MODARIA II Working Group 1 (Assessment and Decision Making) Summary of Work & Recommendations Ming Zhu, Ph.D., PE, PMP U.S. Department of Energy 4 th MODARIA II Technical Meeting Vienna, Austria 24 October 2019 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
MODARIA II Working Group 1 WG1 IAEA Scientific Secretary : WG1 Group Leader : Tamara Yankovich Ming Zhu (US DOE) T.Yankovich@iaea.org Ming.Zhu@em.doe.gov WG 1: Assessment and Decision Making of Existing Exposure Situations for NORM & Nuclear Legacy Sites • Focus on risk ‐ informed decision analysis with stakeholder engagement: Approaches Toolsets • Demonstration through Case Studies of representative NORM and legacy sites • Technical exchange and Leveraging to maximize impact on mission work Status and Remaining Work • Training to raise the standard for practice • Framework developed for risk ‐ informed decision and gain acceptance of desired outcomes analysis with stakeholder engagement • Modeling analysis is near completion for Case Studies • Key chapters of the WG1 report are prepared to document methodologies and Case Studies • Collaborative efforts and Training ongoing • Work planned to complete the WG1 report in 2020 IAEA • Ideas collected for follow ‐ up programme to MODARIA II
Summary of WG1 Activities • First MODARIA II Technical Meeting (TM) , 31 October ‐ 4 November 2016; Second TM , 30 October to 3 November 2017; Third TM , 22 to 25 October 2018; Fourth TM , 21 ‐ 24 October 2019, Vienna, Austria. • First WG1 Interim Meeting , 26 ‐ 30 June, 2017, SCK ‐ CEN, Brussels, Belgium, including field trip to the Tessenderlo Chemie (TCH) phosphate processing Site. • Second WG1 Interim Meeting , 7 to 11 May 2018, Jozef Stefan Institut, Ljubljana, Slovenia, including visit to Žirovski vrh (RŽV) Uranium Mine & Mill Tailings Site. • Third WG1 Interim Meeting , 20 ‐ 24 May 2019, Oslo, Norway with sponsorship from Norwegian Radiation & Nuclear Security Commission (DSA). • Two sites (TCH & Zapadnoe) were selected for Case Studies in 2016; A 3rd site (Brazil); was added in 2017 and a 4 th site (China) was added in 2018. • Three additional sites (LANL MDA ‐ B, Beaverlodge, and RŽV) were selected as examples for sharing good practices and lessons learned. • Modeling and analyses are either complete or under way for the Case Studies. • A number of publications/presentations . A WG1 Report is under development. IAEA 3
Example Sites: Good Practices and Lessons Learned Material Disposal Area B, Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA Ziroviski vrh Uranium Mine & Mill Tailings Site, Beaverlodge Mine/Mill Site, Canada Slovenia IAEA 4
Material Disposal Area B, Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA Site layout Distribution of Pu concentrations from samples IAEA A clean-up area at LANL MDA B 5
Beaverlodge Mine/Mill Site Closure Modeling Non-Human Biota Beaverlodge Mine/Mill in 1983 Management Framework 2012 Remediation Options Workshop IAEA 6
Ziroviski vrh Uranium Mine & Mill Tailings Site, Slovenia Jazbec uranium mine Site location Boršt mill tailings site IAEA Dose rate from measurements 7
The MODARIA II WG1 Framework • Risk ‐ informed Decision Making with Participation of Interested Parties • MODARIA I WG1 Report describes the decision analysis process • Three broad phases to decision analysis • Throughout all three phases and iterations through them, modelling and analysis provides a framework to organize and articulate discussions between decision makers, analysts, the technical remediation team and interested parties • The processes of modelling and analysis typically separate the issues into two distinct categories: Science & Values • MODARIA I WG1 Report discusses Multi ‐ Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) • MODARIA II WG1 focuses on the Bayesian decision analysis IAEA 8
The MODARIA II WG1 Framework • Key aspects of the decision analysis process: Roles and responsibilities of parties Ways of engagement with interested parties (from MODARIA I) Value systems Decision • Evaluating Options – Modelling • Decision Making , Exploring and Analysing Decision Process • Post-Decision Monitoring and Evaluation • Demonstration of the decision analysis approach IAEA 9
Sites Selected for Case Studies Grote Laak Winterbeek Zapadnoe Uranium Tailings Site Tessenderlo Phosphate Processing Site Ukraine Belgium Yunnan NORM Site, Former NORM Facility in São Paulo China Brazil IAEA 10
Tessenderlo (TCH) Phosphate Processing Site, Belgium Grote Laak Sludge pond at the Kepkensberg site Winterbeek Site locations: The facilities (orange); sludge basin (dark blue); waste water buffer basin (light blue); landfill (green); out of operation (dashed); discharge points to the rivers (yellow) Ra-226 contamination in the Winterbeek River TCH Phosphate Processing Facility IAEA 11
Zapadnoe Uranium Tailings Site, Ukraine Dnieper Konoplyanka Location of Zapadnoe tailings IAEA 12 Distribution of Rn-222 flux (mBq/m 2 /s) from the surface of Zapadnoe tailings in September 2009
Former Tin Processing Facility, Brazil Site layout IAEA 13 Storage facility
Yunnan NORM Site Case Study, China Coal mining and surrounding farmland Tailing and paddy field IAEA 14
Collaboration with the LeTrench Project • The LeTrench Project Team shared their draft report; final report expected in the first half of 2019. • WG1 and LeTrench participants would jointly prepare a section in the WG1 Report to summarize lessons learned and explore opportunities for using risk ‐ informed decision ‐ making approach in management of legacy trenches with limited data. Canada UK IAEA 15 Australia
Structure of WG1 Case Study Chapters • • Site and decision context Assessment outcomes • • Site description summary (key aspects – details, RESRAD/NORMALYSA/GOLDSIM/AMBER data, parameterization for an Appendix) • Key similarities and differences • Need for decision analysis • Potential implications of the outcomes for • Decision analysis process summary (where decision processes (not necessarily the site information available) decision which is already made, but whatever observations we feel able to make!) • Role of assessment calculations • Lessons learned for decision analyses • Role of calculations in original decision analysis • Summary of strengths and weaknesses of • Role of additional assessment calculations for this approaches for consideration in future analyses case study • Aims of the comparison process • Assessment approach (link to IAEA ISAM methodology; incl. scenarios considered; key pathways and receptors; approach to dealing with uncertainties; sensitivity analyses; etc • RESRAD/NORMALYSA/GOLDSIM/AMBER • Key similarities and differences IAEA 16
Accomplishments @ MODARIA II TM4 • Reviewed status of modeling and analyses of the Case Studies: Zapadnoe with GOLDSIM – Paul Black (USA) TCH with AMBER – Alan Paulley (UK) TCH with GOLDSIM – Paul Black (USA) Brazil – Eduardo F. da Silva (Brazil) Žirovski vrh Case Study with GiST, Paul Black (USA) and Branko Kontic (Slovenia) Linkage between Risk Assessment and Decisions, Branko Kontic and Tine B (Slovenia) • Updating the WG1 Report: Chapter 1, Introduction Chapter 2, Examples of Current Practices Chapter 4, Additional Considerations Chapter 6, Tessenderlo Case Study Chapter 7, Zapadnoe Case Study Appendices A & B (including details for the Tessenderlo and Zapadnoe Case Studies) • Planned steps to complete the WG1 Report in 2020 • (Plenary) Training Session on NORMALYSA Tool, D. Koliabina, Wednesday AM • Made recommendations for Follow ‐ up Programme to MODARIA II IAEA 17
Recommend
More recommend
