www.nrpa.no first technical meeting on emras ii - proposal for a new working group / sub group...
TRANSCRIPT
www.nrpa.no
First Technical Meeting on EMRAS II -
proposal for a new working group / sub group
Astrid Liland and Malgorzata Sneve, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
19-23 January 2009 in Vienna
www.nrpa.no
Use of assessment tools to meet IAEA basic safety standards and related requirements, as applied to nuclear legacy sites
Goal:
Establish a forum for researcher/modellers and regulators
where models for environmental impact and risk assessment, including remediation measures, could be tested for regulatory purposes
Proposed title:
www.nrpa.no
Use of assessment tools to meet IAEA basic safety standards and related requirements, as applied to nuclear legacy sites
• ObjectiveTesting assessment models’ suitability for demonstrating compliance with IAEA safety requirements as an input to IAEA regulatory programmes
Clear link to WG 1 (analysis of assessment schemes for regulatory purposes – NORM, facilities) and WG4 (model testing in real environments)
• ScopeThe scope is limited to the remediation of legacy sites, such as obsolete nuclear research sites and sites made obsolete by the ending of the cold war (e.g. uranium mining, sites of temporary fuel storage).
www.nrpa.no
Use of assessment tools to meet IAEA basic safety standards and related requirements, as applied to nuclear legacy sites
• Participants
Model developers
Regulators and their technical support organisations
Operators, where applicable
(Already shown their interest:
Russia, USA, France, UK, Central Asian countries, Norway)
• (Sub)Group leader
Astrid Liland, Head of section at NRPA
www.nrpa.no
Background – IAEA requirements & guidance
www.nrpa.no
Background – various models
• RESRAD, ASAM, ERICA Tool, Ecolego etc.
www.nrpa.no
Background – various sites
Andreeva Bay, Russia
Tobashar
Tajikistan
Dead Lake
www.nrpa.no
Use of assessment tools to meet IAEA basic safety standards and related requirements, as applied to nuclear legacy sites
Models are necessary to perform environmental impact and risk assessments before initiating remediation at contaminated sites.
Are the models developed appropriate for use under real regulatory situations?
Which model(s) is/are the best for solving the problems at a given legacy site?
Does the regulators interpret the model outputs (including uncertainties) correctly, with a subsequent sound application to site remediation?
Are the models fit for purpose to demonstrate compliance with IAEA safety requirements and guidance?
www.nrpa.no
Provisional tasks for the new (sub)WG:
• compare assessment methods for different areas (see next slide) - to allow for sharing of technical experience
• testing their fitness for purpose to address IAEA safety requirements, and by implication, their suitability for compliance demonstration
• provide information on the nature of waste and site characterisation data necessary to support the assessments
• provide feedback into IAEA regulatory programmes.
www.nrpa.no
Provisional assessment areas:
• operational releases (models to help decide how much can be released)
• contaminated land management (changes in radioecological conditions, optimisation, how much residual activity is safe)
• waste disposal on site (how much can be disposed according to facility design, near surface facilities, VLLW etc.)
• consequences of potential incidents that can be anticipated during remediation.
www.nrpa.no
Development of (sub)WG programme:
• The first step would be to establish a group of interested participants from various countries.
• Secondly, the potential assessment models to test as well as suitable case study sites must be identified.
• The group should develop a joint action plan based on the national requirements and capabilities.
www.nrpa.no
Interested?
Contact Astrid Liland or Malgorzata Sneve at NRPA