Development of standards

The risks due to uranium mining and milling activities, the benefits of developing the resource, and the environmental impacts should be clearly understood by the government and the public. This is best conveyed by having the goals and objectives of the standards clearly articulated.

Open public forums that allow for discussions of the goals and objectives are useful in this endeavor.

Another important aspect is that the language of the regulations should be as simple and

straightforward as possible. Language that can lead to broad interpretations should be avoided to prevent the perception that requirements are changing, depending on vague and poorly articulated circumstances. This can result in continual disagreements that divert attention from the primary goals of the regulations. On the other hand, standards that are overly specific can lead to regulatory nightmares, because standards are very difficult to modify, especially when relaxation is necessary.

The focus should be on flexibility.

2.2.1. Compatibility with Existing Standards

In general, standards required for uranium resource operations should be compatible with or derived from those applied to similar types of activities not involving uranium. Although the radioactive nature of uranium presents unique problems, they are not of such magnitude as to require the imposition of standards that are greatly in excess of those required in well regulated non-uranium operations. Requirements should build on any experience gained in non-uranium operations, and procedures and techniques which have been proved, rather than seeking to impose procedures that are entirely new.

2.2.2. Prescriptive and Non-prescriptive Standards

Prescriptive standards are standards which specify requirements which must be followed, while non-prescriptive standards specify a goal that must be achieved but do not specify how it is to be achieved. While some standards, by their nature must be prescriptive, non-prescriptive standards are very often preferable. Non-prescriptive standards allow the operator to choose a way of meeting the requirement that best meets the circumstances of the particular operation. For example, in the case of limits on liquid discharges, a prescriptive standard would require that effluent be treated in a specified manner before discharge. A non-prescriptive standard would specify effluent concentration limits, but allow each operation to determine how those limits will be met. The limits might be met by treatment of the effluent before release or discharge, design of the operating processes to reduce the amount and concentrations of constituents to be discharged, recycling of potential effluents without discharging, or other methods that might accomplish the same objective.

Some requirements will need to be non-prescriptive. A requirement that an operator submit waste management plans to the regulatory agency for approval is an example of a non-prescriptive standard. Non-prescriptive requirements recognize that there are often a number of alternative ways of satisfying the intentions of the requirement, and it may be impossible or impractical to specify numerical or prescriptive standards.

2.2.3. Public Information and Participation

As discussed in Section 2.2.4, it is highly recommended that international radiation protection standards be adopted. Whether international standards are adopted, or some other standards, the procedure of adoption should be a public process. It is important that the concerns and opinions of the general public, public interest groups, environmental groups, and the regulated industry are heard and considered in the process. Such a process will promote open discussions and consideration of all viewpoints. Public confidence will be enhanced by dissemination of appropriate information from all parties. Depending on the "culture", addressing public consensus can lead to different levels of regulatory control between countries. This in turn can operate against having a reasonable level of uniformity in standards from one nation to the next.

2.2.4. International Standards

Because of the unique nature of radiation hazards, specific standards are required to provide adequate protection to those exposed, either occupationally or environmentally. Establishment of appropriate radiation standards for particular circumstances is complex, with allowances for such factors as the type and energy of the radiation, the pathway of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, etc.) and characteristics of the exposed individuals (age, sex, etc.) However, appropriate standards have been developed by international bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and it is recommended that any standards set be compatible with them. They are based on careful review of studies of the effects of radiation, and are developed from consideration of the balance between the risks of radiation exposure, the potential for protection from exposure and the costs of such protection. Use of these standards will lead to a uniform degree of protection throughout the uranium production industry. (See Section 5 for details of such standards.) Considering the broad requirements necessary for mineral resource development in general, the additional requirements necessary for uranium deposit development and production are relatively small. The potential impacts due primarily to radiation, however, should be specifically addressed.

2.2.5. Balancing of Interests

In all activities, a balance must be achieved between the benefits of the activity, and the risks or detriments that arise from it. This is specifically recognized in the setting of radiation protection standards, such as limits to the radiation doses received by workers or the public. However this principal should also be applied to the setting of more general requirements, to ensure that the degree

of protection provided is optimized.

While setting of standards which do not offer adequate protection is not acceptable, it must be recognized that the imposition of over-stringent requirements imposes costs on the operation. This can divert protective efforts from areas in which they are more important, or ultimately make the project uneconomic. Again it is emphasized that radiological hazards are only one of a range of potential hazards that might be encountered in a uranium resource project, and unnecessarily stringent requirements may not make any real contribution to the reduction of the overall risks.

As an example, individual monitoring of radiation exposures to workers is usually required during the operating phases of a project. However, during exploration, exposures are generally much lower, and the period of exposure less. Therefore a full programme of individual monitoring of workers would probably not be justified during exploration.

2.2.6. Regulatory Guidance and Codes of Practice

Once standards and regulations are adopted by the government, through its regulatory agency, there will usually be a need to provide additional regulatory guidance. This guidance is generally developed to communicate to the regulated industry and the public, specific methods and procedures that the regulatory authority have found acceptable in meeting the standards. These guides, or codes of practice, do not have the force of regulations, but rather show one or more ways the regulatory authority has found acceptable to meet the requirements. Individual uranium enterprises should always have the option of proposing alternative means of meeting requirements; the guidance only indicates approaches that are acceptable.

These guides and codes should, however, be made available to the public and the regulated industry before they are published, to assure understanding and acceptance of the methods or procedures. Guides and codes of practice can also be developed and adopted by the uranium industry or other organizations. In many cases, after review and public comment, these can be adopted by the

regulatory agency as acceptable procedures. There are also good examples of these documents in the cases for several countries described in Appendix I.

2.3. ADMINISTERING THE REGULATORY PROGRAMME