ARTEMIS. An integrated review service for radioactive waste and spent fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programmes

Transcription

1 ARTEMIS An integrated review service for radioactive waste and spent fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programmes Learn more at

2 Table of Content What is ARTEMIS? Objectives of ARTEMIS Reviews Scope of an ARTEMIS Review Principles ARTEMIS review process Scheduling and costs How can I request an ARTEMIS review? Examples of Peer Reviews in the Area of Radioactive Waste Management Conducted by the IAEA Annex I: Generic outline of the Terms of Reference Annex II: Typical outline of the Review Report

3 ARTEMIS Integrated Review Service for Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Decommissioning and Remediation Programmes What is ARTEMIS? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) offers Member States numerous expert review services related to the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology. Building on many years of experience in conducting peer reviews in the field of radioactive waste management, the IAEA has developed an integrated review service for radioactive waste and spent fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programmes, referred to as ARTEMIS. ARTEMIS reviews cover: radioactive waste and spent fuel management, control of radionuclide discharges to the environment, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and, remediation of sites contaminated by radioactive materials. ARTEMIS reviews vary according to the needs of the requesting organization or facility and may focus broadly on national frameworks and regulatory systems, or particular aspects of national programmes, infrastructure and facilities. They may also involve detailed assessments and technical advice on the implementation of specific programmes and project activities. Upon receipt of an official Member State request for an ARTEMIS review, terms of reference, defining the focus and scope of the review, are developed by the IAEA in cooperation with the Member State counterpart. An international team of experts is convened by the IAEA, who also manages the independent review process. Although the IAEA provides a framework and guides the ARTEMIS review to ensure consistency with its standards and internationally recognized good practices, findings and recommendations are based on the views of the ARTEMIS team of experts. 2 3

4 Objectives of ARTEMIS Reviews ARTEMIS reviews aim to provide independent expert opinion and advice to assist Member States in improving performance in the area or activity under review. Based on safety principles consistent with the articles of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, as well as on technical guidance and on international good practices, ARTEMIS also contributes to improving transparency and increasing national and international confidence in Member States organizations, facilities, programmes and activities related to radioactive waste management. Benefits of ARTEMIS include: improved organizational performance relating to the issues under review; enhanced safety, optimized operations and reduced costs; improved transparency and stakeholder confidence, including with the general public; strengthened national programmes through improved national policies and strategies; and improved quality of decision making processes due to availability of additional perspectives. The recipient entity remains fully responsible for all ensuing decisions and actions regarding the incorporation of review results contained in the ARTEMIS report. Scope of an ARTEMIS Review An ARTEMIS review is intended for facility operators and other implementing organizations responsible for radioactive waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the remediation of sites contaminated with radioactive materials, as well as for regulators, government agencies, and national policy decision makers. ARTEMIS review services are available to both government and private sector entities. uranium production as well as the decommissioning and remediation of sites contaminated by radioactive materials including residues arising from uranium production. ARTEMIS reviews may be requested for existing or planned national or institutional policy and regulation frameworks, as well as for waste management programmes, projects or facilities. The objectives of ARTEMIS reviews, guided by the terms of reference developed in consultation with the applicant, may focus on the implementation of international safety standards, on internationally accepted technical guidance and good practices for the use of technologies, or both. They are tailored to the requirements of each potential host, keeping sufficient flexibility to pursue issues that may arise during the mission. As ARTEMIS is designed to meet the specific needs of Member State governments and organizations, due consideration is given to the state of development (maturity) of the institutional framework or programme being reviewed. Principles ARTEMIS reviews are governed by consistently applied principles, including: review and advice provided by leading independent experts assembled from across IAEA Member States; benchmarked to IAEA safety standards and technical guidance, as well as to international good practices; implemented based on clear terms of reference, well-established review criteria, well-structured review guidelines, and organized according to a transparent process; and managed from start to finish to ensure the service and results are of the highest quality. The scope of ARTEMIS reviews may include facilities and activities related to radioactive waste or spent fuel management, radiological impact assessments for human health and the environment, the management of residues arising from 4 5

5 ARTEMIS review process Depending on the nature of the review, documentation on specific issues may be requested from the counterpart, consisting of: context-setting organizational and programme information, facility-specific documentation, results of self-assessments evaluating a Member State s governance and regulatory framework in comparison to IAEA guidance, as well as descriptions of specific technical challenges with supporting technical reports or analyses. The review process typically consists of the following steps: 1. An official request for an ARTEMIS review is sent by the Member State counterpart to the IAEA. 2. The IAEA registers and assesses the request and undertakes any necessary clarification with the counterpart regarding needs and expectations, scope of the review and the financial arrangements. 3. On acceptance of the ARTEMIS request, the responsibilities for implementing the review are allocated and contact points are designated within the IAEA and the Member State counterpart organization. 4. The IAEA Secretariat develops in collaboration with the Member State counterpart the Terms of Reference for the review. The IAEA Secretariat makes all of the preparatory arrangements (e.g. meeting and review logistics, selection of review team members, identification and request of required supporting documentation). 5. Documents, reports, data, and other supporting materials relevant to the scope of the review are provided by the Member State counterpart to aid the preparation of the ARTEMIS review team. If self-assessment is part of the review scope, the counterpart organization prepares and submits a selfassessment report during the preparatory phase for review by the ARTEMIS team in advance of the review meetings. 7. When the review meetings have concluded, the ARTEMIS team completes the report and provides a draft to Member State counterparts for clarifications and fact checking. The report is then finalised and delivered to the counterpart, completing the review process. When appropriate, a follow-up mission may be proposed in order to evaluate progress against recommendations identified in the report. The final review report is the property of the requesting organization, for use at its own discretion. However, the IAEA encourages reports to be made publicly available. All final review reports, unless otherwise requested by the Member State, are made public three months after delivery. Scheduling and costs As noted, ARTEMIS reviews are tailored to the Member State request and scoped in the Terms of Reference. The duration and level of effort required for completing an ARTEMIS review varies according to its scope and complexity. Experience suggests it may take from six to twelve months from receiving the official initial request to producing the final report. ARTEMIS costs include external experts fees, travel and local costs. Costs associated with the review may be borne by the Member State s government or the organization requesting the review. Depending on the nature of the review service requested and the eligibility of the Member State to receive funding through the IAEA Technical Cooperation programme, costs may also be covered in part or in total by extra-budgetary resources in the IAEA. 6. The review meetings between the review team and the counterparts are conducted with a typical duration of one or two weeks. The ARTEMIS review meetings, a central activity in the review process, often are comprised of presentations, question and answer sessions, breakout sessions focusing on specific topics, facility site visits, etc. Preliminary findings and recommendations, which form the basis of the final ARTEMIS report, are presented on the last day of the mission. 6 7

6 How can I request an ARTEMIS review? Initial discussions on objectives, scope and schedule for an ARTEMIS review may be initiated through informal contacts with IAEA staff. Such discussions entail no obligations on either party and help identify the most effective solutions to an organization s needs. Official requests for an ARTEMIS review should be addressed to the ARTEMIS Review Coordinator at the IAEA by mail, or sent by to ARTEMIS@iaea.org. Official requests must be transmitted through a Member State s Permanent Mission to the IAEA. To learn more about ARTEMIS, search for previous reports and more, visit the ARTEMIS website at Examples of Peer Reviews in the Area of Radioactive Waste Management Conducted by the IAEA 8 Australia (2004), licence application for the Australian near surface radioactive waste disposal facility. Argentina (2012), Spent Fuel Dry Storage Project at Atucha I. Czech Republic (1993 and 2004), deep geological repository development programme. Finland (1994), evaluating the Finish nuclear waste management programme. France (1996), management of short lived waste in France. Hungary (1999), selecting a site for Low and Intermediate Level Waste Disposal. Lithuania (2006), programme for evaluating sites for near surface disposal of radioactive waste in Lithuania. Lithuania (2011), disposal facility development programme for the near surface disposal of radioactive waste in Lithuania. Malaysia (2011), Malaysian national low level radioactive waste repository: site selection study. Malaysia (2011), radiation safety aspects of a proposed rare earths processing facility (the Lynas Project). Netherlands (2009), radioactive waste management activities of COVRA. Norway (1995), establishing a combined storage/disposal facility for LILW. Republic of Korea (2002), to review the R&D programme for the disposal of HLW in Korea. Republic of Korea (2005), siting national near surface disposal facility. Republic of Korea (2007), support to licensing national near surface disposal facility. Republic of Korea (2012), the deep geologic disposal of high level radioactive waste from pyro-processing in Korea. Romania (2007), assessing the status of the development programme for a national repository for low- and intermediate-level waste. Romania (2007), supporting ANDRAD near-surface repository development and licensing programme. Slovakia (1994), assessing pre-operational safety report of Mochovce near surface repository. Slovenia (2007), ARAO s documentation and technical programme for the development of the Slovenian national repository for low- and intermediatelevel radioactive waste. South Africa (2007), mobile hot cell operation. UK (2008), the decommissioning programme of Magnox Limited, United Kingdom. UK (2012), NDA Industry Guidance Interim Storage of Higher Activity Waste Packages Integrated Approach. Ukraine (2012), reviewing the State Programme on Remediation of the former uranium facilities of the Pridneprovsky Chemical Plant site. USA (1997), performance assessment of the US WIPP (jointly with OECD/ NEA) USA (2001), total system performance assessment of the Yucca Mountain site (jointly with OECD/NEA) 9

7 Annex I: Generic outline of the Terms of Reference The IAEA Secretariat and the designated representative of the requesting organization will negotiate and agree on the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Review. The ToR includes background information, the objective and scope of the Review, timing for its implementation, list of documentation to be provided to the Review Team, and other relevant information. The ToR is tailored to the needs and requirements of each potential Host, keeping sufficient flexibility to pursue issues that may arise during the mission. When a follow-up review mission is anticipated, it is recommended that the request for this mission be included in the original request and ToR. The Terms of Reference of the Review of Subject of the Review Specifi cation of the task to be assessed Objective of the Review Identifi cation of review goal(s) Background Background information on the task to be reviewed (historical overview, current situation, context within the national programme) Scope of the Review Description of the approach to be applied during the review, in particular: 10 issues to be assessed matters to be respected approaches to be applied Counterpart team Team composition, responsible manager, secretary/coordinator (liaison for communications with the IAEA) Review team Team composition, scientifi c secretary(ies) Organizational arrangements Working language, responsibilities of secretaries/coordinators Background and supporting materials The list of materials to be provided to the review team by the host Reporting and Deliverables Draft report, presentation of main fi ndings, observations and advice to the host at the end of the review mission, fi nal report Mission timing Time schedule including terms for: delivery of offi cial request for the Review fi nal version of ToR approved at the technical level selection of experts (IAEA in consultation with host) delivery of background and supporting materials to the IAEA questions / comments for clarifi cation from the expert team to the host delivery of questionnaire (if self-assessment is included) delivery of Self-assessment (if included) Review meeting draft Review report sent to host for factual check fi nal Review report forwarded by the IAEA to the host Funding of the mission Funding mechanism and cost estimate Contact links The IAEA Host ANNEX: List of Relevant References 11

8 Annex II: Typical outline of the Review Report Extended Summary Introduction Background Review objective and scope Conduct of the review Report structure Technical topics (e.g. legislation and criteria, QMS, national approach, relevance and adequacy of the programme, phases of the programme); for each of them specify: International good practices Observations Findings Conclusions Summary and recommendations Appendixes 12 Review Team ToR List of documents provided for the review

9 September 2014