• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PETRUS-III PROJECT (Contract Number: FP7 - 605265)

Deliverable: D.1.6 Memorandum of Understanding

Nature of the deliverable R Report X P Prototype D Demonstrator O Other

Author(s): Abdesselam Abdelouas

Reporting period: month 30

Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016

Start date of project: 01/09/2013 Duration: 36 Months

1/16 [PETRUS III] DISTRIBUTION LIST

URL: http://...

Name Number of copies Comments

All electronic copy via website and / or email .

Project co-funded by the European Commission under the Euratom Research and Training Programme on Nuclear Energy within the Seventh Framework Programme[PETRUS-III ] DisseminationDeliverable D1.6 Level Version n° 1 2/16 PUDisseminationPublic level: PU x PPDate of issueRestricted of this to other report: programme 12/04/2016 participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the partners of the PETRUS III project CO Confidential, only for partners of the PETRUS III project [PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 3/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016

Scope WP1.6 Version: V1 Type/No. Report Total pages 15 Title: Memorandum of Understanding Chapters: Filename: PETRUSIII_WP1_D1.6 Suppl. pages: Internet Phase

ABSTRACT:

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is prepared to set the general framework of cooperation between training providers and agencies to provide training for qualification of learners. It is prepared on a voluntary base.

RESPONSIBLE: Ecole des Mines de Nantes

INTERNAL REFERENCES:

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 4/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Signatures

Name Signature Date Prepared by Abdesselam Abdelouas 12/04/16

Revised by

Approved by: Behrooz BAZARGAN SABET 14/10/2016

Document history

Identifier Date Short description

Abbreviations

LA Learning Agreement KSC Knowledge Skills Competencies LO Learning Outcomes

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 5/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Content

1. Objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding...... 6 2. Identification of the organizations signing the Memorandum of Understanding...... 7 3. Qualification covered by the Memorandum of Understanding...... 9 4. Assessment, validation and recognition...... 9

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 6/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 1. Objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a voluntary partnership agreement where E&T mobility is concluded between competent bodies. The purpose of the MoU is to set the general framework of cooperation between training providers and agencies to provide training for qualification of learners. Also, the MoU aims to set the framework for credit transfer including training contents and Units of Learning Outcomes (ULO) as well as the mutual acceptance of the partners’ respective criteria and procedures for quality assurance, assessment, validation and recognition of Learning Outcomes (knowledge, skills and competences).

The period of eligibility of the MoU is decided by the parties for at least 1 year with a basic tacit renewal as long as the agreements set down in the MoU do not significantly change. In case of significant modifications a new MoU must be prepared.

New organizations could join the MoU upon the acceptance of the founding parties.

For each mobility period a Learning Agreement (LA) involving two or more partners and the mobile learner is required to specify the arrangements (Deliverable D1.1).

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 7/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 2. Identification of the organizations signing the Memorandum of Understanding

The organizations signing the MoU are Education & Training providers (higher education institutions, vocational training agencies) and requesting agencies (waste management organizations, ad interim agencies).

Organization 1

Country Typology Address Telephone Fax E-mail Website Contact name and function Telephone Fax E-mail

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 8/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Organization 2

Country Typology Address Telephone Fax E-mail Website Contact name and function Telephone Fax E-mail

Organization (n)

Country Typology Address Telephone Fax E-mail Website Contact name and function Telephone Fax E-mail The organizations able to operate in the framework of the MoU can be added.

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 9/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 3. Qualification covered by the Memorandum of Understanding

Country

Title of Safety Engineer – Assessment and Performance Analysis for construction qualification license of a selected site

EQF level 5-6

Units of Unit 1: Basics Learning Outcomes Unit 2: Foundation for radioactive waste disposal Unit 3: Safety and performance analysis for radioactive waste disposal

See Annex 1 Description of Units of learning outcomes

4. Assessment, validation and recognition

The process from learning to certification undergone by the learner is given below.

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 10/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Since the qualification described in this document concerns high-level professional the assessment should be conducted by assessors with great experience (e.g. professors/engineers with at least 15 to 20 years’ experience).

The assessment of the Learning Outcomes could consist of:

 Written tests: this could take different formats depending on the objectives foreseen. Hence, a multiple choice questionnaire could be used to assess the basic and general knowledge. Specific written questions could be addressed to get deeper into matter needed for practical tests (e.g. transport equations resolution).

 Practical tests: this concerns the use of simulation tools essential for the qualification. A set of common tools could be selected for testing (hydraulic-, chemical-, thermal-codes; numerical simulation…).

 Oral tests: necessary to test the capacity of the candidate to describe general scenarios specific to the qualification (e.g. phenomenological behavior of a disposal site).

For each Unit the type and the subject of the assessment must be clearly stated in the MoU.

The validation could be done through a transcript of assessed Learning Outcomes (KSC) for each Unit. The procedure of validation must be agreed on within the MoU and detailed in the Learning Agreement (LA). Details on the validation processes according to ECVET toolkit is given in Annex 2.

The recognition of the Learning Outcomes is then the process of awarding Units or Qualification. Details on the validation processes according to ECVET toolkit are given in Annex 2.

Assessment of Unit 1: Basics

Country

Assessment type (oral, written, practical) Assessors Validation Recognition

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 11/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Assessment of Unit 2: Foundation for radioactive waste disposal

Country

Assessment type (oral, written, practical) Assessors Validation Recognition

Assessment of Unit 3: Safety and performance analysis for radioactive waste disposal

Country

Assessment type (oral, written, practical) Assessors Validation Recognition

Assessment of Unit 1: Basics Assessment 1 - Written test – multiple choice questions (2 hours)  Rock physical-chemical and mechanical characteristics  Rock hydrogeological characteristics and transport properties Assessment 2 - Practical test (4 hours)  Numerical simulation principles and features (grid, mesh, boundary conditions…)  Simulation of solute transport in porous media (e.g. hands on selected codes) Assessment 3 – Oral test (2 hours)  Data gathering and management  Deepen subjects treated in Assessments 1 and 2.

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 12/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Assessment of Unit 2: Foundation for radioactive waste disposal Assessment 1 - Written test – multiple choice questions (3 hours)  Radioactive decay, ionizing radiation/matter interaction, radioprotection principles  Waste inventory, waste forms, waste packages and overall the engineered barrier system (EBS) Assessment 2 - Practical test (5 hours)  Perform quantitative risk analysis (scenario, probability, consequences, probability distribution)  Build simple disposal site normal and altered scenarios  Build a safety case and perform safety assessment Assessment 3 – Oral test (2 hours)  Assess the safety culture and communication attitude  Deepen subjects treated in Assessments 1 and 2.

Assessment of Unit 3: Safety and performance analysis for radioactive waste disposal Assessment 1 - Written test – multiple choice questions (3 hours)  Site descriptive model – SDM (e.g. site description, regional setting) Assessment 2 - Practical test (6 hours)  Select and use the physical processes and mathematical equations for safety calculations  Select and use the numerical tools for safety calculations  Establish the conceptual model calculations (e.g. a simple case study)  Perform uncertainty and sensitivity analysis Assessment 3 – Oral test (2 hours)  Safety calculations architecture  Quality management strategies  Deepen subjects treated in Assessments 1 and 2.

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 13/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016

Annex 1

Detailed Learning Outcomes of Units are given below.

Unit 1: Basics

Unit 2: Foundation for radioactive waste disposal

Unit 3: Safety and performance analysis for radioactive waste disposal

Unit 1: Learning outcomes (KSL) Give the main characteristics of rock (mineralogy, geochemistry, geo-mechanics,…) Knowledge Give the main hydro-geological characteristics of rock (porosity, permeability, diffusion, convection, adsorption…) Perform hydrogeological and transport modelling using conventional tools (Poreflow, Skills Feflow, Comsol,…) Able to integrate interdisciplinary data and able to synthesize results Competencies Analytical thinking

Unit 2: Learning outcomes (KSL) Define the notions of activity, intensity of radiation, half-life Define risk and hazard Knowledge Define the safety approach and legal framework Describe waste inventory, waste forms, waste packages and overall the EBS Skills Perform risk analysis (deterministic vs. probabilistic analysis) Build a disposal site scenario (normal, altered scenario) with associated risks Describe the safety functions and indicators Give THMCGRB multi processes

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 14/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Build a safety case and perform safety assessment Critical and analytical thinking Competencies Safety culture Decisiveness

Unit 3: Learning outcomes (KSL) Describe and use a site descriptive model (SDM) Knowledge Give a safety calculations architecture Select and use the physical processes and mathematical equations for safety calculations

Skills Select and use the numerical tools for safety calculations Establish the conceptual model calculations Perform uncertainty and sensitivity analysis Apply quality management strategies, procedures, tools and techniques, records and reporting Competencies Problem solving Stress tolerance

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 15/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016 Annex 2

Definition of validation of Learning Outcomes

The validation of LO is generally understood to mean: the process of confirming that one or more LO that have been achieved (by a learner) and subsequently assessed (by the host institution) correspond to specific LO which may be required for a unit or a qualification. Validation is preceded by assessment (in the host country) and is based on the documentation of assessed LO by the involved assessor, recording this in a personal transcript (or similar) document. Those in charge of validation, in the home institution, then take stock of the initial assessor’s judgement, comparing related documentation with the learning outcomes laid down in the learning agreement and examining the extent to which the two documents are consistent. If the expected LO are met at the required level (proficiency, autonomy, etc.) then the assessment is normally validated meaning that learners can receive a pass or a specific grade.

Annex 3

Definition of recognition of Learning Outcomes

The recognition of LO is generally understood to mean: the process of attesting officially- achieved LO through the award of units or qualifications. Following validation, learners receive official confirmation of the fact that the knowledge, skills and competence acquired abroad have been accepted as part of the intended qualification or as an add-on. In practice, this can mean that learners receive a certificate or that the unit(s) of LO are recorded in their personal transcript (or similar) document. Recognition can additionally entail that the individual or organisation in charge of recognition verifies that the processes of assessment and validation have taken place according to existing (national, institutional) rules and that there are no irregularities.

[PETRUS-III] Deliverable D1.6 Version n°1 16/16 Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 12/04/2016

Load more

  16

Copy Link