Dear colleagues from the URF network

Further to my previous mail on meeting logistics, this one will provide you with the draft meeting agenda (attached), a reminder of last years’ meeting (minutes attached) as well as a request for contributions to meeting preparations.

Two types of contributions are needed, and a third one is optional:

• A very (very very) brief update on the national DGR programme you represent – this could focus on only one very specific aspect or event you consider being of interest to the network; no single national presentation should exceed 10 slides or 15 minutes
• Your contribution by way of preparation of our workshop (Wednesday) on site selection criteria – this is further detailed below
• Any preparation and contribution you consider relevant to support the scope of the URF network

For the workshop, I have drafted a document (version “v0” attached) outlining what we will discuss during the workshop on site selection criteria. This document provides an outline and structure to prepare your respective feedback on your national site selection criteria; it provides space for your prior written contributions; and it describes (behind the cover page) the expected contributions both as text and as a very brief presentation, towards the workshop and the envisioned workshop report.

I copy the specific expected workshop contributions here:

To obtain the most out of our one-day workshop on site selection criteria:

·         By August 22: Read, comment and return to Scientific Secretary (Stefan Mayer) the overall outline, scope, content of this “v0” draft version

·         By August 30: Provide within the outline of this “v0” draft, the site selection criteria information specific to the national programme you represent and return to Scientific Secretary (Stefan Mayer) – priority is to provide the overview of national site selection criteria under section 2. If available, specific information on the application of those site selection criteria (under section 3) and on the influence of main stakeholders on the application of those site selection criteria (under section 4) could also be provided.

·         By September 5: An updated “v1” draft will be circulated to all, incorporating input received.

·         At the workshop: Deliver a presentation (of no more than 4 to 8 slides) reflecting the information contributed by August 30 into the draft document:

o    2.1 - Overview of site selection criteria, as used or proposed for the national programme; and then as “mapped” onto the “generic” grouping of site selection criteria defined in chapter 1 (3 to 4 slides);

o   3.2 – Application of site selection criteria at the successive steps of screening (1 to 2 slides);

o   4.1 – Influence of main stakeholders on the application of site selection criteria: Role of the regulator (review? Approve?) (4.1.1) and role of local and regional stakeholders (addressed implicitly through the criteria relevant to stakeholder acceptance?) (4.1.2) (1 to 2 slides);

NOTE: Obviously, the above requests are only directed to programmes that have something to report on. The network welcomes “newcomers” to the effort of planning and eventually implementing a DGR; and in those national contexts when there is no information yet to share because the DGR programme has not yet initiated, the meeting participation mainly serves to transfer understanding of good practices and to develop a direct network among peers.

Kind regards

Stefan

Mr Stefan Mayer

Team Leader

Section of Waste Technology | Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

Department of Nuclear Energy

International Atomic Energy Agency | Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria |

s.j.mayer@iaea.org | T: (+43-1) 2600-22672 | F: (+43-1) 26007 |

Underground Research Facilities Network for Geological Disposal Public site

Follow us on www.iaea.org 

ATOMS FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT

And also @IAEANE & iaea.org/ne