First Technical Meeting on EMRAS II - proposal for a new working group / sub group

1. 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

2. Proposed title: 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

3. Use of assessment tools to meet IAEA basic safety standards and related requirements, as applied to nuclear legacy sites • Objective Testing 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) • Scope The 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).

4. 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

5. Background – IAEA requirements & guidance

6. Background – various models • RESRAD, ASAM, ERICA Tool, Ecolego etc.

7. Background – various sites Tobashar Tajikistan Dead Lake Andreeva Bay, Russia

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Interested? Contact Astrid Liland or Malgorzata Sneve at NRPA Astrid.Liland@nrpa.no Malgorzata.Sneve@nrpa.no