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