IAEA Nuclear Energy Series

No. NW-G-3.1

This publication provides guidance on formulating

a national policy and strategies for environmental

Policy and Strategies

remediation of radioactively contaminated sites.
A national environmental remediation policy is
Basic
essential for establishing the core values on which Principles
remediation is to be based, and incorporates a set of
principles to ensure the safe and efficient management
for Environmental
of remediation situations. Environmental remediation
strategies set out the means for achieving the
Remediation
principles and requirements in the national policy, and Objectives
may be elaborated in several different components.
This publication is intended to assist States in the
proper, systematic planning and safe implementation
of environmental remediation efforts.
Guides

Technical
Reports

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA
ISBN 978–92–0–103314–7
ISSN 1995–7807

14-10591_PUB1658_cover.indd 1-2 2015-02-12 [Link]

 R ELATE D PU B LIC ATION S

IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS

POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G-1.1
STI/PUB/1396 (68 pp.; 2009)
Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is ISBN 978–92–0-103909–5 Price: €20.00
authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the
peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle,
POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF
radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues
NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES
that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G-2.1
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and
STI/PUB/1525 (30 pp.; 2012)
Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. ISBN 978–92–0–116910–5 Price: €24.00
The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale
and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations
RADIATION PROTECTION AND SAFETY OF RADIATION SOURCES:
to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation.
INTERNATIONAL BASIC SAFETY STANDARDS
Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3
achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the
STI/PUB/1578 (436 pp.; 2014)
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. ISBN 978–92–0–135310–8 Price: €68.00
Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more
detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series.
REMEDIATION PROCESS FOR AREAS AFFECTED BY PAST ACTIVITIES
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows:
AND ACCIDENTS — Safety Guide
NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-3.1
waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are
STI/PUB/1282 (39 pp.; 2007)
available in English on the IAEA Internet site: ISBN 92–0–113306–5 Price: €18.00

[Link]

For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna
NUCLEAR ENERGY GENERAL OBJECTIVES
International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-O
STI/PUB/1523 (25 pp.; 2011)
All users of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are invited to ISBN 978–92–0–116810–8 Price: €20.00
inform the IAEA of experience in their use for the purpose of ensuring that
they continue to meet user needs. Information may be provided via the IAEA
Internet site, by post, at the address given above, or by email to
[Link]@[Link].
FUNDAMENTAL SAFETY PRINCIPLES
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1
STI/PUB/1273 (21 pp.; 2006)
ISBN 92–0–110706–4 Price: €25.00

[Link]/books

14-10591_PUB1658_cover.indd 3-4 2015-02-12 [Link]

 POLICY AND STRATEGIES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
 The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

AFGHANISTAN GHANA OMAN

ALBANIA GREECE PAKISTAN
ALGERIA GUATEMALA PALAU
ANGOLA HAITI PANAMA
ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PAPUA NEW GUINEA
ARMENIA HONDURAS PARAGUAY
AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PERU
AUSTRIA ICELAND PHILIPPINES
AZERBAIJAN INDIA POLAND
BAHAMAS INDONESIA PORTUGAL
BAHRAIN IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR
BANGLADESH IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
BELARUS IRELAND ROMANIA
BELGIUM ISRAEL RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELIZE ITALY RWANDA
BENIN JAMAICA SAN MARINO
BOLIVIA JAPAN SAUDI ARABIA
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JORDAN SENEGAL
BOTSWANA KAZAKHSTAN SERBIA
BRAZIL KENYA SEYCHELLES
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE
BULGARIA KUWAIT SINGAPORE
BURKINA FASO KYRGYZSTAN SLOVAKIA
BURUNDI LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC SLOVENIA
CAMBODIA REPUBLIC SOUTH AFRICA
CAMEROON LATVIA SPAIN
CANADA LEBANON SRI LANKA
CENTRAL AFRICAN LESOTHO SUDAN
REPUBLIC LIBERIA SWAZILAND
CHAD LIBYA SWEDEN
CHILE LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND
CHINA LITHUANIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
COLOMBIA LUXEMBOURG TAJIKISTAN
CONGO MADAGASCAR THAILAND
COSTA RICA MALAWI THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAYSIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
CROATIA MALI TOGO
CUBA MALTA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
CYPRUS MARSHALL ISLANDS TUNISIA
CZECH REPUBLIC MAURITANIA, ISLAMIC TURKEY
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UKRAINE
DENMARK MEXICO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
DOMINICA MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONGOLIA GREAT BRITAIN AND
ECUADOR MONTENEGRO NORTHERN IRELAND
EGYPT MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC
EL SALVADOR MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA
ERITREA MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ESTONIA NAMIBIA URUGUAY
ETHIOPIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN
FIJI NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN
FINLAND NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC OF
FRANCE NICARAGUA VIET NAM
GABON NIGER YEMEN
GEORGIA NIGERIA ZAMBIA
GERMANY NORWAY ZIMBABWE

The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the
IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The
Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the
contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’.
 IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES No. NW-G-3.1

POLICY AND STRATEGIES FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA, 2015
 COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of
the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised
in 1972 (Paris). The copyright has since been extended by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (Geneva) to include electronic and virtual intellectual
property. Permission to use whole or parts of texts contained in IAEA publications
in printed or electronic form must be obtained and is usually subject to royalty
agreements. Proposals for non-commercial reproductions and translations are
welcomed and considered on a case-by-case basis. Enquiries should be addressed
to the IAEA Publishing Section at:

Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section

International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna International Centre
PO Box 100
1400 Vienna, Austria
fax: +43 1 2600 29302
tel.: +43 1 2600 22417
email: [Link]@[Link]
[Link]

© IAEA, 2015

Printed by the IAEA in Austria

January 2015
STI/PUB/1658

IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Policy and strategies for environmental remediation. — Vienna : International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2014.
p. ; 24 cm. — (IAEA nuclear energy series, ISSN 1995–7807 ;
no. NW-G-3.1)
STI/PUB/1658
ISBN 978–92–0–103314–7
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Hazardous waste site remediation — Management. 2. Radioactive waste
sites — Cleanup. 3. Radioactive decontamination — Planning. 4. Radioactive
pollution — Environmental aspects. I. International Atomic Energy Agency.
II. Series.
IAEAL14–00944
 FOREWORD

One of the IAEA’s statutory objectives is to “seek to accelerate and enlarge

the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the
world”. One way this objective is achieved is through the publication of a range
of technical series. Two of these are the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series and the
IAEA Safety Standards Series.
According to Article III.A.6 of the IAEA Statute, the safety standards
establish “standards of safety for protection of health and minimization of danger
to life and property”. The safety standards include the Safety Fundamentals,
Safety Requirements and Safety Guides. These standards are written primarily
in a regulatory style and are binding on the IAEA for its own programmes. The
principal users are the regulatory bodies in Member States and other national
authorities.
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises reports designed to encourage
and assist R&D on, and application of, nuclear energy for peaceful uses. This
includes practical examples to be used by owners and operators of utilities
in Member States, implementing organizations, academia, and government
officials, among others. This information is presented in guides, reports on
technology status and advances, and best practices for peaceful uses of nuclear
energy based on inputs from international experts. The IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series complements the IAEA Safety Standards Series.
This publication provides guidance on formulating a national policy
and strategies for environmental remediation of radioactively contaminated
sites. A national environmental remediation policy is essential for establishing
the core values on which remediation is to be based, and incorporates a set
of principles to ensure the safe and efficient management of remediation
situations. Environmental remediation strategies set out the means for achieving
the principles and requirements in the national policy, and may be elaborated
in several different components. This publication is intended to assist States
in the proper, systematic planning and safe implementation of environmental
remediation efforts.
The IAEA wishes to express its thanks to all those who contributed to
the drafting and review of this text. The IAEA officer responsible for this
publication was H. Monken Fernandes of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and
Waste Technology.
 EDITORIAL NOTE
This publication does not address questions of responsibility, legal or otherwise, for acts
or omissions on the part of any person.
Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained
in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for
consequences which may arise from its use.
Guidance provided here, describing good practices, represents expert opinion but does
not constitute recommendations made on the basis of a consensus of Member States.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any
judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of
their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as
registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed
as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
The IAEA has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third party Internet web sites referred to in this book and does not guarantee that any content
on such web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
 CONTENTS

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. CLASSIFICATION OF REMEDIATION SITUATIONS . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1. Legacy situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2. Remediation after emergency situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Remediation in the post-emergency phase of a
nuclear accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. Remediation in the post-emergency phase of
a radiological emergency or unforeseen event . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Remediation after planned ongoing operation and
decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. PRINCIPLES FOR REMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. REMEDIATION POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.1. Why a remediation policy is needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2. Initial considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. National legal framework and institutional structure . . . 11
4.2.2. Applicable international conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3. Inventory of potential sites for remediation . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.4. Availability of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. Potential transboundary issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Typical elements of a national policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.1. Allocation of responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.2. Provision of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Safety and security objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.4. Public information and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Policy instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. REMEDIATION STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5.1. Objectives and approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5.2. Inventory of remediable sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Considerations for remediation situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.1. Legacy situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.2. Aftermath of emergency situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3.3. Ongoing planned situations and after
decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Implementation of the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.1. Radiological assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.2. Financial issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.3. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4.4. Human resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.5. Implementation schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.6. Involvement of the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5. Site release criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES . . . . . . . . . 32
 SUMMARY

In the environmental remediation of a given site, concerned and interested

parties have diverse and often conflicting interests with regard to remediation
goals, the time frames involved, reuse of the site, the efforts necessary and cost
allocation. An environmental remediation policy is essential for establishing the
core values on which remediation is to be based. It incorporates a set of principles
to ensure the safe and efficient management of remediation situations. Policy
is mainly established by the national government and may become codified in
the national legislative system. An environmental remediation strategy sets
out the means for satisfying the principles and requirements of the national
policy. It is normally established by the relevant remediation implementer or
by the government in the case of legacy sites. Thus, the national policy may be
elaborated in several different strategies. To ensure the safe, technically optimal
and cost effective management of remediation situations, countries are advised to
formulate an appropriate policy and strategies.
Situations involving remediation include remediation of legacy sites
(sites where past activities were not stringently regulated or adequately
supervised), remediation after emergencies (nuclear and radiological) and
remediation after planned ongoing operation and decommissioning. The
environmental policy involves the principles of justification, optimization of
protection, protection of future generations and the environment, efficiency in the
use of resources, and transparent interaction with stakeholders. A typical policy
will also take into account the national legal framework and institutional structure
and applicable international conventions while providing for the allocation of
responsibilities and resources, in addition to safety and security objectives and
public information and participation in the decision making process.
The strategy reflects and elaborates the goals and requirements set out in
the policy statement. For its formulation, detailed information is needed on the
current situation in the country (organizational, technical and legislative). The
technical solutions proposed for the remediation of sites in the country need to
be politically, technically and economically feasible. When selecting a set of
technological procedures, an appropriate end point must be identified, usually a
suitable end state. The steps in formulating and implementing the strategy include
selecting the technical procedures, allocating the responsibility for implementing
the identified procedures, establishing supervisory mechanisms and developing
implementation plans.
The policy and strategies may need to be updated because of new national
circumstances (legislative changes, plans for new nuclear facilities), new
international agreements and/or experience obtained with the original policy and

1
strategies. The lead in making changes is to be taken by the body responsible for
the initial formulation of the policy (government) and strategy, but all relevant
parties in the country are to be involved and consulted in this process.

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

A site may be contaminated by a variety of substances, such as heavy

metals, organic compounds and radioactive material. Radioactive contamination
is to be dealt with similarly to chemical contamination, except that technical
differences between radionuclides and chemicals will need to be considered.
Therefore, elements of the policy and strategy for remediation of contaminated
land may be comprehensive enough to include all types of contaminant or can
be specifically dedicated to situations in which the contamination is mainly or
exclusively caused by radioactive substances.
In terms of contamination of land by radioactive material, remediation is
to be understood as any measure that may be carried out to reduce the radiation
exposure from existing contamination of terrestrial areas through actions applied
to the contamination itself (the source) or to the exposure pathways to humans [1].
The IAEA Fundamental Safety Principles [2] and IAEA safety standards set
safety principles and criteria for use as a basis for deciding whether remediation
is needed. Requirements and guidance on the implementation of remediation are
also available [3, 4].
It is important to note that remediation does not involve the complete
removal of the contamination and that the more informal term ‘cleanup’ (i.e. to
make a site clean, free from impurities) is not to be taken as being synonymous
with remediation. Similarly, the terms ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘restoration’ may imply
that the conditions that prevailed prior to contamination can be restored, which is
not normally the case (e.g. owing to the effects of the remediation itself). The use
of such terms is therefore discouraged.
Within the nuclear fuel cycle, there is a wide range of installations and their
associated activities that produce artificial (‘human-made’) radioactive material
which have the potential to elevate the radioactivity in the environment to levels
above the natural background level. Outside the nuclear industry, elevated
levels of radioactivity in the environment might be the consequence of military
operations, such as weapons testing, the use of radioactive sources in industry and
medicine, or radiological accidents. Human activities, such as mining and oil and
gas production, and some natural processes can sometimes concentrate naturally

3
occurring radioactive material (NORM)1 to levels that require remediation.
Situations may exist in which there are primordial natural radionuclides in
the environment or where their appearance is due to natural phenomena; such
situations are normally excluded from regulatory control, as their remediation is
unwarranted or unfeasible.
Radioactive substances may spread from their source through any
environmental medium, such as groundwater, surface water or soil, or via airborne
pathways and biota. Elevated levels of radioactivity in the environment may lead
to a radiation risk to human health and/or to the environment. Environmental
remediation is undertaken with the goal of preventing or greatly reducing the
radiation risk by removing or reducing the source causing the exposure and/or
reducing or removing the pathway to the source.
Environmental media contaminated with short lived materials
(e.g. accelerator produced radioisotopes used in medicine and research, some
fission products) may not require remediation if the contaminated area can
be monitored and controlled for a reasonable time to allow radioactive decay.
Many radionuclides — notably caesium radioisotopes — bind to geological
media (clays or rocks) and move very slowly, all the while decaying and
becoming more diffuse. Such processes, referred to as natural attenuation, can
reduce environmental contamination to acceptable levels. Conversely, site
characterization may determine that active remediation measures are necessary.
Once a characterization of a contaminated site and a dose assessment have
been made, it may be decided that some form of remediation is necessary, taking
into account the reference levels set by authorities and the remediation principles.
The remediation strategy is formulated to be commensurate with the associated

1
The term ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’, or NORM, means material
containing no significant amounts of radionuclides, other than radionuclides of natural origin.
The term ‘radionuclides of natural origin’ is used restrictively to mean only 40K and radionuclides
in the decay chains of the primordial radionuclides. The isotope 40K is a generalized contributor
to exposure by virtue of its widespread distribution in nature and because it is an important
constituent of the human body. The primordial radionuclide decay chains are: the thorium
series, headed by 232Th, the most abundant of all naturally occurring radionuclides, and
comprising mainly 228Ra, 228Ac, 228Th, 224Ra, 220Rn, 216Po, 212Pb, 212Bi, 212Po, 208Tl and 208Pb
(stable); the uranium series, headed by 238U and comprising mainly 234Th, 234mPa, 234U, 230Th,
226
Ra, 222Rn, 218Po, 214Pb, 214Bi, 214Po, 210Pb, 210Bi, 210Po and 206Pb (stable); and, less important
for the purpose of this report, the actinium series, headed by 235U and comprising mainly 231Th,
231
Pa, 227Ac, 227Th, 223Fr, 223Ra, 219Rn, 215Po, 211Pb, 211Bi, 207Tl and 207Pb (stable). Radionuclides
produced by the action of cosmic rays such as 3H (tritium), 14C and 22Na, which are isotopes
of elements with metabolic roles in the human body, and several other natural radionuclides,
such as 87Rb, 138La, 147Sm and 176Lu, are widespread in nature but at such low levels that their
contribution to human exposure is negligible.

4
radiation risks and to provide sufficient benefits. This means that costs and other
social and environmental impacts need to be assessed and all strategies discussed
with the interested parties. All of these procedures and responsibilities should be
defined within a national policy, with a strategy planned for each different case.
To fulfil the requirement for a national remediation strategy, areas that
have been identified as contaminated need to be prioritized. Following the initial
characterization of each area, an inventory of contaminated areas is prepared,
including their locations, the types and properties of the contaminants, the
size and environmental characteristics of the areas, the populations actually or
potentially exposed and any other relevant factors.
The inventory of contaminated areas is then prioritized in accordance with
the level of risk to human health and to the environment. Other factors such
as socioeconomic impacts, availability of funds, availability of remediation
techniques, availability of scientific data and potential effects on neighbouring
States may also have a strong influence in determining the priorities for
remediation. If the parties responsible for some of the identified sites are ready to
perform the remediation activities at their own cost, the remediation of these sites
should proceed without delay.
Environmental remediation is fundamentally different from radioactive
waste management and decommissioning of nuclear installations in that the
radioactive material of concern is mixed and/or incorporated into the natural
environmental media. However, the remediation policy and strategies need to be
coherent and consistent with those of decommissioning and waste management.
Related reports published by the IAEA address policy and strategy for managing
radioactive waste [5] and for decommissioning radiological facilities [6].
Locations requiring environmental remediation can be broadly classified
as follows:

(a) Legacy sites, where radioactive material has already entered the soil and
groundwater, perhaps decades in the past;
(b) Sites with existing nuclear or radiological facilities or sites where such
facilities are planned to be terminated and/or decommissioned;
(c) Sites that may require remediation in the aftermath of an emergency
situation or any unplanned event, such as a nuclear/radiological accident or
act of sabotage.

The approach to remediation can vary, for example:

(a) Natural radioactive decay of radionuclides may be used to reduce the overall
hazard, with only monitoring and assessment being applied (sometimes
referred to as monitored natural attenuation).

5
(b) The site may be treated to remove radionuclides.
(c) Radioactively contaminated media may be removed from the site.
(d) Use of the site may be prevented or restricted.

Combinations of these approaches may also be used.

Generally, and as described in this publication, environmental remediation
is applied to the near surface terrestrial environment (rather than, for example, to
airborne radioactive substances). Developing a national policy and an underlying
strategy or strategies to implement environmental remediation is therefore
imperative if the problem holders and decision makers are to succeed in applying
the most appropriate and sustainable solutions to their environmental problems.
Government policy on land contamination should be built around the twin
ideas of stopping contamination of land while taking a risk based approach to
tackling historical contamination.

1.2. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this publication is to set out the fundamental elements

of a national policy and derived strategies for remediation of radioactively
contaminated sites to serve as an aid, resource and reference for those engaged in
the development or updating of national policy and strategies for environmental
remediation. This guidance is intended to benefit those organizations charged
with implementing environmental remediation or agencies seeking to establish
this competence. Along with previously published IAEA safety standards for
remediation [7], this guidance will encourage national authorities to recognize
the necessity of including environmental protection and remediation as essential
components in the planning and conduct of nuclear related initiatives.
Guidance provided here, describing good practices, represents expert
opinion but does not constitute recommendations made on the basis of a
consensus of Member States.

1.3. SCOPE

This publication is concerned with the development of policy and strategies

in the area of environmental remediation. Although limited to the area of
radiological risk, it recognizes that, in optimizing remediation efforts, the overall
related risks present will be taken into account. It provides guidance on the
content of a national policy and strategies, but does not prescribe the content, as
this will be highly dependent on national priorities and circumstances.

6
 Important areas to be covered are:

(a) Definition of responsibility and engagement across the spectrum of

stakeholders, including the site operators, regulators, and local, regional
and national government;
(b) Definition of possible remediation outcomes based on objectives for the
site (strategy);
(c) Remediation resourcing, encompassing the availability of funding,
infrastructure, skills and people;
(d) Planning and scheduling;
(e) Management of waste from remediation.

The types of remedial work considered are classified in Section 1.1

and discussed in more detail in Section 2; these can be thought of essentially
as circumstances which can be planned for and circumstances which cannot
be specifically planned for but which need to be considered as possibilities in
national policy.

1.4. STRUCTURE

Section 2 provides some classification of remediation situations dealt

with in this report. Section 3 sets out the principles for remediation policy and
strategy. Sections 4 and 5 cover typical components of remediation policy and
strategies, respectively.

2. CLASSIFICATION OF REMEDIATION SITUATIONS

The remediation of sites where the presence of radioactive substances has

been detected may be required under different situations.

7
2.1. LEGACY SITUATIONS

Legacy situations involve radioactive residues at a site resulting from past

activities or events such as:

(a) Past activities that were not stringently regulated, where the termination
of the activity and the handling of the remaining residues most probably
were not adequately considered when the activity was initiated, e.g.
activities involving mining and milling of ores containing natural
radioactive substances;
(b) Long term, prolonged presence of radioactive residues from accidents and
other unforeseen events that were not adequately managed;
(c) Radioactive residues from military activities, such as nuclear weapon
production and testing.

Thus, in legacy situations, radioactive substances may have already been

present at the site long before a decision on remediation is made. However,
legacy situations may also be created when an operator goes bankrupt, and the
remediation of the site then falls under the responsibility of the State. In this case,
the contamination may not have been present for a long period of time.
Legacy situations can be complex, as they may involve several pathways
and generally give rise to wide distributions of radioactive substances, ranging
from normally very low or low concentrations to, in rare cases, very high levels.

2.2. REMEDIATION AFTER EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

2.2.1. Remediation in the post-emergency phase of a nuclear accident

These situations may occur as a result of an accident during a planned

operation. The release of large amounts of radioactive substances can result in
contamination of sites and large territories. The resulting situation can be complex
in that many independent pathways for exposure might exist, perhaps acting
simultaneously, making remediation very difficult. However, the populations
potentially affected and the environmental characteristics are known, thereby
allowing the planning of some remediation strategies.
The transition from an emergency exposure situation to an existing exposure
situation where remediation starts is characterized by a change in management
strategies, from those mainly driven by urgency, with potentially high levels of
exposure and predominantly centralized decision making, to more decentralized

8
strategies aimed at improving living conditions and reducing exposure to levels
as low as reasonably achievable, given the circumstances.

2.2.2. Remediation in the post-emergency phase of

a radiological emergency or unforeseen event

These situations may occur as a result of unplanned events such as those

resulting from the loss and dissemination of a radioactive source or radioactive
substances, a malicious act or any other unexpected situation. In these cases, the
environment and the population affected are not known in advance. Therefore,
strategies for remediation can only be planned in a generic way.
Furthermore, radioactive substances may be accompanied by other
pollutants (e.g. chemical or biological hazards). These kinds of emergency
situation are inherently unpredictable and the exact nature of the necessary
remediation measures cannot be known in advance.

2.3. REMEDIATION AFTER PLANNED ONGOING

OPERATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

There may also be radioactive remnants from ongoing operations or after

the termination of a practice and decommissioning of associated installations.
These are planned situations, and the magnitude and extent of the environmental
contamination can be reasonably followed up or predicted and some necessary
environmental remediation measures planned in advance.

3. PRINCIPLES FOR REMEDIATION

The ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle, and sustainability

and subsidiarity are principles that can be applied regarding contamination of
the environment. In those countries that follow the polluter pays principle, the
polluter is expected to pay for all necessary remediation. In some situations,
there may be subsidies or grants available to reduce polluter liability. However,
the polluter pays principle does not solve the issue of orphan sites, that is, areas
that do not have an obvious responsible party or instances where the polluter
cannot pay. In these cases, the State takes the liability into public ownership
using public money for remediation. The precautionary principle assumes that
it is better to prevent pollution from occurring than to have to remediate a site.

9
Sustainability seeks to ensure that the needs of the present generation are met
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The principle of subsidiarity can also be evoked, but it is unlikely that any
State would be willing to forgo this principle and allow policy on contaminated
land to be dictated by any other State, or even a regional arrangement, without
considerable discretion to formulate the policy to suit its individual needs.
In the scope of radioactively contaminated sites, the main principles for
establishing a policy and strategy for remediation are based on the principles
established in Refs [2, 8]. The principles relevant for remediation are as follows:

(a) Justification for undertaking remediation;

(b) Optimization of the remediation;
(c) Appropriate protection of future generations and the environment;
(d) Efficiency in the use of resources;
(e) Open and transparent interactions with stakeholders.

While these principles, approaches and considerations may not be

explicitly present in the national policy, they should be taken into account when
the policy is defined, as well as in the relevant national laws, regulations and
guidance that flow from it. As is established in the International Basic Safety
Standards (BSS) [3], the government, in the legal and regulatory framework, is
to specify, among other things, the general principles underlying the protection
strategies developed to reduce exposure when remediation has been determined
to be justified. The appropriate safety criteria to be applied for remediation of
sites containing radioactive substances (existing exposure situations), based on
reference levels of dose to the public below which optimization is performed, are
also set out in Ref. [3].

4. REMEDIATION POLICY

4.1. WHY A REMEDIATION POLICY IS NEEDED

In the environmental remediation of a given site, concerned and interested

parties have diverse and often conflicting interests with regard to remediation
goals, the time frames involved, reuse of the site, the efforts necessary and
cost allocation. An established remediation policy, on either a national or an
international level (e.g. for a site close to a border and/or affecting the interests
of more than one country), is essential for establishing the core values on which

10
remediation is to be based. In addition, the environmental remediation policy will
set the nationally agreed position and plan, and will give visible evidence of the
concerns and intent of the country.
Policy makers tend to rely on objective and widely (internationally)
accepted criteria and processes for assessing remediation needs, determining
responsibilities and partitioning work, including the sharing of financial burdens.
This framework requires formulation of a policy that is as generic as possible and
not specific to the needs of individual sites. The formulation of a national policy
will encourage the establishment of a legal framework for ensuring coherent and
consistent remediation approaches.
There may also be a need to revisit established policies. Existing
legislation in a given country, especially with regard to groundwater resource
protection, may require political authorities to assess remediation needs in the
entire national territory. This is normally the case in countries that already have
a proven remediation policy. Nonetheless, these countries might profit from a
comparison with international approaches in resolving internal disputes on
remediation necessities.

4.2. INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Prior to the development or updating of a national policy for the

environmental remediation of contaminated sites, it is necessary for those engaged
in preparing the policy to be aware of any related legislation and frameworks
in their country, as well as any international prerequisites. They should, among
other things, consider and understand the following topics.

4.2.1. National legal framework and institutional structure

The existing national legal structure and regulatory framework, and their
suitability for assisting in the establishment of implementable policies towards
the sustainable remediation of contaminated sites, are to be taken into account.
It will be necessary to clearly identify:

—— Existing (environmental) legislation and rules to be applied in the specific

case of sites contaminated with radioactive substances;
—— Existing waste management legislation;
—— The need for involvement of stakeholders and the public;
—— The availability of a funding system.

11
 The existing legislation should establish, or be updated to establish, the
institutional structure to be involved in the formulation, approval and ultimate
implementation of the policy. This includes:

—— The safety authority responsible for the remediation process;

—— Technical support organizations, for safety assessment and measurements
of the radiation levels in the environment, for example;
—— The organization responsible for waste management;
—— Remediation implementers (e.g. site owners and site operators), local
planning authorities and others within the country.

4.2.2. Applicable international conventions

The relevant international instruments and the obligations undertaken by

the country as a result of these instruments must be adhered to. An example of
this might relate to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management
and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management [9].

4.2.3. Inventory of potential sites for remediation

An indicative national inventory of sites that could have been contaminated

by radioactive substances and that may require remediation should be available
for those involved in the policy preparation.

4.2.4. Availability of resources

The scale of the resources (human, financial, economic, social and

technical) available in the country to facilitate implementation of the policy
needs to be taken into account by the policy makers.

4.2.5. Potential transboundary issues

It may be necessary to consider transboundary issues, owing to the potential

migration of contamination through the air, groundwater or surface waters. This
may relate to a situation existing prior to remediation or to one arising as a
consequence of the remediation itself. In a positive sense, there may be value in
considering any remediation solutions being applied to address similar challenges
within the region and the potential for sharing facilities or technologies available
in neighbouring countries.

12
4.3. TYPICAL ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY

Taking into account the considerations identified in Section 4.2, the policy
will define a target framework for dealing with remediation problems. The policy
might define the milestones necessary to reach the target and how to evaluate the
progress towards achieving this target.
The following considerations are to be taken into account during
policy definition:

(a) The national policy for remediation of contaminated sites needs to reflect
the magnitude and scale of the potential hazard posed and be linked to any
existing radioactive waste management policy. Environmental concerns are
to be given a high priority, and planning for new facilities and operations
needs to ensure that the likelihood of future remediation is reduced or
eliminated, and that, as a minimum, financial provision for any such
remediation is established.
(b) The national policy needs to reflect national priorities, circumstances and
human and financial resources. It may be influenced by a number of factors,
such as the timing of site decommissioning or the release of sites for reuse.
Potential developments in the field of environmental remediation need to
be considered, which may be of a regulatory or technological nature.

It is important to recognize that the types and sources of environmental

hazards requiring remediation may vary between countries, and thus the policy
developed will need to reflect these differences. Some of the main elements to be
considered in establishing a national policy for environmental remediation are
discussed below, although it should be recognized that not all of these points may
be relevant to every country.
In summary, a law should be adopted establishing a framework that sets out
clear missions, a clear budget and a clear role for each actor.

4.3.1. Allocation of responsibilities

The responsibilities for remediation of areas with residual radioactive

material are defined in Ref. [3]. They can be divided into those responsibilities
assigned to the government, to the regulatory body and to other relevant
authorities and, as appropriate, to registrants, licensees and other parties (persons
or organizations) responsible for planning and implementing remediation.
In most countries, it is generally accepted that the (physical or legal) person
or organization that creates or has created the contamination is responsible for
its safe management and potential remediation (the polluter pays principle;

13
see Section 3). However, national governments may also have responsibilities
in this context, especially where the original polluter either no longer exists or
cannot be traced.
The national policy needs to identify:

(a) The regulatory body responsible for the approval of the overall strategy,
the definition of the remediation process and the approval of each step of
the process;
(b) The organizations responsible for strategy proposal, implementation and
operation, including waste management.

Each organization should have a clear mission defined in the policy. It is

also worthwhile to establish an organization with ownership of the contaminated
sites and responsibility for coordinating the overall works. The establishment
of requirements for the protection of workers and their enforcement is the
responsibility of the relevant regulatory body [3].

4.3.2. Provision of resources

The site owner/operator is generally considered to be financially responsible

for ensuring that contaminated land is properly and safely managed; that is, in
accordance with the polluter pays principle described in Section 3. However,
the arrangements for long term management may sometimes be coordinated or
overseen at the national level. In such instances, each acting party will take the
appropriate steps to ensure that:

—— Qualified staff are available as needed for all activities during the operating
lifetime of a site as well as any subsequent remediation activities, and that
they are adequately trained with regard to safety aspects of remediation.
—— Adequate financial resources are available to support the characterization,
assessment and remediation of contaminated land.
—— Financial provision is made to enable the appropriate institutional controls
and monitoring arrangements to be continued for any period deemed
necessary following remediation activities (i.e. long term stewardship).

Thus, the national policy will set out the arrangements for:

(a) Establishing the mechanisms for providing the resources or funds for the
safe management of contaminated land and remediation;

14
(b) Ensuring that adequate human resources are available to provide for the
safe management and remediation of contaminated land, including, as
necessary, resources for training and R&D;
(c) Providing institutional controls and monitoring arrangements to ensure the
safety of the remediated sites once operations and site activities have ceased.

4.3.3. Safety and security objectives

An overarching theme in a national policy on the remediation of

contaminated sites is the safety objective of protecting individuals, society
and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation, both now
and in the future. The policy should include the requirements to be applied,
where appropriate, for remediation. It should include access to the site and
to any removed radioactive material. Some physical protection and security
recommendations should be taken into consideration, as appropriate.

4.3.4. Public information and participation

The overall decision making process and the resulting remediation solutions
may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public
and especially local communities. Stakeholders constitute a highly heterogeneous
group with varying levels of knowledge and experience. Ideally, all stakeholders
will be involved in the decision making process, with due weight given to
professional and lay knowledge. The aim is to achieve a shared understanding of
the situation and its implications for all parties. Overall considerations include the
relevant medical and scientific literature, the history of the sites and knowledge
derived from the experience of local people. The economic, social and health
impacts of leaving sites in their present condition, and of different methods of
remediation, should be discussed openly.

4.4. POLICY INSTRUMENTS

Policy instruments used in controlling contaminated land fall into two main
categories: (i) ‘command and control’ approaches and (ii) economic approaches
[10]. Command and control approaches are used in most countries to trigger
remediation and to restrict the uses to which contaminated land may be put. This
is particularly necessary when remediation is designed to fit the ‘suitable for use’
standard. A market (economic) based approach is an example of an economic
policy instrument. This approach encourages market action wherever possible and

15
holds regulatory intervention in reserve for when there is no prospect of a market
solution. Subsidies are given by some countries to help meet remediation costs.

5. REMEDIATION STRATEGIES

Different countries may take different approaches to establishing

remediation strategies, depending on the type of contamination involved and
national and site specific factors. The remediation strategy needs to be developed
on a case by case basis and codified by regulators and/or the responsible
national bodies.

5.1. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES

The objectives of remediation were formulated as follows [7]:

(a) To reduce the doses to those individuals or groups of individuals

being exposed;
(b) To avert likely future doses to individuals or groups of individuals;
(c) To prevent or reduce environmental impacts from the radionuclides present
in the contaminated area.

The operating organization or the organization with responsibility for

remediation normally defines a remediation strategy on which the planning for
remediation will be based. Some countries rely on a national remediation strategy
to guide remediation planning. Such strategies need to be aligned with the
national remediation policy and consistent with the relevant decommissioning
and waste management policies and strategies. The strategy will define at least
the following:

(a) The inventory of the contaminated sites, its content and who will elaborate
this inventory.
(b) The process for site remediation, including who will do what. Milestones
should be introduced into this process in order to take into account the
particular situation of each site to be remediated and public expectations,
if relevant.
(c) How the waste produced by the site remediation will be managed in line
with the waste classification currently available in the country.

16
(d) The funding for each site remediation case, including waste management
and follow-up of the site, if relevant.
(e) The prioritization of remediation actions based on political and public
perceptions, risk assessments and the resources available.

The strategy should be codified by the responsible national bodies.

The commitment of political decision makers is fundamental: transparency
and ‘visibility’ of decisions are indispensable, especially when explaining to the
public the process of assessment and the determination of remediation targets.
An important part of this commitment is to be aware, and to explain to the
public, that:

—— The site, after successful remediation, will be different from its original state.
It will also be necessary to draw on benefits for the population and the country
from having used the site; this may apply, for example, to former mining
sites, sites for nuclear installations after decommissioning (e.g. nuclear
power plants), former military sites or any other contaminated site.
—— Remediation prioritization is inevitable if there are many sites and limited
resources. Sites where the level of radioactive contamination does not
require or justify remediation action may nevertheless be the focus of
public attention owing to other factors such as the presence of other toxic
substances, ‘secret’ activities carried out on the site in the past or severe
visible changes on the surface. In these cases, precise presentation of the
facts from accepted technical authorities based on an objective measurement
and evaluation procedure is required for decision makers in order to avoid
‘irrational’ decisions being made out of fear of radioactivity. A decision on
the decommissioning strategy may be influenced by the intentions of the
site owner or the government with respect to the future use of the site. The
strategy and the timing of remediation may differ depending on whether the
site is urgently required for new facilities or if a decision has been made to
remove the facility and to release the land.

5.2. INVENTORY OF REMEDIABLE SITES

Sites need to be registered to facilitate remediation prioritization [10].

Registers also give the limits of any remediation and any planning restrictions
that may apply. Public registers also protect against fraudulent land transactions
and reduce the likelihood of an innocent landowner becoming liable for
remediation costs.

17
 The number of sites and the extent of remediation required (or potentially
required) on a national scale influence and emphasize the need for a specific
remediation strategy; for example, a country with extensive mining and milling
operations would benefit from a clear national strategy for the remediation of
such sites. Such a strategy could also support the sustainability and life cycle
management of a particular industry. Therefore, an inventory of sites classified
according to the criteria defined by the relevant authority is needed.
The outcome of the site characterization is an important consideration
in the development of a remediation strategy, in order to implement and
optimize actions for the protection of workers, the public and the environment.
Detailed site characterization is necessary for the development of a site specific
remediation plan.

5.3. CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMEDIATION SITUATIONS

5.3.1. Legacy situations

For situations involving legacy sites, the objective is to implement optimized

remediation strategies aimed at reducing doses to below the reference level for
as many people as feasible. However, levels below the reference level should
not automatically be ignored. It is important to ascertain whether remediation
is optimized or if further remediation measures are needed. An endpoint for
the optimization process must not be fixed a priori, and the optimal level will
depend on the situation. It is the responsibility of the regulatory body to decide
on the legal status of reference levels. When remediation has been undertaken,
reference levels may also be used retrospectively as benchmarks for assessing the
effectiveness of the remediation strategy.
Interested stakeholders should receive general information on the legacy
situation and on the possible remediation needed to improve the situation. In
situations where individual lifestyles are key drivers of exposure, education
and training may be important requirements. Living on contaminated land
in the extended aftermath of a nuclear accident or a radiological event is one
such situation.
The main factors to be considered in setting reference levels for legacy
situations are the feasibility of controlling the situation and the past experience
of managing similar situations. In most legacy situations, there is a desire by
members of the public, as well as the authorities, to reduce contamination to
levels that are close or similar to situations considered ‘normal’. This applies
particularly in situations relating to exposures to material resulting from
human actions.

18
5.3.2. Aftermath of emergency situations

In existing exposure situations after an emergency, an important milestone

is the transition from an emergency exposure situation to an existing exposure
situation. It may be the case that different geographical areas affected by the
same emergency undergo the transition at different times.
As post-Chernobyl experience has indicated [11, 12], in such situations the
success of remedial measures taken to control doses to members of the public
depends greatly on the behaviour of those exposed. Opportunities to control doses
to the public should be exploited through the involvement of key stakeholders.
These situations are very complex in general, and, in addition to radiological
considerations (i.e. doses and the special distribution of contamination),
their management needs to address all relevant dimensions, such as health,
environmental, economic, social, psychological, cultural, ethical and political
aspects. One such example is the management of contaminated foodstuffs and
other commodities produced in areas affected by an accident, which presents
a problem because of market acceptance. Maintaining long term restrictions
on the production and consumption of foodstuffs may affect the sustainable
development of the contaminated areas.
Post-accident remediation strategies should be foreseen by authorities as
part of the national accident response planning.

5.3.3. Ongoing planned situations and after decommissioning

Potential situations that may lead to a need for remediation should be

considered at the planning stage of the introduction of such an activity. If
the operation is ongoing, the expected releases of radioactive substances
to the site, the consequent environmental contamination and the necessary
remediation measures can be controlled by optimization procedures under the
constraining operational limits specified by the national regulatory body. Where
the operations involve long lived radionuclides, assessments need to take into
account any reasonable combination or buildup of contamination and to consider
whether such a buildup would result in the limits being exceeded. The planned
remediation should ensure that the buildup of radioactive substances from the
ongoing operation over its lifetime does not cause limits to be exceeded in the
future. This is particularly important when the remediation strategy is planned to
be implemented after the termination and decommissioning of the practice.
It should be noted, however, that in planned situations involving NORM,
this limitation may not be feasible. Some flexibility may be required for
particular situations involving long lived natural radionuclides, such as mining
and milling activities.

19
5.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY

5.4.1. Radiological assessment

Contamination should be quantified in terms of average additional dose

to the public, assessed by environmental modelling of the exposure pathways
to the public, based on the concentration of radioactive substances in different
environmental media and the use of the site [13, 14]. This dose should be
compared with the reference level, which represents the level that is intended
not to be exceeded. Efforts should be made to reduce individual exposures as far
below this level as is reasonably achievable, with social and economic factors
being taken into account [3].
The optimization process should be guided by reference levels of individual
exposure. The possibility of multiple, independent, simultaneous and time
varying pathways makes it important to focus on the overall exposure that may
occur from all pathways when developing and implementing remedial measures.
As such, an overall remediation strategy is necessary, which generally includes
an assessment of the situation and implementation of different measures.
States may have set soil quality standards. These may be used as an absolute
measure, defining the condition of contamination and serving as the standard that
sites must meet to be considered decontaminated.

5.4.2. Financial issues

The availability of funds is a key issue for the development of a remediation

strategy and can determine whether or not remediation can go ahead, the rate
at which it can be implemented and whether some deferral will be necessary.
Funding, and more precisely funding through direct grants, is a variable that can
affect the speed of the remediation process [15]. If full funding is not available,
then early spending might be focused on ensuring short term safety of the site, or
a phased remediation programme might be implemented. In such a programme,
priority will be given to tackling those tasks that reduce the most serious sources
of exposure.
For the purposes of planning, it is necessary to have some estimate of
the likely cost of the remediation options, as this will be an important factor in
determining the site specific remediation strategy. Ideally, funding arrangements
for remediation will be established early in the lifetime of any facility, particularly
in the nuclear fuel cycle, to enable remediation to be carried out in a safe, timely
and efficient manner. These arrangements can range from an independent
remediation fund to the provision of funds directly from the government.

20
 Most decommissioning funds for nuclear power plants are accumulated
through electricity surcharges. However, there is still little experience with regard
to accumulation of funds for remediation in the long term. For many nuclear
facilities, no funds for remediation are available when the facilities reach the end
of their operating lives. If no funds are available from the operating organization
or from the government, the facility must consider searching for other funding
mechanisms. This is the usual case for legacy sites.

5.4.3. Technology

[Link]. Technical resources

Environmental remediation programmes require the availability of a wide

range of methodologies, equipment, technologies, facilities and supporting
infrastructure in the appropriate quantities and of the appropriate quality.
Furthermore, the types of technology required for remedial work vary at different
stages of a project. In deciding the technologies required, experience from other
countries can be used. These technical resources typically include:

(a) Methodologies for characterizing radionuclides in the environmental

media, groundwater flow, etc., and for modelling contaminant behaviour;
(b) Characterization equipment;
(c) Radiation and environmental monitoring equipment;
(d) Personal and respiratory protective equipment;
(e) Analytical equipment for field and laboratory use;
(f) Data processing equipment, hardware and software;
(g) Medical screening equipment.

[Link]. 
Volume of contaminated media and the nature of its radioactive
contaminants

Two important factors influencing the technology choices for remedial

work are:

(i) The volume of environmental media affected by the contamination;

(ii) The characteristics (half-life and environmental mobility) of the
radionuclides responsible for the exposure.

Often, but not always, there is an inverse relation between the volume of
contaminated media and the degree of contamination. For example, media may
be contaminated by a leak or spill, resulting in contamination of a relatively

21
small volume of media but with a relatively high concentration of radionuclides.
Conversely, a mining operation may produce millions of cubic metres of
materials, which can lead to the contamination of different environmental media
containing only relatively low levels of NORM. In the first instance, physical
removal of the contaminated media and their subsequent treatment as radioactive
waste may be feasible and necessary. In the second case, stabilizing the media in
situ may provide an optimized solution.
Some radionuclides, notably tritium and 99Tc, move freely with water
and are thus very mobile in the environment. Radionuclides carried in acidic
mine drainages are also particularly mobile. Such mobile radionuclides usually
require special environmental remediation efforts. Removal of these sources or
measures to circumvent water flow are usually implemented to prevent mobile
radionuclides from migrating away from the remediation site and thus greatly
increasing the spread of contamination. Migration of radionuclides into potable
water supplies and other transboundary effects can be serious and therefore may
require long term groundwater treatment and control.

[Link]. Waste management aspects

Waste management issues can exist in environmental remediation projects.

Wastes arise directly from the decommissioning of facilities and cleanup of
contaminated soils, groundwater, etc. While treatment of contaminated soils
or groundwater may largely eliminate the original problem, secondary wastes
may be produced. Methods commonly used to manage these wastes include
the following:

(a) In situ or on-site management using engineered facilities (covers, cells) of

varying degrees of complexity or technologies such as in situ vitrification;
(b) Reuse or recycling of uncontaminated materials or materials that have been
decontaminated or treated to meet release criteria for unrestricted use;
(c) Reuse or recycling of contaminated materials for specified purposes, such
as the recycling of contaminated steel into waste disposal containers;
(d) Classification and segregation of radioactive waste for off-site disposal in
appropriately licensed facilities.

Some countries may define contaminated soil as waste. Therefore, the

availability of a national radioactive waste management system could also
influence the available options and strategies for remediation. In particular,
this will apply if the remediation options could result in the separation and
concentration of radionuclides into radioactive waste or lead to a change in the
waste class of radioactive waste.

22
 If there is no available disposal facility for the category and class of waste
from the remediation process, options involving the separation or extraction of
radionuclides from the contaminated media may be less attractive.

[Link]. Multi-facility sites

Strategies for remediation are likely to be influenced when the site under
remediation hosts operational facilities or facilities under decommissioning
(i.e. in the post-operational clean-out phase).

5.4.4. Human resources

In order to implement the remediation strategy, it is very important to

identify the training capacity and the human resources available in the country in
terms of skills for radiological characterization of sites, remediation technologies,
waste management and project management. In countries where remediation has
not been undertaken, it is likely that regulations relating to remediation will have
to be developed and that regulators will have to be appropriately trained in the
special requirements for remediation.
For planned situations, problems can arise due to the loss of knowledge
if there are significant time delays between termination of activities and
decommissioning and remediation of a site. If remediation cannot be performed
soon after the completion of decommissioning, arrangements should be put
in place to ensure that the necessary information is preserved. The subject of
knowledge management in the context of decommissioning is discussed in
Refs [16, 17].

5.4.5. Implementation schedule

Once the prioritization of sites has been undertaken, it is necessary to

establish a schedule of implementation, including all the sites to be remediated.
As well as the prioritization of sites, the schedule must take into account available
resources, feasibility and sociopolitical issues.

5.4.6. Involvement of the public

The existence of and possible conflict between the different types of

knowledge and perceptions held by experts and laypeople indicates that
providing information alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Members of the public
may demand that stringent controls be applied to what experts would consider
to be trivial levels of dose due to radioactive substances remaining as a result of

23
planned operations, but they may be less demanding in legacy situations, even
where exposure is similar. Demands for inappropriate remediation measures may
be encouraged by lobbying groups, especially where there is lack of trust between
the site operators and the local community. A participatory approach is necessary
in order to resolve any conflicts and to contribute to finding a way forward, with
remediation measures that are appropriate with regard to the costs incurred and
the benefits derived.
Meetings of the stakeholder group should be accessible to members in terms
of time, location and support for lay members. If and when remediation becomes
an issue, the stakeholder group will constitute a well informed and diverse forum
able to discuss proposals and possible solutions.
From studies of stakeholder involvement in the past, the one general
conclusion that can be drawn is that each decision is unique. The diversity of
relevant social, political, economic and cultural environments makes it difficult
to develop guidance that is universally applicable.
Stakeholder involvement in nuclear issues is discussed in Ref. [18].

5.5. SITE RELEASE CRITERIA

The first problem to confront those trying to remediate a site is to answer the
question, How clean is clean? Site release criteria need to take into account the
current and anticipated future uses of an area. These are important considerations
for deciding the degree to which a contaminated area is to be remediated and
whether it is to be released for restricted or unrestricted use. Here, it is important
to establish how society’s resources can best be spent to save lives as well as the
level of health risk that is acceptable at contaminated sites and how and why this
level differs from what is acceptable in terms of other health risks [19].
The potential economic value of the area, if it can be restored to productive
use, can be an especially strong incentive. For example, if the area is residential,
both health and economic considerations will likely demand a remediation
effort commensurate with unrestricted use of the area. If the land is designated
for industrial purposes, remediation considerations for restricted use will be
required. In the case of restricted use, a follow-up of the radiological conditions
and the use of the area should be planned in order to ensure compliance with
remediation goals.
There may also be legal requirements to return an area of contaminated land
to a condition where it can be gainfully reused. Such requirements often apply if
legal ownership of the land is being transferred to another owner. This situation
could give rise to difficult legal issues; for example, legal liabilities can arise if
even slightly contaminated land is sold without due disclosure of its condition.

24
 In order to assess the evolution of the exposure situation and the
effectiveness of the remediation strategies, a monitoring record system needs to
be established under the responsibility of the relevant authorities. Such records
are particularly important for determining potential groups at risk, in conjunction
with health surveillance. Furthermore, to allow effective long term health
surveillance of the affected population, health registries need to be established
for the population in the contaminated areas.

6. CONCLUSIONS

National policies and strategies for the remediation of contaminated land

vary from country to country but share some common elements. There is no
single policy model for dealing with the subject, and no single model would be
workable for the entire world. However, policy and strategy elements need to be
addressed adequately with regard to the extent of the remediation problem. Much
of the policy and legislation on environmental remediation is in its infancy; thus,
there is little evidence as to which approach is the most likely to produce the best
results. However, by comparing current experience, a system of good practices
could be suggested to aid those countries that do not yet have an environmental
remediation policy.

25
 REFERENCES

[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Safety Glossary:

Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection — 2007 Edition, IAEA,
Vienna (2007).
[2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Fundamental Safety Principles,
IAEA Safety Standards No. SF-1, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
[3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radiation Protection and Safety of
Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements
Part 3, IAEA Safety Series No. GSR Part 3, IAEA, Vienna (2014).
[4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Remediation Process for Areas
Affected by Past Activities and Accidents, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-3.1,
IAEA, Vienna (2007).
[5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Policies and Strategies for
Radioactive Waste Management, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G-1.1, IAEA,
Vienna (2009).
[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Policies and Strategies for the
Decommissioning of Nuclear and Radiological Facilities, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
No. NW-G-2.1, IAEA, Vienna (2011).
[7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Remediation of Areas Contaminated
by Past Activities and Accidents, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-R-3, IAEA,
Vienna (2003).
[8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Energy Basic Principles,
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NE-BP, IAEA, Vienna (2008).
[9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Joint Convention on the Safety of
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, IAEA
International Law Series No. 1, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
[10] CHRISTIE, S., TEEUW, R.M., Varied policy of European Union States on contaminated
land, Environ. Imp. Assess. Rev. 18 (1998) 175–197.
[11] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Environmental Consequences of the
Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience, Radiological
Assessment Reports Series No. 8, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
[12] UNITED NATIONS, Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), UN, New York (2000).
[13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Environmental Modelling for
Remediation Safety (EMRAS) — A Summary Report of the EMRAS Programme
(2003–2007), IAEA-TECDOC-1678, IAEA, Vienna (2012).
[14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Handbook of Parameter Values for
the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments,
Technical Reports Series No. 472, IAEA, Vienna (2010).
[15] JOHANSSON, M.V., FORSLUND, J., JOHANSSON, P., SAMAKOVLIS, E., Can
we buy time?, Evaluation of the Swedish Government’s grant to remediation of
contaminated sites, J. Environ. Manage. 92 (2011) 1303–1313.

27
[16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Decommissioning of Nuclear
Facilities: Training and Human Resource Considerations, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
No. NG-T-2.3, IAEA, Vienna (2008).
[17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Record Keeping for the
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Guidelines and Experience, Technical Reports
Series No. 411, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
[18] INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY GROUP, Stakeholder Involvement in
Nuclear Issues, INSAG-20, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
[19] FORSLUND, J., SAMAKOVLIS, E., JOHANSSON, M.V., BARREGARD, L., Does
remediation save lives? On the cost of cleaning up arsenic-contaminated sites in
Sweden, Sci. Total Environ. 408 (2010) 3085–3091.

28
 GLOSSARY

Cleanup. To make clean, free of contamination (impurities); an act or instance

of cleaning.

Justification. The process of determining whether a proposed intervention is

likely, overall, to be beneficial, i.e. whether the benefits to individuals and
to society (including the reduction in radiation detriment) from introducing
or continuing the intervention outweigh the cost of the intervention and any
harm or damage caused by the intervention.

Legacy site. A site contaminated by activities carried out in the past. In most
cases, a legacy site was generated due to a lack of appropriate legislation
when a facility or an operation was taking place at the particular site.

Optimization. The process of determining what level of protection and safety

makes exposures, and the probability and magnitude of potential exposures,
as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken
into account.

Rehabilitation. To restore to good condition, operation or capacity. The

term implies that the land will be returned to a form and productivity in
conformity with a prior land use plan, including a stable ecological state
that does not contribute substantially to environmental deterioration and is
consistent with surrounding aesthetic values.

Reclamation. The process of reconverting disturbed land to its former or other

productive uses. All practicable and reasonable methods of designing and
conducting an activity to ensure:

(i) Stable, non-hazardous, non-erodible, favourably drained soil

conditions;
(ii) Equivalent land capability.

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.

29
Restoration. The act of restoring or state of being restored as to a former or
original condition, place. In the context of remediation, the term has the
meaning of bringing a site back to its original condition, something that
may not be achievable or necessary from the radiation protection point of
view.

30
 CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW

Amaral, E. Consultant, Brazil

Booth, P. Hylton Environmental, United Kingdom

Gallego, E. Technical University of Madrid, Spain

González, A. Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Argentina

Hagen, M. Wismut Gmbh, Germany

Lester, C. Public Health Wales, United Kingdom

Miguez, R. National Radioactive Waste Management Agency

(Andra), France

Visage, A. Necsa, South Africa

Wiley, J. National Research Council of the US National

Academies, United States of America

Consultants Meetings

Vienna, Austria: 12–16 July 2010; 25–29 July 2011

31
32
Structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series

Nuclear Energy Basic Principles

NE-BP

Nuclear General Objectives Nuclear Power Objectives Nuclear Fuel Cycle Objectives Radioactive Waste Management
and Decommissioning Objectives
NG-O NP-O NF-O NW-O

1. Management Systems 1. Technology Development 1. Resources 1. Radioactive Waste Management

NG-G-1.# NP-G-1.# NF-G-1.# NW-G-1.#
NG-T-1.# NP-T-1.# NF-T-1.# NW-T-1.#

2. Human Resources 2. Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants 2. Fuel Engineering and Performance 2. Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
NG-G-2.# NP-G-2.# NF-G-2.# NW-G-2.#
NG-T-2.# NP-T-2.# NF-T-2.# NW-T-2.#

3. Nuclear Infrastructure and Planning 3. Operation of Nuclear Power Plants 3. Spent Fuel Management and Reprocessing 3. Site Remediation
NG-G-3.# NP-G-3.# NF-G-3.# NW-G-3.#
NG-T-3.# NP-T-3.# NF-T-3.# NW-T-3.#

4. Economics 4. Non-Electrical Applications 4. Fuel Cycles

NG-G-4.# NP-G-4.# NF-G-4.#
NG-T-4.# NP-T-4.# NF-T-4.#

5. Energy System Analysis 5. Research Reactors 5. Research Reactors — Nuclear Fuel Cycle
NG-G-5.# NP-G-5.# NF-G-5.#
NG-T-5.# NP-T-5.# NF-T-5.#

6. Knowledge Management
NG-G-6.#
NG-T-6.#

Key Examples
BP: Basic Principles NG-G-3.1: Nuclear General (NG), Guide, Nuclear Infrastructure and Planning (topic 3), #1
O: Objectives NP-T-5.4: Nuclear Power (NP), Report (T), Research Reactors (topic 5), #4
G: Guides NF-T-3.6: Nuclear Fuel (NF), Report (T), Spent Fuel Management and Reprocessing (topic 3), #6
T: Technical Reports NW-G-1.1: Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning (NW), Guide,
Nos 1-6: Topic designations Radioactive Waste (topic 1), #1
#: Guide or Report number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
@ No. 23

ORDERING LOCALLY
In the following countries, IAEA priced publications may be purchased from the sources listed below or
from major local booksellers.
Orders for unpriced publications should be made directly to the IAEA. The contact details are given at
the end of this list.

AUSTRALIA
DA Information Services
648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham, VIC 3132, AUSTRALIA
Telephone: +61 3 9210 7777  Fax: +61 3 9210 7788
Email: books@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

BELGIUM
Jean de Lannoy
Avenue du Roi 202, 1190 Brussels, BELGIUM
Telephone: +32 2 5384 308  Fax: +32 2 5380 841
Email: [Link]@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
5369 Canotek Road, Ottawa, ON K1J 9J3, CANADA
Telephone: +1 613 745 2665  Fax: +1 643 745 7660
Email: order@[Link]  Web site: [Link]
Bernan Associates
4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706-4391, USA
Telephone: +1 800 865 3457  Fax: +1 800 865 3450
Email: orders@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

CZECH REPUBLIC
Suweco CZ, spol. S.r.o.
Klecakova 347, 180 21 Prague 9, CZECH REPUBLIC
Telephone: +420 242 459 202  Fax: +420 242 459 203
Email: nakup@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

FINLAND
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa
PO Box 128 (Keskuskatu 1), 00101 Helsinki, FINLAND
Telephone: +358 9 121 41  Fax: +358 9 121 4450
Email: akatilaus@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

FRANCE
Form-Edit
5 rue Janssen, PO Box 25, 75921 Paris CEDEX, FRANCE
Telephone: +33 1 42 01 49 49  Fax: +33 1 42 01 90 90
Email: [Link]@[Link]  Web site: [Link]
Lavoisier SAS
14 rue de Provigny, 94236 Cachan CEDEX, FRANCE
Telephone: +33 1 47 40 67 00  Fax: +33 1 47 40 67 02
Email: livres@[Link]  Web site: [Link]
L’Appel du livre
99 rue de Charonne, 75011 Paris, FRANCE
Telephone: +33 1 43 07 50 80  Fax: +33 1 43 07 50 80
Email: livres@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

GERMANY
Goethe Buchhandlung Teubig GmbH
Schweitzer Fachinformationen
Willstätterstrasse 15, 40549 Düsseldorf, GERMANY
Telephone: +49 (0) 211 49 8740  Fax: +49 (0) 211 49 87428
Email: [Link]@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

HUNGARY
Librotrade Ltd., Book Import
PF 126, 1656 Budapest, HUNGARY
Telephone: +36 1 257 7777  Fax: +36 1 257 7472
Email: books@[Link]  Web site: [Link]
INDIA
Allied Publishers
1st Floor, Dubash House, 15, J.N. Heredi Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001, INDIA
Telephone: +91 22 2261 7926/27  Fax: +91 22 2261 7928
Email: alliedpl@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

Bookwell
3/79 Nirankari, Delhi 110009, INDIA
Telephone: +91 11 2760 1283/4536
Email: bkwell@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

ITALY
Libreria Scientifica “AEIOU”
Via Vincenzo Maria Coronelli 6, 20146 Milan, ITALY
Telephone: +39 02 48 95 45 52  Fax: +39 02 48 95 45 48
Email: info@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

JAPAN
Maruzen Co., Ltd.
1-9-18 Kaigan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0022, JAPAN
Telephone: +81 3 6367 6047  Fax: +81 3 6367 6160
Email: journal@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

NETHERLANDS
Martinus Nijhoff International
Koraalrood 50, Postbus 1853, 2700 CZ Zoetermeer, NETHERLANDS
Telephone: +31 793 684 400  Fax: +31 793 615 698
Email: info@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

SLOVENIA
Cankarjeva Zalozba dd
Kopitarjeva 2, 1515 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA
Telephone: +386 1 432 31 44  Fax: +386 1 230 14 35
Email: [Link]@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

SPAIN
Diaz de Santos, S.A.
Librerias Bookshop  Departamento de pedidos
Calle Albasanz 2, esquina Hermanos Garcia Noblejas 21, 28037 Madrid, SPAIN
Telephone: +34 917 43 48 90  Fax: +34 917 43 4023
Email: compras@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

UNITED KINGDOM
The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO)
PO Box 29, Norwich, Norfolk, NR3 1PD, UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 870 600 5552
Email (orders): [Link]@[Link]  (enquiries): [Link]@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Bernan Associates
4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706-4391, USA
Telephone: +1 800 865 3457  Fax: +1 800 865 3450
Email: orders@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.

812 Proctor Avenue, Ogdensburg, NY 13669, USA
Telephone: +1 888 551 7470  Fax: +1 888 551 7471
Email: orders@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

United Nations
300 East 42nd Street, IN-919J, New York, NY 1001, USA
Telephone: +1 212 963 8302  Fax: 1 212 963 3489
Email: publications@[Link]  Web site: [Link]

Orders for both priced and unpriced publications may be addressed directly to:
IAEA Publishing Section, Marketing and Sales Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: +43 1 2600 22529 or 22488 • Fax: +43 1 2600 29302
Email: [Link]@[Link] • Web site: [Link]
14-10591
 R ELATE D PU B LIC ATION S

IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS

POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G-1.1
STI/PUB/1396 (68 pp.; 2009)
Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is ISBN 978–92–0-103909–5 Price: €20.00
authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the
peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle,
POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF
radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues
NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES
that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G-2.1
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and
STI/PUB/1525 (30 pp.; 2012)
Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. ISBN 978–92–0–116910–5 Price: €24.00
The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale
and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations
RADIATION PROTECTION AND SAFETY OF RADIATION SOURCES:
to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation.
INTERNATIONAL BASIC SAFETY STANDARDS
Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3
achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the
STI/PUB/1578 (436 pp.; 2014)
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. ISBN 978–92–0–135310–8 Price: €68.00
Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more
detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series.
REMEDIATION PROCESS FOR AREAS AFFECTED BY PAST ACTIVITIES
The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows:
AND ACCIDENTS — Safety Guide
NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-3.1
waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are
STI/PUB/1282 (39 pp.; 2007)
available in English on the IAEA Internet site: ISBN 92–0–113306–5 Price: €18.00

[Link]

For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna
NUCLEAR ENERGY GENERAL OBJECTIVES
International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-O
STI/PUB/1523 (25 pp.; 2011)
All users of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are invited to ISBN 978–92–0–116810–8 Price: €20.00
inform the IAEA of experience in their use for the purpose of ensuring that
they continue to meet user needs. Information may be provided via the IAEA
Internet site, by post, at the address given above, or by email to
[Link]@[Link].
FUNDAMENTAL SAFETY PRINCIPLES
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1
STI/PUB/1273 (21 pp.; 2006)
ISBN 92–0–110706–4 Price: €25.00

[Link]/books

14-10591_PUB1658_cover.indd 3-4 2015-02-12 [Link]

 IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
No. NW-G-3.1

This publication provides guidance on formulating

a national policy and strategies for environmental

Policy and Strategies

remediation of radioactively contaminated sites.
A national environmental remediation policy is
Basic
essential for establishing the core values on which Principles
remediation is to be based, and incorporates a set of
principles to ensure the safe and efficient management
for Environmental
of remediation situations. Environmental remediation
strategies set out the means for achieving the
Remediation
principles and requirements in the national policy, and Objectives
may be elaborated in several different components.
This publication is intended to assist States in the
proper, systematic planning and safe implementation
of environmental remediation efforts.
Guides

Technical
Reports

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA
ISBN 978–92–0–103314–7
ISSN 1995–7807

14-10591_PUB1658_cover.indd 1-2 2015-02-12 [Link]