international working forum on regulatory supervision of legacy sites (rsls) - technical meeting 22...

International Working Forum on Regulatory Supervision of Legacy Sites (RSLS) - Technical Meeting

22 - 24 October 2013, Vienna, Austria

Results and discussion of WG 1: Enhancing Regulatory Infrastructure

Mikhail KiselevDeputy Head

Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia



Introduction & Rationale Today, some countries have experience in regulatory supervision

of legacy sites. Nevertheless, information on coordination of efforts in enhancing regulatory supervision of remediation of legacy sites, including information exchange in this area, at the international level is not sufficient so far



Objective

To study and summarize experience of the regulatory bodies when planning and implementing the process of the regulatory supervision of nuclear legacy sites, and to develop recommendations on enhancing regulatory infrastructure



Work organization (2011-2013)

Development of the questionnaire to assess the state of the national legacy regulation

Analysis and summary of materials provided by the RSLS member-states in their filled questionnaires

Development of the resume on the national strategy of the legacy regulation taking into account the questionnaire-based information

Generalization of the experience in the regulatory supervision of legacy sites using development of the normative-and-methodical framework in the Russian Federation and some other countries as an example

Development working materials of our Working Group to be included in IAEA TECDOC



The Questionnaire to assess the state of the national legacy regulation

Questionnaire consist of 35 questions and covering the following 8 modules:

Legislative and governmental responsibilities Responsibilities and functions of the regulatory body Organization of the regulatory body Authorization by the regulatory body Review and assessment Inspection and enforcement Development of regulations and guides Specification of nuclear legacy sites in your country



IAEA documents

When preparing the Questionnaire, we took into account the relevant IAEA documents:

GS-R-1. Legal and governmental infrastructure for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety : requirements - IAEA, 2000

GSR Part 1.Governmental, legal and regulatory framework for safety - IAEA, 2010

WS-G-5.1 Release of sites from regulatory control on termination of practices :safety guide - IAEA, 2006



RSLS member states filled the questionnaires (1)

RSLS member state

Responding organization

UK RSR

Hungary National Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene Frederic Joliot Curie

Russia Federal Medical Biological Agency, Russian Federation

Bulgaria National Centre for Radiobiology & Radiation Protection

Norway Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority

Ukraine State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine Department of Radiation Safety & Ukrainian Scientific and Research Institute for Hydrometeorology

Romania Romanian National Commission for Supervision of Nuclear Activities

USA U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management

Brazil Brazilian Commission of Nuclear Energy



RSLS member states filled the questionnaires (2)

RSLS member state Responding organization

Tajikistan Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency

Uzbekistan State Inspectorate "Sanoatgeokontexnadzorat" under the Cabinet of Ministers

KyrgyzstanState Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry under the Government

ChinaRadioactive Waste Management Department, China Institute for Radiation Protection

Iraq

Zambia

Niger Ministry of Mines and Industrial development Direction of Mines

France French nuclear safety authority

Germany Sdchsisches Staatsministerium Umwelt und Landwirtschaft Archivstrasse

AustraliaARPANS & Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Belgium



Types of legacy in the RSLS member states (1)

Country The presence of the uranium legacy The presence of the nuclear legacy

USA Yes YesUK No YesBulgaria 3 sites NoRussia Yes Yes

Hungary1 uranium mining and milling site

No

Norway No No

Romania50 uranium deposits, only two large

No

Kyrgyzstan 6 sites No

UkraineDneprodzerzhinsk, Zheltye Vody, some other old mines and sites

Areas affected by the accident at the Chernobyl NPP



Types of legacy in the RSLS member states (2)

Country The presence of the uranium legacy The presence of the nuclear legacy

China6 uranium mining and milling facilities

No response

Uzbekistan 6 sites No

Tajikistan 10 sites No

Niger No No

Zambia No No

Australia 2 sites 3 nuclear weapon test sites

Brazil 3 sites

Iraq Yes No

Germany Yes

France About 80 and 250 mining sites



Resume Types of legacy in the RSLS member

statesData for 19 countries



3 main areas to be analyzed:

1. The state of the legislative and governmental framework to regulate radiation safety of legacy sites and facilities

2. The infrastructure and responsibilities of the regulatory body

3. The governmental programmes on remediation of legacy sites and facilities



1. The state of the legislative and governmental framework to regulate radiation

safety of legacy sites and facilities (1)

The legislations of some states (USA, UK, Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Germany, and France) include the specific provisions on nuclear or uranium legacy

In the majority of national legislations do not include such provisions

Despite that the available legal framework of nuclear and radiation safety regulation promotes the activity for the purpose of the legacy regulation

In all countries replied, the law establishes that the objective of the radiation safety is protection of individuals, members of the public and environment against radiation hazards both today and in future




safety of legacy sites and facilities (2) 3 types of approaches:

The first: to adopt the special law on the specific type of the legacy (there is a law on “The Tailings and Mining Dumps” in Kyrgyzstan)

The second: To introduce the “existing exposure situation” term in the current radiation safety legislation, which will include, among others, sites contaminated following accidents and past activities of radiation facilities

The third: To carry out remediation of the nuclear and uranium legacy in compliance with the Government statements (Hungary is an example, where the remediation of the uranium facility in Pecs is carried out in accordance with the special Government Statement)





The legislative framework established one or several regulatory bodies to assure radiation safety, including that at the nuclear legacy sites

In case of several governmental authorities, their responsibilities are statutory

In some states, the regulatory body is not statutory

For example, both Tajikistan and Hungary has the only regulatory body, which supports the common Government Policy for all radiation hazardous facilities.There are several regulatory bodies in Russia and UK Their interaction is performed according to the “Interaction Agreement” or other similar documents





The following provisions are statutory: The independence of the regulatory body activity The responsibility and obligations in respect of funding

for the management of radioactive waste, that of nuclear legacy, decommissioning

The priority of the international obligations The involvement of the public and other agencies in the

regulatory process The liability of the operator for radiation safety at

legacy sites and facilities



Resume Legislative and governmental framework

Data for 20 countries



2. The infrastructure and responsibilities of the regulatory body (1)

Responsibilities of the regulatory body: To develop safety principles and criteria To establish regulations and to issue guide documents To require operators to assess the safety To visit the site or facility for the purpose of inspection To impose sanctions in case of radiation safety violations Independently notify the public about the regulatory process,

to inform about the current requirements Provide other state bodies, organizations, as well as the public,

with information about the incidents Liaise with regulatory bodies of other countries and exchange

of regulatory information



2. The infrastructure and responsibilities of the regulatory body (2)

Problems concerning to execution of supervision functions:

a lack of sufficient technical or functional capacities, required to fulfill the responsibilities for the review and assessment or inspection

there is no exact policy, safety principles and associated criteria as a basis for regulatory actions related to the nuclear legacy

there is no structure of regulatory documents are no documents on the organization, inspection and

clearance of audit results



Resume The infrastructure and responsibilities

of the regulatory body Data for 20 countries



3. The governmental programmes on remediation of legacy sites and facilities

Country The availability of the national programme

Country The availability of the national programme

UK + Uzbekistan +

Hungary + Kyrgyzstan +

Russia + China +

Bulgaria + Iraq +

Norway + Zambia -

Ukraine + Niger -

Romania + France -

USA + Germany +

Brazil - Australia +

Tajikistan +



Summary of the regulation in state that apply to legacy site (1)

1. In the majority of states, there are authorities responsible for the radiation safety regulation at nuclear and uranium legacy sites

2. Generally, regulatory bodies have powers and functional capacities. In some states organization of regulatory work of the regulatory bodies, which determines the safety principles and criteria for its assessment in terms of radiation safety regulation at legacy sites, is insufficient

3. Question on review of technical documentation by the regulatory body results in different reactions of the responders, because of the presence of several authorities



Summary of the regulation in state that apply to legacy site (2)

4. Poor development of methodical basis (regulations and guide documents) of legacy sites is obvious; so frequency of inspections at legacy sites under control is low

5. Does the regulatory body take into account safety standards and recommendations accepted internationally? – YES. However, a question arises concerning the effectiveness of their implementation in respect to legacy sites

6. The following states: USA, UK, Hungary, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan (draft), Romania, China, Russia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Australia – have national programs on remediation of legacy sites



Analysis of regulatory and methodical documents on radiation protection of the

public during remediation of the legacy sites

ICRP Recommendations IAEA documents on remediation of sites The EC documents of remediation of contaminated

areas National criteria for remediation of radiation

contaminated sites: Remediation criteria used by the:

United States of America GermanUnited Kingdom Russian Federation



Normative-and-methodical documents on the regulatory supervision of the nuclear legacy

sites in the Northwest Russia Radiation protection of workers

and the public Criteria and regulations for

remediation of SevRAO sites and facilities

Organization of radiation monitoring of the environmental media at the SevRAO area

Requirements for industrial waste Operational radiological and

medical criteria



Conclusion

Reviewed and analyzed the legislative framework of legacy regulation

Review and summarize of the experience accumulated by the regulators of countries having nuclear and uranium legacy, when planning the such legacy management

Analyzed the experience of the regulatory supervision and monitoring of the nuclear legacy

Recommendations on enhancing the regulatory infrastructure and normative and legislative framework of the legacy management



Thank you for attention

international working forum on regulatory supervision of legacy sites (rsls) - technical meeting 22...

Documents