EURAD-2 Quality management plan

EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 1 Deliverable 1.2: Quality Management Plan Work Package 1 Co-funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement n°101166718. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 2 Document information Project Acronym EURAD-2 Project Title European Partnership on Radioactive Waste Management-2 EC grant agreement No. 101166718 Work Package Title Programme Management Office Deliverable No. 1.2 Deliverable Title Quality Management Plan Lead Beneficiary Andra Contractual Delivery Date March 2025 Actual Delivery Date March 2025 Dissemination level PU Authors Théodon Louise (Andra), Holt Erika (VTT), López Marta (Amphos 21), Matuzas Vaidas (JRC), Ormai Peter (PURAM), Pellegrini Delphine (ASNR) To be cited as: Théodon L., Holt E, López M., Matuzas, V., Ormai, P., Pellegrini, D. (2025): Quality Management Plan. Final version as of 27/03/2025 of deliverable D1.2 of the European Partnership EURAD-2. EC Grant agreement n°:101177718 Disclaimer All information in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user, therefore, uses the information at its sole risk and liability. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Atomic Energy Community. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority or the individual Colleges of EURAD-2 can be held responsible for them. Acknowledgement This document is a deliverable of the European Partnership on Radioactive Waste Management 2 (EURAD-2). EURAD-2 is co-funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement N° 101166718. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 3 Status of deliverable By Date Delivered (Lead Beneficiary) Andra 27/11/2024 Reviewed (Reviewers) Version1 Holt E., López M., Matuzas V., Ormai P., Pellegrini D. 12/02/2025 Reviewed (Reviewers) Version 2 Holt E., López M., Matuzas V., Ormai P., Pellegrini D. 13/03/2025 Verified (WP Leader) Andra 13/03/2025 Approved General Assembly members 26/03/2025 Submitted to EC (Coordinator) Andra 27/03/2025 EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 4 Executive Summary The Quality Management Plan (QMP) outlines the approach and procedures for ensuring that EURAD2 meets established quality standards. This plan outlines the methodologies, procedures, and tools necessary to maintain consistency, accuracy, and excellence in all aspects of the partnership's activities. The primary objective of this deliverable is to define the quality expectations and processes for monitoring and maintaining quality throughout the partnership and should serve as a reference to the Consortium for the efficient coordination and execution of the partnership, ensuring smooth collaboration among participants. In addition, the QMP promotes transparency and accountability by outlining clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes related to quality management. This deliverable serves as a strategic and operational guide for the effective implementation of EURAD2, promoting effective collaboration, timely execution, and the achievement of scientific, technical, and financial objectives. Keywords Quality Assurance, Standards, Process optimisation, Review, Roles and responsibilities, Key Performance Indicators, Deliverables, Reporting protocols EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 5 Table of content Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Keywords ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Table of content ....................................................................................................................................... 5 List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Objective .............................................................................................................................. 11 1.2 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 11 2. Contractual framework .................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Grant Agreement and its Amendments ................................................................................ 11 2.2 Consortium Agreement ........................................................................................................ 12 2.3 Applicable EU legislation ...................................................................................................... 12 3. Governance ................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Governance bodies .............................................................................................................. 12 Colleges ........................................................................................................................... 12 General Assembly............................................................................................................ 12 Bureau ............................................................................................................................. 13 Programme Management Office ...................................................................................... 13 Chief Scientific Officers .................................................................................................... 13 Coordinator ...................................................................................................................... 14 Work Package Leaders and Task Leaders ..................................................................... 14 External Advisory Board .................................................................................................. 15 User Groups ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Main interactions .................................................................................................................. 16 Interactions between GA, Bureau and PMO ................................................................... 16 Interactions between Bureau and PMO ........................................................................... 16 Interactions between Bureau and Colleges ..................................................................... 16 3.3 Decision-making processes ................................................................................................. 17 4. Scientific and technical content ..................................................................................................... 17 5. Deliverables and milestones .......................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Coding .................................................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Authorship and disclaimer .................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Classification and review process ........................................................................................ 18 EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 6 Deliverables ..................................................................................................................... 18 Milestones ........................................................................................................................ 20 6. Scientific Publications .................................................................................................................... 20 7. Internal communication tools and procedures ............................................................................... 20 7.1 ProjectPlace ......................................................................................................................... 20 EURAD-2 General workspace ......................................................................................... 21 WPs workspaces ............................................................................................................. 21 WPLeader workspace ...................................................................................................... 21 Bureau-PMO workspace .................................................................................................. 22 PMO workspace ............................................................................................................... 22 7.2 Meetings / workshops / events ............................................................................................. 22 Responsibilities for meetings participants ....................................................................... 22 Costs for organising a meeting ........................................................................................ 22 Hybridisation of meetings ................................................................................................ 23 Agenda ............................................................................................................................. 23 Minutes ............................................................................................................................ 23 7.3 Correspondence by email .................................................................................................... 24 8. Reporting and Annual Work Programmes ..................................................................................... 24 8.1 Reporting procedures ........................................................................................................... 24 8.2 Annual Work Programmes ................................................................................................... 25 9. Templates ...................................................................................................................................... 26 10. Evaluation of EURAD-2 outputs ............................................................................................... 26 10.1 Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 27 10.2 Risk register ......................................................................................................................... 31 11. Financial aspects ...................................................................................................................... 31 11.1 Budget transfers ................................................................................................................... 31 11.2 Budget follow-up .................................................................................................................. 31 11.3 Eligibility of costs .................................................................................................................. 31 11.4 Payments ............................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A – Composition of the General Assembly ........................................................................... 33 Appendix B – Composition of Bureau from Month 1 ............................................................................. 35 Appendix C – Composition of the PMO from Month 1 .......................................................................... 35 Appendix D – Chief Scientific Officers appointed from Month 1 ........................................................... 35 Appendix E – WP Leaders from Month 1 .............................................................................................. 36 Appendix F – Classification of deliverables ........................................................................................... 37 EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 7 List of figures Figure 1 Indicative timeline for PR......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2 Indicative timeline for AWP ..................................................................................................... 26 EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 8 List of Tables Table 1 Responsibility assignment matrix ............................................................................................. 17 Table 2 Key Performance Indicators ..................................................................................................... 28 EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 9 Glossary AE: Affiliated Entity AP: Associated Partner APC: Article Processing Charge AWP: Annual Work Programme BCC: blind carbon copy CO: Confidential CSO: Civil Society Organisation CSOff: Chief Scientific Officer DoA: Description of Action DT: Destructive Test DTM: Difficult-to-Measure EAB: External Advisory Board EC: European Commission EU: European Union EJP: European Joint Programme EUG: End-user Group GA: General Assembly GDF: Geological Disposal Facility HLW: High Level Waste ICS: Interactions with Civil Society IP: Intellectual Property IPR: Interim Progress Report KM: Knowledge Management KPI: Key Performance Indicator LCA/LCC: Life Cycle Assessment / Life Cycle Costing LILW: Low and Intermediate Level Waste NDT: Non-Destructive Test PMO: Programme Management Office PR: Periodic Report PU: Public QMP: Quality Management Plan RACI: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed RD&D: Research, Development and Demonstration RE: Research Entity EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 16 of the programme and are the main target audience for dissemination activities at the programme level and at the WP level. 3.2 Main interactions Main interactions are described below. Other interaction between bodies may occur. Interactions between GA, Bureau and PMO Outside the GA meetings, information or requests can also be exchanged between the bodies as follows: • From a GA member representing the beneficiary institute directly to the Coordinator (secretariat) who will then inform the PMO (e.g. for administrative matters). • From a GA member to the Bureau, via its Bureau representatives. • From a College to the Bureau, via the Bureau representatives of the College. • From one College to the others Interactions between Bureau and PMO Bureau/PMO meetings are facilitated by the PMO. Both PMO and Bureau shall prepare the items they are responsible for (to be agreed in advance while preparing the agenda items for these Bureau/PMO meetings). Materials for these meetings, when possible, are to be sent one week in advance and each participant must become familiar with the materials before the meeting in order to be as efficient as possible during the actual meeting time. After each Bureau/PMO meeting, a summary of discussions/actions is prepared by the PMO, reviewed by the Bureau, finalised and uploaded on ProjectPlace. These minutes are accessible for all EURAD-2 organisations in the main EURAD-2 general workspace on ProjectPlace. In addition to the Bureau/PMO meetings, regular contacts by email/phone are established between the PMO (Coordinator) and the Bureau Chairperson. This role consists in taking good note of the possible requests from the PMO and putting those requests on the agenda of the next Bureau meeting or starting an immediate discussion (if urgent). The Bureau Chairperson(s) may also be invited to specific points of the agenda of the regular PMO meetings. Interactions between Bureau and Colleges The Bureau is the main body through which discussions among the different Colleges are mediated, before approval within the GA. The Bureau members interact with their respective College members: • On request of WP leaders when the entire College needs to be addressed (e.g., when sending out questionnaires). The Bureau may, in this case, also decide to allow WP leaders to interact directly with the Colleges; • On request of the PMO when strategic decisions need to be approved, such as, update of the strategic research agenda, etc.; • On request of another College, e.g., upon distribution of a position paper; • In order to prepare decisions to be taken at the GA, which were prepared within the Bureau and/or with the PMO; • Following the internal rules of each College. Besides this, Bureau members are also acting as representatives of their College, and thus College members may address their Bureau members in order to discuss individual proposals, concerns or questions either within their own College, or with the other Colleges through the Bureau. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 17 3.3 Decision-making processes Three types of decisions are identified in the partnership’s processes. The table below presents the responsibility assignment matrix (RACI). RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed. Each role is assigned to decisions to ensure clarity and efficiency. The matrix provides a comprehensive view of who is directly responsible for completing a task (R: Responsible), who has ultimate accountability for decisions (A: Accountable), who should be consulted for input (C: Consulted), and who needs to be kept informed of progress or outcomes (I: Informed). In general, any decision linked to management aspects will be led by the PMO, with the Coordinator being responsible for the action. The strategic decisions will be led by the Bureau and any decision linked to WP management aspects will be initiated by the WP Leaders. Table 1 Responsibility assignment matrix 4. Scientific and technical content The Partnership should remain flexible to include new activities in order to be as needs-driven as possible, and to allow later inclusion of new organisations that would be mandated during the course of an implementation phase. This flexibility is ensured by allocating about 80% of the available budget to WPs starting at Month 1 (first wave). The remaining 20% of the budget shall be allocated to existing or new WPs that will be approved by the GA during the course of EURAD-2 (anticipated as the second wave). Additional funding from the European Commission is also anticipated and will be allocated to existing or new WPs. This additional funding is anticipated to be allocated as part of a second wave process (2026) defined by the Bureau and work approved by the General Assembly. 5. Deliverables and milestones 5.1 Coding Each document circulating within EURAD-2 shall be filed with a unique code, regardless of the filenames and referencing conventions that each partner is free to use in local archives. EURAD-2 Data WPL PMO Bureau CSOFFs GA Coordinator Management Amendment (includ. addition of a new Beneficiary / Affiliated Entity) I C I A R Settlement of payments A R Periodic reports R C I I A R Annual Work Programmes R C I I A R Budget revision C C C A R Dissemination Plan C C C A R Strategic Update of founding documents I R C A I Procedures to define new waves of WPs C R C A C WP Management Modification in a WP - not requesting an Amendment A I C I I R Major change in a WP - to be added in an Amendment R C C C A R Deliverable A C I I R EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 18 Management Plan (D1.3) details the file naming convention and additional guidance on issues for accuracy in tracking and storage of data. 5.2 Authorship and disclaimer All EURAD-2 deliverables should be marked with the authorship clearly attributed to the contributing individuals and organisations. Reference to reviewers names and organisation should also be made to indicate quality control management procedures are followed. The reviewed deliverable must be archived on ProjectPlace. All documents should include the approved EURAD-2 disclaimer: “All information in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user, therefore, uses the information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission or the individual Colleges of EURAD2 (and their participating members) has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors' view.” 5.3 Classification and review process Deliverables The Bureau and PMO have established a standardised classification system for all EURAD-2 deliverables to ensure consistent quality assurance and appropriate levels of review. The classification defines three review levels: - Low: review by the WP Leader and PMO representative - Medium: includes the Low-level review + additional review by an individual who was not involved in drafting the deliverable but may belong to the WP - High: includes the Low-level review + an external review conducted by someone not affiliated with the WP. This classification is uniformly applied across all WPs, based on the type of deliverables, as follows: - Initial State of the Art report (SotA): Low - Final SotA: High - Outcomes to Member States and end-users: High - White/green papers: Medium - Annual work programmes and periodic reports: Low - All others (excluding PMO and KM WPs): Low The detailed classification of each deliverable is provided in Appendix F. Each WP Leader is responsible for planning the review process for deliverables within their scope. For deliverables classified as High, WPLs should prioritise early engagement with reviewers to avoid delays. While most reviews are expected to be conducted by organisations participating in EURAD-2, exceptions may occur for deliverables requiring external expertise. It is important to note that external reviewers are not compensated through the EURAD-2 budget, regardless of their affiliation. The procedure of quality control review of documents should not last more than 2 months in total for Low and Medium deliverables and 3 months in total for deliverables classified as High. The sequence for the quality control process of deliverables is noted in the following steps: EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 19 Step 1: Initial Validation within the WP Responsibility: WP Leaders and Task Leaders Actions: - Confirm that the deliverable meets its objectives and adheres to EURAD-2 standards. - Ensure a scientific / technical quality control check of the deliverable - Address any immediate gaps in content and structure. Outcome: Deliverable is deemed ready for formal review as per its classification level. Step 2: Assign Reviewers Responsibility: WPLs. Actions: - Identify reviewers for Medium and High classified deliverables - Engage reviewers early for High-classification deliverables to mitigate scheduling risks. - For specialised deliverables requiring external expertise, secure external reviewers from outside EURAD-2 organisations if necessary. Outcome: Reviewers are confirmed and timelines are agreed upon. Step 3: Conduct Review Responsibility: Assigned reviewers. Actions: - Review deliverable content for accuracy, clarity, alignment with objectives, and adherence to EURAD-2 standards. - Provide written feedback detailing: strengths of the deliverable, specific areas for improvement, clear recommendations for modifications, if any. - Ensure feedback aligns with the deliverable's scope and intended audience. Step 4: Address Reviewer Feedback Responsibility: Deliverable authors (WPLs and Task Leaders (TLs)). Actions: - Review all feedback received from assigned reviewers. - Revise the deliverable to incorporate recommendations, ensuring all concerns are addressed. - Engage reviewers for clarification if necessary. Outcome: Deliverable is updated and prepared for final approval. Step 5: Final Review and Approval Responsibility: PMO representative. Actions: - Conduct a final review to confirm that all feedback has been adequately addressed. If not, the PMO representative must contact the WP Leader, who should make the necessary corrections until the version is deemed satisfactory. - Validate the deliverable for compliance with EURAD-2 objectives and standards. Outcome: Deliverable is approved and ready for submission or dissemination. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 20 Step 6: Submission and Dissemination Responsibility: Coordinator Actions: - Submit the final approved deliverable to the European Commission - Disseminate public deliverables Outcome: Deliverable is successfully submitted Milestones Validation of milestones is normally done at the WP level. If a milestone is in a form of a document and serves as a base for exchange with another WP, a validation by the other WP leaders concerned shall be pursued as well to allow that expectations from both sides are properly accounted for. For milestones documents addressing the entire EURAD-2 community, the PMO/Bureau, if necessary, can ask the WP leader to send the milestones documents for feedback. This is notably applicable for surveys, external to the WP, where a review is needed to ensure coherence. No formal validation should intervene at the PMO/Bureau level for milestones. Milestones can serve as an intermediate document or memo to show work is progressing towards a deliverable, for instance showing the background information or boundary conditions established before the work moves forward. The WP Board together with the authors can decide if a milestone report is made public and shared for instance on the EURAD-2 web page. 6. Scientific Publications Unless it goes against their legitimate interests, each EURAD-2 participant must as soon as possible disseminate its results by disclosing them by appropriate means (other than those resulting from protecting or exploiting the results), including ensuring open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to results. Dissemination should not override any Intellectual property (IP) protection. The European Commission promotes the overall concept of Open Research by supporting open access in its framework programmes, aiming to improve science and innovation in the public and private sectors. By making project results and data accessible to all societal actors, other researchers, innovators and the public, they can find and re-use these for their own specific needs. In this way further research is encouraged, novel solutions can be found, and complex challenges can be tackled. 7. Internal communication tools and procedures 7.1 ProjectPlace EURAD-2 uses ProjectPlace® as a smart collaborative project management tool ISO-27001 certified that brings teams together to improve day-to-day collaboration, communication and storing/sharing of documents (contractual documents, working documents, drafts, templates, meetings material and minutes, deliverables, milestones, list of contacts, etc). This section describes the workspace areas that are active for EURAD-2. A complete and detailed manual of use for ProjectPlace is provided and available at the following link: https://service.projectplace.com/pp/pp.cgi/r1158572523. A training session about most common features of ProjectPlace, is available on EURAD-2 website: https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/news/training-projectplace EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 21 The Capacity storage is 525.00GB and the number of individual person (email) licenses is 1050, as of 2024. EURAD-2 General workspace The EURAD-2 general workspace area is dedicated to the partnership, where EURAD-2 participants (Beneficiaries, Linked Third Parties) have access and can find: • Contractual documents; • Contact list; • GA information (agenda, materials, presentations, key actions…); • Information about dissemination events; • Published deliverables; • Factsheets; • Position Papers; • Templates; • Etc… The access to this workspace is limited to 3 main contacts per organisations (Beneficiary, Affiliated Entities and Associated Partners) involved in EURAD-2, GA members, PMO members, Bureau members, WP and Co-WP leaders. The Associated Partners are granted access to ProjectPlace based on their role within the Partnership: - The organisations leading a WP or a specific task have full access to the EURAD-2 General workspace. - The organisations without a leadership role have restricted access to the EURAD-2 General workspace. They do not have access to financial information (including reporting) and contact list. WPs workspaces Each WP has its dedicated workspace area to share documents, information and to facilitate WP internal communication. The access to the WPs workspaces shall be granted to WP and Co-WP Leader and WP contributors. As the number of licenses is limited (1050 licenses) for the overall activities, it is recommended to provide access to ProjectPlace WP areas to active contributors to EURAD-2 and/or WPs. A punctual contributor shall not have access to ProjectPlace and should receive documents/materials from his/her colleagues. For the proper execution and coordination of the WPs, the following folders and content are mandatory: - Background documents: full description of WPs - Meetings: slides and minutes for each meeting - Deliverables - Milestones - Publications: organised by year The WP leader has the necessary administrator rights to manage/change access rights to the folders but should always notify the secretariat of additions / changes in order to track the number of available licences. WPLeader workspace This area is dedicated to the working interactions between the WP leaders and the PMO. The access to this workspace is restricted to WP and Co-WP Leaders and PMO members. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 22 Bureau-PMO workspace This area is dedicated to the working interactions between the Bureau and the PMO. The access to this workspace is restricted to Bureau and PMO members. PMO workspace This area is dedicated to the working interactions of the Programme Management Office. The access is restricted to PMO members. 7.2 Meetings / workshops / events In a multi-organisational collaborative partnership such as EURAD-2, procedures are defined to facilitate operations and management of the programme. Their objectives are not to create management tasks with a heavy structure but to give to each participant simple tools to allow activities to be managed properly. This section describes the procedures concerning the meetings: different types of meeting, responsibilities of participants, agenda and minutes. In order to rationalise travels and time, it is recommended to organise meetings combined with other meetings within EURAD-2 and outside EURAD-2 (e.g. EURADWASTE conference, IGD-TP Exchange Forum, etc.) The “meetings” tab on EURAD-2 general workspace (ProjectPlace) shows all events of interest to the EURAD-2 community. This general vision should also allow participants to plan EURAD-2 meetings avoiding any overlaps. Responsibilities for meetings participants Each participant to a meeting is expected to contribute to the meeting preparation by providing if required: - Her/his contributions to the agenda; - Preparation of presentations; - Working documents: normally the main subjects discussed during a meeting are documented by papers or presentations. As far as possible, these materials should be distributed in advance to allow enough time for participants to familiarise with them prior to the meeting. - Feedback on the minutes; - Execution of actions and respect of decisions. The hosting organisation should give information related to start and end times and, where appropriate, requirements for hotels. The hosting organisation is responsible for the coffee breaks and lunches. Depending on the meetings, the PMO/Bureau/WP leaders will have the special responsibility of contributing to the definition of meeting objectives, the preparation of decisions, of the agenda, and minutes. Costs for organising a meeting Costs for organising the GA meetings and annual events are secured in the PMO WP budget and are reimbursed at 100% by the EC contribution. Costs for organising a WP meeting are reimbursed at the WP funding rate. To reduce expenses, it is recommended to organise meetings in EURAD-2 participant’s premises with available room capacity whenever possible. In case budget was not sufficiently foreseen for organising meetings, some budget transfer from one category of cost to another or from one partner’s budget to another is possible. After the financial reports, the PMO will closely look at the expenses for travels and meetings and may propose budget revision in case budget planned for travel and meetings seems inappropriate. If in doubt, the WP leader should always consult with the secretariat to get pre-approval of meeting travels that will be potentially claimed as costs from the WP participants. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 23 Hybridisation of meetings Each meeting should specify the level of hybridisation it will offer. Note that different sessions within a single meeting can have varying levels of hybridisation. The levels are defined as follows: - 0 star: No online participation. For example, technical visits are entirely in-person. - 1 star: Online participants can only listen to the session. They may not hear audience questions or be allowed to raise questions/comments. - 2 stars: Online participants can listen to the session and participate through the chat. - 3 stars: Online participants can listen to the session and ask questions verbally. Agenda Prior to each meeting, an agenda should be distributed in advance to the participants and uploaded on ProjectPlace. The agenda will inform participants about the items that will be discussed/approved upon (and information about background documents (‘Materials’) to be reviewed prior to the meeting). Participants will be given the possibility to suggest changes to the agenda. Whenever changes to the agenda are proposed, their eligibility needs to be considered by the partner organising the meeting, and an updated version of the agenda may be re-circulated. Coordination work benefits from a wellstructured agenda. The basic agenda structure to be used covers the following points: • Type of meeting; • Level of hybridisation; • List of planned decisions/approvals to be made; • List of background documents (‘Materials’); • List of participants; • Place; • Opening and welcome; • Objectives of the meeting and agreement about the agenda; • Remarks on previous minutes and ongoing actions (if appropriate); • Meeting specific subjects (Explanation of subject, issues to be decided upon, actions to be taken etc.); • Summary, action points, and closing. Minutes Draft minutes must be circulated, and will be subject to approval by all participants, according to the deadlines and rules defined on a case-by-case basis. The minutes shall reflect major items for discussions/actions. Minutes should contain the following information: - Meeting date; - Location; - Participants; - Objectives of the meeting; - Actual agenda; - List of documents distributed during the meeting (if appropriate); - and for each point addressed as part of the agenda: o summary of discussion (if relevant); o decisions; o open issues; o actions; o supporting information (if relevant). o summary of the action list (including tasks, responsible person, deadline). EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 24 Once finalised the minutes are shared with the participants and uploaded on ProjectPlace. A meeting minutes template is available on ProjectPlace. 7.3 Correspondence by email When communicating via email, ensure that information is addressed only to the relevant parties involved. If necessary, the secretariat will forward questions to the PMO, Bureau, or other appropriate parties. When sending emails to a large group of recipients, add their addresses in the BCC (blind carbon copy) field to protect their contact details from potential misuse, prevent potential spam and to comply with GDPR regulations. Additionally, if further clarification or questions arise, these should be sent directly to the secretariat instead of replying to all recipients. The secretariat will reinstate the appropriate recipients in the response if required. Use explicit and clear subject lines for your emails. Messages sent to official mailing lists should include an identifier, such as "EURAD-2" or "EURAD-2-[WP Name]," at the beginning of the subject line. This helps recipients quickly understand the content and relevance of the email. 8. Reporting and Annual Work Programmes The reporting procedures described below will help to ensure the achievement of the scientific and technical objectives of the WPs and of the overall program, as well as compliance with costs and schedule. The annual clock is presented below. 8.1 Reporting procedures An annual Periodic Report (PR) must be submitted to the EC to cover the previous 12-month period. The PR must be submitted to the EC 60 days after the end of the period, i.e. end of November each year. This report consists of two main components: a Technical Report and a Financial Report. The Technical Report provides detailed information on the work performed during the reporting period. It includes an explanation of the tasks carried out under each WP and an overview of progress made toward achieving the objectives. This includes a summary of milestones reached, deliverables completed, and any deviations from the planned activities, with justifications for these differences. Additionally, the report addresses the dissemination and use of project results, as well as any communication activities undertaken during the period. The Financial Report comprises an individual financial statement submitted by each Beneficiary and their Affiliated Entities for the reporting period. This section also includes a detailed explanation of how resources were utilised to support the project activities. Together, these components ensure transparency and accountability in meeting the project’s objectives and managing its resources. Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Preparation of Annual Work Programme Preparation of Periodic Report End of Nov submission of PR to EC (Andra) End of June submission of AWP to EC (Andra) EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 25 Specific templates, guidelines and instructions prepared by the PMO will be sent to EURAD-2 participants at least one month before the period ends. It will also be made available on ProjectPlace under the folder “Reporting”. In order to improve the process, feedback with areas for improvements will be shared after each reporting period with all EURAD-2 participants. In addition to the annual Periodic Report, an Interim Progress Report (IPR) will be prepared during the first and final years of the partnership. These reports will cover the work completed over each six-month period within those years. The purpose of the IPR is to enable close monitoring of activities during these critical years, helping to identify and address any potential risks of deviations from the planned objectives early on. The content of each IPR will be directly incorporated into the corresponding Periodic Report, ensuring consistency and continuity in reporting. Figure 1 Indicative timeline for PR 8.2 Annual Work Programmes As stipulated in the Grant Agreement, there is an obligation to submit an Annual Work Programmes (AWP) each year. The AWP provides a detailed description of activities for the twelve-month periods, as the action develops in line with the objectives and description of work agreed under Annex 1 of the Grant Agreement. The AWP contains the details of the implementation of the action regarding the integration under the overall programme, set of activities, annual deliverables, specific resources and costs of the beneficiaries – organised in a table format – as well as a detailed narrative description of the work. The programmed activities are those planned to be carried out in full or simply initiated during the relevant twelve-month reporting period. EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 32 • Payment of the balance, reimbursing the remaining part of the eligible costs and the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund. The calculation and distribution of the payments will be done by Andra as Coordinator to the Beneficiaries (and then from the Beneficiaries to their Affiliated Entities). The proposed distribution will be presented for GA’s approval before the payment is made. Official EC notification letters and distribution tables approved by the GA are available on ProjectPlace under the EURAD workspace area (Folder entitled Budget and Payments). EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 33 Appendix A – Composition of the General Assembly Organisation Country Type GA representative AGES Austria TSO Christian Katzlberger ANDRA France WMO Stéphan Schumacher ARAO Slovenia WMO Leon Kegel BASE Germany TSO Tyler Oesch BEL V Belgium TSO Valéry Detilleux BGE Germany WMO Astrid Göbel CEA France RE Maxime Fournier CIEMAT Spain TSO Enrique M. Gonzalez Romero CNRS France RE Tomo Suzuki COVRA Netherlands WMO Marja Vuorio CVREZ Czech Republic RE Lucie Karásková Nenadálová DEKOM Denmark WMO Charlotte Hjorth ENEA Italy RE Alessandro Dodaro ENRESA Spain WMO Silvia Rueda Sánchez FTMC Lithuania TSO Arturas Plukis FZJ Germany RE Dirk Bosbach GI-Bas Bulgaria TSO Doncho Karastanev HUN-REN EK Hungary RE Margit Fabian IAE Lithuania WMO Gintautas Klevinskas INCT Poland RE Grazyna Zakrzewska-Koltuniewicz ASNR France TSO Delphine Pellegrini IST-ID Portugal RE Isabel Paiva JRC Netherlands RE Vaidas Matuzas JSI Slovenia TSO Marjan Kromar KIPT Ukraine RE Yevhenii Svitlychnyi KIT Germany RE Silvia Stumpf KTH Sweden RE Mats Jonsson LEI Lithuania RE Asta Narkuniene NCSRD Greece RE Anatasia Savidou NES Austria WMO Sabrina Dollinger NJF Slovakia WMO Miroslav Kover NRG Netherlands TSO Kelvin Browning NTUA Greece TSO Dimitris Mitrakos ONDRAF/NIRAS Belgium WMO Maarten Van Geet POSIVA Finland WMO Johanna Hansen PURAM Hungary WMO Bálint Nos RATEN Romania RE Crina Bucur SCK CEN Belgium RE Norbert Maes SIIEG NASU Ukraine RE Borys Zlobenko SKB Sweden WMO Anders Ström SOGIN Italy WMO Federica Pancotti SSM Sweden TSO Bo Strömberg EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 34 SSTC NRS Ukraine TSO Yuliia Yesypenko STUBA Slovakia RE Vladimir Slugeň SURAO Czech Republic WMO Lucie Hausmannová SURO Czech Republic TSO Irena Hanusova TNO Netherlands RE Gert-Jan Heerens TS Enercon Hungary TSO Attila Baksay TUS Bulgaria RE Ivan Ivanov UHelsinki Finland RE Gareth Law UTartu Estonia RE Alan Henry Tkaczyk VTT Finland TSO Erika Holt EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 35 Appendix B – Composition of Bureau from Month 1 Organisation Country Type GA representative BEL V Belgium TSO Valéry Detilleux BGE Germany WMO Astrid Göbel FZJ Germany RE Dirk Bosbach ASNR France TSO Christophe Debayle MITTA Finland AE (RE) Xavier Pintado NES Austria WMO Sabrina Dollinger SCK CEN Belgium RE Elke Jacops SSTC NRS Ukraine TSO Kateryna Fuzik TVO Finland AE (WMO) Anne Kontula Appendix C – Composition of the PMO from Month 1 Organisation Country Type GA representative A21 Spain AE (RE) Marta Lopez ANDRA France WMO Alessandro Russo ANDRA France WMO Louise Théodon ASNR France TSO Delphine Pellegrini JRC Netherlands RE Vaidas Matuzas PURAM Hungary WMO Peter Ormai VTT Finland TSO Erika Holt Appendix D – Chief Scientific Officers appointed from Month 1 Christophe Bruggeman, SCK CEN, Belgium Michael Egan, SSM, Sweden, Irina Gaus, Nagra, Switzerland EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 36 Appendix E – WP Leaders from Month 1 WP Organisation Country Type WP Leader 2 KM BGE Germany WMO Alexandru Tatomir 3 ASTRA COVRA Netherlands WMO Marja Vuorio 4 FORSAFF VTT Finland TSO Timothy Schatz 5 ICARUS POLIMI Italy AE Eros Mossini 6 STREAM SOGIN Italy WMO Federica Pancotti 7 L'OPERA SCK CEN Belgium RE Thierry Mennecart 8 SAREC SKB Sweden WMO Lena Zetterström Evins 9 InCoManD ANDRA France WMO Aurélien Debelle 10 ANCHORS ASNR France TSO Nadia Mokni 11 CLIMATE A21 Spain AE Alvaro Sainz Garcia 12 RAMPEC KIT Germany RE Marcus Altmaier 13 OPTI BGE Germany WMO Philipp Herold 14 SUDOKU RATEN Romania RE Crina Bucur 15 DITOCO2030 IFE Norway AP Reka Szoke 16 HERMES PSI Switzerland AP Sergey Churakov 17 CSFD NAGRA Switzerland AP Madalina Wittel 18 DITUSC ONDRAF/NIRAS Belgium WMO Stéphane Brassinnes EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 37 Appendix F – Classification of deliverables WP n° D n° Title Lead participant Type Dissemination level Delivery date (in months) Review classification (H/M/L) WP1 - PMO D1.1 Dissemination Strategy Andra R PU 6 L D1.2 Quality Management Plan Andra R PU 6 L D1.3 Data Management Plan Andra R SEN 6 L D1.4 Annual Work Programme Y2 Andra R SEN 9 L D1.5 Periodic Report Y1 Andra R SEN 13 L D1.6 Evaluation of ICS activities NTW R PU 18 M D1.7 Annual Work Programme Y3 Andra R SEN 21 L D1.8 Periodic Report Y2 Andra R SEN 25 L D1.9 Annual Work Programme Y4 Andra R SEN 33 L D1.10 Action plan following the midterm evaluation Andra R PU 36 M D1.11 Periodic Report Y3 Andra R SEN 37 L D1.12 Annual Work Programme Y5 Andra R SEN 45 L D1.13 Periodic Report Y4 Andra R SEN 49 L D1.14 Evaluation of the impacts of the programme Andra R PU 56 H D1.15 Final evaluation of ICS activities NTW R PU 56 H D1.16 Periodic Report Y5 Andra R SEN 61 L WP2 - KM D2.1 Report on the KM platform specifications ASNR R PU 18 L D2.2 Report on the implementation of innovative and alternative methods ASNR R PU 18 L D2.3 Report on recommendations for the long-term maintenance of critical infrastructure for RWM at the European level DEKOM R PU 24 L D2.4 Report on recommendations DEKOM R PU 56 M EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 38 for the long-term maintenance of critical infrastructure for RWM at the European level D2.5 Report on the implementation of innovative and alternative methods including lessons learned ASNR R PU 56 M D2.6 Outcome/impacts report of the KM Programme to Member States and End-Users Amphos 21 R PU 56 H WP3 - ASTRA D3.1 Green paper COVRA R PU 12 M D3.2 State-of-the-art assessment of TRLs and R&D requirements for deep borehole disposal of radioactive wastes GSL/ Egis R PU 15 L D3.3 White paper SURO R PU 18 L D3.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users COVRA R PU 20 H WP4 - FORSAFF D4.1 State of the art (SOTA) report POLIMI R PU 6 L D4.2 Green Paper Amphos 21 R PU 12 M D4.3 White Paper CEA R PU 18 M D4.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users VTT R 22 H WP5 - ICARUS D5.1 SotA on innovative NDT, DT, SF for use cases SSTC NRS R PU 6 L D5.2 New NDT Prototypes NRG R PU 24 L D5.3 New DT for DTM DTU R PU 36 L D5.4 SF optimized demonstrations ENRESA R PU 48 L D5.5 Practical demonstrations of new NDT, DT and SF POLIMI DEM PU 54 L D5.6 Extending the SotA on innovative NDT, DT, SF for SSTC NRS R PU 57 H EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 39 current and new use cases WP6 - STREAM D6.1 State of the art report (initial) CIEMAT R PU 6 L D6.2 Optimized and innovative treatment technologies and conditioning matrices for organic and metallic waste VTT R SEN 48 L D6.3 LCA/LCC case studies NNL R PU 55 L D6.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users CEA R PU 56 H D6.5 State of the art report (final) CIEMAT R PU 57 H D6.6 Upscaling of treatment and conditioning processes using innovative binders SCK CEN R SEN 57 L WP7 - L'OPERA D7.1 State of the Art on novel matrices for LILW immobilisation SOGIN R PU 6 L D7.2 Representative conditions of disposal facilities for the long-term management of LILW VTT R PU 9 L D7.3 Matrices long-term performance assessment for conditioned LILW ANDRA R PU 55 L D7.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users SCK CEN R PU 56 H D7.5 Modelling approaches for the long-term behaviour of conditioned LILW UniPi R PU 56 L D7.6 State of the Art on novel matrices for LILW immobilisation SOGIN R PU 57 H EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 40 WP8 - SAREC D8.1 State-of-the-Art report - initial AMPHOS 21 R PU 6 L D8.2 Interim Status Report SKB R PU 30 L D8.3 Final meeting S&T report SKB R PU 54 L D8.4 State-of-the-Art report - final AMPHOS 21 R PU 56 H D8.5 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users SKB R PU 56 H WP9 - InCoMand D9.1 SotA (initial) BAM R PU 6 L D9.2 Ceramic container prototype Galtenco DEM PU 36 L D9.3 Data collection CIEMAT DATA PU 52 L D9.4 SotA (final) HZDR R PU 56 H D9.5 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users Andra R PU 57 H WP10 - ANCHORS D10.1 State-of-the-Art report (initial) ASNR R PU 6 L D10.2 Report on assessment of measures for better quality control Posiva R PU 54 L D10.3 Report on modelling validation and assessment cases BGE R PU 56 L D10.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users ASNR R PU 56 H D10.5 State-of-the-Art report (final) ASNR R PU 58 H D10.6 Report on Lab testing and multiscale experimental characterization. MITTA R PU 58 L WP11 - CLIMATE D11.1 White Paper BGE R PU 18 M D11.2 Synthesis report AMPHOS 21 R PU 18 H WP12 - RAMPEC D12.1 SOTA (initial) KIT R PU 12 L D12.2 Mid-Term Progress Report on RAMPEC Tasks 3, 4, 5. CIEMAT R PU 30 L EURAD-2 Deliverable 1.2 – Quality Management Plan Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 27/03/2025 Page 41 D12.3 Final Report on experimental studies. SCK CEN R PU 52 L D12.4 Final Report on modelling studies. PSI R PU 52 L D12.5 SOTA (final) KIT R PU 56 H D12.6 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users ANDRA R PU 58 H WP13 - OPTI D13.1 Draft green paper: Existing actor views TU Delft R SEN 6 M D13.2 Final green paper: Mutual Understanding of actors views about optimisation BEL V R PU 14 L D13.3 Technical Key challenges for Optimization of HLW GDFs (white paper) CTU R PU 18 L D13.4 Outcome/impacts report to Member States and End Users BGE R PU 20 H D13.5 Final Report BGE R PU 24 H WP14 - SUDOKU D14.1 Initial State of the art report SCK CEN R PU 12 L D14.2 R&D results on multilayer cover performances AMPHOS 21 R PU 54 L D14.3 R&D results on the transfer of mobile radionuclides in cementitious barriers as a function of their chemomechanical evolution and corrosion effect ANDRA R PU 54 L D14.4 Effect of cover performances, CHM evolution of EBS and steel corrosion on the radionuclides release from the disposal zone PSI / SSTC NRS R PU 56 L