Interview with Dr Jack Valentin, Scientific Secretary, ICRP - AERB NEWSLETTER 2000 Vol 13, No 1
www.aerb.gov.in/T/NewsLetters/2000/vol-1/newsltr6.html
Dr. K.S.Parthasarathy in conversation with Dr. Jack Valentin, Scientific Secretary, ICRP: Dr. Jack Valentin, Scientific Secretary, International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP), is a Ph.D in genetics. After various positions in research, teaching and forensic laboratory work, he was recruited to the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (a licensing authority) in 1983 as one of its Deputy Directors. There, he was first responsible for non-nuclear activities, turning then in 1989 to nuclear energy supervision. In February 1997, he took up his current post as Scientific Secretary of ICRP He has authored about 100 publications and has held various commissions of trust within the area of radiation protection, including a current assignment as a member of the Executive Council of IRPA (the International Radiation Protection Association).
Secretary, AERB interviewed Dr. Valentin at Mumbai.
Dr. Valentin, Swedish scientists have contributed enormously to medical physics and radiological protection. I remember Prof.- William Spiers, the pioneering medical physicist from UK, used to proudly remember his association with Rolf Sievert. Whenever we discussed the early developments in the field of medical physics, Professor Spiers described the efforts in various countries. The Stockholm technique in the treatment of uterus cancer was always referred to as a major contribution. Professor Spiers used to pay glowing tributes to Prof. Sievert.
Dr. Valentin: Prof. Sievert was a disciplined scientist.
KSP: It is appropriate that the unit of some of the important radiation quantities is named after him. I was told that the pressurized ion chamber he designed and fabricated in early fifties responded to Chernobyl fall out in 1986. Originally this equipment was used to measure radioactivity in the human body.
Dr.Valentin: There was a network of instruments available all over the country to measure radiation levels. But at the time of Chernobyl, one had to call it to get the results. They were not continuously reporting. But now the situation is different. If measurements exceed certain trigger levels, staff on call are automatically alarmed.
KSP: I remember the pioneering contribution by Prof. Hultquist who measured radon levels in Swedish dwellings during late fifties. Measurement of radon levels to study its impact on the dose to man become fashionable and important in the late seventies in several countries. What was the inspiration for Prof. Huitquist to carry out those measurements?
Dr Valentin: Maybe for the fun of it. Some of the earlier papers were written very well. I recollect that there were newspaper clippings stating that the radon levels in some house is dangerous.
KSP: When the instruments were crude, those who handled them had special expertise. All the care is taken so that measurements made are reliable. Nowadays in view of the availability of computer guided instrumentation, the persons who handle them do not get the insight and understanding of the problems. Prof. Hultquist used very primitive instruments to make very reliable measurement of radon levels. Do you think that sophisticated instruments may come in the way of gaining insight about the true nature of physical phenomena?
Dr. Valentin: I can see your point, and it applies to other areas of science as well, but after all better equipment does permit better science. The important thing is to remember that the demand on brains remains at least as tough as, before, even f modern equipment simplifies some of the manual work.
KSP: I understand you are a geneticist by profession. How did you become a radiation protection specialist? How did you choose this area of specialty?
Dr.Valentin: After graduating in genetics at a department in the University of Stockholm which had interest in the effect of radiation on genes, I began teaching at the University of Gothenborg. Then I wanted to get back to Stockholm as my wife was there. At that point of time, a vacant post was advertised in Stockholm. They wanted a person with radiation protection experience. I applied and got the job. Actually, that, is the way I chose radiation protection for a career.
KSP: How long were you associated with the International Commission on Radiological Protection?
Dr. Valentin: I was elected to the International Commission on Radio- logical Protection in 1989. Before that also I was in contact with ICRP.
KSP: Historically, In 1 934, an exposure rate limit for ionizing radiation was recommended to ensure protection of persons. This corresponded to about 500 mSv/year. In 1950, the ICRP recommendations lowered the permissible exposure rate to 150 mSv/ year. Currently, ICRP recommends a dose limit of 100 mSv averaged over 5 years, in effect, 20 mSv/year. Yesterday's safe dose limit becomes unsafe today. How will you explain this to public?
Dr.Valentin: That is an interesting question. It is a major problem. In 1934 and 1950, the objective of radiation protection was still limited to protecting radiation workers from deterministic harm. It was not dealing with public safety. Protection of public was not envisaged.
KSP: The information available then was skin damage suffered by those who handled x-ray units carelessly.
Dr.Valentin: That is right. The atmospheric weapon testing during the fifties lead to increased awareness. In 1 956, a dose limit of 50mSv per year for workers was introduced. For the first time, a dose limit to public of 5mSv/year was recommended. These recommendations were aimed at protection against stochastic harm. These recommendations recognized the possibility of a linear, non-threshold dose-response relationship. They did not conclude that the doses should be reduced even below the dose limit.- In 1965, ICRP retained the 1956 dose limits, but stated that the doses ought to be reduced if this was readily achievable. In 1977, ICRP observed that the dose limits are not a means to keep doses low but these are values that should not be exceeded. The concept of optimization to keep doses as low as reasonably achievable was put forward.
KSP: The evolution of the philosophy of radiation protection is very interesting indeed. The specialist may fully appreciate the consistency and cogency of the concepts. But public may not follow these nuances. As a matter of fact, public is sensitized about the lowering of dose limits. They may be disturbed by the fact that yesterday's safe limit becomes unsafe today. How are we sure that today's safe limit will not be unsafe tomorrow? I used to draw the example of aircraft. Modern jet aircraft is safer than propeller driven aircraft. Notwithstanding this, propeller driven aircraft is still in use. As technology improved, better and safer airplanes were manufactured. Propeller- driven airplanes have their own limitations. Since they are still used, -they are accepted to be safe.
Dr.Valentin: I think that it is a good example. We have increased safety in every field Radiological protection is no exception. It is a fact that society demands more safety in every field of activity.
KSP: But public perception of radiation risk is admittedly disproportionate with any measurable harm. How can we help to improve public perception? Does ICRP add to the confusion?
Dr.Valentin: I agree, at times we add to the confusion! But it is not certainly intentional. I feel that it is better not to trivialise the risk but to evaluate the risk from the practice. There are so many practices. We have to judge them on merit. We accept large risk because of large benefit.
KSP: Recently, I saw a report that the Federal Legislation regarding radiation workers in a European country recommends a cytogenetic examination as a part of the routine medical check up. I also noticed a comment that this sounds like the ultimate job-creation scheme for unemployed cytogeneticists!! Do you have any views on the practices
Dr.Valentin: It is a waste of effort. It is better to spend resources differently.
KSP: The field of radiation protection is unique. Probably in no other field such exacting and very often expensive epidemiological studies of millions of people in dozens of investigations were carried out to establish harmful effect, if any, of an agent. For instance, the study of the survivors of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki started in during late forties and continues to- date. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) continues to publish their important findings.
Dr. Valentin: These are very important studies and must be continued.
KSP: Some of the newer lines of study in radiobiology emerged from. unexpected observations. For instance, let us take the example of what is currently called genomic instability.
Dr. Valentin: There are experimental results which appeared to be strange in some ways. They could not be explained according to conventional hypotheses.
KSP: The hypothesis that cells which were exposed to ionising radiation may transmit some chromosomal instability to daughter cells was exciting enough. I vividly remember the early studies of the irradiation of stem cells by alpha particles. The National Radiological Protection Board has asserted that the estimates of radiation- induced cancer risk in humans have been derived directly from epidemiological observations and are, therefore, independent of the otential contribution from any novel cellular mechanism. Do you think that genomic instability will have any impact on ICRP recommendations?
Dr. Valentin: At present, I find that unlikely, but it would seem wise to avoid being categorical. Genomic instability is an interesting phenomenon. We must investigate it thoroughly. ICRP is interested in all radiation related phenomena.
KSP: Currently the Commission believes that the standards of environmental control needed to protect man to the degree currently thought desirable will ensure that other species are not put at risk. How is it that ICRP made such an assumption? Is there any evidence?'
Dr.Valentin: This is a very timely question. ICRP plans to set up a Task Group to make sure that our next set of basic recommendations provides a rather more convincing section on protection of the natural environment. The present statement is not necessarily wrong, but at the very least it needs to be corroborated by proper references to pertinent research. The rare exceptions that we know of today should be mentioned and evaluated. Perhaps we should even change the vantage point - it may be more in line with regulation of other dangers to say, if possible, that proper protection of the environment will be sufficient to also protect man. We do not currently envisage any significant change to authorised release limits, but we need to argue and express this much more cogently.
KSP: DNA molecule may have some molecules of radioactive carbon or H3 associated with it. What will be the impact of radioactive decay and transmutation of the element to another element? ICRP is ignoring such events.
Dr.Valentin: I would not say that we are ignoring such events. As a matter of fact, we do not know what the effects are. There has been, similarly, the effects of Auger electrons. For want of adequate information, we are unable to comment on them.
KSP: Any comment on the on-going linear non-threshold controversy on dose response.
Dr.Valentin: LNT concept is simple and practical. Recent studies have shown that there is a statistically significant response at dose levels as low as 5OmSv. There is reasonably acceptable evidence that children x- rayed while they are in their mothers womb have increased incidence of leukemia. Certainly there are wide uncertainties in the response of any organism to low doses.
KSP: Professor Roger Clarke, the current Chairman of ICRP, has circulated a position paper proposing certain changes in the concept and philosophy of radiation protection. The new concepts may make the philosophy of radiation protection more acceptable and cogent. What is the current status of the paper? Any comments?
Dr.Valentin: Professor Clarke's proposal, and some other suggestions, will be discussed at the IRPA 10 Congress in Hiroshima in May 2000. Health physicists and other interested parties all over the world have been invited to comment, primarily through the IRPA meeting. In October 2000, ICRP will discuss the proposal and the comments received. Based on that, I assume that we will be able to devise terms of reference for a Task Group which will draft new recommendations. The Clarke proposal will have served marvelously to initiate discussions. Judging from the many comments already received, positive and negative, my personal guess would be that the end result includes many parts from the Clarke proposal and many other parts which are quite different.
KSP: What will be the direction in which the ICRP will proceed in the next ten years?
Dr.Valentin: You have certainly touched on two of the major things: New fundamental recommendations are to be expected around 2005, and protection of the natural environment will be addressed more ambitiously. The new recommendations will, as usual, require detailed guidance which will occupy us later in the ten-year period. Another aspect, which we haven't talked about, is that ICRP is keen to increase its transparency and make processes and persons involved known. Our ideal is to be well known, well understood and well respected not only among health physics experts but also by environmentalists, users of radiation, and any other persons interested in radiation and in protection against radiation harm.
Showing posts with label K S Parthasarathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label K S Parthasarathy. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Dr K.S.Parthasarathy in conversation with Mr.Yuri Vishnevskiy
Dr. K S Parthasarathy, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Interviewed Yuri Vishnevskiy, the then Chairman of Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety authority of Russia (RF Gosatomnadzor) at Vienna during May 3-7, 1999. Extracts were published in AERB Newsletter
[Reproduced from AERB Newsletter Vol 12, No2, 1999]
[ Mr. Yuri Vishnevskiy is currently the Chairman of Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety authority of Russia (RF Gosatomnadzor). He graduated from the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute in 1966 and worked in different official capacities (Engineer, Senior Engineer, Deputy Shift Head, Shift Head and Senior Shift Head) of the Syberia Chemical Plant from 1966 to 1988. He was Head of RF Gosatomnadzor Inspection at Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant from 1985-1991. In 1990 he was elected a People's Deputy of the Russian Federation. Mr. Vishnevskiy was appointed Chairman of Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority of Russia in 1991.
Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy, Secretary, AERB interviewed Mr.Yuri G. Vishnevskiy, Chairman, Gosatomnazdor of Russia. (Gosatomnadzor is the State Safety Regulatory Authority of Russia) at Vienna].
Excerpts:
KSP: Mr Vishnevskiy, I consider it a proud privilege and honour to talk to you on behalf of the readers of AERB Newsletter on the functions and the activities of the State Safety Regulatory Authority in Russia. Your enthusiastic participation at the Peer Review Discussion on 'Assessment of Regulatory Effectiveness' at the International Atomic Energy Agency gave me ample opportunity to observe you closely. Your interventions on several occasions assisted us to focus on key issues in nuclear regulation. Which are the areas of responsibility of Gosatomnadzor?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Gosatomnadzor was set up in 1991 by a Decree of the President of the Russian Federation. It is the legal successor to Gosatomnadzor of the USSR. It is a federal executive body with responsibility for the state regulation of safety in relation to the use of atomic energy (except for regulation of activities connected with the development, production, testing, maintenance, storage, and decommissioning of nuclear weapons and also with the development, production and maintenance of military nuclear power installations. The aim of the agency is to establish a situation where the staff of the nuclear facilities, the population at large and the environment are protected from undue radiation risks and where uncontrolled distribution of nuclear material is excluded.
KSP: So the Gosatomnadzor has a wide spectrum of responsibilities.
We issue licenses to various users of atomic energy after ensuring that safety requirements are met. My agency organises and implements the superiision of the production and use of atomic energy, of handling of nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste. We carry out the supervision for non-proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear materials, physical protection of nuclear materials, nuclear installations, radioactive sources, storage facilities for nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste as well as the control of the observance by the Russian Federation of international and other agreements in force. We organise scientific research to substantiate the principles and criteria, the standards and rules for safe usage of atomic energy. We have responsibility
to inform the public and the state authorities about the safety status of nuclear installations, radiation sources and storage facilities. The Regulatory Agency operates from its Headquarters, Interregional Offices, Interregional Department for Information Gathering and Information Security as well as the Scientific & Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety. The interregional offices are located in seven regions and the Headquarters is in Moscow.
KSP : Administratively to whom do you report?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We report to the President of Russian Federation. My reports and observations are sent to the Government. I shall send my remarks and points of view to the ministry if my directives are not complied with. Parliament helps me to speed up the Bills.
KSP : In the Peer Discussions, one of the issues which was discussed at length was the independence of the regulatory agency. The need to develop core competence in house was highlighted. While a great degree of independence can be achieved by incorporating appropriate legislation, there is no easy way to develop independent core competence in a short period of time. Since financial resources are limited, it is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts. Fortunately in India we have the support of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre - a centre of excellence. ln fact many of us in AERB, spent several decades in BARC before joining AERB. What is your experience in Russia? Where do you get the technical and scienfific support from?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Probably our situation is a bit easier. Though our first nuclear power reactor was commissioned in 1954, the regulatory organisation was set up only in 1984. We have several research institutes such as the Kurchatov Institute, the Academy of Sciences and Institute of Minnatom. Besides these, we have our own Scienfific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (SEC NRS). As a matter of fact, at any time, there is some sort of competition between these institutions. We use this carefuly and effectively. We assign a task to one institution and request another institution to review their results. The SEC NRS co-ordinates all research efforts. Occasionally we send some projects to the Academy of Sciences.
KSP : Do you pay these institutions?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: (Smiles) Oh! Payments! all payments are made by the applicant. The Scienfific and Engineering Centre (SEC NRS) can hire any specialist. For adequate accomplishing the varriety of the problems the experts from other organizations are invited on the contract basis. SEC NRS renders the engineering and scientific support to the RF Gosatomnadzor; the research conducted by SEC NRS is the scientific ground for all other activities to support the Gosatomnadzor of Russia. The R&D works are directed to verify or validate the criteria and principles of nuclear and radiation safety used in the regulatory documents and for expertise. The SEC NRS carries out safety assessments of nuclear installations, radiation sources and storage facilities; participates in establishing the legislative basis in the field of the use of nuclear energy, nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste management, as well as in the works aimed .at providing the legislative basis for nuclear and radiation safety regulation (except for sanitary and hygienic standards and rules).
KSP: In India, the Regulatory Board assisted the Government in drafting the Factory Rules as applicable to nuclear facilities and installations and administers them in those installations and facilities. During the discussions with other participants who attended the Peer discussions at the International Atomic Energy Agency I found that this practice is unique to India. What are the other responsibilities of SEC?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : 'Child as it was', SEC NRS was involved in nuclear safety issues only. Now, the terms of activity include all peaceful nuclear power facilities. SEC NRS conducts scienfific research to substantiate the principles and criteria for nuclear and radiation safety. The Centre verifies and validates computer codes, generates the concepts of and makes necessary entries into the data bases for safety assessment of nuclear installations, for radioactive substances and radioactive waste. The Concept of the State Control and Accounting for Nuclear Materials, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, has been worked out with participation of SEC NRS.
Besides, SEC NRS conducts training of the staff, organizes workshops, seminars and
conferences, prepares for publication of various kinds of information materials and documentation authorized by the Gosatomnadzor of Russia.
KSP : Is the Regulatory Authority responsible for the safe application of radiation in the medical field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We do not consider how radiation is used by doctors. This is done by the Ministry of Health. But we issue licenses to use radiation equipment. We control the storage and transport of radioactive substances.
KSP : The Atomic Energy Act in India was adopted in the Indian Parliament in 1948. It was primarily meant to preserve natural resources or atomic minerals. In fact, radiation safety or nuclear safety requirements are not even referred to in the Act. This Act was repealed and replaced by the Atomic Energy Act 1962. A few Sections in the Act refer to safety requirements. Several rules under the Act have been promulgated over the years. How was the evolution of Atomic Energy Law in Russia?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : The Regulatory Board in the erstwhile USSR was set up in 1984. Then there was no Law as such. In the early years, there were some Decrees and Ordinances from the Party and Government. Gosatomnadzor was set up by a decree of the President of the Russian Federation in 1991. The competence, rights, duties and responsibilities of Gosatomnadzor and its officials are determined by the Provisions on Gosatomnozdor, approved by the President of the Russian Federation in 1992 and amended in 1993 and 1995.
KSP : What were the reasons for setting up the regulatory agency? Was it in the light of international developments?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : As far as I can recollect, there was no such reason. I am not able to indicate any specific reason for the development. After the accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station, we obtained more powers! Power to use sanctions, for instance. Chernobyl accident turned out to be a blessing in disguise!
KSP : But that was too expensive a way to secure regulatory power! I thought that everyone knew that nuclear technology at its current level of technology is an unforgiving technology.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Not really. Probably more important than the regulatory agency getting more powers is that the accident brought about important changes in the minds of those who operate the reactors. Greater awareness in the operator.
KSP : What was the strength of the regulatory agency prior to the accident?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Much less than now. Currently, the strength of Gosatomnadzer is 1000 plus; four to five fold increase since Chernobyl accident. Prior to the accident, there was no realisation that regulatory principles should be implemented fully in all nuclear power plants.
KSP: You mean that prior to the accident, regulatory principles were not formaly implemented in the nuclear power plants in Russia.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I think, you can say so. Now our regulatory responsibility covers all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining, fuel fabrication, reactor operation, reprocessing and waste management.
KSP : For the regulator to be effective, he should be as competent and knowledgeable, preferably more competent and knowledgeable than those who operate the reactor. How do you achieve this? Do you offer any training to your staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Yes, we have our training centre for training regulatory personnel.
KSP : Do you recruit young people to the regulatory agency?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : As a matter of fact, no new comer joins the regulatory agency. We recruit people of average age with experience in industry
KSP : What is the incentive for experienced people to join the regulatory board?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : There are different reasons. Stable job, stable government job. They have some advantages after retirement. A lot of people joined because of their interest. For instance, I myself came; my deputy joined. In principle we could have setfled down in reactor operation. But we concluded that we can improve safety. Nuclear power has future only if we reach a certain level of safety.
KSP: Mr Vishnevskiy, you have rich and varied expertise and experience and you are currently occupying the chair of the top regulator in the Russian Federation. Can you tell us about any unique and memorable era in your career?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Unique and memorable era! I was a Member of Parliament for some rime. I made speeches to my electorate! Then the situation was different. That was way back in 1990. 1 was elected from the region in which I was staying then. I was then serving the government.
KSP : Can government officials contest elections?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Government staff could contest elections then. Now there is a law against it. In 1993, 1 resigned as an M.P.
KSP : You must have enjoyed a high level ,of popularity?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : It was unique. I also learnt that life is not a bed of roses.
KSP : One of the important functions of any regulatory authority is to inspect the installations to ensure compliance with safety requirements. How is inspection of nuclear installation carried out in the Russian Federation?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We have the system of resident inspectors at the NPP sites. We post the group of five inspectors per site, one Chief Inspector and four inspectors. They belong to different disciplines: radiological safety, lnstrumentation and Control, etc.
In the regulatory authority, the licensing and inspection sections are kept separately. We assign inspection work to specialists, they visit the utility and make recommendations.
KSP : How did you enter the regulatory field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I attended a special technical course in technical institute which has special faculty working in the nuclear and engineering physics. I have graduated with specialisafion in management of Nuclear Power Plants. In 1966, 1 graduated in engineering and physics and joined a nuclear power plant. In 1985, 1 entered the regulatory field.
KSP : Whenever the issue of public awareness come up for discussion in the Peer Review meeting, you argued passionately in favour of various public information programmes. What is the role of Gosatomnadzor in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We keep contact with mass media, hold meetings in which representatives of the regulatory authority meet public organisarion, information agencies and private persons. In order to coordinate these activities we established the Interregional Territorial Department of Information gathering and Information Protection as a Public Relations Division. Summarised information on the nuclear and radiation safety status in the country is sent monthly to the main information agencies in Russia. The information is transmitted to the electronic mass media regularly. In case of an emergency they will receive updated 'fresh' information.
KSP : AERB publishes its annual report. We publicise the regulatory restrictions placed on nuclear installations. The fact that AERB - a government agency - can place restrictions on government nuclear installations appears to improve the credibility of the Organisation. The restrictions include reducing power levels of nuclear power plants, delicensing of crew and occasionally shutting down installations. What do you do to improve the credibility of your organisaflon? Have you taken any special steps?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : In Russia nuclear power plants are in the government sector. Nuclear industries (industries producing nuclear components and system) might also be the private enterprises. The credibility question can be easily solved. My prescription is: don't tell a lie, be honest, open and transparent. I invite Green Peace. I discuss safety issues with them. I get a lot of material from their placards and transparencies. Many such information, I receive, I may not get from normal government channels.
KSP : Where were you when the accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I was the then Chief Inspector at the Balakovo Nuclear Power Station. We were just finishing the tests to start up the reactor.
KSP : How did the people react?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Nobody could understand that such an accident can happen. We spend time investigating the possibility of such accidents in VVER, the Russian version of the Pressurised Water Reactor
KSP : Chernobyl power reactors had known deficiencies.
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Frankly speaking, there were some observations on the weaknesses of Chernobyl reactors. But nobody could foresee that
the deficiencies could lead to such a reactor accident. To create such accidents, many events were to be postulated or imagined.
KSP : How was the attitude of the staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Before the accident, the attitude of the management towards the nuclear power reactor was the some as towards a conventional power station. The only difference was that they know that one is 'a nuclear boiler' and the other 'a conventional boiler'. But after the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, there was clear change in the attitude. They started respecting the process of nuclear reactions.
KSP : What were the criteria followed to evacuate the population from the contaminated zone around the reactor?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : After the accident specific measures were taken. We measured the radioactivity levels at different areas and divided them into different zones depending on the radioactivity levels. On this basis, we decided from which zone people will have to be removed. We decided that people should be evacuated from all the zones in which they are likely to be exposed to more than 35 Bert in 70 years. (Bert was mentioned as the Unit it appears to be equal to rem).
KSP : Did the staff of nuclear power stations leave in large numbers?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Some people left. Others did not.
KSP : Has the accident affected the morale of the staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : No, it did not. Certainly it did influence some people coming to the faculty of nuclear science. Now we have fully recovered. Now there is competition among people!
KSP : If you have the option, would you advise your son to join the nuclear field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : My son is in the nuclear field! Earlier he worked in a nuclear power station. Now he is member of staff of Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.
KSP : What is the future of nuclear power in the world? There is a move against nuclear power in several European countries.
Mr.Vishnevskiy . It is a challenging question! Nuclear power contributes substantially to the total power generated. I don't think we can eliminate nuclear power completely.
KSP : What is the future of fusion power?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : It is difficult to say. Even if fusion power becomes reliable, the cost is likely to be high. I think it may take 10 - 20 years of further technological development.
KSP : India has consciously planned to set up a three stage nuclear power programme. Our ultimate goal is to make use of the vast resources of thorium available in the country as our uranium resources are modest. How is the programme envisaged in the Russian Federation?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: We have established the thermal reactor technology. We have reactors of advanced design under planning stage. We have considerable interest in breeder reactors. There are economic issues, fast reactor fuel is costlier. Currently, our breeder programme is at stand still. We have to continue R&D in this area to develop newer concepts. We are carrying out work in the liquid metal cooling system.
KSP : It is known that Pressurized Water Reactors become popular because lot of development work has gone into them while nuclear submarines were constructed. What was the background in the development of RBMK reactors?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Such reactors were primarily used to produce plutonium.
KSP : It is reported that Chernobyl nuclear power station had performed extremely well and had achieved record levels of power production. Was it one of the reasons for complacency? Was it one of the factors which led to the nuclear disaster?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Chernobyl power station performed well. Today we may say that complacency was one of the reasons for the disaster. The operators were known to be skilled specialists. Production of power was their main goal.
KSP : You have spent the earlier part of your career as a nuclear operator. Now you are Chief of the Regulatory Organisation. There was on going debate on the various factors that led to the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. The designers blamed the operators and the operators blamed the designers. Recently a physicist from Russia's Kurchatov Institute disputed the official version. An interview with him appeared in the January issue of Nuclear Engineering International. What is currently the official position?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Right in April, the Russian Academy of Earth Sciences published another reason. According to them, there was a localized earthquake close to Unit 4, the bottom structure of the unit developed a crack. There are different versions. Therefore, I cannot comment finally. Now we are closely reviewing all opinions.
KSP : How did the Laws relate to Atomic Energy develop in Russia?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : The Federal Law on the Use of Atomic Energy was issued in 1995.
This was followed by the Federal Law on Radiation Protection of Population in 1996. Earlier the practice used to be to issue Decrees or Ordinances. When I was a member of Russian Supreme Soviet, I took part in the drafting of the Low.
KSP: The regulatory mechanism in India evolved gradually. Till 1983, the regulatory work was carried out in house. The regulatory procedures and the mechanisms established have been the subject of review of high level committees of specialists. These have evolved and were strengthened as per national requirements. How was it done in Russian Federation. Is there any peer review of the regulatory agency?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : No, we do not have formal peer review of the activities of the regulatory agency. We function very carefully. We are able to show that we act as per the international requirements.
KSP : One of the most important areas of activities in the nuclear field is the management of radioactive wastes. What is the role of the Russian regulatory agency in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Our main role is in the development of scientifically well supported and justified criteria. Our role is that of an initiator. For example, before the establishment of the regulatory board, radioactive wastes were put underground. Today we do not provide a licence for it. We prohibit such a procedure. We require additional justification for the safety of such a method.
Actually, waste management is a common job. Regulatory agency work with the utility and the government will support the programme. Today we have started a programme to manage radioactive wastes.
KSP : Decommissioning of nuclear submarines is reported to be another important area. How big is the issue? What is the responsibility of regulatory agency in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Speaking precisely, we just started supervising the programme. This activity is with the Defence Department right now. Department of Defence is transferring the responsibility to Department of Atomic Energy. Then the programme will come under the supervision of the regulatory body. Currently we are developing the conceptual approaches ourselves. Decommissioning unused nuclear submarines is an important safety issue.
KSP : Exhaustive and dedicated review of certain areas is one of the ongoing activities of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Thirteen such reviews have been completed So for. Some of these are identical to the IAEA Operational Safety Review Team Mission. Do you organise such programmes.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We do conduct reviews of certain topics such as strength of containment matters connected with the new design of breeder reactors, Design of VVER for India among others.
KSP : Thank you very much Mr. Vishnevskiy. I am very grateful to you for sparing your time to convey your views on very wide ranging subjects.
[Reproduced from AERB Newsletter Vol 12, No2, 1999]
[ Mr. Yuri Vishnevskiy is currently the Chairman of Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety authority of Russia (RF Gosatomnadzor). He graduated from the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute in 1966 and worked in different official capacities (Engineer, Senior Engineer, Deputy Shift Head, Shift Head and Senior Shift Head) of the Syberia Chemical Plant from 1966 to 1988. He was Head of RF Gosatomnadzor Inspection at Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant from 1985-1991. In 1990 he was elected a People's Deputy of the Russian Federation. Mr. Vishnevskiy was appointed Chairman of Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority of Russia in 1991.
Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy, Secretary, AERB interviewed Mr.Yuri G. Vishnevskiy, Chairman, Gosatomnazdor of Russia. (Gosatomnadzor is the State Safety Regulatory Authority of Russia) at Vienna].
Excerpts:
KSP: Mr Vishnevskiy, I consider it a proud privilege and honour to talk to you on behalf of the readers of AERB Newsletter on the functions and the activities of the State Safety Regulatory Authority in Russia. Your enthusiastic participation at the Peer Review Discussion on 'Assessment of Regulatory Effectiveness' at the International Atomic Energy Agency gave me ample opportunity to observe you closely. Your interventions on several occasions assisted us to focus on key issues in nuclear regulation. Which are the areas of responsibility of Gosatomnadzor?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Gosatomnadzor was set up in 1991 by a Decree of the President of the Russian Federation. It is the legal successor to Gosatomnadzor of the USSR. It is a federal executive body with responsibility for the state regulation of safety in relation to the use of atomic energy (except for regulation of activities connected with the development, production, testing, maintenance, storage, and decommissioning of nuclear weapons and also with the development, production and maintenance of military nuclear power installations. The aim of the agency is to establish a situation where the staff of the nuclear facilities, the population at large and the environment are protected from undue radiation risks and where uncontrolled distribution of nuclear material is excluded.
KSP: So the Gosatomnadzor has a wide spectrum of responsibilities.
We issue licenses to various users of atomic energy after ensuring that safety requirements are met. My agency organises and implements the superiision of the production and use of atomic energy, of handling of nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste. We carry out the supervision for non-proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear materials, physical protection of nuclear materials, nuclear installations, radioactive sources, storage facilities for nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste as well as the control of the observance by the Russian Federation of international and other agreements in force. We organise scientific research to substantiate the principles and criteria, the standards and rules for safe usage of atomic energy. We have responsibility
to inform the public and the state authorities about the safety status of nuclear installations, radiation sources and storage facilities. The Regulatory Agency operates from its Headquarters, Interregional Offices, Interregional Department for Information Gathering and Information Security as well as the Scientific & Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety. The interregional offices are located in seven regions and the Headquarters is in Moscow.
KSP : Administratively to whom do you report?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We report to the President of Russian Federation. My reports and observations are sent to the Government. I shall send my remarks and points of view to the ministry if my directives are not complied with. Parliament helps me to speed up the Bills.
KSP : In the Peer Discussions, one of the issues which was discussed at length was the independence of the regulatory agency. The need to develop core competence in house was highlighted. While a great degree of independence can be achieved by incorporating appropriate legislation, there is no easy way to develop independent core competence in a short period of time. Since financial resources are limited, it is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts. Fortunately in India we have the support of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre - a centre of excellence. ln fact many of us in AERB, spent several decades in BARC before joining AERB. What is your experience in Russia? Where do you get the technical and scienfific support from?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Probably our situation is a bit easier. Though our first nuclear power reactor was commissioned in 1954, the regulatory organisation was set up only in 1984. We have several research institutes such as the Kurchatov Institute, the Academy of Sciences and Institute of Minnatom. Besides these, we have our own Scienfific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (SEC NRS). As a matter of fact, at any time, there is some sort of competition between these institutions. We use this carefuly and effectively. We assign a task to one institution and request another institution to review their results. The SEC NRS co-ordinates all research efforts. Occasionally we send some projects to the Academy of Sciences.
KSP : Do you pay these institutions?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: (Smiles) Oh! Payments! all payments are made by the applicant. The Scienfific and Engineering Centre (SEC NRS) can hire any specialist. For adequate accomplishing the varriety of the problems the experts from other organizations are invited on the contract basis. SEC NRS renders the engineering and scientific support to the RF Gosatomnadzor; the research conducted by SEC NRS is the scientific ground for all other activities to support the Gosatomnadzor of Russia. The R&D works are directed to verify or validate the criteria and principles of nuclear and radiation safety used in the regulatory documents and for expertise. The SEC NRS carries out safety assessments of nuclear installations, radiation sources and storage facilities; participates in establishing the legislative basis in the field of the use of nuclear energy, nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste management, as well as in the works aimed .at providing the legislative basis for nuclear and radiation safety regulation (except for sanitary and hygienic standards and rules).
KSP: In India, the Regulatory Board assisted the Government in drafting the Factory Rules as applicable to nuclear facilities and installations and administers them in those installations and facilities. During the discussions with other participants who attended the Peer discussions at the International Atomic Energy Agency I found that this practice is unique to India. What are the other responsibilities of SEC?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : 'Child as it was', SEC NRS was involved in nuclear safety issues only. Now, the terms of activity include all peaceful nuclear power facilities. SEC NRS conducts scienfific research to substantiate the principles and criteria for nuclear and radiation safety. The Centre verifies and validates computer codes, generates the concepts of and makes necessary entries into the data bases for safety assessment of nuclear installations, for radioactive substances and radioactive waste. The Concept of the State Control and Accounting for Nuclear Materials, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, has been worked out with participation of SEC NRS.
Besides, SEC NRS conducts training of the staff, organizes workshops, seminars and
conferences, prepares for publication of various kinds of information materials and documentation authorized by the Gosatomnadzor of Russia.
KSP : Is the Regulatory Authority responsible for the safe application of radiation in the medical field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We do not consider how radiation is used by doctors. This is done by the Ministry of Health. But we issue licenses to use radiation equipment. We control the storage and transport of radioactive substances.
KSP : The Atomic Energy Act in India was adopted in the Indian Parliament in 1948. It was primarily meant to preserve natural resources or atomic minerals. In fact, radiation safety or nuclear safety requirements are not even referred to in the Act. This Act was repealed and replaced by the Atomic Energy Act 1962. A few Sections in the Act refer to safety requirements. Several rules under the Act have been promulgated over the years. How was the evolution of Atomic Energy Law in Russia?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : The Regulatory Board in the erstwhile USSR was set up in 1984. Then there was no Law as such. In the early years, there were some Decrees and Ordinances from the Party and Government. Gosatomnadzor was set up by a decree of the President of the Russian Federation in 1991. The competence, rights, duties and responsibilities of Gosatomnadzor and its officials are determined by the Provisions on Gosatomnozdor, approved by the President of the Russian Federation in 1992 and amended in 1993 and 1995.
KSP : What were the reasons for setting up the regulatory agency? Was it in the light of international developments?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : As far as I can recollect, there was no such reason. I am not able to indicate any specific reason for the development. After the accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station, we obtained more powers! Power to use sanctions, for instance. Chernobyl accident turned out to be a blessing in disguise!
KSP : But that was too expensive a way to secure regulatory power! I thought that everyone knew that nuclear technology at its current level of technology is an unforgiving technology.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Not really. Probably more important than the regulatory agency getting more powers is that the accident brought about important changes in the minds of those who operate the reactors. Greater awareness in the operator.
KSP : What was the strength of the regulatory agency prior to the accident?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Much less than now. Currently, the strength of Gosatomnadzer is 1000 plus; four to five fold increase since Chernobyl accident. Prior to the accident, there was no realisation that regulatory principles should be implemented fully in all nuclear power plants.
KSP: You mean that prior to the accident, regulatory principles were not formaly implemented in the nuclear power plants in Russia.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I think, you can say so. Now our regulatory responsibility covers all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining, fuel fabrication, reactor operation, reprocessing and waste management.
KSP : For the regulator to be effective, he should be as competent and knowledgeable, preferably more competent and knowledgeable than those who operate the reactor. How do you achieve this? Do you offer any training to your staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Yes, we have our training centre for training regulatory personnel.
KSP : Do you recruit young people to the regulatory agency?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : As a matter of fact, no new comer joins the regulatory agency. We recruit people of average age with experience in industry
KSP : What is the incentive for experienced people to join the regulatory board?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : There are different reasons. Stable job, stable government job. They have some advantages after retirement. A lot of people joined because of their interest. For instance, I myself came; my deputy joined. In principle we could have setfled down in reactor operation. But we concluded that we can improve safety. Nuclear power has future only if we reach a certain level of safety.
KSP: Mr Vishnevskiy, you have rich and varied expertise and experience and you are currently occupying the chair of the top regulator in the Russian Federation. Can you tell us about any unique and memorable era in your career?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Unique and memorable era! I was a Member of Parliament for some rime. I made speeches to my electorate! Then the situation was different. That was way back in 1990. 1 was elected from the region in which I was staying then. I was then serving the government.
KSP : Can government officials contest elections?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Government staff could contest elections then. Now there is a law against it. In 1993, 1 resigned as an M.P.
KSP : You must have enjoyed a high level ,of popularity?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : It was unique. I also learnt that life is not a bed of roses.
KSP : One of the important functions of any regulatory authority is to inspect the installations to ensure compliance with safety requirements. How is inspection of nuclear installation carried out in the Russian Federation?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We have the system of resident inspectors at the NPP sites. We post the group of five inspectors per site, one Chief Inspector and four inspectors. They belong to different disciplines: radiological safety, lnstrumentation and Control, etc.
In the regulatory authority, the licensing and inspection sections are kept separately. We assign inspection work to specialists, they visit the utility and make recommendations.
KSP : How did you enter the regulatory field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I attended a special technical course in technical institute which has special faculty working in the nuclear and engineering physics. I have graduated with specialisafion in management of Nuclear Power Plants. In 1966, 1 graduated in engineering and physics and joined a nuclear power plant. In 1985, 1 entered the regulatory field.
KSP : Whenever the issue of public awareness come up for discussion in the Peer Review meeting, you argued passionately in favour of various public information programmes. What is the role of Gosatomnadzor in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We keep contact with mass media, hold meetings in which representatives of the regulatory authority meet public organisarion, information agencies and private persons. In order to coordinate these activities we established the Interregional Territorial Department of Information gathering and Information Protection as a Public Relations Division. Summarised information on the nuclear and radiation safety status in the country is sent monthly to the main information agencies in Russia. The information is transmitted to the electronic mass media regularly. In case of an emergency they will receive updated 'fresh' information.
KSP : AERB publishes its annual report. We publicise the regulatory restrictions placed on nuclear installations. The fact that AERB - a government agency - can place restrictions on government nuclear installations appears to improve the credibility of the Organisation. The restrictions include reducing power levels of nuclear power plants, delicensing of crew and occasionally shutting down installations. What do you do to improve the credibility of your organisaflon? Have you taken any special steps?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : In Russia nuclear power plants are in the government sector. Nuclear industries (industries producing nuclear components and system) might also be the private enterprises. The credibility question can be easily solved. My prescription is: don't tell a lie, be honest, open and transparent. I invite Green Peace. I discuss safety issues with them. I get a lot of material from their placards and transparencies. Many such information, I receive, I may not get from normal government channels.
KSP : Where were you when the accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : I was the then Chief Inspector at the Balakovo Nuclear Power Station. We were just finishing the tests to start up the reactor.
KSP : How did the people react?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Nobody could understand that such an accident can happen. We spend time investigating the possibility of such accidents in VVER, the Russian version of the Pressurised Water Reactor
KSP : Chernobyl power reactors had known deficiencies.
Mr.Vishnevskiy: Frankly speaking, there were some observations on the weaknesses of Chernobyl reactors. But nobody could foresee that
the deficiencies could lead to such a reactor accident. To create such accidents, many events were to be postulated or imagined.
KSP : How was the attitude of the staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Before the accident, the attitude of the management towards the nuclear power reactor was the some as towards a conventional power station. The only difference was that they know that one is 'a nuclear boiler' and the other 'a conventional boiler'. But after the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, there was clear change in the attitude. They started respecting the process of nuclear reactions.
KSP : What were the criteria followed to evacuate the population from the contaminated zone around the reactor?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : After the accident specific measures were taken. We measured the radioactivity levels at different areas and divided them into different zones depending on the radioactivity levels. On this basis, we decided from which zone people will have to be removed. We decided that people should be evacuated from all the zones in which they are likely to be exposed to more than 35 Bert in 70 years. (Bert was mentioned as the Unit it appears to be equal to rem).
KSP : Did the staff of nuclear power stations leave in large numbers?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Some people left. Others did not.
KSP : Has the accident affected the morale of the staff?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : No, it did not. Certainly it did influence some people coming to the faculty of nuclear science. Now we have fully recovered. Now there is competition among people!
KSP : If you have the option, would you advise your son to join the nuclear field?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : My son is in the nuclear field! Earlier he worked in a nuclear power station. Now he is member of staff of Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.
KSP : What is the future of nuclear power in the world? There is a move against nuclear power in several European countries.
Mr.Vishnevskiy . It is a challenging question! Nuclear power contributes substantially to the total power generated. I don't think we can eliminate nuclear power completely.
KSP : What is the future of fusion power?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : It is difficult to say. Even if fusion power becomes reliable, the cost is likely to be high. I think it may take 10 - 20 years of further technological development.
KSP : India has consciously planned to set up a three stage nuclear power programme. Our ultimate goal is to make use of the vast resources of thorium available in the country as our uranium resources are modest. How is the programme envisaged in the Russian Federation?
Mr.Vishnevskiy: We have established the thermal reactor technology. We have reactors of advanced design under planning stage. We have considerable interest in breeder reactors. There are economic issues, fast reactor fuel is costlier. Currently, our breeder programme is at stand still. We have to continue R&D in this area to develop newer concepts. We are carrying out work in the liquid metal cooling system.
KSP : It is known that Pressurized Water Reactors become popular because lot of development work has gone into them while nuclear submarines were constructed. What was the background in the development of RBMK reactors?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Such reactors were primarily used to produce plutonium.
KSP : It is reported that Chernobyl nuclear power station had performed extremely well and had achieved record levels of power production. Was it one of the reasons for complacency? Was it one of the factors which led to the nuclear disaster?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Chernobyl power station performed well. Today we may say that complacency was one of the reasons for the disaster. The operators were known to be skilled specialists. Production of power was their main goal.
KSP : You have spent the earlier part of your career as a nuclear operator. Now you are Chief of the Regulatory Organisation. There was on going debate on the various factors that led to the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. The designers blamed the operators and the operators blamed the designers. Recently a physicist from Russia's Kurchatov Institute disputed the official version. An interview with him appeared in the January issue of Nuclear Engineering International. What is currently the official position?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Right in April, the Russian Academy of Earth Sciences published another reason. According to them, there was a localized earthquake close to Unit 4, the bottom structure of the unit developed a crack. There are different versions. Therefore, I cannot comment finally. Now we are closely reviewing all opinions.
KSP : How did the Laws relate to Atomic Energy develop in Russia?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : The Federal Law on the Use of Atomic Energy was issued in 1995.
This was followed by the Federal Law on Radiation Protection of Population in 1996. Earlier the practice used to be to issue Decrees or Ordinances. When I was a member of Russian Supreme Soviet, I took part in the drafting of the Low.
KSP: The regulatory mechanism in India evolved gradually. Till 1983, the regulatory work was carried out in house. The regulatory procedures and the mechanisms established have been the subject of review of high level committees of specialists. These have evolved and were strengthened as per national requirements. How was it done in Russian Federation. Is there any peer review of the regulatory agency?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : No, we do not have formal peer review of the activities of the regulatory agency. We function very carefully. We are able to show that we act as per the international requirements.
KSP : One of the most important areas of activities in the nuclear field is the management of radioactive wastes. What is the role of the Russian regulatory agency in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Our main role is in the development of scientifically well supported and justified criteria. Our role is that of an initiator. For example, before the establishment of the regulatory board, radioactive wastes were put underground. Today we do not provide a licence for it. We prohibit such a procedure. We require additional justification for the safety of such a method.
Actually, waste management is a common job. Regulatory agency work with the utility and the government will support the programme. Today we have started a programme to manage radioactive wastes.
KSP : Decommissioning of nuclear submarines is reported to be another important area. How big is the issue? What is the responsibility of regulatory agency in the area?
Mr.Vishnevskiy : Speaking precisely, we just started supervising the programme. This activity is with the Defence Department right now. Department of Defence is transferring the responsibility to Department of Atomic Energy. Then the programme will come under the supervision of the regulatory body. Currently we are developing the conceptual approaches ourselves. Decommissioning unused nuclear submarines is an important safety issue.
KSP : Exhaustive and dedicated review of certain areas is one of the ongoing activities of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Thirteen such reviews have been completed So for. Some of these are identical to the IAEA Operational Safety Review Team Mission. Do you organise such programmes.
Mr.Vishnevskiy : We do conduct reviews of certain topics such as strength of containment matters connected with the new design of breeder reactors, Design of VVER for India among others.
KSP : Thank you very much Mr. Vishnevskiy. I am very grateful to you for sparing your time to convey your views on very wide ranging subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)