Michael Webster (Cameco Corporation)Tamara Yankovich (IAEA, Formerly Saskatchewan Research Council) Martin Klukas (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)IAEA – MODARIA (Working Group 1) WG111 November , 2013
Decision-Making Framework A Compilation of Information Presented in Kiev
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
IAEA – MODARIA (Working Group 1) WG1Kiev June 2013
2 IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
IAEA – MODARIA (Working Group 1) WG1Kiev June 2013
● Presentations made by all member states
● Discussion centred on what member states were doing regarding remediation of radiologically contaminated sites.
– What has been done
– Issues arising
– What tools can be used to assess potential remedial options
– Decision processes followed to determine remediation requirements
3 IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
4
Kiev summaryDecision Making Process – Provided for Discussion
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
● In response to Action Item 2-4a
● A single flowchart was created (for discussion with WG1 members)
– In general the decision making processes presented in Kiev were similar
– The flowchart presented is a compilation of the different decision making processes presented in Kiev
Belgium
France
Canada
– Will hopefully spark discussion regarding the process to follow when assessing the need for remediation as well as the additional considerations and the tools available to assess potential remedial options
5 IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
IAEA MODARIA WG1Draft Decision-making flowchart
Potential Remedial Options Assessment (sub-process)
6 IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
7
Risk Based Decision Making Framework
1. Definition of the issue to be addressed;
2. Assessment of information / assessment of site history and existing situation / “characterization”;
3. Assessment of risk;
4. Evaluation of remedial options;
5. Determination of path-forward; and
6. Post-remediation closure / acceptance.
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
8 IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
Step #1 Identify and define issue to be resolved
● Stakeholder engagement critical early on
● Identify expected endpoints
– Establish site(s) end use
– Clean up guidelines applicable or relevant?
– Determine risk acceptability
● Develop basic site(s) understanding (CSM)
1Identify and define the “Issue to be Resolved”
- Identify relevant stakeholder groups (local, regional, regulatory, industry, etc.)- end use-relevant clean-up criteria exist?- determine risk acceptability - develop conceptual site model (CSM)
Note: determine the relevant stakeholders and engage them early and often
Step #2 Characterize the site(s) to be remediated
9
• Determine if site knowledge is satisfactory to assess risk
• Fill gaps in knowledge
• Characterize Site
• Move to next phase (Assess Risk)
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
Step #3Assessment of Risk
10
● Assess risk posed by existing condition
‒ Public Safety
‒ Human Health
‒ Ecological
● Assess of “acceptability” of risk using a
graded, risk-based approach
● Is residual risk acceptable?
– Yes. Move site(s) into final phase.
– No. Begin potential remedial options
assessment
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
11
Step #4 Evaluation of Potential Remedial Options
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
12
Step #4 Evaluation of Potential Remedial Options
Identify decision making criteria and tools and apply to decision making. (i.e., what are the factors to be considered in the
development of decision-making approaches, criteria or tools?);
‒ Established Criteria Available
‒ Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
‒ Qualitative Assessment (direct engagement with stakeholders)
‒ Others?
Additional discussion will be required to develop a list of factors that should be considered in evaluating remedial options.
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
13
Step #4 Evaluation of Potential Remedial Options
Look at and reuse similar cases to develop suggested solutions, etc., as appropriate, for lessons learned, as per of
Wolfgang’s flow diagram;
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
14
Assess options with respect to (but not limited to);
‒ effectiveness,
‒ human health and public safety criteria,
‒ environmental management and protection criteria,
‒ technical feasibility,
‒ cost-benefit,
‒ side effects,
‒ social and ethical considerations,
‒ stakeholder input, and
‒ other constraints
Alternative risk management strategies (e.g., fish and water-use consumption advisories, posting signs,
land use restrictions, site access restrictions, counter-measures, etc.)
Step #4 Evaluation of Potential Remedial Options
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
15
Step #5Determination of path-forward
● Implement options based on outcome of
remedial options assessment
● Consider alternative risk management
strategies
● Assess options to determine of objectives
were met.
● Adaptive management, as required (based
on outcome of verification)
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
16
Step #6Post-remediation closure / acceptance
● Critical for framework success
● The goal of the decommissioning plan
● Long term aftercare, likely different for each jurisdiction
● Having the post remediation expectations and process defined at the beginning is critical
6Post Remediation Acceptance/Closure
- Long-term environmental stewardship - aftercare
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
17
IAEA MODARIA WG1Draft Decision-making flowchart
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
IAEA – MODARIA (Working Group 1) WG1
Thank you!
IAEA WG1- Decision Making Process
Decision-Making Framework for discussion
A Compilation of Information Presented in Kiev
