Demonstrating the use of a framework for risk-informed decisions with stakeholder engagement through case studies for NORM and nuclear legacy sites

Abstract

The international community has come a long way in developing a consensus that the remediation and management of naturally occurring radioactive materials and nuclear legacy sites will benefit from the use of the framework for risk-informed decision-making. Such a framework should ideally integrate risk assessment and decision-making. The framework presented in this paper specifically addresses the needs and expectations in the wider socio-economic and environmental context, as well as a narrower human health context. The framework was demonstrated as part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s second Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments Programme. Three case studies, which have used or could use this integrative approach, are used for illustration. The first concerns remediation from uranium mining activities at Beaverlodge Lake in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, engaging stakeholders (also called ‘interested parties’) in the decision-making process on further options. The second case study suggests how decision analysis could support the selection of the best option for waste disposal for uranium ore processing at Žirovski vrh, Slovenia, taking into account a potential landslide and migration of waste throughout the adjacent valley in the event of flooding. The third case study presents the process and results of radiological safety assessment of the Kepkensberg sludge basin in Tessenderlo area, Belgium both before and after the disposal of material from remediation of the nearby Winterbeek River. It illustrates how such assessments could interface with decision analysis for the purpose of supporting the regulatory decisions related to future approval of a waste disposal option. Results show that formal stakeholder engagement in decision analysis provides a strong contribution to objective, robust, and transparent decision-making not only for radiation protection area but also in others where health and environmental impacts are of concern. A number of recommendations for future work have also been made.

Practical application of international recommendations and safety standards in the systematic planning and implementation of remediation of sites or areas with residual radioactive material

“…The issue of sites and areas contaminated with residual radioactive material covers a wide and diverse set of conditions and prevailing circumstances, making it highly unlikely that any two such situations will be exactly the same. This is further highlighted when considering that a combination of scientific, technical, social, environmental, economic, and political factors can drive remediation decisions to varying extents, depending on the prevailing circumstances (Yankovich et al 2014a, Kontić et al 2021. As a result of this complexity, in order to effectively progress in remediation of contaminated lands and in support of decision-making, it is necessary to take a systematic, stepwise approach in evaluating possible options in a given case.…”

Intermodel comparison for the radiological assessment of the Zapadnoe and Tessenderlo case studies with implications for selection of remediation strategy

“…In addition to consideration of the radiological and chemical contamination, the development and implementation of the remediation project for the Winterbeek river had to comply with the overarching goals of ecological restoration of the area and preventing the risk of increased flooding downstream of the remediation site (Kontic et al 2022). Moreover, a series of other factors had to be taken into account, including:…”

“…The results of the risk assessment process are an obvious input to the decision-making process, as they provide stakeholders with a technical view on the magnitude and nature of the radiological risks (e.g. IAEA, Strand 2006, US EPA 2008, ASN 2011, ICRP 2014, ARPANSA 2017, Kontic et al 2022. This then allows for evaluation of the need for protection measures and the selection of appropriate remediation options by identifying which exposure pathways and parameters are the most important (Liland et al 2011, EMRAS 2014.…”

“…This paper not only addresses the similarities and differences between modelling results for these two case-studies, but also discuss how the results may impact the decision-making process depending on the context. Further considerations regarding decision-making process are also detailed in Kontic (2022).…”