1. Integration of post-closure safety and operational safety in the Geological Disposal Safety Case The international harmonization project GEOSAF 2 Recap of conclusion form the second plenary meeting Bengt Hedberg May 2014 GEOSAF 2 3 rd plenary meeting

2. The objectives … 1. Discuss and decide how to proceed with draft report … … the concepts brought forth Initial state Design target state ”Handshake” Requirements management … … the adequacy of these concepts 2. Work-plan for coming year (i.e. until this plenary) 2

3. 1. Outcome – draft report … Open and constructive discussion and substantial proposals for improvements Some important observations The evolving nature of the safety case the safety case as a “tool” rather than a document to be handed over to get a license The “handshake” recognition that the success of building, operating and closing a geological repository requires that the whole set of actions performed during the operational/pre-closure phase generates a state of the facility that falls into a pre-defined safety envelope for the post closure phase 3

4. 1. Outcome – draft report … (con’d) Some important observations (cont’d) The “design target state” a new concept used to materialize the target which is aimed at by the operator all along the operational/pre-closure phase a rich concept based on basic, common features of nuclear facilities A framework for ensuring the “handshake” the so-called “loop” a continuously improved safety case fueled by data acquired during the operation phase a framework for constantly re-assessing the achievement of defined requirements a framework for constantly ensuring that the implementer is deviating from the target 4

5. 1. Outcome – draft report … (con’d) 5 Draft report – conclusions Strive for an improved deliverable Revise structure to better reflect the key messages Numerous proposals for improvements identified by the GEOSAF 2 meeting participants The new ideas Need to explore operational safety per se Need to explore the methods or approaches that could be envisaged when corrective actions are needed to aim back at the design target state after a deviation was detected Need for a mapping of (any) existing guidance for building a sound safety case and identification of gaps

6. 2. Work-plan for coming year 6 The revised draft report (work by core group) … should be made close to the final deliverable New activities? A group on operational safety ? could start from the GEOSAF1 published companion report explore and expand the report, make a special appendix of the GEOSAF 2 report on state of the art of the operation phase aspects of the safety case A group on additional guidance ? could start with a strong IAEA support (WSS + WTS) draft a mapping of existing guidance and explore to which extent gaps could be addressed within GEOSAF 2 or beyond

7. 2. Work-plan for coming year (con’d) 7 Other opportunities The NEA Operational Working Group explore possible collaboration (joint meeting?) Additional material for explaining the concepts of GEOSAF 2 poster, leaflet, publication, whatever… the IAEA is our customer!