1 / 7

For Astrid Liland and Malgorzata Sneve Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority

First Technical Meeting on EMRAS II new working group on “Reference approaches to modelling for regulatory compliance for legacy site management” Interim progress 21 January 2009 in Vienna. For Astrid Liland and Malgorzata Sneve Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority.

ckellogg
Download Presentation

For Astrid Liland and Malgorzata Sneve Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. First Technical Meeting on EMRAS II new working group on“Reference approaches to modelling for regulatory compliance for legacy site management”Interim progress 21 January 2009 in Vienna For Astrid Liland and Malgorzata Sneve Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority

  2. Proposed objectives: remain unchanged, more or less 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 ... To develop a reference approach for such assessments

  3. Participants contributing to discussion France Greece Iraq Italy Hungary Argentina Brasil Bulgaria Spain Australia UK Thailand Bosnia Herzogovenia Norway Advisors to government departments Technical Support Organisations Regulators No operators!

  4. Main interests NORM Phosphogypsum waste Monazite sand process waste Oil and gas scale waste Mine waste.. metals and coal Burning of fossil fuel Uranium mining and milling wastes Nuclear legacy sites from nuclear fuel cycle/military activities NW Russia USA (Hanford) Definite most people interested in NORM but not always as legacy sites. Relevant Russian and USA participants not able to be here...

  5. How to develop work plan..? Situations of interest Atmospheric discharges Liquid discharges • Fresh water • Marine Contaminated land • Releases from it • Building on it • Clearance and land use restrictions Disposal sites • Are they in acceptable conditions? IAEA BSS etc.. • If not, how to choose among options for remediation? Very diverse geographically and technically Is something missing..?

  6. For each situation it is decided to study:- Identify the quantities which need to be calculated to demonstrate acceptability • dose limits, humans and other biota • environmental protection standards • optimisation... (?) • Definition of monitoring requirements • Definition of next stage of site or waste characterisation Identify the processes relevant to their assessment • New brain storms • Review existing models • Review EMRAS I output >>Identify situations which are currently very difficult to regulate because regulatory basis does not exist or data to support environmental safety assessment does not exist, or models

  7. Then:- Compare alternative models for specific situations Compare models against independent data Develop guidance in light of the results However!!! General lack of datasets.... HELP!!!

More Related