Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 4. P. 54–57

Justification of Remediation Criteria of Uranium Legacy Sites

A.V. Titov, N.K. Shandala, Yu.S. Belskikh, D.V. Isaev, М.P. Semenova,
T.A. Doronieva, K.Yu. Oskina, Yu.V. Gushchina 

A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia

Contact person:  Alexey Viktorovich Titov: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Purpose: To present approaches to establishing the criteria for remediation of sites contaminated due to past activities of uranium mining and milling facilities. These facilities are considered today as uranium legacy.

Results: This paper presents the justified reference levels expressed in terms of annual effective dose values, which are recommended for using as remediation criteria for sites contaminated due to past activities of uranium mining and milling facilities (uranium legacy sites). 

Depending on further use of the sites after remediation, these criteria range from 1 µSv/year, in case of temporary presence of the population, to 10 µSv/year, in case of permanent residence of the population and conducting economic activities.

Conclusions: In accordance with the international basic safety standards, accepted more than 10 years ago, exposure situations from radioactive material retained from previous activities refer to the existing exposure situation.

Nevertheless, neither Federal Law “On Radiation Safety of the Population” nor Radiation Safety Standards have so far introduced terms “existing exposure situation” covering exposure at nuclear and uranium legacy sites and “reference level”, which is used to assure radiation safety of the population living at legacy sites or using these sites for the purpose of the economic activities.

Key words: uranium legacy, remediation criteria, site using areas, natural radionuclides, radioactive contamination, remediation, past activities, manmade radionuclides, specific activity

For citation: Titov AV, Shandala NK, Belskikh YuS, Isaev DV, Semenova МP, Doronieva TA, Oskina KYu, Gushchina YuV Justification of Remediation Criteria of Uranium Legacy Sites. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety 2021;66(4):54-57.

DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-4-54-57



1. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On Approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear and Radiation Safety of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025 and Beyond" Moscow, Kremlin. October 13, 2018 N 585. (In Russian)].

2. Romanovich IK, Stamat IP, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV. Criteria for rehabilitation of facilities and territories contaminated with radionuclides as a result of past activities: Part 1. The choice of indicators for justification of the criteria for rehabilitation. Radiation Hygiene. 2016;9(4):6-14. (In Russian).

3. Titov AV, Shandala NK, Isaev DV, Semenova МP, Seregin VА, Belskikh YuS, Ostapchuk TV, Chernobaev AS. Assessment of the Public Radiation Protection and Economic Activity Safety in the Area of the Developed Uranium Deposit. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2020;65(2):11–16. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2020-65-2-11-16. (In Russian).

4. Decision of the CIS Economic Council on the report "Remediation of the territories of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States affected by uranium production" (Together with the Working Group on the preparation of the Report) (Adopted in Moscow on December 27, 2006). (In Russian).

5. ICRP Publication 103. Translation from English / Kiselev MF, Shandala NK. general editors. M.: Publ. JCS PKF «Alana», 2009. (In Russian). 

6. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. General safety requirements, part 3. IAEA. Vienna, 2015. (In Russian).

7. Policy and strategies for environmental remediation. IAEA nuclear energy series no. NW-G-3.1 - Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2015:p. 48.

8. SanPiN Radiation Protection of the population living at the areas of peaceful nuclear explosions (1965 - 1988). Health rules and regulations. (In Russian).

9. SanPiN Health Physics Requirements to Limit Public Exposure due to Natural Radiation Sources. (In Russian). 

10. SanPiN Health Physics Requirements for Safety and Nutritional Value of Food. (In Russian).

11. Stamat IP, Kormanovskaya TA, Gorskiy GA. Russian Federation population radiation protection during the exposure from natural ionizing irradiation sources: modern state and directions for development and optimization. Radiation hygiene. 2014;7(1):54-62. (In Russian).

12. Sources of radiation exposure for the Russian population ( (In Russian).

13. Shandala NK, Titov AV, Isaev DV, Semenova МP, Seregin VA, Ostapchuk TV, Shlygin VV, Starinsky VG, Starinskaya RA. The impact assessment of the heavy rain consequences on the radiation situation around the shaft-16 of the former ALMAZ enterprize. Medicine of Extreme Situations. 2017;2 (60):202-207. (In Russian). 

14. Shandala NK, Isaev DV, Gimadova TI, Kiselev SM, Semenova MP, Seregin VA, Titov AV, Zolotukhina SB, Zhuravleva LA, Khohlova EA. Current Radiation Situation in Krasnokamensk. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015;60(6):10–14. (In Russian)].

15. Release of sites from regulatory control on termination of practices. Safety guide no. WS-G-5.1.Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2006;42 р. (In Russian).

16. CARE.Final Report. Prepared by Hildegarde Vandenhove, Andrew Bousher, Per Hedemann Jensen,Duncan Jackson, Barbara Lambers, Theo Zeevaert. For European Commission DG XI Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection under contract 96-ET-006. September 1999.

17. Shandala NK, Kiselev SM, Titov AV, Semenova MP, Seregin VA. Enhancing the regulatory framework during the supervision of nuclear legacy sites. Ed.: Uiba V. and Samoilov A. http://фцп-ярб (In Russian)].

 PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Financing. The study had no sponsorship.

Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.

Article received: 16.02.2021. 

Accepted for publication: 20.04.2021.