风险评估为确定被天然放射性物质污染的场地或核遗留场地所需的补救行动的必要性和程度提供了关键投入。风险评估建模方法的选择,并且相应的工具集应适合评估上下文,考虑到复杂性,并明确与决策过程中要解决的问题相关。原子能机构第二辐射影响评估建模和数据方案第1工作组的目标之一是对选定地点的个案研究进行模型间比较,特别是,以帮助说明不同模型和方法作为决策过程输入的适用性。这个相互比较练习,其中包括对污染场地管理策略的潜在后果的分析,已经在两个地点进行了表演:Zapadnoe的前铀工厂尾矿设施,乌克兰,还有Tessenderlo的磷酸盐处理设施,比利时。几种模型和计算机代码已用于其中一种或两种情况:AMBER,GoldSim,NORM和Legacy网站评估,初步补救目标(PRG)-剂量依从性浓度计算器,和清洗-场外。评估探讨了使用不同评估框架和假设的影响,以及替代的建模工具,模型输出,并作为补救战略相应决策的输入。本文回顾了使用这些不同模型进行评估的结果的异同。它讨论了不同的方法如何相互补充,以帮助建立对支持决策的证据基础的信心。它还讨论了在给定的评估背景下不同建模方法的适当性。特别是在其中一个案例研究(Tessenderlo案例研究)中,修复策略基本上是由重金属污染场地驱动的,如镉。这对选择评估放射性风险并平衡其相对重要性与其他影响的最适当方法和情景具有重大影响。风险评估的整体方法的发展是,因此,突出显示。
Risk assessment provides a key input for determining the need for and extent of remedial actions necessary for sites contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive material or nuclear legacy sites. The choice of a modelling approach for risk assessment, and the corresponding toolsets should fit the assessment context, taking account of the complexity, and be clearly related to the questions to be addressed in the decision-making process. One of the objectives of Working Group 1 of IAEA Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments II (MODARIA II) Programme is to perform intermodel comparisons for
case studies of selected sites, in particular, to help illustrate the applicability of different models and approaches as inputs to decision-making processes. This intercomparison exercise, which included the analysis of potential consequences on the management strategy for contaminated sites, has been performed for two sites: The former uranium mill tailings facility at Zapadnoe, Ukraine, and the phosphate processing facility at Tessenderlo, Belgium. Several models and computer codes have been used for one or both of these cases: AMBER, GoldSim,
NORM And LegacY Site Assessment, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG)-dose compliance concentration calculator, and RESRAD-OFFSITE. The assessments explore the implications of using differing assessment frameworks and assumptions, as well as alternative modelling tools, on model outputs and as input for corresponding decisions on remediation strategy. This paper reviews both similarities and differences in the results of assessments performed using these different models. It discusses how different approaches can complement one another to help build confidence in the evidence base underpinning decisions. It also discusses the appropriateness of the different modelling approaches in a given assessment context. In one of the
case studies in particular (Tessenderlo
case study), the remediation strategy is essentially driven by the contamination of the site with heavy metals, such as cadmium. This has significant consequences on the choice of the most adequate approaches and scenarios for assessing the radiological risk and balancing their relative importance with other impacts. The development of a holistic approach to risk assessment is, therefore, highlighted.