Iaea report doc

SUMMARY OF SESSION 7

B. Salbu

Norway

CASE STUDIES II

From the eight presentations and the discussion in this session, a number of valuable lessons were learned. As a general lesson, it is clear that there is no substitute for competent regulators, operators and good science. This underscores the need for training, education and national capacity building in order to meet the challenges associated with contaminated sites.

Life cycle planning (or lack of it) was a reoccurring theme in many of the presentations in the session. Life cycle planning is needed in order to prevent significant problems from occurring in the latter stages of a uranium mining and milling operation. A robust regulatory system (i.e. one that requires an environmental impact assessment prior to the start of a mining operation) and good coordination between the regulatory body, the operators and the research community, are also very important. The regulatory body should be independent of the operator. It was clearly demonstrated there is a strong need for stakeholder involvement throughout the whole period of a project.

The experience gained in the remediation of a uranium extraction plant in Mexico showed that if the organization that is performing the remediation is different from that responsible for long term care of the site, there needs to be good coordination between them to ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities. The study showed the need for adequate compliance verification of the remediation plan, for example, by the use of proper institutional controls.

One presentation discussed an innovative way to calculate radiation doses when background radiation makes the radiation caused by human activities difficult to measure. The presentation also emphasized the need to take due account of the habits of local potentially exposed population groups in dose assessments and provided an example of this in relation to the Aborigines in Australia.

Radiation monitoring programmes and radiation dose assessments to workers involved in remediation activities at uranium mine sites and to the public were described in several presentations. The public perception of radiation risks was raised as an issue in at least one presentation and the need for improved approaches for risk communication was emphasized.

Experience in the implementation of remediation schemes in different countries has shown that:

• 
  What may work in one part of the world may not work in another, e.g. for cultural, climatic and physical geographic reasons;
  
• 
  Having a site conceptual model is valuable for targeting limited resources towards the activities that will give the greatest risk reduction;
  
• 
  Stakeholder involvement may be more challenging than the technical solutions.
  

Furthermore, it was noted that many of these legacy sites have common issues:

• 
  Operations were terminated abruptly;
  
• 
  There was improper or no management of waste and residues;
  
• 
  No funding exists for post mining/milling activities; and
  
• 
  There was no stakeholder involvement due to the secret nature of the sites.
  

An important conclusion from the presented studies on the radiological impact of uranium mining and milling legacy sites is that, in almost every case, with a few localized exceptions, the radiation doses are low. This underscores the need to evaluate these legacy sites individually using a site-specific, evidence based approach. Only in this way can the true risks to the public and the environment be properly evaluated and addressed.

EXPEDITING AND ENHANCING EXPERIENCE EXCHANGE

(Topical Session 8)

Chairperson

D. LOUVAT

IAEA

35.The ENVIRONET – Network on Environmental Management and Remediation

H. Monken-Fernandes

International Atomic Energy Agency,

Vienna

Abstract

This paper describes ENVIRONET, a new initiative of the International Atomic Energy Agency to facilitate information exchange between persons concerned with environmental remediation projects in different counties. The rationale for the development of the ENVIRONET network and the main the functions and facilities of the network are described.

1. BACKGROUND

The successful implementation of environmental remediation projects depends on the appropriate combination of factors that include both technical and non-technical issues. In most cases, the major constraint in implementing of these projects is the lack of financial resources. Environmental remediation activities tend to be very expensive and because, in the past, companies, both private and state-owned, did not provide the necessary financial provisions for environmental remediation, it is not uncommon that resources for remediation are unavailable. For these reasons, the costs of remediation projects have generally to be faced by the State. Often, the national organizations in charge of implementing remediation works rely on the support of international organizations to fund the projects – especially in the case of countries with weak economies.

However, even if financial resources are available there are a number of other issues to be tackled. They include, but are not limited to: the technologies to be used, the availability of appropriate staff and the regulatory infrastructure (including laws, regulations, and regulatory organizations). Planning is a topic of crucial importance for the successful implementation of environmental remediation projects but in many cases it is not appropriately considered by those in charge of the implementation of projects. Finally, consideration has to be given to the role to be played by different stakeholders in the decision making process. Consideration has to be given to procedures for taking their views into consideration and for involving them effectively in the process. Solutions have to be found that are both technically and scientifically sound at the same time as being understood and accepted by the different stakeholders.

Some countries have achieved more successful outcomes in the implementation of environmental remediation projects than others. As a result they have experience on how to deal with some of the issues mentioned above. However, solutions for environmental remediation problems are not universally applicable, i.e. a technology has proven to be effective at one site may not be the most appropriate one to be applied to another one. One example of this is the use of dry covers. A cover designed for an arid region may not be appropriate for use in humid conditions. There is a need to understand the scientific rationale behind the functioning of the cover in order to design an appropriate cover for a specific situation. Interaction with stakeholders is another example where universal solutions do not exist. The socio-political and cultural characteristics of communities and societies may often differ so that an approach used in one country may not be the best approach to be used in another.

Taking all these elements into account the International Atomic Energy Agency has been working to provide its Member States with relevant support in this area. It has been promoting technologies that can aid in the implementation of environmental remediation projects. These are aimed at improving the environmental conditions in areas affected by radioactive contamination in the past. At the same time the IAEA has been encouraging the adoption of good environmental management practices with the objective of avoiding the creation of new legacy sites and/or the need of extensive remediation works after the termination of operations.

The IAEA tries to fulfil this important mission by: i) publishing technical documents and safety standards, ii) organising training courses, workshops and seminars and providing for the implementation of scientific visits and experts missions under the activities of its Technical Cooperation Department, iii) organising international conferences and iv) providing and supporting peer-review missions.

2. NETWORKING

It has been noted that there is room for improvement in the type of assistance that the IAEA provides to its Member States. One reason is that there are different types of potential recipients of IAEA assistance. Sometimes the guidance given in its technical documents may be too generic or superficial for use by some while for others it may not be achievable. The IAEA publications tend to consolidate the experience of more developed countries on a specific topic and this experience may not be readily applicable in a country with comparatively modest resources (human and/or finance). For various reasons countries often need more than published advice in order to be able to tackle the problems of environmental remediation. It has become evident from interaction with many of the Member States affected by environmental contamination that the IAEA should strive to provide help in more practical and tangible ways.

2.1. IAEA Networks – the ENVIRONET

At the present time, the Waste Technology Section of the IAEA is operating four information networks: the first one to be created was the URL (Underground Research Laboratory Network). It was followed by the IDN (International Decommissioning Network) and the DISPONET (Waste Pre-disposal Network).

The ENVIRONET, which was launched in 2009, is an information network dealing with legacy sites (existing contaminated sites) as well as life-cycle approaches for minimizing the need for future remediation measures due to the operations of nuclear facilities and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) industries. It is intended to aid Member States in solving the problems created in the past by improving the efficiency of information exchange and the transfer of knowledge and assistance. Topics to be covered by the ENVIRONET include: i) Life-cycle planning of both facility operations and environmental remediation; ii) Project planning (quality control and assurance); iii) Data management, iv) Integration and communication; v) Site characterization; vi) Modelling (fate and transport, engineering design and economics); vii) Risk assessment; viii) Remediation technology development and selection; ix) Monitoring; x) Stakeholder involvement and communication; xi) Regulation and policy development; xii) Risk communication; xii) Stewardship – Institutional Control and xiii) Funding.

The planned methods of work include a variety of products and services aimed at expediting the exchange of information and experiences. The ultimate goal is to build capacity in Member States and to facilitate the full implementation of remediation projects. These products and services include: website (document repository of educational materials); discussion forum; partners directory (online profiles); schedule of events; workshops, conferences, training sessions, long-distance training, fellowships/internships and peer reviews. The products will be: proceedings; dedicated publications; training materials, case studies, annual reports and newsletters.

The vision underlying the implementation of networks is that the involvement of interested groups through the network on a specific topic will promote an effective flow of information and experience sharing. ENVIRONET will also aim at the transfer of knowledge while providing for the education of those in need. In principle, information will flow from more experienced partners to those with less experience. However, in many situations the advantages of integration through a network is mutual, as a lot of positive and valuable information can flow in a reverse way. With the aid of the new tools provided by the development of the Internet, virtual forums can be established, and this will allow an intensive circulation of information amongst the participants of the network. Modern web-base resources will also allow new educational tools, such as video materials, to be posted on the web.

Finally, networking will allow the IAEA to capture the needs of a greater number of technical people in the each Member State.

More information and further contact with IAEA Waste Technology Section networks can be obtained at:

www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/wts_NETWORKS_homepage.html. For further contact with the ENVIRONET Scientific Secretary the email address [e-mail] is also available.