territories workshop on: key factors contributing to the ... · radiological assessment conclusions...

TERRITORIES is part of CONCERT. This project has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 662287. This publication reflects only

the author's view. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

https://territories.eu/https://territoriesweb.wordpress.com/

TERRITORIES Workshop on: Key factors contributing to the overall uncertainties in radiological impact and risk assessment models

Objective

To discuss the key factors contributing the most tooverall uncertainties when linking source term anddeposition to ecosystem transfer, and to human andenvironmental radiological risk assessment models.

Workshop content

The details of the workshop in TERRITORIES D9.73 (https://territories.eu/)

Acknowledgment: Speakers, chairs of the sessions, moderators and secretaries of group work sessions and all participants

Session 1: Uncertainties in monitoring data and other data of importance for models• Interaction between experimentalists and modellers • Uncertainties in radionuclide source term

Lindis Skipperud (CERAD/NMBU), Almudena Real (CIEMAT), Martin Steiner (BfS), Marie Simon-Cornu and

Rodolphe Gilbin (IRSN), Alan Tkaczyk (UT), Justin Brown (DSA/CERAD), Brit Salbu (CERAD/NMBU)

14-15 Nov 2017. Oslo

28 participants (scientists, regulators, industry, experts on general public), from 10 countries.

Session 2: Uncertainties in models• Overview of modelling uncertainties• Analysis/discussion of the uncertainty budget and the

different contributions to the total uncertainty: a case study using CROM-8

• Attempting to deal with uncertainties within the ERICA integrated approach

• Overview of HARMO initiative including uncertainties• Uncertainties and their management in conventional radio-

nuclide transport and dose assessment models for nuclear waste management

• Ecosystem approach in the assessment of radioactive waste• Probabilistic analyses, sensitivity and uncertainty and

analyses, Bayesian methods

Session 3: Reducing uncertainties: How far should we go/ can we go?• Applicability and limitations of available radioecological

models• Terrestrial environmental transfer models for long-term

radiological assessment

Conclusions

Regulators Industry Research/Academia

Work Group Session 1:How can we better deal with uncertainties associated with input data? o Which uncertainties are associated with input data? o What input is important for the modellers to get from experimentalists? o What uncertainties are easy to identify? o How important are real life measurements – fieldwork data? o How does source term affect the uncertainties in models?

Work Group Session 2: Which uncertainties can be addressed by improved modelling? o How can experimentalists and modellers communicate and work

together? o How do we identify the uncertainties in model results? o How do we deal with uncertainties in models? o How to we reduce these uncertainties? o How can radioecology bridge to existing knowledge in related

disciplines?

Work Group Session 3: How do we reduce the overall uncertainties in impact and risk assessment? o Which overall uncertainties are associated with impact and risk

assessment? o How good are the models with regard to their specific purpose? o What limitations do we see? What is the implication of these

limitations? o Where can we put in the effort to reduce the model uncertainties?

What gives the best effect?

Conclusions

Norwegian Radiation and

Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA),

Norway




TERRITORIES workshop on: Communication of uncertainties of radiological risk assessments to stakeholders

Almudena Real (CIEMAT), Martin Steiner (BfS), Lindis Skipperud (CERAD/NMBU), Marie Simon-Cornu and Rodolphe Gilbin (IRSN), Alan Tkaczyk (UT)

Objectives

To discuss the implications and relevance ofuncertainties in radiological risk assessments (inlong-lasting exposure situations) for different stake-holders and work out how these uncertaintiescould be better communicated, obtaining feedbackfrom regulators, industry, scientists and the public.

Introductory session• Overview of uncertainties in radiological risk assessments• Summary of the TERRITORIES workshop “Key factors

contributing to uncertainties in radiological risk assess-ment” (14-15 November 2017, Oslo)

Details of the workshop in TERRITORIES D9.75 https://territories.eu/publications

Workshop content

28 participants (scientists, regulators, industry, experts on general public) from 10 countries

Acknowledgments: Speakers, chairs of the sessions, moderators

and secretaries of the group work session and all the participants

Session 1: Implications and relevance of uncertainties for stakeholders• Implications of uncertainties for regulators• Implications of uncertainties for the industry• Implications of uncertainties for scientists• Implications of uncertainties for the public

Session 2: How to adequately communi-cate uncertainties?• How to communicate uncertainties to stake-

holders• Uncertainty and risk management: a matter

of risk interpretation

Group work session 1:

o Definition of “uncertainty” for each group of stakeholders

o How do you cope with these uncertainties?

o Main concerns on how these uncertainties are being

addressed and managed in NORM and post-accident

contamination situations

o Specific stakeholders’ needs regarding reducing

uncertainties and how TERRITORIES can help to do so

Group work session 2:

o Main communication needs regarding uncertainties in

NORM or post-accident contamination situations

o Main communication weaknesses about uncertainties in

NORM or post-accident contamination situations

o Which communication tools or approaches do you

consider the most useful/appropriate/meaningful to

communicate uncertainties?

Regulators Industry

Scientists Public

Conclusions



Norway




TERRITORIES workshop on:

Multidisciplinary forum to discuss the scientific basis for reducing uncertainties and improving risk assessment

Almudena Real, Juan Carlos Mora , Danyl Pérez-Sánchez (CIEMAT), Martin Steiner (BfS), Marie Simon-Cornu (IRSN), Justin Smith (PHE), Jordi Vives i Batlle (SCK•CEN), Alan Tkaczyk (UT)

Objective

To get feedback from experts in different scientific disciplines on the application of the two guidance documents being developed in TERRITORIES: (i) Design of environmental monitoring for dose assessment and for support to remediation; (ii) Select the appro-priate level of complexity in models.

Introductory session• Introduction of TERRITORIES sub-subtask 9.3.1 • Introduction to case studies and scenario-related uncertainties• Introduction of the Fukushima case study • Introduction of the Belgian NORM observatory site case study

Details of the workshop in TERRITORIES D9.74 Presentations in: https://territories.eu

Workshop content

Acknowledgments: Speakers, chairs of the sessions, moderators and secretaries of the group work sessions and the participants

13-14 June 2018, Madrid (Spain)

26 participants from 9 countries, including 8 experts in various disciplines not directly related with the TERRITORIES project

Session 3: Quantifying model improvement• Scene setting • Quantifying improvement achieved by a process-based

approach for predicting Cs-137 transfer in Fukushima forests (2011-2016)

Session 2: Conceptual model uncertainty• Scene setting• Model-related uncertainties when applying process-based

models to a radioecological observatory (e.g. the Belgian NORM observatory site)

• About uncertainties of non-radioactive atmospheric pollution modelling

• Reducing the uncertainties of atmospheric dispersion modelling using geostatistical techniques

Session 1: Sampling and monitoring uncertainty • Scene setting • Sampling procedures in routine monitoring: Purpose of the

monitoring campaign• Sampling and monitoring uncertainties associated with the

Water Framework Directive• Ambient dose equivalent monitoring in the Belgian NORM

observatory site • Organisation of environmental monitoring: Lessons learnt

from Fukushima• A multiscale Bayesian data integration approach for mapping

air dose rates around the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP• Optimizing flight-line distance for characterizing contami-

nated soil, an application of geostatistics; case-study of Fukushima nuclear disaster, 2011

Conclusions

Group work on sampling and monitoring uncertainty• Purposes of sampling and monitoring: Use of the results obtained • To what extent does spatial scale impact on design of sampling and

monitoring programmes?• How to optimise a monitoring programme to adequately characterise

the variability of the contamination? • What are your recommendations for achieving representative

sampling and monitoring results?• Components of uncertainty and variability important in your model

Group work on conceptual model uncertainty & quantifyingmodel improvementoWhere does "conceptual uncertainty" play a role in your field?oHow can you be sure that your model represents reality?oWhat does "model quality" mean to you in your field?oHow to measure an improvement in the quality of a model? Is a single

number sufficient to quantify model quality?oModel complexity influence on parameter and conceptual uncertainty

Working group 3 Working group 4

Working group 1 Working group 2



Norway




TERRITORIES Workshop on: Assessing risks from radioactive legacy sites and how to better present uncertain information

Almudena Real (CIEMAT), Kelly Jones (PHE), Marie Simon-Cornu (IRSN), Juan Carlos Mora (CIEMAT), Wayne Oatway and Tiberio Cabianca (PHE), Alan Tkaczyk (UT), Pascal Croüail (CEPN)

Objective

To discuss the risk assessment process as applied to radioactively contaminated legacy sites and howto better present the assessment findings and associated uncertainties to stakeholders.

Case Studies Session

• Hunting for particles amongst the grains of sand

• What information do we need?

• Sellafield particles - what’s the story?

Early Stage Researchers Session

• 32% of the attendees were students and early careerscientists (from that group 87% were not involved inTERRITORIES).

• 25 TERRITORIES grants for young scientists andstudents: 18 students from UK Universities; 1 studentfrom the University of Technology Akure (Nigeria); 1student from the Center for Ecological-NoosphereStudies (Armenia) and 4 TERRITORIES’ young scientists.

Introductory Session

• TERRITORIES introduction and scope of the workshop

• Protecting the public against radiations: Assessing the dose

• What about the environment? Impact on non-human biota

• What do we mean by uncertainty when assessing the dose?

• Regulator’s concerns – what do we want to see and how

confident do we need to be?

• How do we control natural radiation – NORM? The Belgian

experience

• Public Concerns

Round table: Define what is meant by “Uncertain-

ties” in the context of decision-making

o What is your definition of uncertainty?

o How should information to the public on

uncertainty be presented?

o Is uncertainty in different parameters perceived

differently?

Round table From Science to Policy

o How should new scientific finds be communicated

to decision-makers to change the policy?

o Do politicians ignore experts?

Acknowledgments: Speakers, chairs of the sessions and round tables,

panellists and all the participants, especially the young researchers.

100 participants from 15 countries © Mariana Costa (PHE) with special thanks to the Provost and Fellows of The Queen’s College

19 - 20 March 2019, Oxford

Workshop content

All the information about the workshop will be available in D9.76 (End November 2019). Presentations in: https://territories.eu

Conclusions



Norway

territories workshop on: key factors contributing to the ... · radiological assessment conclusions...

Documents