Gaining competent authority validation for design certificate: can both working arrangements and processes be improved to reduce regulatory burden and facilitate ongoing transports?. (1st December 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bowden, J
• Is Part Of: Packaging, transport, storage & security of radioactive material. Volume 23:Number 3/4(2013)
• Page Start: 217
• Page End: 220
• Publication Date: 2012-12-01
• Subjects: Radioactive substances -- Packaging -- Periodicals; Radioactive substances -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Radioactive substances -- Storage -- Periodicals; Radioactive substances -- Transportation -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 621.48
• DOI: 10.1179/1746510913Y.0000000022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1746-5095

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Competent authorities worldwide have the power to issue an extension to an existing package design certificate with the process appropriately termed timely renewal in the USA. An extension or timely renewal allows competent authorities sufficient time to challenge and review the safety of the package design, applicants to respond to questions raised and user's to continue to use the package. However, when requests are made to validate a design certificate of foreign origin, no similar processes or conventions exist, giving little flexibility to competent authorities. Several issues arose during recent European validation applications that had the potential to delay validation issue. If any significant delay had occurred, it had the potential to adversely impact transports. The present paper aims to encourage discussion surrounding the certificate validation process legal framework and promote the development of working practices and processes that readily support the safe, efficient and effective extension of existing validations to facilitate continuing transports. Several approaches are considered, with the proposal that the US timely renewal (or a combination of timely renewal with overlap provision) would seem be the ideal model to resolve this issue. It is also recommended that further discussion on this subject takes place via the invited contribution of members of the World Nuclear Transport Institute and the World Nuclear Association, with the purpose to, if deemed necessary, develop a UK proposal in connection with the UK regulator for change during the next International Atomic Energy Agency TS-R-1 or TS-G-1·1 review cycle.</p> <p>INS makes no representations or warranties or any kind concerning this article, express or implied, statutory or otherwise, including without limitation, warranties of accuracy or the absence of errors.</p> </abstract>