Daniela, Reinaldo, Andrey, Jagos, Azucena, Anne, Nanthavan, Mario,

Eric, Nina, Romouald, Eyad

What was the plan in 2004? (see the proposition in 2004)

Proposals from group meeting on how to continue with work:

1. Divide the report in 2 parts – small amounts and disused sealed sources.

2. Distribute the existing report (small volumes and disused sealed sources) and

collect all reports from test cases in the group (Slovenia, Moscow, Belarus,

Chile, Cuba) – secretary IAEA.

3. Form a small focus group (5-6 people) to redefine the context and content of the

report based on existing documentation: Milena, Andrey, Daniela, Nadja, Eric,

Anne (meeting in October 2008 for 2 days in Vienna), the proposal will be

resend to the group members and agreed.

4. The group members should prepare contributions for report chapters.

5. It is proposed that the group meet in January 2009 (depending on the plenary

meeting - if the meeting is in October, the Small volume meeting could be later

in spring 2009) to discuss the draft report.