INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTIONICRP ref: 4835-9442-2098
Released 24 October 2017

Second Announcement

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste
The Celecton Fukushima
Monday, November 6, 2017
Organised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
with support from the Nippon Foundation

Supported by
Simultaneous translation by Hirano Co. Ltd.
（日英同時通訳あり）

Background
ICRP Task Group 97 has been working on application of the Commission’s recommendations forsurface and near surface disposal of solid radioactive waste to prepare a plain-language publicationthat describes and clarifies the application of the recommendations for the protection of the public andworkers (Publications 101 & 103) as well as the environment (Publication 124). The publication will
discuss how the fundamental radiological protection principles are to be applied over the life cycle ofsurface and near surface disposal including the transitioning from planned exposure to existing
exposure situations in the case of a loss of institutional control. Application of the graded approach in
implementing the principles and advice in all facets of a facility’s life cycle, based on the hazard posed,
including the degree of isolation of the waste, will also be discussed. The publication will consider
Publications 46, 77, and 81 in light of the Commission’s current recommendations, taking into accountrecent international experience.

Objectives
ICRP welcomes this opportunity to share information on radiological protection in surface and nearsurface disposal of radioactive waste with Task Group 97 members, regulators, implementers, andrelevant stakeholders concerning the practical implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

Registration
Attendance at the symposium is free-of-charge, however, advance registration is required asattendance is limited to 100 participants. Please send your name, affiliation, and e-mail address toHaruyuki Ogino (ICRP Assistant Scientific Secretary) at rpwaste@icrp.org by 31 October, 2017.

Venue
The Celecton Fukushima (13-73, Ootamachi, Fukushima-shi, Fukushima 960-8068, Japan)

Page 1 of 10

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION

Programme
10:00 – 10:30 (1) Overview of work of ICRP Task Group 97
Thiagan Pather (ICRP)
10:30 – 11:00 (2) Overview of ICRP approach to waste management
Christepher McKenney (ICRP)
11:00 – 11:30 (3) Overview of strategies for surface disposal and lifetime of disposal facilities
Jean-Paul Minon (ICRP)
11:30 – 12:00 (4) Ethics of radioactive waste management: what are our responsibilities
protecting today and tomorrow?
Behnam Taebi (ICRP)
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch break
13:00 – 13:30 (5) Transition out of regulatory control and post-closure institutional control –what can be expected in the long term
Phil Metcalf (ICRP)
13:30 – 14:00 (6) Management of Natural Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM): A
Canadian Perspective
John M. Takala (ICRP)
14:00 – 14:30 (7) Japanese regulations for waste management
TBD (Japan)
14:30 – 15:00 (8) NEA initiative on Fukushima Daiichi waste management
Hiroshi Rindo (OECD/NEA)
15:00 – 15:30 (9) Draft guideline of Japan Health Physics Society for waste management inexisting exposure situation after a nuclear accident
Daisuke Sugiyama (CRIEPI)
15:30 – 16:00 Coffee break
16:00 – 17:00 Panel discussion (chaired by Thiagan Pather, ICRP TG97 Chair)
17:00 – 17:10 Closing remarks

Page 2 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(1) Overview of work of ICRP Task Group 97
T. Pather
National Nuclear Regulator, P.O Box 7106, Centurion, 0046, South Africa, email tpather@nnr.co.za

Abstract– The work of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) helps to prevent
cancer and other diseases and effects associated with exposure to ionising radiation, and to protect theenvironment. Since 1928, ICRP has developed, maintained, and elaborated the International System ofRadiological Protection used world-wide as the common basis for radiological protection standards,
legislation, guidelines, programmes, and practice. ICRP has published more than one hundred reports on
all aspects of radiological protection. Most address a particular area within radiological protection, but ahandful of publications, the so-called fundamental recommendations, each describe the overall system ofradiological protection. The International System of Radiological Protection as developed by ICRP isfounded on (i) the current understanding of the science of radiation exposures and effects and (ii) value
judgements. These value judgements take into account societal expectations, ethics, and experience
gained in application of the system. ICRP is an independent, international organisation with more than
two hundred volunteer members from approximately thirty countries across six continents. These
members represent the leading scientists and policy makers in the field of radiological protection. ICRP iscomprised of a Main Commission, a Scientific Secretariat, four standing Committees (on Effects, Doses,
Medicine, and Application), and a series of Task Groups. The Main Commission and the Scientific
Secretariat work together to direct, organize, and oversee the work of ICRP. The Committees advise theMain Commission in their area of expertise. They direct the work of Task Groups, and play an importantrole in ensuring the quality of ICRP reports. Task Groups are established to undertake a specific task,
normally the production of a single ICRP publication, and are generally comprised of a mixture ofCommittee members and other experts in the field invited to contribute to the work. ICRP Task Group 97
has been working on application of the Commission’s recommendations for surface and near surface
disposal of solid radioactive waste to prepare a plain-language publication that describes and clarifies theapplication of the recommendations for the protection of the public and workers (Publications 101 & 103)
as well as the environment (Publication 124). The publication will discuss how the fundamental
radiological protection principles are to be applied over the life cycle of surface and near surface disposal
including the transitioning from planned exposure to existing exposure situations in the case of a loss ofinstitutional control. Application of the graded approach in implementing the principles and advice in all
facets of a facility’s life cycle, based on the hazard posed, including the degree of isolation of the waste,
will also be discussed. The publication will update the recommendations in Publications 46, 77, and 81 inlight of the Commission’s current recommendations, taking into account recent international experienceand will be a companion document to Publication 122 on Radiological Protection in Geological Disposalof Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste. ICRP welcomes this opportunity to share information on thework of Task Group 97 with regulators, implementers, and relevant stakeholders concerning the practicalimplementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

Page 3 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(2) Overview of ICRP approach to waste management
C.A. McKenney
Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety & Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2746, USA; email:christepher.mckenney@nrc.gov

Abstract–The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Task Group 97 has beenworking on application of the Commission’s recommendations for surface and near surface disposal ofsolid radioactive waste to prepare a plain-language publication that describes and clarifies the applicationof the recommendations for the protection of the public and workers (Publications 101 & 103) as well as
the environment (Publication 124). The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP recognized three types of
exposure situations: planned, emergency, and existing situations. For each of the situations, the threefundamental guiding principles of radiation protection (i.e. justification, optimisation, and dose limitation)
are applied. This presentation provides an overview on the application of the three principles to waste
disposal by first providing the basic principle and then, some implication or aspect that results from waste
disposal, especially, the consideration of the long time periods post-closure. After an introduction to theprinciples, an overview of the three exposure situations is provided. Utilizing the fundamental principles
and exposure situations, an overview of waste disposal applications is reviewed. In the vast majority ofcases, the design and operation of a waste disposal site is a planned exposure situation. Some countries
may have legacy sites, such as sites with mining waste that were later brought under regulatory control.
Emphasis is placed on the fact that while the activity is planned, the doses in the future are not. Many of
the actions taken today are to reduce the probability and consequence of an exposure occurring, i.e. a
potential exposure. Waste disposal involves long time periods and a reliance on passive safety systems.
Due to these time periods, it is impossible to know if people would be present in to be exposed at a
specific time period. Therefore, the Commission recommends using a hypothetical representative
individual for the long-term dose and risk calculations. In addition to human health metrics using
representative individuals, the Commission recommends using the Reference Animals and Plants as one
approach to assess impacts to the environment. While this can have challenges similar to therepresentative individual due the long time periods resulting in a change in the environment, the use ofReference Animals and Plants offers an additional line of argument and reasoning in building a safetycase using endpoints that are different from, but complementary to, protection of human health.
Consideration of environmental protection, where appropriate, will thus broaden the basis for riskinformed decision making, and address issues that may have differing levels of importance for different
stakeholders.

Page 4 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(3) Overview of strategies for surface disposal and lifetime of disposal
facilities
J.P. Minon
Ondraf-Niras, Belgium, e-mail: jp.minon@nirond.be

Abstract–All human activities produce waste. Also, the applications of radioactivity produce waste:radioactive waste. As radioactivity decays with time, radioactive waste can be dealt with by isolating itfrom human and environment as long as it may be harmful. This is the aim of disposal facilities whichhave to provide protection during the necessary period of time. This period depends on the radioactivity
content of the waste and can range from centuries up to millions of years. All type of waste can bedisposed of in underground facilities in deep geological layers the waste being isolated from the biosphere
for time periods comparable with geological timeframes. After closure, the facility must be able tooperate independently as a stand-alone facility for assuring the requested level of isolation, e.g. without
human intervention. Some waste can be disposed of in near surface facilities provided that the decay time
and the inventory in long-lived radionuclides are compatible with the needed active surveillance, e.g. nolonger than a few centuries. Indeed, instead of deep underground disposal facilities, surface disposal
facilities are located in the biosphere. The choice of the disposal types is a matter of national strategy, andshould be optimized considering the waste fluxes and volumes, the interim storage available capacity, andthe transportation issue. The ICRP system of radiological protection applies to disposal facilities taking
into account their specificities, e.g. the long-time frames involved and the related uncertainties and therelevant risk of human intrusion. The safety functions (containment, retardation and isolation) are
implemented along the successive time phases according the ICRP system of radiological protection forthe different exposure situations. A strategy has to be developed, with participation of all stakeholders, toguarantee the expected level of protection during all the time phases. This strategy applies to the disposal
system as a whole: the site, the waste inventory and the disposal facility. The strategic options arebounded by uncertainties related to post-closure radiological impact, socio-economic and policy factors,
available sites. Impact calculations have to be supplemented by assessment of various designs andmaterial choice options to face a wide range of events and processes: the long-term safety is supported byrobust design implemented throughout sound and effective management systems. It is also clear that at
siting stage, the radiological assessment will be only one of the factors but will be unlikely to dominate
the decision due to its preliminary nature and associated uncertainties at this stage.

Page 5 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(4) Ethics of radioactive waste management: what are our
responsibilities protecting today and tomorrow?
B. Taebi1, 2
1

Department of Values, Technology and Innovation. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University ofTechnology. Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands; e-mail; B.Taebi@tudelft.nl.
2
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, USA.

Abstract–Nuclear technology has created great benefits, but it has also given rise to many new andsignificant risks, including the risks associated with radioactive waste management. When evaluating
those risks in policy-making, there is a tendency to focus on the social or public acceptance, emphasizingthat the radioactive waste management option must be accepted by the public. I will argue thatconcentrating solely on social acceptance threatens to obscure several important ethical issues ofradioactive waste management. Following the notions of ‘good governance of risky technology’, goodradioactive waste management needs to involve both social acceptance and ethical acceptability, because
it is only in conjunction that these two concepts gain serious relevance for policy-making. Conceptually,
it is helpful to combine these notions, because they are mostly complementary; social acceptance studies
are often in need of an ethical addendum, while existing ethical analysis would very much benefit from
including stakeholders’ opinions. In this talk, I will first present six reasons why a sole focus on social
acceptance would not sufficiently capture the relevant ethical issues of radioactive waste management.
More specifically, I will discuss the problems that acceptance could be based on (i) incomplete
information or (ii) for the (ethically) wrong reasons. Moreover, the question remains unanswered (iii)
whose acceptance we should be striving for. The latter problem could be exacerbated when dealing with(iv) international and (v) intergenerational risks. The question of (vi) distribution of risks and benefits also
typically remains unanswered in risk acceptance studies. The first three problems could best be
categorized under the heading of procedural justice while the latter three fall best under the heading of
distributive justice. Following the literature on nuclear ethics, energy justice, as well as a forthcoming
publication of ICRP that has identified justice as one of the four core values of the system of radiologicalprotection, I argue that ethically acceptable radioactive waste management should at least account for
issues of procedural and distributive justice; both justice notion have a spatial and a temporal dimensions,relating to space and time respectively. The ethical intricacy of this issue is that different requirement ofjustice might be potentially conflicting. For instance, complying with our obligations to protect future
generations could create additional burdens for the present generations (as a whole). Moreover, it could
create an instance of (spatial) injustice among the currently living generations. Ethically acceptableradioactive waste management should sufficiently account for these potentially conflicting situations.

Page 6 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(5) Transition out of regulatory control and post-closure institutional
control – what can be expected in the long term
P. Metcalf
IRSN, France, e-mail: philip.metcalf@irsn.fr

Abstract–Radioactive waste that is generally considered internationally to be suitable for disposal near oron the surface is characterised by a radionuclide content of primarily short-lived radionuclides, that is lessthan a radioactive half-life of around thirty years, and containing limited amounts of longer lived
radionuclides. Near surface is generally considered to be within a few tens of metres of the surface and aregion within which human intrusion could reasonably be expected to take place. The underlying basis forthis thinking is that most of this radioactivity will decay within a period of around three hundred years,
during which time it is reasonable to assume that society will maintain some form of control over the
disposal facility site, that will be aimed at preventing any inadvertent human intrusion into the waste
disposed of at the site. The radiological impact of any intrusion beyond this period will not be highbecause of the radioactive decay of the radionuclides within the waste, hence the need for control over thesite beyond such time becomes less important. Questions that need to be addressed in respect of nearsurface disposal facilities in terms of this approach are; Should the control in place after closure of an
operational facility be the same as that during operation? When can control over a site be removed? What,
if any control should remain in place in the longer term, i.e. beyond around three hundred years? The
presentation addresses these issues and the basis for deciding on the nature and duration of control
following closure of a near surface radioactive waste disposal facility. It will address the reducing level ofhazard with time and the considerations that need to be given to the associated reduction in risk and theneed for balanced judgements to be made concerning the nature and duration of control, in consultation
with all relevant stakeholder at the time such decision are to be made.

Page 7 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(6) Management of Natural Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):
A Canadian Perspective
John M. Takala
Cameco Corporation, 1131 Avenue W. South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7M 4E8 Canada; e-mail: john_takala@cameco.com

Abstract–Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) are present in low concentrations in mostnatural substances and they can become concentrated as a result of human activities and have diverse
physical, chemical, and radiological properties. The processing of raw materials in resource industries
such as uranium mining, phosphate fertilizer production, coal, oil, and gas industries, may increase theconcentration of radionuclides such that specific measures need to be taken based upon the radiologicalproperties of the material during its lifecycle from production to disposal. The radioactive elements ofparticular interest in NORM include the uranium and thorium decay series and 40K. These radionuclides
present a variety of potential radiological challenges including external gamma radiation and inhalation
hazards from radon and long-lived alpha radionuclides. In addition, the diversity of sources of NORM
mean they are associated with a wide range of products and situations, some with their own nonradiological hazards that also must be considered in potential protection strategies from an occupationaland environmental perspective. In Canada, radioactive materials and activities associated with the nuclear
fuel cycle, including uranium mining, are federally regulated, whereas most other activities associatedwith NORM fall under provincial regulation. The overall Canadian regulatory approach with NORM andtheir associated hazards and their practical application in terms of current practices will be reviewed. In
terms of waste disposal, the wide range of physical and chemical properties of NORM materials dictatethat a variety of approaches from engineered surface facilities to disposal in underground salt caverns areused.

Page 8 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(8) NEA initiative on Fukushima Daiichi waste management
H. Rindo1, 2
12

Vice-Chair of the NEA Expert Group on Fukushima Waste Management and Decommissioning R&D
Nuclear Power Engineering Centre, Institute of Applied Energy (IAE), Shimbashi SY Building 14-2 Nishi-Shimbashi 1-Chorme,
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105-0003, Japan; e-mail: h-rindo@iae.or.jp

Abstract–Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) in March 2011,
different types of post-accident radioactive waste were generated. For example from on-site
decontamination activities, there is the management of contaminated water, decommissioning of the four
reactors and from the hydrogen explosions that occurred. Radioactive waste resulted from the accident
has different properties when compared with waste generated by nuclear power plants operating undernormal conditions. Specific management methods or strategies will therefore be needed to manage thepost-accident waste. After the accident, the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC)
underlined the importance of including post-accident waste management and co-operation on
decommissioning techniques for the Fukushima Daiichi NPP in the strategic areas of the NEA
Programme of Work as it relates to radioactive waste management. In 2014, the RWMC established theExpert Group on Fukushima Waste Management and Decommissioning R&D (EGFWMD) with theprimary aim of offering advice on the management of large quantities of Fukushima Daiichi on-site wastethat has complex properties, and of sharing experiences with the international community and NEA
member countries. The EGFWMD consisted of international experts who have gained experience inwaste management, in radiological contamination or in decommissioning and waste management R&D
after the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl accident, and also Japanese experts fromgovernment organizations, research institutes and TEPCO who are involved in radioactive waste
management generated in Fukushima Daiichi NPS. The EGFWMD focused on technical issues of waste
management, such as radiological characterisation and categorisation of post-accident radioactive waste
and contaminated materials, but also on social issues such as stakeholder engagement and interactions
between regulator and implementer. The group published its final report in 2016 which provides advice
on post-accident waste management, particularly to research and development (R&D) institutions inJapan on their overall strategy for managing the waste generated on-site by the accident. It also provides
information on strategies to be implemented in case of an unplanned, unexpected accident in the future.
The case studies in the report present substantial information on the history of accident site management
and lessons learnt, leading to many potentially helpful recommendations. The report includes informationon (i) state-of-the-art techniques and experiences with waste characterisation and classification, including
application after major accidents, (ii) regulatory supervision: regulations, regulatory guidance andregulatory procedures (e.g. review of safety cases), and (iii) application of international recommendations,standards and guidance. Every accident is different. The post-accident (after emergency) scenario isunpredictable and often specific to the prevailing circumstances. Post accident waste management
requires knowledge and information that are not within the usual experience of conventional utility andservice management organisations. Managing decommissioning and radioactive waste after a major
accident requires a different approach from those that are used in normal nuclear plant operations.

Page 9 of 10

ICRP Workshop on Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste | November 6, 2017 | Fukushima(9) Draft guideline of Japan Health Physics Society for waste
management in existing exposure situations after a nuclear accident
D. Sugiyamaa and M. OkoshibaRadiation Safety Research Center, Nuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry, Tokyo 201-8511, Japan; e-mail: daisukes@criepi.denken.or.jpbRadiation Facilities Decommissioning Project Team, Japan Radioisotope Association, Tokyo 113-8941, Japan; e-mail:ohkoshi-minoru@jrias.or.jp

Abstract–There is a desire in existing exposure situations after a nuclear accident to reduce exposures tolevels that are close to or similar to situations considered as normal. In the environmental remediation
process, large amounts of contaminated wastes and substances including removed soils are accumulated
as a result of decontamination activities. The management of radioactive waste must be an essential partof the remediation process and should be optimised under the framework of radiation protection to reduce
the ambient dose in existing exposure situations since the generation of radioactive wastes is inevitable indecontamination. The Working Group on radioactive waste management under the Standardisation
Committee in the Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS) recognises that we should develop a guideline ofradiation protection for the management of radioactive waste in existing exposure situations for apractical, reasonable and sustainable environmental remediation. In existing exposure situations,intermediate reference levels, which are the source-related restriction to the dose that individuals may
incur, can be adopted as a tool in the optimisation of radiation protection to reduce the existing ambient
dose. The currently available radiation protection framework for radioactive waste management, however,had been developed only for planned exposure situations including introduction and operations ofradioactive sources under a normal radiation dose level under which compliance with the dose limit of 1
mSv/y for public exposure is demonstrated. Therefore, the Working Group proposes a stepwise approachof radiation protection for the management of radioactive waste generated in the remediation process to
reduce exposure under existing exposure situations. The presentation will provide a draft guideline; (1) areference level for waste management should be selected from the dose band of 1 to around 10 mSv/ybelow the reference level for the existing ambient dose, and (2) the final target reference level for the
disposal of the waste should be set at 1 mSv/y, under the relevant stakeholder involvement. We will also
discuss the implication the stepwise approach through simplified case studies in typical situations after
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

Page 10 of 10