Final report on the workshop

General Comments

A previous NATO Advanced Research Workshop took place in December 2004 in Moscow on Radiation and Environmental Safety in North-West Russia and Related Use of Impact Assessment and Risk Estimation. The workshop was organised by NRPA and Rostechnadzor. A variety of conclusions was drawn about the need for improvements in environmental risk assessment and related regulations and regulatory guidance necessary for effective and efficient supervision of nuclear legacy sites. Accordingly, a range of activities has since been progressed by a number of Russian and overseas organisations which specifically address activities for remediation of SevRAO operated sites in northwest Russia. Significant among these activities has been the regulatory cooperation program between the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) and the Federal Medical Biological Agency (FMBA) of Russia.

Taking account of these developments, a further NATO workshop was held in September 2007 under the Security Through Science framework to consider the current challenges in radiation protection and nuclear safety regulation of the nuclear legacy. The overall objective was to share East-West competence and experience in regulatory work associated with radiation protection and nuclear safety supervision of installations built during the cold war, particularly in relation to regulatory strategies for safe decommissioning of unique or unusual nuclear facilities and remediation activities.

A very broad based set of organisations was invited to attend the workshop. There were over 60 participants from 8 countries as well as representatives from the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the International Atomic Energy Agency and NATO. In line with the 2 + 2 approach to addressing complex safety, human health and environmental protection issues, the participants included representatives of regulatory authorities, operators and technical support organizations. Organisations which were unable to send representatives have asked to be kept informed of the outcome. Overall, this is regarded as a very satisfactory result in terms of level of interest and participation.

A significant number of presentations was made by Russian and other participants. A high degree of willingness to share experience was demonstrated. Of special significance was the material provided on practical issues concerned with regulatory responsibilities, in terms of assuring regulatory compliance, as well as maintaining an efficient process. Also interesting was material provided from the western side on the role of additional stakeholders (i.e. not just operators and regulators) in the overall legacy management programme.

During the allotted time, many questions and discussion points were raised and the Russian chairmanship of the workshop was performed so as to allow good opportunities for consideration of the issues raised.

From the presentations and discussions it can be concluded that the Russian standards are generally consistent with international recommendations, but that there is scope for continuing improvement of regulatory processes and procedures, as well as the need for more appropriate norms and standards to manage special situations.

Scientific Content

The workshop programme was organized under the following session headings

Nuclear Legacy Challenges
Regulatory Implementation of Treaties, Standards and Recommendations
Challenges in Practical Implementation of Remediation Strategy in Russia and Abroad
Safety Regulation Experience in Russia and Abroad

The key issues identified and observations made were as follows

Russia has started to be actively involved in international nuclear safety instruments and has introduced into its present set of regulations the main elements of the ICRP radiation protection system. However, the present Russian regulatory system for nuclear safety and radiation protection has not yet been harmonized with international standards and not yet been independently reviewed.
The FMBA presented the main regulatory challenges in the Russian legal framework. Some components have existed only a few years while others, like the Institute of Biophysics (IBPh), have been long established. Numerous regulatory documents had been issued over the last few years, by parliament and government concerning the responsibilities of FMBA as well as by FMBA on the responsibilities of licensees.
Long term policies for land use, contaminated land management and hazardous and radioactive waste management present easy expressed and multiple objectives but they are extremely hard to regulate for and sometimes contradictory. For example, policy suggests that further legacies should not be created for future generations to manage, but early action may create additional hazards now.

The key conclusions were

Russian standards are generally consistent with international recommendations, but there is scope for continuing improvement of regulatory processes and procedures, as well as the need for more appropriate norms and standards to manage special situations. In addition, recruitment of qualified personnel is difficult at times.
Part of the reason for poor conditions at some sites has been the lack of, or poor development of, a broad safety culture involving all workers at all levels in safety management.
While development work implicit in the above is clearly to be valued, at the same time, those with the specific responsibility must be ready to provide vigorous supervision of current and planned operational projects in a timely and effective manner.
While the regulator has to be able to take firm action by the use of sanctions and the courts to correct errors and omissions on the part of operators, there is also a need to promote and encourage operators to come forward with recognition of possible past failures. Good behavior should be rewarded.
In part these needs and observations arise because of the unusual conditions at SevRAO sites, but they also arise at other Russian sites and in similar sites in other countries, so that continuing cooperation can be useful in a wider Russian context and in other countries. Such cooperation may also help international agencies to develop more practically effective recommendations and guidance.
Participants from all countries and organizations acknowledged the need to and difficulties of managing the interface among interest groups concerned with legacy management, including:-
- Scientific evaluation – scientists
- Regulatory approach – regulatory authorities
- Practical solution – operators
- Political situation - politicians
- Public acceptance – local and regional public interest groups

The key recommendations made were

The Russian Federation has responsibility to manage its own nuclear legacy. But it is also one of several countries in the global network of nuclear activities. Harmonization of approaches is valuable in building future cooperation. Accordingly, future exchanges as provided for by this workshop should be encouraged.
Development of a broader and deeper safety culture should be a long term objective, while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of radiation protection and nuclear safety as possible.
There are many complex issues to be addressed and they cannot all be solved at once. Clear recognition of the major threats, as well as weakness in regulatory processes, can be useful in directing future resources. However, at this stage it is clear that there are specific regulatory issues to address with respect to regulatory requirements and guidance for nuclear legacy sites concerning:
- site remediation,
- waste forms for long term storage and disposal, and
- disposal facilities.
In turn, such work is dependent on better radioactive waste and contamination characterization, as well as site characterization information.
Such guidance needs to be thoroughly based on the best use of scientific and technical information. At the same time, part of the solution relates to policy issues and value judgments, and so broader interaction among regulators, operators and other stakeholders is to be encouraged.