Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 1NUM O Inte rnational Te c hnic a l Advisory Com m itte e
Short Rec ord of the ITAC-4 Mee tingTokyo, 21-23 January 2003
Introduction
This short note summarises the main points discussed during ITAC-4 and complements a
CD containing all material presented at the meeting. It is based strongly on the overheads
presented by Charles McCombie in the final wrap-up session of this meeting andsubsequent discussion.
The meeting itself had a somewhat different format from previous ITACs, containing asession with an international overview of site selection/ characterisation experience and abrainstorming session on key challenges facing NUMO at present. The general consensus
seemed to be that both these experiments were very successful and should be repeated atfuture meetings (as noted in the wrap-up, maybe next time with a special secretary or
facilitator). The interpreters/communicators were clearly very valuable for suchbrainstorming exercises and should also be included in the future.

1

Opening and Japanese programme overv iew

In his welcoming address, President Tomon reported on the successful initiation of the
NUMO call for volunteers (ITAC members were presented with the full set of Japanese
documents used in this process). Masuda-san then provided a general update on theJapanese national programme. Of particular interest were the NSC note on "environmental
factors" (provisional translation distributed), the NSC public hearing workshops and thefact that there had been already some responses (requests for more information) to the callfor volunteers. Masuda-san also mentioned that, in the review of the Level 2 documents,
the HLW working group from METI had emphasised , in addition to transparency, theneed for a solid scientific basis – and this had led NUMO to expand the discussions on
long-term safety.

2

Comments on solicitation documentation

2.1

Levels 1 and 2 (Kitayama-san)Overall, ITAC considered that the structure and content of final documentation was goodand fit for purpose. It was rewarding to see that they reflected many ITAC comments(including suggestion for a Level 1 document) and NUMO's explanation of the rationale
for what was not taken over was appreciated. It was encouraging that NUMO has had 30
queries so far, but this highlighted the need to have ready a set of responses to different
types of potential query (see later brainstorming session output). It was considered a goodidea to follow-up in municipalities with videos (they look good but, based on international
18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 2experience, it may be worth testing them out on a trial audience and/or monitoring local
responses to them as a guide for future projects of this type).
International interest is in the NUMO volunteering process is high and it would be good tohave English versions quickly (e.g. on NUMO Website), especially when trade press
articles appear (individual ITAC members are available to help with "smoothing" English).
Kitayama-san requested the advice of ITAC on informing the international community .
The English language materials could also be used as the basis for papers in some of the
major conferences in 2003 (ITAC particularly suggested HLRWM Las Vegas, ICEM,PIME) and also journal papers. It was agreed that the ITAC Chairman should help
establish contacts with the editor of "Nuclear Fuel".

2.2

Level 3 RC / PA (Umeki-san)

The aims and audience for RC level 3 are clearly identified, but it was noted that the dual
aims (support and forward looking) make production more challenging. Nevertheless, thecontent and structure look appropriate to support the Level 2 RC document. Some
additional points noted are:Ø

Status of H-12; this is a good reference point, but it is a generic "research" concept so it
is important not to "freeze it in"- i.e. maintain flexibility for NUMO (as an implementer)to develop its own environment-specific concept(s)ØThe new Chapter 7 is a good idea but the flexibility and alternatives it describes need tobe mentioned and introduced earlier in the report (see comments below on Ch. 2). It is
important to make the message clear that this will need an R&D programme, newdesigns and design tools, and this may involve optimisation to reduce the cost of thenational programme (To clarify the point raised by Umeki-san in the final wrap-up
session, this does not require further work at present but only a preview of future trends)

Ø

Chapter 2 needs to expand upon the basic stepwise strategy of the repository
implementation programme: this very important and was considered to merit a new
Chapter that incorporates current Section 2.3 and introduces the concepts of continuous
learning and flexibility described in Chapter 7. A report on staging will be published by
the National Research Council of the USA at the beginning of February and this could
provide useful input; Charles McCombie agreed to arrange that NUMO receive a copy
as soon as the report is released.

ØA position on retrievability should be stated (even if this is not yet definitive)Ø

The weighting given to operational safety is considered to be under-emphasised andcould be usefully expanded onØPresent section 2.4 (maybe in new chapter recommended above): explain what is meantby safety case and what the elements of it will likely be (PA results, indicators,
analogues, evidence for stability... – N.B. many of these elements could benefit fromstakeholder discussion and feedback). It should be noted that this is a developing areainternationally without any standardised terminology and an area in which the Japanese

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 3

regulatory side is very interested. (ITAC can help as the programme develops and some
input already provided).
The exact relationship of the PA document to the main RC report is unclear, as are its
aims, objective and audience 1. ITAC identified possible objectives, such as to:ØShow that NUMO has the methodology to analyse repository safetyØShow that different types of site can be safeØShow how different types of site provide safety in different ways

ØShow how different barriers contribute to safety.

In any case, it is important to present results in a graphical way (including clear
explanation of uncertainty and site variability of this level of analysis) that avoids overinterpretation of performance of different environments. The report should also note that
NUMO is developing new methodologies for evaluating a range of environments, which
could then be applied to specific sites. It was also recommended to:ØInclude section on how models will be validated in future PAs (even if the content of
this section will reproduce material already in H-12)

Ø

Explain why a specific PA approach has been chosen from among those available
internationally (e.g. deterministic rather than probabilistic)Ø

Make biospheres consistent with repository concept and geography (which may mean
extending them beyond H-12 models).

2.3

Level 3 SF (Tsuchi-san & Kondo-san)This document is very well organised and planned and ITAC recorded only a few minor
comments:
Ø

There is a need to explain the FFs (no text at all has been seen yet) and include
references to other national studies to show why (and under what circumstances) they
are important/useful and howØ

The clarification on mineral resources as an exclusion factor was good and needs to be
included in final document (also in FFs)

Ø

For sites close to volcanoes, NUMO should consider operational safety implications in
FFs (e.g. pyroclastic flows)ØBiosphere variability impacts should be discussed in FFs (even if this is played down a
bit to avoid over-interpretation – a risk noted by Tsuchi-san in the final wrap-up
session).

1

Umeki-san subsequently clarified this, noting that this presentation referred to performance assessment aspresented in the Level 3 RC report (Chapter 6), which will be summarised in a simpler form in the planned"Level 2.5" performance assessment document
18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 4

3

NUMO's current programme

3.1

Site characterisation (Tsuchi-san)The stepwise approach illustrated is good and the steps shown are logical. It may, however,
be worth showing that steps will be carried out iteratively (with feedback of experience
gained), both in planning and in execution of SC work. The "supplementary area" idea isan essential and appropriate response to issues raised at the last ITAC due to the rather
restrictive formal definition of a PIA. However, issues of compensation, access, etc. willneed to be cleared up soon. Stakeholder views need to be taken into account in this respect,as they may help to determine or may constrain a SC programme (e.g. borehole locations).
A strategy will be needed at some stage on how to do this. A procedure for optimisationand prioritisation of the site characterisation programme will also be critical. Finally,
development of a SC "menu" is a useful concept and an area where ITAC can help provide
information on national experiences (a special topic at this ITAC).
In a session on "Approaches to Site Selection and Characterisation: international
experience", ITAC members presented overviews from the programmes in:ØFinlandØ

SwedenØFranceØUSAØ

Switzerland.

The documentation provided (extensive sets of overheads from all presenters) should bevaluable for future NUMO planning. It might be useful to follow up with ITAC-NUMO
discussions on specific site characterisation programmes at a later date. To derive a generalmessage from these presentations, it was noted that there were some commonalties
between national programme experiences, e.g.:ØStaged approachØUse of exclusion and favourable factors

Ø

Avoidance of terminology "best" or "safest" siteØImportance of local acceptance recognised .... neglected earlier but recognised nowØ

PA is an important guide for site characterisation; it is required for checking that sites
are acceptable from a safety angle – but not generally useful as a site selection
discriminator (uncertainties involved make it difficult to distinguish unambiguously"safer" sites).

However, there were also some marked differences, e.g.:Ø

Scope of SI at each stage (surface/underground)ØEmphasis on geological diversity when choosing a set of sites

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 5ØInvolvement of local people in SC programmeØ

Ability and mechanisms to drop sites

ØExtent of regulatory involvement.

3.2

Site selection (MAA)

NUMO has to decide on its approach and be prepared to explain it to communities. Bothquantitative and qualitative multi-attribute evaluation techniques will be essential as adecision aid (but, it is emphasised, not a decision mechanism!). There certainly is a needfor a transparent approach that shows how NUMO will select and weight all the factorsthat will be considered. Neil Chapman gave a short overview of the MAA work that
NUMO has been carrying out with his advice. The ITAC agreed that it is good that NUMO
has made a start with MAA and, in the future, qualitative and quantitative selection
techniques can be explored further.

3.3

The 2nd RC workshop

This summary covers only the discussion following a presentation on the 2nd RC
workshop. Unfortunately, a planned overview of NUMO work since the workshop to
illustrate application of the matrix / overlay technique (carried out by Ueda-san) was notpresented (no time: but should be taken up by ITAC later). It was noted that the output
from this approach emphasised priority of R&D needs from a technical, but not fromtiming viewpoint. This latter point is very important for NUMO who may want to postpone
a lot of R&D until closer to repository implementation, when boundary conditions will bebetter defined. Nevertheless, an early start to long-term experiments or demonstrations canbuild confidence and this should also be borne in mind. In any case, it was emphasised that
NUMO needs to maintain flexibility and be aware that concepts can (and will) evolve withtime. These points also need to be communicated outside NUMO so that later adaptationsof concepts are properly perceived as steps towards optimisation and not as signals thatearlier concepts were wrong.

4

Volunteer Scenarios Brainstorming

The brainstorming session was structured by a presentation identifying a few bounding
scenarios which led to the discussion of how these might affect NUMO, considering thespecific areas ofØ

Site Investigation

Ø

R&D

Ø

Resource impacts

Ø

Cost impacts

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 6

ØAchievability

Ø

Pitfalls

ØImpact on decision process

The scenarios are grouped as :Ø

CENTRAL: A few (2 to 3) suitable2 volunteers3♦ C1: in similar environments♦ C2: in three different environments♦ C3: in mixed environments (multiple choices at one site)ØBOUNDING:♦ B1: only one suitable volunteer♦ B2: 10 or more ("lots") volunteers♦ B3: no volunteers –deferred programme

The resulting matrix is appended, but it was decided in the wrap-up that it was worth
expanding on this to provide some further explanation so that it can also be used by people
who did not attend this session (Action: I. McKinley). Also appended is a figure
illustrating the various evolution scenarios for possible volunteer PIAs. This may be ofsome use in developing ideas for how and when volunteer sites may need to be rejected as
unsuitable or put into a "reserve" category because other sites are allocated higher priority.
A further output was a list of generic risks which apply to the volunteering process:Ø"On your own": a volunteer site is in an "unusual" environment with no international
parallels; there is an increased risk if there are only a few volunteersØThe "late arrival at the dinner party"; with 2 possible negative cases, i.e. a marginal siteneeding "wasted" effort to bring up to the same level as the others or an obviously far
better site, that may make early front-runner volunteers unhappyØA requirement to prove that none of the alternatives is "safer", e.g. a potential demand
from regulator or public to show that an "obviously better alternative" has not been
overlooked (justify your weightings!)

ØSomeone "moves the goalposts": for example♦ regulatory change or development♦ changed international treaties (e.g. offshore)♦ NUMO asked to accommodate other types of waste.

NUMO should bear these points in mind when developing scenarios for the long-term
development of their siting programme.

23

i.e. they get past the nationwide and site specific screening stage
environment = geography, geology and demography

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 7

5

Future Activ ities Brainstorming

In this session, a less structured form of brainstorming was attempted – here termed"freewheeling" – in which input from the participants was solicited on items which should
be considered when planning NUMO's future activities. Such input was grouped under 3
headings, although the boundaries between them were sometimes unclear:ØPreparation for future dialogue with volunteersØTechnical issues

ØTopics partially outside NUMO control.

The purpose of freewheeling is to collect ideas and not to debate the validity ofsuggestions. Accordingly, the output of this session is simply tabulated here without
further comment.

5.1

Topics to be considered in preparation for future dialog with VolunteersØ

Explain level of community's commitment / when can they pull out?

ØOutline of studies to be carried out (literature studies / PIA site studies )ØProviding information on past workØ

How will selection be conducted – MAA?

ØSpecial topics if one site only volunteers? (What would have happened if no volunteers
or if single site withdraws?)

ØWhat are NUMO's procedures for communicating with the community anddocumenting work? Openness of procedures?

ØWhat are roles of NGO's? (e.g. Greenpeace)ØCan H12 really answer all safety concerns of stakeholders?

Ø

Are there independent technical reviewers of NUMO's programme?

ØHow big a site will NUMO need / level of access?

Ø

What really happens in flexible staging?

ØWill there be a community (Stakeholder) committee?

ØWhat are the possible final land use options?

5.2

Technical topics to be considered by NUMOØ

QA / data management / storage (considering longevity of information)!!!!!

ØPreparation of site investigation programme menusØ

How (and when) will NUMO include local experts?

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 8

ØNUMO needs to quantify expected costs and time resources for PIA work which
requires a fairly good idea of how PIAs will be characterised?

Ø

NUMO development and co-ordination of the R&D programme supporting PIA
programme (NUMO and other R&D organisations)ØCo-ordinate Design / PA / Site Characterisation sub-programmes for multiple sites.

Ø

Develop ideas on retrievability / monitoring?

Ø

NUMO should evaluate limits on availability of site investigation equipment

ØWhat is technical publication protocol?

Ø

Need strategy for implementing PIA characterisation

ØWhat to do technically for difficult access – e.g. ocean drillingØHow do you know you have completed / have sufficient data?

ØTraining of staffØConfirm all roles of organisations – METI / NUMO in operational terms

ØAll parts of NUMO need to participate on the international stage

ØShould NUMO develop its own "repository concept"?

ØPresentation of the flexible staging message

ØHow to approach EIA/EIS issues with the government?

ØFormal integration (or co-ordination) with other Japanese disposal programmes (JNFL,
RANDEC, etc.)

ØEmphasise flexibility in RC designs.

5.3

Topics partially outside NUMO control

ØConsider repository with all waste forms

ØConsider 2nd repositoryØ

Regulations

ØWhat is repository programme cost ceiling? 3 trillion yen?

ØWhen will NUMO take control of all R&D programmes?

ØHow will NUMO promote more efficient communication / collaboration with otherJapanese agenciesØ

How can NUMO push back on METI decisions & develop freedom to do its own
technical job (same issues true with power companies)Ø

What would be impact of international repository proposals?

ØHow will NUMO deal with the age balance in staff?

ØConsider attachment of staff to NUMO from abroad and vice versa

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 9Ø

How to co-operate with other Asian countries?

Ø

Formal integration of NUMO-related technical programmes being carried out by otherJapanese organisations

6

General remarks

6.1

Documentation and QA

It was strongly recommended that NUMO should establish technical documentation series
which could include reports for:ØInternal distribution (but may become public)ØEternal distribution.

These could include contractor and NUMO reports and each would require a distribution
policy to be developed along with associated QA and "disclaimer" frameworks. It wasemphasised that report QA should be part of an overall NUMO Quality System. The latter
is an extremely important topic which could be a focus for a future ITAC meeting.

6.2

Future of ITAC

6.2.1

Role and composition

The role of ITAC to date has been specified to be advisory, principally on technical issues.
Additional roles include:ØProviding a major (internal) international review function

Ø

Reviewing and advising on strategy, going beyond purely technical issues

ØProviding information (national programme experience).

However, ITAC is clearly not an independent (external) international review group.
Some examples of specific ITAC contributions to NUMO's programme include:ØHelping develop the structure of solicitation documentation

ØRefining the content of solicitation documentation

ØAiding development of strategy for repository programmeØ

Refining PIA definitions and selection approachØPresentation of the international context of HLW management to DTAC

Ø

Providing a motivation for staff to get important material together; acting as a sounding
board for NUMO presentations; encouraging production of useful external (English)
documents.

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 10

This can be compared with the full range of different requirements NUMO may have frominternational group(s):1) Advice on technical programme2) Strategic advice3) External, independent review (for improving credibility)
4) Experience transfer from other programmes5) Internal technical review (data, documents, projects)
6) International advocacy for NUMO programme.
ITAC considers that it currently contributes in all areas, except number three – although,even there, the credibility of the programme may well be enhanced by NUMO's
demonstrated readiness to obtain wide international advice. Nevertheless, ITAC identified
a number of ways in which NUMO could go further with international groups:
Ø

Option 1: retain ITAC with internal review and advisory roles:♦ 1a: no change: define activities & frequency♦ 1b: extend ITAC membership♦ 1c: 1a + an external review group♦ 1d: 1a + carry out external "milestone" reviews (e.g. by NEA)Ø

Option 2: disband ITAC: get advice on an ad hoc basis from consultants andbilaterals:♦ 2a: establish a standing external review group♦ 2b: and/or add "milestones" reviews

Potential future activities (over the next 1 – 2 years) were listed as:ØHelp plan the SC menu and specific programmesØ

Review and advise on QA and technical documentation

Ø

Review and advise on R&D programmeØInteract with DTAC

Ø

Advise further on the site selection process.

ITAC recommendations can be summarised as:ØKeep ITAC as it is: match frequency to needs and specific activities of programme(2 - 4 / year for the intensive phase over the next couple of years ): no need to broaden

Ø

Establish an external review mechanismØad hoc review at milestones best matches current needs and NUMO resources(Option 1d)ØCompletely independent reviews could be initiated by METI or NSC (improves"independence", but may complicate logistics)

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 11

Ø

Use ITAC to help prepare for and respond to ad hoc reviews

Ø

Revisit need for a standing external review group at start of PIA phase, withinvolvement of communities.

In the final wrap-up session, Masuda-san indicated that NUMO was considering the futureof ITAC, but would exclude options 1a and 2, as listed above. NUMO also presented a listof potential topics for future ITAC meetings:
ØPlan for Literature Survey

ØGeneral overview of PI programme / considerations on Siting Factors for Selection of
DIAs + Relevant R&D

Ø

Environmental assessment programmeØ

Alternative RC + Relevant R&D

ØIntegration of SC, design and PAØ

QA systemØ--------further issues to be specified when sites volunteer

As can be seen, there is a good overlap of this list with that proposed by ITAC.

6.2.2

Documentation of ITAC meetings

Until now, ITAC meetings have been recorded in short meeting records in English (likethis one) which is associated with a set of copies of the overheads presented. Such records
are all internal, unregistered documents. For the future, it may be useful to consider
making these records available - as a part of NUMO's policy of openness and transparency.
These records (with or without associated overheads) could be produced as internal orexternal numbered documents or, indeed, even published on the NUMO home page
(possibly in an edited form).
Various home page options were listed:Ø

Summarise ITAC 1-3(4?) in 2-3 pages

ØFrom ITAC 4 (5?) onwards:-

ØIndividual record in NUMO report seriesØHighlights note for home pageØGeneral article for home page (composition and aims of ITAC) which is occasionally
updated.

It is clear that the earlier ITAC meetings were heavily biased towards documentation
review, and hence of less general (external) interest. Nevertheless, the existence of ITAC is
now quite widely known (in both Japan and abroad) and it is to be expected that questions
about what it actually does will eventually arise. In any case, an outline article for the

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 12NUMO home page will be drafted (Action: I. McKinley) and then NUMO can decide
how they want to proceed further in this matter.

6.3

Wrap-up

Most of the points raised during the final wrap-up session have been integrated as
clarification into the text above. The only remaining point was setting the dates of the next
ITAC meetings:
è Week 31 (28 July 2003)
è Week 51 (15 December 2003)

To allow enough time for preparation during a year which promises to be very busy, exact
meeting dates, a meeting format (specifying any special sessions) and a draft programmeshould be prepared at least 2 months in advance of the meetings (Action: I. McKinley /T. Ashida). During planning of the meeting, it was recommended to consider encouraging
the involvement of a wider range of NUMO staff in ITAC meetings.

P ropagation mode ls for vo lunte e rs

Nationwide Certification

Literature Survey Stage
2006 Nominate PIAs

X
Nationwide
factors

X

Site Specificfactors

PIA Field Investigations

R
X?

Probably
acceptable
sites

Obviously
poor site

Nominate DIA(s)DIA Stage….carefully consider policy on number of DIAs

X

R

18 February 2003
Dr. I. McKinley / Dr. C. McCombie/plf(H:daten\isp\J\itac\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Record ITAC-4 Meeting
Page 13Site investigation

R&D
Resources impact
Schedule impact
Cost impact

C1: 3 Similar
Simplifies but it is simple
already for H12

Reduces but may wish to
keep options open
Concentrates limited
human resources
Likely to help

Achievability

ReduceØ Common RC
Ø Common R&D
Common mode "success"Pitfalls?

ØØImpact on decision
processØØCommon mode failure"Similar" is relative inJapan(+) Comparison easier(-) Validity of decision
may be questioned

C2: Different
C3: Mixed
May create conflicts at site
ComplicatesØ Separate site teams
Ø Phased characterisation
Ø How to get same level ofdetail?
Increases
Slight increase

B1: 1 Volunteers
Easier

B2: Too many

Radical RC needed?
R&D focuses
Helps

B3: No volunteers

Revise RCØØ

Large pool of experts
Neutralneeded à site "teams"
Ø Prioritise?
May need to prioritiseØ Phase characterisation
Increase, but maybe not by Small increasex3 factor
Avoids common mode
failureØ Increases flexibility
Ø Increases chance of
success
Ø Sites compete with eachother
Ø Possible lack of common
safety assessment(data, models,assumptions)Ø Comparison harderØ Validity of decision may
be more acceptedØ

18 February 2003 ../plf (H:isp\Japan\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

18 February 2003 McK/McC/plf (H:daten\isp\J\ITAC\ITAC-4record-FinalDraft-McKMcCnumo.doc)

Increases flexibility

Helps
May need compensation
at each stepØ Harder to optimiseØ Hit on missØ Leverage is all withvolunteerØ

Need to choose
Bad option at site à "badsite"

A lonely single site might
withdraw

If one option dropped,
adaptation might raise
concerns

NUMO must form close
partnership with community

Needs screening

Reverse Dutch
auction?

NUMO has moreleverageØØRanking is easy
Selection is harder

Need to work with
communicators:
NGOs, politicians