Working Group 4A Self-Evaluation of Infrastructure Development Status Difficulties and Solutions

4A Questions/Difficulties 1. Could be seen as self-serving biased process 2. Constraints in various expertise and human resources 3. Items for evaluation are too much for new entrants 4. Are all the requirements clearly defined? (e.g. One element of 13.1 states “National report on positive environmental outcomes expected from the nuclear power programme”) 5. Difficulty to show the official establishment of the organizations such as NEPIO because of the lack of recognition by, and coordination with, other government areas. 6. Some requirements in the document are too much detail for new entrants, or the expectation is unrealistic (e.g. Phase 1 - 4.2 state “An analysis deriving the funding requirements for each of the following elements: (h) Management of radioactive waste (including long term storage)) 7. Is this process useful for external parties such as vendor, financing, anti-nuclear parties? What do you have at the end of each phase?

4A Needs/Solutions Peer review or external experts with the cooperation of partner countries or the IAEA Develop indigenous capability for long-term Items for evaluation should be divided into the essentials and those that can be deferred to the future (does not slow down the decision process) IAEA Guideline Documents or best practices should be developed Make the NEPIO information shared through top-down approach with cross-functional representation Establish the prioritization depending on the MS situation - Possible use of weighting or tiering system for all the requirements by individual MS (possible criticism from the external parties)