INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY - …gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/general/Shared Documents/Rem… · Web viewAt a side event held during the 55th regular session of the International Atomic

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA)

CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTING DECOMMISSIONING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIATION PROGRAMMES

(“CIDER” PROJECT)

Member State Survey

July 2012

July 2012 P a g e 1 |

Advancing Implementation of

Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation ProgrammesSurvey on challenges to implementing projects in IAEA Member States

Background

At a side event held during the 55th regular session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) General Conference in September 2011, the decommissioning of nuclear installations and the environmental remediation of radiologically contaminated sites worldwide were discussed. The conclusion was reached that many IAEA Member States faced significant challenges in implementing their national programmes in these two areas. The IAEA was encouraged to undertake further activities to gain a better understanding of the global situation and to establish mechanisms to analyse and report on these issues. Ultimately, this could include the establishment of a dedicated working group to advise the IAEA and Member States on specific actions and projects to advance the implementation of decommissioning and remediation programmes in Member States.

In January 2012, a proposal was developed for an initial activity focussed on the collection and analysis of information on current practices and, in particular, on the barriers that may be impeding the implementation of decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes. It is planned that this exercise will comprise: (1) a survey of the current situation in Member States; and (2) a Technical Meeting at which the survey results will be discussed and analysed together with Member States’ representatives, and during which detailed terms of reference for a possible future working group may be developed. The present questionnaire was developed in response to (1) above. Data will be collected from July 2012 onwards and preliminary analysis of the results will be presented at a side event during the 56th regular session of the IAEA General Conference in September 2012. The Technical Meeting to analyse the results in detail will be held in early 2013.

Purpose

The purpose of this survey is to gain an understanding of the current status of decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes in Member States, with a particular focus on what challenges may exist that impede progress in these programmes and their relative importance in different Member States. The survey will also be used to identify specific case studies for further analysis, in order to gain a better insight into the issues and constraints being faced by Member States.

Method

For ease of use, this survey is being implemented on a web-based platform, CONNECT (“Connecting the Network of Networks for Enhanced Communication and Training”), which has been developed by the IAEA to facilitate information sharing within the community of people working on issues relating to radioactive waste management.

Compilations of the current situation in the Member States that respond to the survey will be made by the IAEA and the results will be used as a basis for a wider analysis of the global situation on barriers to implementing decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes.

The survey is structured into three parts: (1) a glossary of terms; (2) general information on current and future decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes in the relevant Member State; and (3) information about the specific barriers faced in the relevant Member State.

July 2012 P a g e 2 |

PART 1 GLOSSARY1

Accident:Any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures and other mishaps, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of view of protection or safety.

Activities:include: the production, use, import and export of radiation sources for industrial, research and medical purposes; the transport of radioactive material; the decommissioning of facilities; radioactive waste management activities such as the discharge of effluents; and some aspects of the remediation of sites affected by residues from past activities.

Contamination (radioactive): Radioactive substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids or gases (including the human body), where their presence is unintended or undesirable, or the process giving rise to their presence in such places.

Decommissioning:Administrative and technical actions taken to allow the removal of some or all of the r egulatory controls from a facility (except for a repository or for certain nuclear facilities used for the disposal of residues from the mining and processing of radioactive material, which are ‘closed’ and not ‘decommissioned’).

Facility:includes: nuclear facilities; irradiation installations; some mining and raw material processing facilities such as uranium mines; radioactive waste management facilities; and any other places where radioactive material is produced, processed, used, handled, stored or disposed of — or where radiation generators are installed — on such a scale that consideration of protection and safety is required.

NORM:Material containing no significant amounts of radionuclides other than naturally occurring radionuclides. The exact definition of ‘significant amounts’ would be a regulatory decision. Materials in which the activity concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides have been changed by human made processes are included. These are sometimes referred to as technically enhanced NORM or TENORM.

Remediation:Any measures that may be carried out to reduce the radiation exposure from existing contamination of land areas through actions applied to the contamination itself (the source) or to the exposure pathways to humans.

*Site:An area containing radioactive materials and having a designated boundary for the purposes of radiological control. For the purposes of this survey, this will include nuclear sites, sites with radioactive contamination, NORM sites and uranium mining and milling sites. However, small sites such as hospitals and educational laboratories are not included.

*Legacy sites:Sites on which radioactive materials have been left or where contamination occurred due to activities in the past, and for which there is no longer any operator or the former operator cannot any longer be held responsible for remediation. In general the State has taken over responsibility from previous operators.

1 Definitions (except those marked*) are taken from IAEA Safety Glossary: 2007 Edition (IAEA, Vienna, 2007) and/or Radioactive Waste Management Glossary: 2003 Edition (IAEA, Vienna, 2003).July 2012 P a g e 3 |

PART 2 GENERAL INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS AND/OR SITES Categories of installations and sites that exist in your country (tick if applicable)

Category of installation/site

Licensed nuclear installations and sites2

Radioactively contaminated research and defence sites

Uranium mining and milling facilities/sites

NORM facilities/sites

Sites affected by major accidents

Interim waste storage facilities/sites

Others (if applicable)

Table 1 Category of Installation/Site

Add comments if needed:………………………….

2 This includes all sites which have a nuclear site licence, such as the sites of nuclear power plants, fuel cycle facilities and research facilities.July 2012 P a g e 4 |

2.1 Licensed nuclear installations and sites involved in the nuclear fuel cycle3

Nuclear power plantsSite Number of

reactors on the site

Soil/groundwater affected(Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes:(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsiblefor D&R

(O, G, ND)

State of D&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)Example:Site name A

6 N N 5 x LT, 1 x NT O 5 x OP, 1 x NS

Site name B 2 Y, L Y 2 x MT G 2 x NSNuclear fuel cycle facilities (enrichment plants, reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, etc.)Site Number of

facilities on the site


Legacy site

(Y/N)

Timeframefor D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible forD&R

(O, G, ND)

Stateof D&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)…

Research reactors, accelerators, etc.Site Number of

facilities on the site

Soil/groundwater affected (Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes:(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Timeframefor D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible forD&R

(O, G, ND)

Stateof D&R


Add comments if needed (for instance: reason for interruption of D&R projects): ………………………….

LegendD&R – decommissioning and remediationY– yes; N – no; U – unknownNT – need for D&R in the near-term (< 15 yr); MT – need for D&R in the mid-term (15 yr. – < 50 yr.); LT – need for D&R in the long-term (> 50 yr)O – operator; G – Government or State agency; ND – not definedOP – in operation; NS – not started;– On-going; I – Interrupted; C – completedVolume of soil contamination: L (low) < 10 000 m³; M (medium) 10 000 m³ – <100 000 m³; MH (medium–high) 100 000 m³ – < 1,000,000 m³; H (high) > 1 000 000 m³Volume of groundwater contamination: L (low) < 10 000 m³; M (medium) 10 000 m³ – <100 000 m³; MH (medium–high) 100 000 m³ – < 1,000,000 m³; H (high) > 1 000 000 m³

3 Sites with different types of nuclear installation should be entered in each relevant tabulation.

July 2012 P a g e 5 |

2.2 Radioactively contaminated research and defence sites

Site Type of research and operation


Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State ofD&R


Add comments if needed: ………………………….

2.3 Uranium mining and milling sites (list major sites with waste volume produced >1 million m³; aggregate smaller sites if possible)

Open pit miningSite Soil/groundwater affected

(Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes:(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total amount of waste rocks and overburden left on the site [m³]

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for mine closure4

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for mine closure(O, G, ND)

State of mine closure


Underground miningSite Soil/groundwater affected

(Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes:(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total amount of waste rock left on the site[m³]

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for mine closure

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for closure

(O, G, ND)

State of mine closure


In-situ leachingSite Soil/groundwater affected

(Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State ofD&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)

4 Mine closure is the period of time when the ore -extracting activities of a mine have ceased, and final decommissioning and mine reclamation are completed

July 2012 P a g e 6 |

…

Processing plantsSite Soil/groundwater affected

(Y, N, U);if yes, describe volumes(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total amount of tailings left on the site[m³]

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State ofD&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)


2.4 NORM/TENORM facility sites (list major sites with waste volume produced > 100 000 m³; aggregate smaller sites if possible)

Site Type of operation


Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State ofD&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)


July 2012 P a g e 7 |

2.5 Sites affected by major accidents5

Site Type of accident


Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total area affected[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State of site D&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)on the site outside the site boundary


2.6 Major6 waste management facilities and/or sites requiring decommissioning and / or remediation

Site Type ofstorage facility

Soil/groundwater affected (Y, N, U),if yes, describe volumes:(L, M, MH, H)

Legacy site

(Y/N)

Total area affected

[km²]

Timeframe for D&R

(NT, MT, LT)

Responsible for D&R

(O, G, ND)

State of site D&R

(OP, NS, On, I, C)


2.7 Others

Add appropriate table or comments if needed:………………………….

5 Accidents rated as 5 or larger on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) or involving significant contamination beyond site boundaries.6 The quantity of radioactive waste on the sites is likely to be at least 10 000 m3.

July 2012 P a g e 8 |

PART 3 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF DECOMMISSIONING AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMMES

3.1 What factors facilitate or promote decommissioning in your country?

Drivers Influence ranked High Medium or Low (H, M, L)

National policy

Regulatory or legal drivers

Recognized risk to public

Recognized risk to workers

Recognized risk to environment

Political considerations

Economic or market considerations, e.g. potential for reuse of site

Local stakeholder expectations and demands

Other

Comment:

3.2 What factors facilitate or promote remediation in your country (if not driven by decommissioning)?

Drivers Influence ranked High Medium or Low (H, M, L)

National policy

Regulatory or legal drivers

Recognized risk to public

Recognized risk to workers

Recognized risk to environment

Political considerations

Economic or market considerations

Local stakeholder expectations and demands

Other

Comment:

P a g e 10 |

3.3 What are the common challenges to decommissioning in your country?

Challenges Influence ranked High Medium or Low (H, M, L)

Financial / funding

Limited / lack of national policy

Limited / lack of regulatory framework

Uncertainty over the end state

Limited / lack of technology

Limited / lack of skills (quantity and quality of personnel)

Lack of ownership / responsibility

Stakeholder opinion / resistance

Lack of waste management/disposal systems

Lack of transportation system

Low national priority (perceived or real)

Other site priorities, e.g. ongoing operations versus decommissioning

Uncertainty or unknown risks, e.g. lack of characterization

Complexity of task, e.g. complicated by an accident

Risks (e.g. dose) to workers

Logistics (e.g. problems accessing the area of concern)

Impact of or on neighbouring sites / areas / countries

Other

Comment (e.g. indicate if a barrier is specific to a particular category of installation or site):

P a g e 11 |

3.4 What are the common barriers to remediation in your country?

Barrier Influence ranked High Medium or Low (H, M, L)

Financial / funding







Stakeholder opinion / resistance

Lack of waste management/disposal systems









Other

Comment (e.g. indicate if a barrier is specific to a particular category of installation or site):

P a g e 12 |

When answering the following questions, please indicate if an answer is specific to a particular category of installation or site. If it is helpful then please use a table (e.g. Table 1, reproduced below).

3.5 Financial / funding

What funding arrangements are available in your country for site decommissioning and remediation (provide examples)? Please provide a high-level summary of financing mechanisms and please specify according to the categories in Table 1, where appropriate.


Licensed nuclear installations and sites







Does your country apply discounting when estimating the future cost of decommissioning and remediation programmes?

What special funding arrangements are in place for legacy sites, if any?

Does your country seek funding from multilateral / international organizations for decommissioning and remediation?

not at all has been considered and rejected remains under consideration funding requested funding received

P a g e 13 |

3.6 National policy

Is there a published national policy document in your country for decommissioning and / or remediation of sites?

No policy document for either decommissioning or remediation Yes for decommissioning (please list and provide link to the policy document(s), if

possible) but no for remediation. Is the policy mature or does it require further development?

Yes for remediation (please list and provide link to the policy document(s), if possible) but no for decommissioning. Is the policy mature or does it require further development?

Yes for both (please provide link to the policy document(s), if possible). Are the policies mature or do they require further development?

Are there any national level principles that promote decommissioning and remediation? If so, what are they, e.g. polluter pays, precautionary, sustainability, etc.? Please provide link to the principles (if possible).

Is decommissioning and remediation a high, medium or low priority at the national level in your country?

3.7 Regulatory framework

Is there a regulatory framework available in your country for decommissioning and / or remediation of sites?

No regulatory framework for either decommissioning or remediation Yes for decommissioning (please list and provide link to the key documents, if

possible) but no for remediation. Is the framework mature or does it require further development?

Yes for remediation (please list and provide link to the key documents, if possible) but no for decommissioning. Is the framework mature or does it require further development?

Yes for both (please link and provide link to the key documents, if possible). Are the policies mature or do they require further development?

If no, is there an interim mechanism for regulating decommissioning and / or remediation?

Does the regulatory framework allow for case by case decisions for decommissioning and / or remediation?

Does the regulatory framework in your country allow a phased approach to approvals of interim end states?

P a g e 14 |

3.8 Uncertainty over the end state

Are there clear end states defined for your sites?

Yes for all sites Yes for x% of sites No

Comment:

Please specify the preferred end state for decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes:

unrestricted use restricted use case-specific not defined

Please specify according to the categories in Table 1 in Part 2, where appropriate.


Licensed nuclear installations and sites







Comment:

What drives the definition of an end state?

National policy Regulatory framework Risk to people and the environment Negotiation with local community Negotiation with national stakeholders Combination of the above (please explain) Other (please explain)

P a g e 15 |

3.9 Technology

Does your country possess the necessary technologies for effective decommissioning and remediation?

If no, does your country have access to these technologies from abroad?

If no, why not?

What key technologies does your country lack, if any?

Does your country have an active research and development programme to develop the technologies that it needs?

3.10 Skills

Does your country have appropriate skills for effective decommissioning and remediation (quantity and quality of personnel)? Please consider all types of skills, e.g. technical, managerial, etc.

If no, is your country able to obtain these skills externally?

If no, why not?

What type of skills is your country lacking (e.g. characterization, decontamination, segmentation, robotics, waste treatment, others), if any?

Does your country have an active training programme to develop the skills that it needs?

3.11 Lack of ownership / responsibility

How does your country assign responsibility for decommissioning and remediation of legacy sites?

3.12 Stakeholder opinion / resistance

Is stakeholder engagement or stakeholder opinion a barrier to the progress of decommissioning and remediation in your country?

Has your country experienced any such difficulties to date? Please specify.

Please describe the mechanisms by which stakeholders are engaged in the development of decommissioning and remediation programmes and the extent of this engagement.

Please consider local communities and the general public as well as the scientific community and the media.

P a g e 16 |

3.13 Infrastructure for management of spent fuel and radioactive waste

Does your country possess a system for managing waste arising from decommissioning and remediation, including disposal? Please specify.

If no, does your country have an active programme to develop spent fuel and waste management systems (including disposal facilities)?

In what ways, if any, is the absence of a waste disposal system a barrier to decommissioning and remediation in your country? Please specify.

3.14 Transport system for radioactive waste

Does your country possess an adequate system for transporting the waste arising from decommissioning and remediation programmes? Please specify.

If no, does your country have an active programme to develop or improve the transport system?

In what ways, if any, is the absence of a waste transport system a barrier to decommissioning and remediation in your country? Please specify

3.15 Need for international assistance

Please indicate the barriers that could be overcome with international technical assistance or collaboration?

Barrier

Decommissioning Remediation

TA Coll. TA Coll.

Financial / funding






P a g e 17 |


Stakeholder opinion / public resistance

Lack of disposal system









Other

Please specify (where appropriate)

3.16 Case studies

Does your country have experience of overcoming barriers to decommissioning and remediation that could serve as an example to other Member States?

Please briefly describe the example(s) and indicate whether your country would be willing to share the example(s) in more detail.

P a g e 18 |