Towards an European training market and professional qualification in Geological Disposal
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE
Cours Leopold 34
54052 Nancy Cedex
Higher or Secondary Education Establishments
€ 132 000
Behrooz Bazargan Sabet (Prof.)
Sort by EU Contribution
INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO E NUCLEAR.
€ 40 000
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT CLAUSTHAL
€ 80 000
MICROBIAL ANALYTICS SWEDEN AB
€ 37 000
€ 30 000
AGENCE NATIONALE POUR LA GESTION DES DECHETS RADIOACTIFS
€ 22 000
ARAO-AGENCIJA ZA RADIOAKTIVNE ODPADKE LJUBLJANA ZAVOD
€ 22 000
Radioactive Waste Repository Authority
€ 22 000
ITC School of Underground Waste Storage and Disposal
€ 100 000
RESEAU EUROPEEN POUR L ENSEIGNEMENT DES SCIENCES NUCLEAIRES
€ 256 000
EMPRESA NACIONAL DE RESIDUOS RADIACTIVOS S.A.
€ 22 000
GESELLSCHAFT FUR ANLAGEN UND REAKTORSICHERHEIT (GRS) gGmbH
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TECNICO
€ 37 000
ECOLE NATIONALE SUPERIEURE DES TECHNIQUES INDUSTRIELLES ET DES MINES DE NANTES
Grant agreement ID: 232665
15 January 2009
14 January 2012
€ 1 707 916
€ 800 000
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE
Creating more experts in nuclear waste management
Grant agreement ID: 232665
15 January 2009
14 January 2012
€ 1 707 916
€ 800 000
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE
Final Report Summary - PETRUS II (Towards an European training market and professional qualification in geological disposal)
Producing human resources that can address diverse issues related to the geological disposal of radioactive waste requires a unified effort at European level for the next several decades. The objective of the PETRUS II project is to ensure the continuation, renewal and improvement of the professional skills by filling the gap between growing demand for structured education and training (E&T) in geological disposal and the offering that is presently fairly limited. This goal is achieved through close collaboration between key stakeholders (i.e. end users, training providers and academia) committed to develop suitable common frameworks for the implementation and delivery of sustainable E&T programmes accredited at the European level and mutually recognised.
PETRUS II project transposes the principles and the concepts of the systematic approach for training (SAT) into a rotary dynamic system encompassing analysis and planning, development and implementation, and evaluation and validation processes. The project focuses on a harmonised and structured approach to E&T in geological disposal and proposes an innovative strategy for sharing resources from both academia and industries.
Training needs and available resources have been first identified in the frame of Work package (WP1). The establishment of the training areas and priorities led to the design of adequate programmes which have been developed and implemented in an academic curriculum (WP3: European Master) and partially in the Professional development (PD) framework (WP2). Evaluation and validation processes have been studied in WP4 and appropriate methodology has been set up in accordance with quality assurance system. The effectiveness of the developed programmes has been tested during the project time through the organisation of several pilot sessions.
As far as education is concerned, the project allowed the delivery of 120 hours per year of specialised common courses developed within the Bologna process which address Master students in geosciences. The programme was followed by about 30 students during the project life using synchronous e-learning methodology that allows broadcasting live lectures into multiple distance sites.
PETRUS II training programme deals with professional development issues. In accordance with the Copenhagen process the settlement of a framework for qualification oriented modular programme compatible with the European credit system for vocational E&T (ECVET) has been studied. Three job profiles have been identified and corresponding qualification programmes have been defined and partially tested through the organisation of a pilot session.
The main results of the PETRUS II project are:
- The development of adequate E&T schemes and the delivery of courses integrated to these schemes which synthesise relevant principles and themes from numerous allied disciplines relative to the radioactive waste disposal.
- The development of a framework for the mutual recognition and accreditation of the E&T programmes.
- The development of a comprehensive database and its integration to the ENEN web database providing up-to-date information on E&T provisions and other relevant data.
- The settlement of the PETRUS End-user council (EUC) for long-term collaboration between end users and E&T providers beyond the present project.
Project context and objectives:
Nuclear power today represents about 30 % of Europe's total energy production. One of the biggest obstacles facing the nuclear industry is what to do with the nuclear waste generated in the form of spent fuel discharged from reactors or in the form of high-level waste originating from the extraction of plutonium from spent fuel. Most European countries consider option to bury nuclear waste in a deep geological repository, but such a facility has not yet been implemented. However, for as long as we continue to consume nuclear energy, there will be the inevitable production of associated radioactive waste. Worldwide, more than 250 000 tons of spent fuel from reactors currently operating will require disposal. These numbers account for only high-level nuclear waste generated by present-day power reactors. Rather conservative projections in the coming decades indicate that by year 2050, almost 1 million tons of discharged fuel requiring disposal could exist. Even a hypothetical halt to all nuclear programmes would by no means signify an end to the production of nuclear waste. The decommissioning and dismantling of the existing nuclear installations would also be a source of radioactive waste for many years, requiring the implementation of a secure and safe waste management programme. Thus, regardless of the policy adopted by public authorities, the control and management of radioactive waste will persist as a prime concern for at least several decades. Planning and implementation timeframes for waste disposal projects will also range over decades which results in a considerable challenge with regard to knowledge management and transfer. In this context, it is naturally essential not only to maintain but to improve and extend our expertise and scientific competence through adequate E&T programmes in this field.
E&T in geological disposal has become a focal point in the waste management community in the beginning of this century. Several initiatives were started to strengthen both the national and international opportunities for E&T. Such initiatives include: the IAEA URF network of excellence â?œTraining in and demonstration of waste disposal technologies in underground research facilities; the foundation of the ITC-School association in 2003; the study made in the CETRAD project, funded by the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Commission, during 2004-2005 on available resources and needs in E&T in geological disposal; the formulation of the PETRUS project for planning a modular curriculum in geological disposal; and the implementation of the first Master programme with an orientation in deep geological disposal at the Technical University in Clausthal in autumn 2007.
Parallel with the developments in E&T in geological disposal, a European wide network of universities forming the ENEN association developed both on national and European level. The association orientation was in nuclear engineering producing an opportunity for graduate students to receive a European master supplement and accreditation of studies according to mutually agreed quality assurance principles of the association. In the frame of FP6, ENEN launched the NEPTUNO project during which a database for education offering and advanced courses, a scheme for mobility and tools for quality assurance were developed.
In 2006, both the geological disposal community and the radiation protection community started working in parallel and together with ENEN association in the ENEN II project, where modular curricula in geological disposal and radiation protection were developed to complement the curricula in nuclear engineering. Within the project, the ENEN tools e.g. E&T programmes offering, mutual accreditation, student mobility, and quality assurance were developed further by the ENEN association members together with the two other project communities. The timeframe of the ENEN II project, however, does not allow the implementation of these tools into the geological disposal education. This implementation needs to be carried out within a continuation project that is part of the PETRUS II project. The overall objective of the PETRUS II project is to ensure the continuation, renewal and improvement of the professional skills in the field of radioactive waste disposal by building suitable frameworks for implementing and delivering sustainable training programmes. To reach this goal the project leans on the existing state of the art, takes advantage of the developments carried out in ENEN II project and mobilises resources from a strong partnership between academic and non-academic institutions.
Obviously, seeking solution for updating and improving knowledge on radioactive waste disposal is a common interest of the all consortium partners. Since adequate human resources are scarce, it is more efficient to act and mobilise resources at the European level and join efforts towards building a common training framework rather than several scattered programmes. The main idea is to share the best competences and pedagogic materials available in each partner organisation and to study how pooling resources can be used to gain training efficiencies. The project consortium is balanced blend of relevant actors in the development of knowledge, competence and skill in the field of the geological disposal in Europe. The core of the PETRUS II consortium consists in 15 partners that can virtually be divided in two clusters:
- The pool of end users constituted by 5 major Waste management organisation (WMO)s (Andra, Arao, Enresa, Posiva and Rawra) and a technical nuclear safety organisation (GRS).
- The pool of providers formed by 10 partners comprising academia, research centres and training centres.
The consortium co-operates through a suitable organisational structure for co-ordinating its activities and deliveries, which are:
- The identification of needs, the inventory of available resources and the conception of the training programmes by taking into account both training providers and end users point of view.
- The development of the adequate training schemes and the delivery of courses integrated to these schemes.
- The development of a framework for the mutual recognition and accreditation of the training programmes.
- The settlement of a plan for assuring the uprofessional developmentate and long-term sustainability of the programmes.
In the broadest view, PETRUS II project follows the general scheme of the systematic approach for training (SAT). The principles of SAT approach are transposed into a rotary dynamic system encompassing analysis and planning, development and implementation, and evaluation / validation processes.
The analysis and planning phase encompasses training needs (analysis) and training resource identification which are the main subjects of WP1. In the first part of the project the current and future needs on training activities based on the evaluation of the prospective competences are assessed and the outcomes of the past projects (i.e. CETRAD and ENEN II) are uprofessional developmentated.
The establishment of the areas and priorities for training continues with the identification of partners resources and pedagogic materials that can be integrated into the different training schemes. The resource identification is an important part of the project that specifies what will be taught and how it will be taught. Most of the resources could be found in the exciting academic curricula but need to be adapted to the training purpose as they are not often modular or address broader subjects. Individual training courses developed by the end-users i.e. WMOs, as well as those developed by ITC School, are another part of the resources.
The development and implementation phase consists first of sorting the existing and planned courses according to their finality into the training schemes and into informative courses. The training schemes consist of professional development and of European Masters. As it is widely agreed, the efficiency of a training strategy relies on the combination of these schemes. Thereby PETRUS II develops adequate structures and frameworks for them (WP2 and WP3). Education cannot be separated from training. Basic education is the foundation on which an effective training system should be built. In this frame, PETRUS II project focuses on Master and professional development programmes. The implementation of the Master programme is the continuation of the earlier efforts to design tools and structures for common courses in geological disposal that has been carried out within the ENEN II project. The implementation of the Master programme is treated in a separate WP3 with an additional objective of adapting the common courses to the attendance of auditors other than the regular university students.
In order to meet the needs of professionals to uprofessional developmentate and to refresh their skills but also to enlarge their knowledge on geological disposal beyond the initial area of their competence it is necessity to develop professional development programmes. A framework for professional development is implemented in WP2. It comprises a set of modular courses and conferences in topics identified through job analysis performed in WP1.
Informative training is understood as short and easily adapted to situations courses which do not require formal accreditation. It concerns non-recurrent thematic programmes (the topic may change from one session to another) such as organisation of seminars and workshops and encompasses either on-demand courses or training programmes based on the content and/or outcomes of a research project. The implementation of such a scheme necessitates flexible structure such as developed by ITC School, but also close collaboration with national, European and international research projects. PETRUS II will seek cooperation with international organisations like IAEA.
The method of delivery of training courses would include traditional types of classroom lectures. However, PETRUS II project makes heavy use of the face-to-face distance teaching methodology that has been developed by the PETRUS group within ENEN II project and was experimented during the zero level pilot session. Using Internet facilities, this cost-effective method allows broadcasting live lectures to auditors at multiple distance sites and maintaining interactivity between teacher and trainees similar to a traditional classroom setting.
The effectiveness of the training programmes is tested during the project time through the organisation of several pilot sessions supplemented by practical activities and real case studies. The project takes advantage of the presence of underground research laboratories owners within the consortium (i.e. ANDRA, CTU), for organising different in-situ training activities, ranging from technical visit to the active participation in experimental works.
The objective of evaluation / validation phase is twofold: i) set up processes to determine the relevance, effectiveness and impact of the training programmes, ii) develop a model for accreditation and mutual recognition of the training programmes. Both of these are embedded into the quality assurance system that is a central element in supporting training programmes and is treated in WP4. Concerning the first point, issues of concern include finding consensus on content of the courses, assessment and evaluation procedures and pedagogic performance. The maintenance of high standards across these issues in an environment characterised by a community of trainees having different backgrounds and institutions having different national rules necessitates establishment of specific criteria mutually agreed. The ENEN association has developed such criteria in the frame of nuclear engineering. The project takes advantage of this work and adapts the proposed structure to the particular case of the geological disposal for developing adequate criteria.
Validation, accreditation and mutual recognition intend on the one hand to ensure that only programmes that meet the necessary quality requirements defined by mutual consensus are able to enter the geological disposal E&T system, on the other hand to guaranty that participants have attained professional skills and competencies which respond to common qualification standards recognised at the European level. PETRUS II launches comparative study on the application of different national assessment rules for validation of knowledge and skills acquired through non-formal training. There are several European studies available in this subject, which can bring useful inputs to the project as for instance works carried out by CEDEFOP European Centre for the development of vocational training.
The circular process (i.e. analysis and planning, development and implementation, and evaluation / validation) is complemented by two support WPs. WP5 is dedicated to the development of a sustainable network for E&T in geological disposal. PETRUS II wants to tie the key actors in this field which are the universities developing the PETRUS curricula, the training providers and most importantly the end users in a forum. The main objectives are to: i) extend the partnerships and links between PETRUS II network and national and international networks, ii) establish close collaboration with the potential technology platform in geological disposal, iii) collect ideas for further co-operations, and how to make them self-supporting and sustainable in a long-term perspective.
The second support WP deals with knowledge management (WP6). The consortium develops a dedicated data and knowledge management system to enhance the work within the network and to disseminate the information outside the consortium. The web portal and database created under ENEN II is extended to the training activities and loaded with the portfolio of formative courses related to the geological disposal identified in WP1. The system is linked to the ENEN association databank in order to create a wide information network on nuclear training.
On the whole, the target of the PETRUS II project is to fill the gap between growing requirements for structured E&T programmes in geological disposal and the offering in this field that has been found to be fairly limited. Actions in the field of formal education have been already initiated by PETRUS group in ENEN II and will be continued in the present project by the implementation of common courses at the Master level. Professional development schemes in geological disposal have not been addressed by any actor yet. PETRUS II aims to contribute to fulfil these gaps through the present proposal.
Building suitable frameworks and schemes for implementing and delivering sustainable training programmes in radioactive waste disposal is the main objective of the PETRUS II project. The last 30 years have seen continuous and rather rapid scientific and technological progress in radioactive waste disposal generating training needs for people working in this field to consistently update their knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the multidimensional aspect of this area usually demands far more than individual specialisation. To ensure the continuation and renewal of professional skills and competencies PETRUS II project pools the best training competence and pedagogic materials available in the project consortium in order to develop training schemes and deliver adequate courses integrated in these schemes and to develop a framework for the mutual recognition and accreditation of the training programmes.
The PETRUS II consortium resources that can be included in the E&T programmes were inventoried in WP1 and a set of data for creating the portfolio of formative courses in geological disposal was provided as was the identification of possible knowledge gaps. The current and prospective needs of the end-users in terms of E&T in the field of geological disposal have been discussed in WP5. The concept of professional development programmes was settled in WP2 where skills and competences that employers require for their present and future staff in the field of geological disposal have been listed, learning outcomes were defined and the development of the professional development and pilot professional development programmes was described in accordance with the analysis of the PETRUS II end-user needs. The curriculum for Master programme was discussed in WP3 and a set of around 120 hours of courses has been prepared leaning on the existing courses available in project partner universities. Based on this curriculum two pilot sessions have been organised assembling around 30 students in total. Apart theoretical courses taught using the Internet facility and the face to face distant teaching methodology developed in the frame of the PETRUS initiative, students had the opportunity to participate to three weeks practical training in Josef underground laboratory. In WP4 devoted to evaluation and validation of the training programmes a strategy allowing validation (i.e. accreditation and recognition) of the programmes based on comparative study of the existing national accreditation systems for non-formal training has been developed in order to find and propose the best structure applicable to the specific case of the geological disposal. Evaluation that consists in setting up strategy, tools and methodologies for measuring trainee progress and providing information on the effectiveness of instructional interventions and training programmes has been also treated in this WP. Finally, the knowledge management of the project has been treated in WP6 allowing the creation of a public web portal and connection with the ENEN website, as well as homogenisation of two databases available one in ITC school and the other in ENEN association.
The main results and foregrounds of the project are presented hereafter.
Training and competence need and portfolio of formative courses
WP1 of the PETRUS II project is devoted to the assessment of the current and prospective needs in terms of E&T in the field of geological disposal, in order to determine the basket of knowledge that the participants must be provided with for satisfying end-user requirements in terms of immediate and future skills. In this WP the consortium resources that can enter into the E&T programmes have been inventoried and a rational way of pooling these resources has been defined. The WP provides a set of data for creating the portfolio of formative courses in geological disposal.
The information which has been used has been obtained by participants ranging from WMOs, universities and regulatory authorities to Technical support organisation (TSO)s and training associations. The participants were asked to fill out an online questionnaire. The results were then discussed with the participants, misunderstandings were addressed and information was restructured if necessary, in order to address the needs of the project. Formal lectures are understood as those provided by universities in the course of a bachelor or master programme or as a specialised module. For most universities, enrolment as a regular student or as an external auditor is required for participation. Non-formal lectures are delivered in form of training programmes. These may be offered by specialised agencies and organisations, or directly by training-on-the-job programmes within the WMOs or TSOs.
The following questions were asked as a basis for analysis:
- contact details;
- type of organisation (university, college, research organisation, professional school, WMO, TSO, agency, authority and / or other);
- responsibility in radioactive waste disposal (regulatory or advisory).
Size of total personnel:
- Number of employees working in radioactive waste disposal currently employed full time or part time.
- Breakdown of current and anticipated future employees in radioactive waste.
- Disposal specialisations (employees with general, multidisciplinary knowledge in radioactive waste disposal, nuclear engineering, chemical engineering, radiation protection and safety assessment, Earth sciences and rock engineering, biological and environmental sciences, civil engineering and underground construction, law and regulation, public relations and communications, project management and economics, other specialisations).
- Anticipated demand of specialists in radioactive waste disposal / geological disposal.
- Which competence in radioactive waste disposal do you need from your employees?
- How are training and competence needs defined in your organisation?
- How does the organisation currently cover its needs in E&T in radioactive waste disposal? (In-house training with own/external instructors, external instructions or other means).
- Are you interested in remote distance learning courses?
- Do you use video conference technology or is it possible for you to use it?
- Which are the languages of the current instructions?
- Which language do you prefer for further instructions?
- Is the availability of courses in radioactive waste disposal to your satisfaction? (Yes, course offerings too rarely, not enough topics, other).
- Which topics (for courses) in radioactive waste disposal do you need in future?
The need for future courses in the following topics were identified (the order does not indicate preferences):
- nuclear engineering;
- basic courses on engineering and RWM dealing with chemical and radiological properties, safety issues, measurement techniques;
- radiological protection;
- radiochemistry, biogeochemistry;
- waste packaging and assessment, conditioning and disposal, partitioning and transmutation;
- cost estimation;
- international regulatory topics;
- safety criteria and strategies, safety cases modelling;
- public perception and information, media information, local governmental authorities information.
As resources available a total of 26 training courses were received. They can be grouped as follows:
Mostly stand-alone courses, all involving exercises, practical training and sometimes field trips. 4 accredited courses linked to universities, one during term-time and three stand-alone courses (involving exercises, practical training or individual project work). 18 training courses are in English, 2 in French, 2 in Portuguese and 4 in Finnish. 21 training courses are open for a wider audience from outside.
All participants use video conference technology or it is possible for them to use resources from other institutes.
There is a high variation with regard to boundary conditions and logistics such as duration, frequency, fees / costs number of participants.
From this collection it was conclude that for most of the topics for which organisations expressed needs, courses are available albeit under some minor modifications. Exceptions in the topics are waste conditioning in relationship to disposal and P&T where most of the end users did not feel a need for such courses.
Details of structured courses in relation to the needs expressed have been upload to the ENEN database on courses and seminars pages.
Professional development learning process
Training schemes for professional development in geological disposal have been developed to enable present and future professionals in nuclear waste management in Europe to follow a training programme in geological disposal which would be widely recognised across Europe.
During the project two job profiles have been defined with the help of end users and training providers. Based on ECVET principles the general frame for learning outcomes has been defined and then translated in terms of courses for professional development pilot session in accordance with the job analysis results.
According to EU, learning outcomes are statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate at completion of a period of learning. The EuroAges programme has looked at this in some detail and here it is stated that the learning outcomes can be described as quality standards for competences, skills and knowledge that graduates of an accredited course would be expected to have achieved as the education base for practising their profession or for post-graduate studies. On this basis, four core areas have been recognised for radioactive waste disposal:
Underlying basis for radioactive waste disposal: this identifies capabilities that are essential to satisfying the learning outcomes. Furthermore, it provides help for defining which knowledge and understanding learners should demonstrate of their technical specialisation as well as of the wider context of waste disposal.
Analysis, design and implementation: these are the basic steps of any work cycle and are therefore self-explanatory
Technological, methodological and transferable competences: this refers to the expected ability of a learner to work to combine and abstract their technical skills to solve problems in a wider, technological context. Thus they should be able to use appropriate methods and material to achieve a particular waste-related objective.
Other professional skills: these are crucial to communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions. In addition to the so-called soft skills, this refers to project management skills and the knowledge of disciplines and those ancillary principles that are relevant to the working environment of the learners' own specialised field.
Thereby general elements of a professional development programme have been formulised as:
stand-alone general or topic-specific courses and specific modules within a course;
- all or parts of relevant MSc courses;
- summer schools;
- in-house training courses;
- on-the-job training.
- training by work projects (e.g. related to EC projects, see objectives for FP7);
- conferences, seminars and workshops;
- international collaborative meetings and projects;
- fellowships, internships and site visits involving international exchange, work placement or practical vocational training abroad (e.g. IAEA fellowships);
- tests and examinations.
Each element of a professional development programme should be linked to the acquisition of an approved number of common credits that can lead, among other things, to the award of professional development diplomas. A successful European-wide professional development programme requires mobility of learners and tutors / teachers allied to wide recognition and accreditation.
Each of these elements would also appear as a record in a professional development participant's personal portfolio of achievements, which will show the competences possessed and how they have been obtained.
An example of Learning agreement that is another element of the ECVET instrument has been developed as it shown below:
Trainee learning agreement: This learning agreement was made on XX (date) between XX (trainee's name in full) and XX (company mentor) on behalf of XX (learner's parent organisation) after discussion with the professional development board.
Learning objectives and outcomes:
PETRUS professional development programme learners will be expected to demonstrate:
- a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of their discipline or area of professional practice in the field of radioactive waste disposal;
- a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for advanced academic enquiry (and research, where applicable) in the field of radioactive waste disposal;
- in their discipline or area of professional practice, the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project (technical or administrative) in the field of radioactive waste disposal;
- the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of their discipline, and merit publication.
Step one: Tick those aims / objectives from the following list that would most benefit you and further your personal career. Your company may have other appropriate or required aims / objectives that need to be considered, so please review your choices with your mentor and revise if needed after discussion with the professional development board.
1. What skills do I have that will benefit me? Why?
2. What skills do I need to be successful? How will I gain these?
3. What is considered cutting edge in my field? Why?
4. What is obsolete? Why?
1. How can I define myself further as a professional?
2. Where do I see myself in 5 years?
3. Who among the leaders in my field do I admire most and why?
4. What does the word 'professionalism' mean to me? How can I exemplify that definition in my work?
1. What types of projects am I interested in work with in a work environment? How can I gain this experience?
2. What role does leadership play in project management?
3. Why is project management important?
4. What experience do I need to be competent a project manager?
1. Where is my industry currently (financially, growth, and development)?
2. Where is my industry heading in the future?
3. Where do I fit in the current and future states of my industry?
4. What global factors could affect my industry? Why?
1. How do I define good communication?
2. How can I learn to fit this definition as a professional?
3. What is bad communication? How can it effect the workplace?
4. When have I used communication to my benefit?
5. How does technology help/inhibit communication?
1. What have a learned that I can apply to my current position?
2. What do I need in order to be successful as professional in this field? How will I learn it in the Pilot PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT or in experience?
3. Is there current research that I might be able to use?
4. What most influenced my employer? Why?
1. What skills are critical in my field? How can I gain these skills in my internship experience?
2. What are my strengths? How can I further develop my strengths in my internship experience?
3. Where are other candidates lacking in skills?
4. How can I show my employer I can fill a lacking area?
1. What have I learned that I can apply to this experience?
2. How can my employer help me grow as a professional?
3. Are there areas that I have failed in past that I could do better with during this experience? What and how/why?
4. What do other candidates struggle with most? How can I excel in these areas.
Step two: List your selected aims / objectives: Do not be afraid to revise or reword so the objective feels more comfortable and more relevant to your ultimate career aims. Use the examples above or draft your own learning outcomes as long as they are as specific and realistic as the examples provided. Review these with your mentor.
Step three: Indicate on your learning agreement form how you will document or verify each career-specific goal / objective. In this particular case, most learners will be content to collect the ECTS as course credits following successful completion of the courses. But some learners may agree further areas with their employers, so it is worth considering how to document each objective. In the field of radioactive waste disposal, this could include:
- attaining professional status;
- publishing a paper in a technical journal;
- writing a book on waste disposal;
- obtaining an academic qualification (e.g. MSc, PhD) by part-time or distance learning;
- producing a stakeholder communication DVD or CD or pamphlet or radio programme;
- filing a patent.
Step four: Take your drafted learning agreement to your mentor for review and signature
Step five: Check the completed learning agreement with the professional development board: this should be at least two weeks before beginning your pilot professional development so assessment forms can be sent to you and your mentor in a timely way. You and your mentor will both receive copies of the completed learning agreement and course credits when earned.
Step six: binding legal declaration
The personal profile as a passport
Use of the EUROPASS system will effectively automatically provide passport information if it is utilised appropriately as it should encourage students to plan, record and reflect on their own learning and to provide evidence of continuing professional development (Aiton et al., 2008). However, it is important that the learner understands that they are responsible for keeping it up to date. One method of ensuring this is that the learner's record must be updated and submitted every year to an audit.
Currently, there is no mechanism for such an audit in the EUROPASS scheme, but this will be considered by the professional development board for the PETRUS professional development programme.
A programme for education at Master level has been elaborated after discussion between academics and end users. The main headlines are:
Overview of nuclear power
- nuclear structure;
- radioactivity and radioactive decay;
- energetics of nuclear reactions.
- radiation fundamentals: terminology; radiation measurements.
2. Nuclear plants
- inside a nuclear power plant;
- fuel resources;
- different type of reactors.
Boiling water reactor, light water cooled - graphite moderated reactor, liquid metal fast breeder reactor, liquid metal (cooled) -graphite moderated reactor, light water breeder reactor, pressurised water reactor: utilisation of nuclear energy and generation of HLW.
3. An overview of the nuclear fuel cycle
- nuclear fuel reserves and resources;
- mining and milling;
- conversion, and enrichment;
- fuel fabrication;
- transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear fuel.
1. General background to research and development
2. Sources of nuclear waste
- classification of radioactive wastes;
- contaminants and hazard.
3. Principles of nuclear waste management
- basic management approaches and characterisation of radioactive waste;
- nuclear waste regulations.
- radioactive waste, recycling, waste minimisation and immobilisation;
- treatment of liquid radioactive wastes;
- treatment of solid wastes;
- hydraulic cements in waste immobilisation;
- immobilisation of radioactive wastes in bitumen;
- glasses for radioactive waste immobilisation;
- vitrification technology;
5. Nuclear waste transportation, storage and disposal
- repository designs;
- deep repository designs for HLW;
- deep repository designs for ILW;
- near-surface repository designs for LLW;
- geological disposal.
1. Concepts of geologic disposal
- multi-barrier concept;
architecture of disposal;
- worldwide evolution of the geological disposal concept.
2. Selection of waste disposal sites
- the role of the geosphere;
- geological setting;
- lithological properties;
- tectonic setting;
- climatic and sea-level changes;
- characteristics of the geological environment;
- properties of the host rock;
- site characterisation.
3. Geological disposal performance
- role of the EBS and the host rock in geological disposal concepts;
- outline of disposal concept;
- mechanical stability of tunnels;
- excavation disturbed zone;
- rock creep;
- integrity of the EBS, buffer specifications;
- gas migration;
- extrusion of bentonite;
- overpack corrosion and sinking;
- backfilling and sealing.
4. Natural analogues
- varieties of analogue studies;
- natural occurrences of repository materials;
- archaeological analogues;
- analogues of transport and retardation;
- natural analogues in non-technical demonstrations of safety;
- evidence from natural analogues for the stability of the geological environment and its ability to retain radionuclides.
5. Case study
- Swedish and Finnish spent fuel repositories.
1. The Energy Debate, nuclear power and radioactive waste disposal
- energy policy, markets, supply and demand in the context of nuclear industry;
- European legislation related to the radioactive waste.
2. Public concerns
- public understanding of radioactivity;
- public consultation and public inquiries;
- culture, ethics and public tolerability;
- involvement of Stakeholders and Stakeholder Dialogue;
- regulation and control.
1. Objectives and scope of the safety assessment
2. Safety assessment methodology
- development and treatment of safety assessment cases;
- modelling strategy;
- confidence in the safety assessment.
3. Requirements for safety assessment of geological disposal systems
- safety functions and detrimental factors;
- scenario development;
- reference case;
- analysis of perturbation scenarios;
- illustration of an overall system performance;
- comparison between some European safety standards.
4. Reliability of the safety assessment
- the concept of risk;
- identification and understanding of hazards;
- logistic and probabilistic descriptions of risk;
- quantifying failure: Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), event trees, fault trees;
- 'acceptable risk'; is it basically a subjective notion?
5. Probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) in the context of geological disposal
- What is the purpose of a PSA?
- What does a PSA contain?
- The limitations of PSAs
6. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
- conceptual mathematical modelling;
- fundamental concepts of perturbation theory;
- fundamental concepts of system sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.
Safety assessment practices in radioactive waste management
1. International rules and principles applicable to the radwaste disposals IAEA guidelines CIPR specifications for NP:
- notion of confinement barriers;
- principles of redundancy and complementarity from NPP to RWD (geosphere as barrier, time span).
- How they have been transposed into national regulation guidelines within Europe:
- through some examples;
- necessary adaptation to the different cultures and social way of regulation;
- rule of the EU and the NEA in the domain.
2. Safety requirements and performance assessment of a radwaste disposal
Specific safety policy of European WMO's regarding the different types of disposals:
- safety guarantees, quality assurance management and sustainable development;
- practical requirements to design and exploit a disposal (robustness).
- allocation of functions to the disposal components;
- designer specifications;
- performance assessment of the components (functioning tests, workability, numeral simulation).
3. Risk analysis
Notion of safety case:
- constitutive scenarios;
- how to handle complex systems on a long time frame.
- features, events and processes inventory;
- phenomenological analysis of repository situations;
- failure analysis of industrial processes.
- deterministic approaches and uncertainties handling;
- stochastic approach.
Examples of recent safety case developments:
Based on this syllabus a total of 120 hours of lectures have been elaborated using different courses available in the partner universities. Furthermore, three weeks programme was scheduled in Josef underground laboratory for practical training. Lectures and training programme were tested during two pilot sessions as a part of the regular universities Master programme with the participation of around 30 Master students in 2010 and 2011. Lectures were transmitted in live at distant classrooms using the methodology developed by the PETRUS consortium. An agreement has been concluded for the continuation of the PETRUS Master programme beyond the project life.
Programme assessment consists in setting up strategy, tools and methodologies for measuring trainee progress and providing information on the effectiveness of instructional interventions and training programmes.
In practice evaluation of a training programme consists of threefold system: Feedback from learners that allows getting perspective from trainees regarding what they have learned. The process gathers both short term and long-term data.
Evaluation by trainers that allows assessing the knowledge acquired by the participants and the extent to which initial objectives of the training programme have been met.
Internal evaluation that is a formal evaluation of the relevance of the courses. It is an important means of ensuring, among other things, that quality improvements are made and courses remain relevant to user needs.
To fulfil these goals we have adopted the methodology proposed by Donald Kirkpatrick and adapted different steps of assessment to the particular constraints of the PETRUS II project. The result is a general framework including techniques and tools that can be applied to the evaluation of the training programmes in geological disposal. Obviously, methods proposed have to be fitted to each course by adding additional elements which are specific to the content of the course.
The proposed methodology encompasses five steps procedures consisting in:
1. Trainees' profile: Information collected at this stage must shape the general profile of the participants and must address items such as level of education, years of experience, language (English) level, job classification. These data provide a first picture of trainees' population and will help to better analyse the results of the other evaluation stages. In particular, they will allow determining if the training is equally beneficial for all participants or it is biased towards a particular sub-category of trainees. A questionnaire has been proposed for this step.
2. Trainees' feedback (reaction): this step refers to how well the participants liked a particular training programme. Evaluation of participants' reactions consists of measuring their feelings; it does not include a measure of actual learning. Typical instrument for assessing the trainees' feedback is questionnaire but verbal reaction which can be noted and analysed and to some extent post-training written reports may help the obtainment of the desired information. A typical questionnaire for assessing the PETRUS applicants' feedback has been carried out with necessary method for analysing the obtained results.
3. Knowledge evaluation (learning): This step focuses on actual changes in the knowledge or skills of the applicant as a result of the training. The evaluation that attempts to determine different aspects of educational process and outcomes may have several forms that can be structured as formative and summative assessment methods. Although both formative and summative assessment procedures bring valuable information for the professional development programme improvements, the summative assessment is the only one which can provide an objective picture of the trainees' skills and knowledge and then be used for external goals such as certification and / or qualification purposes. Summative evaluation supposes setting an adequate measurement instrument in terms of both validity and reliability. Regarding PETRUS professional development programme and considering the variety of courses involve, it would be difficult to define a single evaluation strategy. The challenge is doubly tough in that each training provider has its own evaluation system more specifically adapted to its training practice. Validity in assessment should be therefore understood more broadly. Indeed the principle of mutual trust and confidence must prevail as far as the form of assessment is substantively supported by good theoretical rationales and is meaningful and consequential in relation to multiple and broader expected outcomes of learning. A set of general rules has been produced to manage this step.
4. Transfer evaluation (behaviour): Transfer evaluation focuses on the trainees' ability to use the knowledge and skills discussed during the training programme and apply them in the workplace. Evaluation at this level attempts to assess the relevancy of training. To measure the participants' transfer of learning, follow-up surveys are typically conducted in accordance with an evaluation model. For this purpose modified TOTEM model consisting of a special questionnaire with adapted method for analysing the results has been used in the frame of PETRUS programme.
5. Outcomes evaluation (results): This evaluation measures the success of the training programme in terms of effectiveness that is the assessment of the impact of the training programme at the organisation level; in other words the contribution that training has made to the work of an organisation. The Success case method (SCM) which is a qualitative method for identifying success factors in a training programme has been developed and used in the PETRUS II project. It involves five stages:
i. clarify and understand what the study needs to accomplish;
ii. create an impact model that defines what success should look like if the programme were working well;
iii. implement a survey to search for best and worst cases;
iv. capture and document the very particular and personal ways in which an intervention has been used to achieve successful results;
v. communicate findings and recommendations that includes some sort of process to help stakeholders understand the results and reach consensus on the study's implications.
Comparable criteria used in most European countries have been identified that could constitute the framework for the accreditation of PETRUS training programme. Adequate instruments and system for running a programme with qualification and mutually recognised objectives have been identified allowing further development. Criteria for programme accreditation have been categorised according to the 4 steps model generally used for management purpose consisting in input, process, output, and review.
Input criteria are related to the design of the training programme. They guarantee that the minimum standards are met regarding resources allocation such as teaching and learning strategy, administrative services, students' recruitment, admission and selection, student assessment policy, staff competence and effectiveness.
Process is related to the programme coordination and delivery. It encompasses criteria for assessing the programme management and Implementation of policies for ensuring the programme integrity, the effectiveness of teaching and learning methods and learning materials, the reliability of competences acquired by the applicants.
Output criteria are related to the evidence that the programme can improve the applicant performance. They deal also with the external acknowledgement of programme in workplaces. It is important to notice the difference between output and outcome. Output concerns short-term results of the training programme that can be observed at the achievement of the programme, while outcome is linked with the long-term effects and generally belongs to the next step.
Review criteria deal with the existence of plan, methodology and tools for the programme improvement based on the feedbacks received from stakeholders (i.e. applicants and end users).
A set of criteria for each step has been developed in order to create the general framework for validation of the PETRUS professional development programmes.
During the PETRUS II project, the composition of the consortium continued to include a wide variety of stakeholders despite the changes and amendments made to the grant agreement during its course.
The link between ENEN association's and ITC-School's websites were created and formally agreed between the two associations. The ENEN Association's course database has become a significant single point and source of information not only to the PETRUS and ENEN networks but also to other stakeholders outside the ENEN association and the PETRUS II consortium.
The PETRUS II EUC was created early on in the project. The EUC and its individual members have actively contributed to the content of various topics related to the PETRUS II E&T schemes' planning and implementation, and they have disseminated information about the training schemes and individual courses widely to their own contacts in the European Member States and in their networks. A major contribution of the EUC members has been the sending of participants to the pilot professional development scheme and the evaluation of the pilot scheme for further improvement. Also Master thesis topics were provided by the end users, especially by ENRESA.
The EUC council membership was extended outside the PETRUS II consortium. From the very beginning NDA, a WMO from the UK was a member in the council and the technical secretary of the IAEA URF network joined the council from the beginning, too. Exchanges about the PETRUS II developments took place between RWMC's representative in Japan, with SKB's representative responsible for Human Resource management and with national regulatory authorities at least in Finland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. Also a meeting in Brussels with the ENSREG waste group chair was arranged in January 2011, where the information about the objectives of PETRUS II was favourably received. Contacts have been also maintained with the IGD-TP's secretariat and its executive group and the PETRUS network is also mentioned in the IGD-TP's deployment plan as a part of the Cross-cutting Joint Activity CMET.
The overall goal of the PETRUS II project is to contribute to the maintenance, renewal and improvement of the high level of expertise and human resources required in the field of the waste management and underground disposal.
PETRUS II addresses education, training and research objectives by networking relevant European stakeholders (i.e. academia, training centres, nuclear waste management agencies, research centres) in order to provide a common and integrated vision for the elaboration of training programmes which synthesises relevant principles and themes from numerous allied disciplines related to the radioactive waste disposal. This has been achieved by mobilising and clubbing the stakeholders resources in order to design and develop adequate training modules with a particular stress on the multidisciplinary subjects, by implementing these modules through appropriate training schemes and by testing the relevance and effectiveness of the programmes through pilot sessions.
In terms of scientific development, PETRUS II will have a huge impact in the progress of knowledge. It is clear that the scientific and engineering issues involved in the underground disposal of the radioactive waste are diverse and scientists working in this domain have to synthesise and apply principles from several sets of disciplines. By merging together the competence of numerous professors from different disciplines and the technical expertise of professional specialists for proposing high level training courses, PETRUS II contributes to enlarge the capacity in this area. Indeed, this cross-board collaboration comes to enhance the multidisciplinary skill of the participants, which is one of the urgent requirements felt by the scientific community concerning radioactive-waste storage and allows deepen and diversify the knowledge of the young students and researchers by giving them the opportunity to get perspective from a broader view of their future professional life.
In terms of human resources, the initiative targets both present professionals that need career-long training for continuously matching their skill to the new progress of the scientific topics and future generation of scientists that must be suitably qualified. It contributes to the preservation and upgrade of the knowledge, bridging in the same time the gap between the growing requirement for skilled researchers and engineers over the next decades and the prospective shortage of qualified employees.
In terms of knowledge transfer, PETRUS II facilitates the access to the training resources through the development of a comprehensive database, providing up to date and accessible information on training provision and course detail. Besides, the link created in the network among universities and end-users participants allows better transfer of the academic research findings to the practical application that is a major task in the field of the geological disposal.
In terms of teaching and learning PETRUS II enforces the application of modern information technology in E&T. With the objective of broadly spread scientific competence and know-how throughout the radioactive waste disposal sector, the innovative face to face remote teaching methodology which has been one of the outstanding aspects of the works carried out by PETRUS group within the ENEN II project, is now widely implemented by the PETRUS consortium. Another important aspect concerns the use of the underground facilities and infrastructure in the training schemes, which allows participants to tackle real and concrete applications.
In terms of co-ordinated and harmonised standards at European level, PETRUS II focuses on qualification mechanism for Professional Development. By comparing the general frameworks implemented in different countries at national level, PETRUS II seeks to propose an adequate scheme well adapted to the geological disposal that can meet consensus for mutual recognition and then facilitate the training and mobility across Europe. A possible scheme could be the training passport where the knowledge and skills acquired by the participant will be recorded and recognised after validation through a common agreed evaluation procedure.
In terms of policy development, bringing together training providers and end users into a one forum allows enhancing the understanding of each party's requirements and constraints which will lead to secure a better fit between demand and supply. This will also allow determining long-term strategy for pursuing and extending the collaboration beyond the present project and defining sustainable and self-supporting framework for the continuation of E&T efforts in the field of the waste management and underground disposal.
Besides what has been described above, the PETRUS II has following impacts:
- enhances the discussion on E&T content and in E&T matters in Europe between the universities, industries and training associations;
- creates a network linking both E&T providers in geological disposal and end-users;
- ensures quality of E&T services by involving on-going interaction with end-users;
- creates a more efficient market in E&T in geological disposal and increases the critical mass of supply;
- ties the network of existing URF's and UEF's (underground research and education facilities) to a wider user group of E&T;
- enhances E&T innovation within geological disposal and produces new kind of competence to the participants of the Master's and professional development training schemes and at the implementing organisations of those schemes;
- enhances mobility by modular and accredited course structures.
Exploiting results, disseminating knowledge
Dissemination is the very essence of the PETRUS II since the project deals with the development of training schemes that are intended for the whole geological disposal community. The whole project is built to successfully achieve different steps that will end to a broad diffusion of these programmes towards the radioactive waste management and underground disposal community. To reach this goal, the project consortium assembles institutions which represent the critical mass necessary to mirror the variety of training providers and end-users in Europe.
In view of the projectâ?™s overall activities, the following have been achieved:
1. A shared web site: The purpose of the web site is to facilitate communication with all stakeholders requiring information on the project. In order to give access to a large number of users beyond the geological disposal community the PETRUS information is hosted by the ENEN web site in a dedicated page. The site provides tools for co-operative works and documents related to the management of the project. Besides, it gives access to useful information about consortium partners and links to their web portals.
2. Liaisons with other relevant groups and projects: All along its lifetime, the project was open to all relevant and interested parties outside of the consortium in order to establish wide knowledge exchange in the field of E&T. Therefore, in the frame of WP5 several links have been establish between the PETRUS consortium and other European and International networks including two EFTS projects namely ENEN III and ENETRAP II, with the objective of identifying, transferring, sharing, and using knowledge and best practices.
3. Database: A database has been established containing all the relevant information on E&T in radioactive waste management and underground disposal. This includes notably the portfolio of formative courses, information about professional development trainings available in different institution, course attendance conditions and relevant documents and archives.
4. Pilot sessions: Training schemes and associated pedagogic materials (e.g. the face to face remote teaching) have been tested and validated by the organisation of pilot sessions. As far as education is concerned two complete sessions have been organised in the frame of Master programme with the participation of around 30 students in total. Each session includes practical works carried out in Josef underground laboratory. By agreement between several partners, the organisation of PETRUS Master programme continues after the end of the project. One session has been conducted in the real scale (i.e. participation of the representatives of target groups) in the frame of PETRUS professional development programme. This session has been subjected to evaluation both from the attendants and from the employers.
5. Communication: The consortium has promoted the project and its results by their active participation to the seminars, conferences, and several relevant national and international events.
Finally, the exploitation of the project results can also be seen in terms of how the knowledge spread through the E&T programmes will lead to further process on a long-term basis. Explicitly, PETRUS II focuses on an increase of human resources working at a high level of competence in the area of radioactive waste management and underground disposal. The achievement of the mutual recognition of the PETRUS programmes, the impact of these programmes on the quality and quantity of the human resource and the overall increase of interest in geological disposal issues would be some of the success criteria in this regard that can be evaluated at middle term.
List of websites: https://www.petrus2.eu
Grant agreement ID: 232665
15 January 2009
14 January 2012
€ 1 707 916
€ 800 000
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE
Deliverables not available
Publications not available
Grant agreement ID: 232665
15 January 2009
14 January 2012
€ 1 707 916
€ 800 000
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE
Grant agreement ID: 232665
15 January 2009
14 January 2012
€ 1 707 916
€ 800 000
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE