The IAEA’s Programme on MOdelling and DAta for Radiological … Documents... · 2013-08-27 · WG1 Minutes - 2nd MODARIA WG (FINAL).doc 1 The IAEA’s Programme on MOdelling and

WG1 Minutes - 2nd MODARIA WG (FINAL).doc 1

The IAEA’s Programme on

MOdelling and DAta for Radiological Impact Assessments

(MODARIA)

Remediation of Contaminated Areas

Working Group 1

Remediation strategies and decision aiding techniques

M I N U T E S of the Second WG1 Meeting held in Kiev, Ukraine

3-7 June 2013

1 OVERVIEW

The 2nd

meeting of IAEA MODARIA WG1 (the “Interim Meeting” or “IM”) was held in Kiev, Ukraine

from 3–7 June 2013. The meeting was hosted by Mr Valerii Kashparov of the Ukrainian Institute of

Agricultural Radiology (UIAR) at the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine

(http://uiar.org.ua/).

A total of 20 participants from 11 IAEA Member States (MS) attended the WG1 IM. A list of participants

is given at the end of these Minutes and a copy of the final Agenda is provided on the IAEA’s

MODARIA WG1 web-site in the folder entitled “2013 Interim WG1 Meeting, Kiev, 3-7 June 2013” (i.e.,

on the “Public WG1 IM web-page”) (http://gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/modaria/Shared%20Documents/MODARIA%20Working%20Groups/MODARIA%20Working%20

Group%201%20-%20Remediation%20Strategies/2013%20Interim%20WG1%20Meeting,%20Kiev,%203-7%20June%202013)

MODARIA WG1 members valued the opportunity to participate in a productive meeting hosted by a

prestigious institute.

Photographs capturing the WG1 IM were distributed by Mr Valerii Kashparov will be made available on

the website.

2 KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

The MODARIA WG1 Interim Meeting (IM) included:

A review of WG1 objectives, as defined during the 1st meeting of IAEA MODARIA WG1 (the

“Technical Meeting”) that was held at IAEA Headquarters in Vienna, Austria from 19–22

November 2012.

A series of 19 presentations that were focused on:

o International approaches being applied in decision-making and their application;

o Status of literature survey on decision-making tools and approaches that was conducted,

literature collected to-date, and gaps; Discussion of key information that should be

compiled by WG1;

o Case studies to test decision-making approaches;

http://uiar.org.ua/

http://gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/modaria/Shared%20Documents/MODARIA%20Working%20Groups/MODARIA%20Working%20Group%201%20-%20Remediation%20Strategies/2013%20Interim%20WG1%20Meeting,%20Kiev,%203-7%20June%202013

http://gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/modaria/Shared%20Documents/MODARIA%20Working%20Groups/MODARIA%20Working%20Group%201%20-%20Remediation%20Strategies/2013%20Interim%20WG1%20Meeting,%20Kiev,%203-7%20June%202013


o Identification of areas of mutual interest between MODARIA WG1 and other

MODARIA WGs (e.g., WG3, WG4, etc.); and

o Discussion of complementary initiatives on decision-making approaches and tools (e.g.,

PREPARE; Open Project for the European Radiation Research Area - OPERRA).

Recap of Actions and path-forward.

A list of the presentations, which is provided in the final Agenda and a copy the full presentations, can be

found on the Public WG1 IM web-page.

A summary of discussions and outcomes of the above Agenda items is provided in the sections that

follow.

In addition to the presentations given during the WG1 IM, four additional presentations and one paper

were submitted for consideration by the group and can be found in the folder for the Interim WG1

meeting on the MODARIA WG1 Members web-page (which WG1 participants need to log into to access).

The titles of these submitted presentations and paper are, as follows:

Decision Analysis in Nuclear Decommissioning: Developments in Techniques and Stakeholder

Engagement Processes (presentation by Mr Simon Turner from Magnox Limited, UK);

BAT Assessment in Practice: Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) Management in Magnox Limited

(presentation by Magnox Limited);

Decision Analysis in Magnox Limited: Developments in Techniques and Stakeholder

Engagement Processes (paper by Mr Simon Turner and Mr Stephen Wilmott); and

U.S. EPA Superfund Remedial Program’s Approach for Risk Harmonization when addressing

Chemical and Radioactive Contamination (presentation by Mr Stuart Walker of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, US-EPA);

Traffic light models for assessing and managing risks associated with contaminated sites: The

reasons to use them and the possible ways to take the walloon “soil decree” as an example

(presentation by Ms Maryline Moutier and Mr Henri Halen of Ram-Ses, Belgium, www.ram-

ses.eu).

The authors of these submitted presentations and paper will be contacted by Ms Tamara Yankovich to

determine if they would be interested in presenting their information at a future MODARIA WG1

meeting [WG1 Action 2-1].

2.1 Review of MODARIA WG1 Objectives

A review of the objectives of MODARIA WG1, as defined during the November 2012 TM of the group

was undertaken. Based on this review, the objectives are, as follows:

• Analyze the decision-making process based on experience gained from past radiological

emergencies and remediation efforts (e.g., post-Chernobyl; legacy sites);

• Extract lessons learned in terms of social, economic and environmental costs;

• Prepare case studies for comparison of decision-making models;

• Review and compare existing decision-aiding models; and

• Provide recommendations on how to improve the decision-making process for remediation

planning.

http://www.ram-ses.eu/

http://www.ram-ses.eu/


2.2 Summary of Presentations

2.2.1 International Approaches Applied in Decision-making and their Application

A total of 15 presentations were given on decision-making approaches being applied at various sites and

in various situations internationally, in addition to key remediation issues. A list of these presentations

has been provided on the Public WG1 IM web-page.

During the presentations, a number of topics were discussed. Key generic discussion points/questions

that were raised during the presentations were as follows:

• Does the scope of WG1 cover decision-making during the early phases following accidents (e.g.,

evacuation vs. sheltering), or just the longer-term remediation planning? In general, there was

interest in evaluating decision-making processes for all phases (i.e., early and later phases). For

example, the PREPARE tool is being developed for all phases of an emergency.

ACTION: Mr Jiri Hulka has volunteered to do a presentation on considerations for decision-

making related to early phases following accidents for discussion by WG1 at the

November 2013 MODARIA WG1 Technical Meeting (TM) [WG1 Action 2-2].

• In general both prospective and retrospective considerations are important. The approach used

for remediation planning may differ, depending upon the type of site or situation being

remediated (e.g., retrospective remediation of abandoned sites vs. operating sites vs. situations

created due to an emergency; prospective remediation for planned sites; etc.).

• Do we need to consider the land-use planning and end-state of a site in the early stage (at site

investigation)?

• Decision making should be delicately balanced between technical and non-technical aspects but

how safe is safe enough? Strategic choices for big social reasons vs. (potential future) harm to

environment and man?

• How does one determine if a decision is optimized? Have we done as good as we

could/should/want to?

• Decision-making processes should have a similar structure, regardless of the application, so it is

possible to learn from how decisions were made during all phases of an emergency.

ACTION: Mr Wolfgang Raskob will give a technical presentation on Multi-criteria Decision

Analysis (MCDA) theory, and a demonstration of his decision-making tool and its

application at the November 2013 MODARIA WG1 TM [WG1 Action 2-3]. At the

meeting, Wolfgang Rashkob will provide access to a MCDA tool, which is free.

• What are the similarities and differences in decision-making approaches for different

applications (e.g., mining, resource management, etc.)? What are they for different ecosystem

types and situations (e.g., contaminated sites, production sites, legacy sites, NORM sites, etc.)?

ACTIONS: Mr Michael Webster, Mr Martin Klukas and Tamara Yankovich will develop a

standardized matrix table summarizing the information on key decision-making

considerations (i.e., factors informing decisions) and issues to be extracted from the

presentations that were given during the November 2012 MODARIA WG1 TM and the


June 3-7, 2013 IM [WG1 Action 2-4a]. This will allow comparison of key information

used in decision-making across sites and situations, in addition to evaluation of

similarities and differences between the information considered, lessons learned and

recommendations.

All WG1 members (and possibly others, e.g., WG3 members) will be asked to review

the template to finalize it [WG1 Action 2-4b].

Each presenter will then extract the relevant information from his/her own

presentation and input it into the standardized matrix in advance of the November

2013 WG1 TM [WG1 Action 2-4c]. Other MODARIA WGs could also be asked to fill

in the template for their scenarios, as applicable.

Michael Webster will provide his more detailed decision-making framework for the

Beaverlodge properties [WG1 Action 2-5a].

Mr Sergey Fesenko will prepare a summary of applications of decision-making

approaches for Chernobyl sites (e.g., considering different ecosystem types) for

presentation at the November 2013 MODARIA WG1 TM [WG1 Action 2-5b].

• How can evaluation or weighting criteria be standardized between quantitative (e.g., technical)

versus qualitative (e.g., public opinion) aspects? The technical solution should be fairly robust

or similar. What is the case for more qualitative considerations (e.g., public opinion) and how

can qualitative information be captured and integrated with quantitative information? Is it

possible to do this?

How should different aspects that are considered in decision-making be weighted or prioritized

(e.g., health vs. technical feasibility vs. public perception) and how does this influence outcomes

with respect to the decisions being made?

How do we avoid confusion between value judgments and technical assumptions?

ACTION: A presentation on this topic will be given by Tamara Yankovich at the November 2013

MODARIA WG1 TM using decision-making approaches that have been applied at the

Gunnar Uranium Mine/Mill Site in Canada as an example [WG1 Action 2-6].

• Who is the “decision-maker” and how does this influence the outcomes?

• What is the balance between impact and benefit?

Don’t we need to apply resources in a more proportionate way and not as currently: K$ on mSv

(10-4

risk), M$ on microSv (10-6

risk or less)?

ACTIONS: Michael Webster will provide information on the process by which Cameco decided

to remediate the Beaverlodge properties in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, and the

cost-benefit analysis that has been conducted to weigh out different remediation

options [WG1 Action 2-7a].

Martin Klukas will provide information on the framework being applied to evaluate

remediation options for Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL)’s Chalk River

Laboratories (CRL) Site in Canada [WG1 Action 2-7b].


• How do factors, such as spatial extent, magnitude of impact, persistence of impact, etc., influence

decision-making?

• Should/could radiological and hazardous components be assessed on a common risk

management basis (using a holistical view)?

• To the extent possible, it is important involve local communities in clean-up efforts so they can

play an active role, while gaining skill sets and economic benefits from the remediation.

• It is necessary to pull together guidance on how the decision-making processes presented fit with

IAEA standards (Note: Best Available Techniques (BAT) may be controversial).

ACTION: Mr Volodymyr Berkovskyy volunteered to compile information from relevant IAEA

standards for consideration by WG1 [WG1 Action 2-8].

2.2.2 Status of Literature Survey on Decision-making Tools and Approaches

Following the November 2012 MODARIA WG1 TM, Mr Malcolm McKee (MM) conducted a literature

survey focused on MCDA (please see presentation on the Public WG1 IM web-page using web-link in

Section 1 above). A total of 80 papers on the application of MCDA were identified and distributed to

WG1 IM participants at the June 2013 MODARIA WG1 IM. The titles, reference information, and

abstracts from key literature were provided by MM and can be found on the Public WG1 IM web-page in

a document entitled “4b-McKee_MCDA&RemedLitSurv.pdf”.

In general, the papers covered topics that ranged from lessons learned following nuclear accidents (e.g.,

Chernobyl), application of MCDA to emergency planning and remediation (e.g., application to aquatic

systems), and other nuclear applications (e.g., environmental applications). A copy of the papers from the

literature survey will be uploaded on the WG1 Members web-page, so they may be accessed by all WG1

members upon logging in [WG1 Action 2-9].

During the WG1 IM, a number of key questions were discussed, as follows:

• What information should be extracted from the literature?

• Should the scope of the WG1 literature survey go beyond only the MCDA approach to decision-

making? To date, the literature survey has focused on MCDA. Should it be expanded to include

other decision-making approaches? If so, what is the best approach to accomplish this?

• Should well documented recommendations and lessons learned also be extracted from existing

information?

• In the literature review, were any models or approaches identified that could be used to test the

case studies?

• Are there any other gaps in the literature survey that should be considered?

• How can the outcomes of the literature survey be applied in practical situations?

To address the above questions, a number of actions were discussed, as follows:

• Mr Ian Swainson, Mr Eduardo Figueira da Silva, Mr Koen Mannaerts, Michael Webster, Martin

Klukas, Tamara Yankovich and Sergey Fesenko will review the abstracts provided by MM and

will summarize the key information to be extracted from the literature in a standardized matrix

for consideration by the WG1 [WG1 Action 2-10; related to WG1 Action 2-4a to 2-4c above].


• All WG1 members will review the abstracts and literature provided by Malcolm McKee and will

identify and provide missing documents and papers [WG1 Action 2-11]. A copy of the abstracts

can be found in the file entitled “4b-McKee_MCDA&RemedLitSurv.pdf” on the Public WG1 IM

web-page. A copy of the papers can be found in the working area for WG1 members in “McKee

Lit Survey”, which can be accessed by WG1 members by logging in.

• Once available, a list of literature gaps, as provided by WG1 members, will be compiled by Mr

Ian Swainson [WG1 Action 2-12].

• Volunteers will then be needed to extract information from the literature to populate the

standardized matrix (to be completed by October 15, 2013 WG1 meeting for discussion at the

November 2013 WG1 meeting) [WG1 Action 2-13].

2.2.3 Discussion of Key Information to be Compiled by WG1

In general, the importance of compiling information on available decision-making approaches, tools, and

processes both in a generic sense with respect to the key phases of decision-making, as well as from the

perspective of practical application to meet existing needs for a range of sites and situations, were

discussed by MODARIA WG1. To accomplish this, three approaches were identified:

Literature survey on existing decision-making approaches (e.g., MCDA) and identification of the

key phases of decision-making;

Evaluation of the key aspects of decision-making for a range of sites and situations; and

Utilization of post-remediation case studies to identify lessons learned from the perspective of

decision-making.

ACTION: Mr Koen Mannaerts will provide the diagrams and matrix that underlie his presentation (see

MODARIA Public WG1 IM web-page), which have utilized a standardized approach to

compare the key aspects of decision-making for a range of situations [WG1 Action 2-14].

2.2.4 Case Studies to Test Decision-making Approaches

2.2.4.1 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CASE STUDIES

To-date, two case studies have been identified for consideration by MODARIA WG1, as follows:

Post-Chernobyl remediation of contaminated lands in the Ukraine [Mr Valerii Kashparov, lead];

and

Dneprodzherzhinsk Uranium Legacy Site [Mr Oleg Voitsekhovych, lead].

Over the course of the WG1 IM, Valerii Kashparov and Oleg Voitsekhovych presented the above case

studies and next steps were discussed. Based on discussions, it was decided that WG1 focus will be

placed on developing a standardized decision-making framework based on literature and site/situation-

specific information as a first step. This information will then be used to develop targeted questions that

could be tested using the post-Chernobyl and Dneprodzherzhinsk Uranium Legacy Site case studies.

Next steps regarding the case studies will be discussed during the November 2013 WG1 MODARIA

meeting in Vienna. In addition, a joint session will be held with WG3 to discuss areas of mutual interest

between WG1 and WG3.


ACTIONS: Scheduling of a session during the November 2013 TM to discuss the Post-Chernobyl and

Dneprodzherzhinsk Uranium Legacy Site case studies in the context of a standardized

decision-making framework [WG1 Action 2-15a].

Scheduling of a joint session between MODARIA WG1 and WG3 at the November 2013 TM

to discuss next steps [WG1 Action 2-15b].

2.2.4.2 ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIES

During the MODARIA WG1 IM, two additional case studies were identified for future consideration by

WG1 to test decision-making approaches. These included:

Wild boar case study (by Mr Jiri Hulka / Mr Jochen Tschiersch); and

CRL groundwater remediation case study (by Martin Klukas).

ACTIONS: Mr Jiri Hulka and Mr Jochen Tschiersch are going to discuss the possibility of proposing a

case study that is focused on evaluating how decisions are made regarding the consumption

of wild boar by hunters. They will be prepared to discuss this further during the November

2013 MODARIA WG1 TM [WG1 Action 2-15c].

Martin Klukas will be prepared to discuss the CRL groundwater remediation case study at

the November 2013 TM [WG1 Action 2-15d].

Key questions/discussion points that were raised during the June 2013 WG1 IM were, as follows:

• Which models or approaches can be used to test the case studies? – [MCDA, ReSCA,

Environment Canada, fuzzy logic, Sergey’s model? Others? Freely-available tools?]

• Are there other scenarios that should be considered?

• Should a hypothetical scenario be considered?

• Could we do a “live” test of a case study with an “independent facilitator” using different

decision-making tools to see if we get the same outcomes for the different approaches?

• Would it be useful to consider organizing runs of decision-making tools or models by model

developers versus “informed users” versus non-experts to determine if the outcomes are the

same?

• Would it be interesting for different users to run the same tool to determine if they get the same

outcomes?

At the November 2013 TM, WG1 members will discuss the path-forward regarding the case studies in the

context of the information that has been compiled on decision-making approaches, frameworks, and tools.

2.2.5 Identification of Areas of Mutual Interest between MODARIA WG1 and other MODARIA WGs

In general, there is interest in applying decision-making approaches as a final step of scenarios being run

by MODARIA WG3. With this in mind, a joint session was held between WG1 and WG3 to discuss

progress made and possible next steps. Based on the discussions, it was determined that it may be a bit

premature for WG1 and WG3 to share case studies. It was, therefore, decided that further discussions on


path-forward will be held during the November 2013 TM, once more information on decision-making

frameworks and approaches has been compiled by WG1 in a standardized way (i.e., in a standardized

matrix table).

ACTION: Ms Catherine Ollivier-Dehaye (CO) will provide a standardized matrix table that will be

utilized to compile key parameters and aspects for consideration in decision-making from case

studies for review by WG1 and volunteers from MODARIA WG3 [WG1 Action 2-16a].

Mr Eduardo Figueira da Silva will present case studies from Brazil during the November

2013 MODARIA WG1 TM [WG1 Action 2-16b].

Tamara Yankovich to follow-up with WG3 to set up a joint session at the November 2013 TM

to discuss progress made and path-forward [WG1 Action 2-15b].

A presentation was also given to MODARIA WG8 at their IM that was held in Vienna, Austria during the

last week of May 2013 (please see presentation on web-page for MODARIA Public WG1 IM using web-

link in Section 1 above). The primary objective of this presentation was to request information and

literature that could be useful for consideration by WG1.

2.2.6 Complementary Initiatives on Decision-making Approaches and Tools

Two presentations were given on initiatives, which potentially complement the work being conducted by

MODARIA WG1. These included a presentation by Mr Wolfgang Rashkob on the European

Commission (EC)’s innovative integrated tools and platforms for radiological emergency preparedness

and post-accident response in Europe (PREPARE), and a presentation by Jochen Tschiersch on the Open

Project for the European Radiation Research Area (OPERRA) and specifically the platform to identify

future needs in remediation strategies.

It was also noted that the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety

Commission (CNSC) are currently developing an environmental protection framework, which may be

relevant for consideration by MODARIA WG1. MM will be providing a copy of the documentation

regarding the CSA and CNSC Environmental Protection Framework [WG1 Action 2-17].

2.2.6.1 PREPARE

The objective of the PREPARE Program is to close gaps that have been identified in nuclear and

radiological preparedness following the first evaluation of the Fukushima disaster. The scope of the

project will include a review of existing operational procedures to address long-lasting releases, cross-

border monitoring and food safety, and identification of missing functionalities in decision support

systems ranging from improved source term estimation and dispersion modelling to the inclusion of

hydrological pathways for water bodies. In addition, an Analytical Platform will be developed to explore

scientific and operational means to improve information collection, information exchange, and evaluation

of unplanned events. The intention is to set up the Platform on a scientific level and to discuss it within

the three years of the project.

Of specific interest to MODARIA WG1 is the work being conducted as part of PREPARE Work Package

(WP) 2. WP2 will provide a platform for information collection and exchange and will include the

development of knowledge databases containing information about historic events, their propagation with

time, and the successful application of countermeasures. In addition, scientific methods and tools will be

developed for an Analytic Platform to collect information, analyse nuclear or radiological events, and


provide information about consequences. The Analytic Platform will be a “living” tool that integrates

new information as new case studies are assessed to refine decision-making based on lessons learned.

ACTIONS: In general, it was agreed by WG1 participants that it would be useful to leverage efforts

between MODARIA WG1 and PREPARE WP2 to the extent possible. This will facilitate a

mutually beneficial relationship that will likely enhance the outputs of both groups.

Specifically, the follow-up actions related to this initiative are as follows:

Mr Wolfgang Rashkob will be meeting with the PREPARE Work Package (WP) 2 on June

13-14, 2013. At the meeting, Mr Rashkob will discuss the possibility of a joint meeting

between PREPARE and MODARIA WG1, along with possible timing for the meeting (for

discussion at the November 2013 MODARIA TM) [WG1 Action 2-18].

2.2.6.2 OPERRA

The objective of the OPERRA program is to build an umbrella structure that will ultimately foster the

international exchange and coordination of radiation protection research initiatives to stimulate dialogue

with and involvement of stakeholders and professional organisations. Of specific interest to MODARIA

WG1 is the work being planned as part of OPERRA Work Package (WP) 2, Task 2.3, which will be

focused on identifying experiences and lessons learned from existing exposure situations (e.g., Chernobyl

and Fukushima). Specific sub-tasks within Task 2.3 include:

• Sub-task 2.3.1 – Emergency situations;

• Sub-task 2.3.2 – Remediation; and

• Sub-task 2.3.3 – Health impact.

Mr Jochen Tschiersch will be participating in the Kick-off meeting for the Open Project for the European

Radiation Research Area (OPERRA) on June 17-18, 2013.

ACTIONS: During the meeting, Jochen Tschiersch will identify areas of potential overlap between

MODARIA WG1 and OPERRA where we could work together and will provide an update at

the next WG1 meeting [WG1 Action 2-19a]. In doing so, it may be useful to find out if

OPERRA members could identify relevant literature and case studies for consideration by

WG1.

Jochen Tschiersch will provide a list of key persons involved in each sub-task following the

OPERRA Kick-off Meeting [WG1 Action 2-19b].

3 RECAP AND PATH-FORWARD

During the recap of the MODARIA WG1 IM, there was a great deal of discussion on how to integrate

generic decision-making approaches and frameworks from the literature for practical application for a

variety of sites and situations. Based on this discussion, it was recognized that care will need to be taken

to ensure there is clarity in terms of how decision-making tools can be applied. During the recap, the idea

of taking a broader approach to identifying the key components of decision-making was discussed and Jiri

Hulka recommended a book on decision-making by Mr Jonah Lehrer called How We Decide.


ACTIONS: Wolfgang Rashkob is going to provide a technical presentation on MCDA and demonstrate

his decision-making tool during the November 2013 WG1 TM, so that WG1 members can

visualize how it can be applied [WG1 Action 2-3].

In addition, Wolfgang Rashkob will invite Mr Simon French, who is an expert on decision-

making approaches, to the next MODARIA meeting to give an overview [WG1 Action 2-20].

3.1 Key Activities

A draft work plan was discussed by WG1, which included the following key activities/aspects:

• Information Gathering on Decision-making Processes

o International Frameworks/Approaches/Tools/Models

o Key decision-making components of case studies

• Review and Standardization of Information (Matrix)

o Available international frameworks/approaches/tools/models

o Planned decision-making models (e.g., PREPARE)

o Remediation Case Studies

Presentations by Member States

Review of case studies (lessons learned; identification of decision chain; review

of outcomes of core decisions)

• Population of Template Identifying Key Decision-making Aspects

• Case Study Analyses

o Two Scenarios Selected (Chernobyl post-accident; Uranium legacy sites)

o Field visits to the Chernobyl and the Dneprodzherzhinsk Uranium Legacy Site were

organized by the WG1 and WG3 hosts on June 6 and 7, respectively. There was

participation by WG1 members in one or both of these field visits.

o Model outputs from MODARIA WG3 to decision-making frameworks in WG1 (joint

session during the WG1 IM; June 2013)

o Consideration of additional case studies (information is being gathered)

• Application of Selection Decision Models to Case Studies

3.2 Summary of Actions and Time-lines

A summary of the actions and time-lines, as discussed and agreed during the MODARIA WG1 IM in June

2013, is provided in the table below (i.e. “2-” Action items in the table below), along with the status of

actions that had been identified during the first MODARIA WG1 meeting in November 2012 (i.e. “1-”

Action items in the table that follows):


*WG1 Action

No. Action Lead Due Date **Status

1-1 Collection of available

documentation and information

on international and IAEA

Member State (MS) decision

making frameworks, approaches,

tools, and models.

All participants to

provide information

/ M. McKee (MM)

to coordinate

collection of

information

31-Mar-2013

COMPLETED (with follow-up

action identified) – a literature review

that focused on MCDA was

completed by MM and distributed to

WG1 members who participated in

the WG1 IM. This included a

PowerPoint presentation summarizing

the outcomes of the literature survey,

a Word document containing relevant

abstracts, and a copy of all the

relevant literature that was evaluated

as part of the survey.

Copies of this information are being

uploaded to the MODARIA Public

WG1 IM web-page (for the

presentations) and the WG1 Members

web-page (for the literature review).

As follow-up to this action, a broader

review covering approaches other

than MCDA will be undertaken by

WG1.

1-2 Review of documentation and

information on international and

IAEA MS decision making

frameworks, approaches, tools

and models.

All participants June 2013

(WG1 IM)

ONGOING – available information

was reviewed in preparation for the

WG1 IM, and was discussed at the

meeting, as planned.

As noted in the status of WG1 Action

1-1 above, further work is needed to

compile information on and review

frameworks, approaches, tools, and

models to complement the review of

the MCDA literature.

Based on this review, decisions will

be made in terms of the types of

information that should be compiled

regarding each approach and how it

can be captured in a standardized

template (see WG1 Action 1-4).

1-3 Presentation of remediation

issues of IAEA MS and decision

making approaches being

applied.


(WG1 IM)

COMPLETED – presentations were

given by each WG1 member

participating in the IM. Presentations

were focused on the status of

remediation issues and decision-

making approaches or tools being

applied to address them.

Copies of each presentation are being

uploaded to the MODARIA Public

WG1 web-page.


*WG1 Action


1-4 Development of a template to

capture relevant information

from available decision making

documentation in a standardized

manner.


(WG1 IM)

ONGOING – the development of a

standardized template was discussed

in the context of the information

presented during the WG1 IM. This

template will capture relevant

information from available decision-

making literature. The objective will

be to facilitate comparison between

approaches, as well as to provide a

template that can be used in the

evaluation of case studies using

available approaches for comparison

with how decisions were made at case

study sites.

The EC’s PREPARE programme also

has an interest in developing a

standardized approach to capture

similar information and contact will

be made with the group to determine

how resources may be leveraged to

meet the needs of both MODARIA

and PREPARE.

1-5 Contacting of PREPARE Lead

responsible for developing new

tool for application in

remediation decision making for

radiologically contaminated sites.

Tom Charnock /

Wolfgang Rashkob

November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

ONGOING – the idea of setting up a

joint meeting between WG1 and

PREPARE was further discussed with

Wolfgang Rashkob during the WG1

IM. It was decided that once more

information has been compiled by

WG1, a joint meeting will be

considered. It was agreed that it

would be useful to share information

on topics of mutual interest.

In addition, T. Charnock, who is a

member of PREPARE, is to contact

the person leading the development of

the tools on remediation decision

making for radiologically

contaminated sites, as part of the EC’s

PREPARE programme.

The objective of this interaction will

be to identify areas of mutual interest

(e.g. development and population of a

template to capture relevant

information from available decision

making documentation in a

standardized manner). Ideally, work

could be shared between MODARIA

and PREPARE.

T. Charnock will also find out if the

PREPARE group would be interested

in having an observer from

MODARIA WG1 at their PREPARE

kick-off or technical meeting. T.


*WG1 Action


Charnock and W. Raskob, who are

members of WG1, can provide

information to PREPARE on WG1

activities.

1-6 Compilation of information and

documentation on international

decision making frameworks,

approaches, tools and models

into the standardized template.

All participants November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

ONGOING - As follow up to the

WG1 IM, a request will be made for

each WG member to review some of

the documents on international

decision making approaches and to

input the information into the

template that was prepared under

WG1 Action 1-4 above.

1-7 Preparation of a case study on

post-Chernobyl remediation of

contaminated lands in the

Ukraine.

Valerii Kashparov 31-Mar-2013 COMPLETED - Valerii Kashparov

prepared a case study on the post-

Chernobyl remediation of

contaminated lands in the Ukraine,

based on his presentations given

during the first WG1 Meeting in

November 2012. T. Yankovich

distributed the case study to WG1

participants prior to the WG1 IM.

1-8 Preparation of a case study on

remediation of a legacy uranium

production facility in the Ukraine

Oleg Voitsekhovych 31-Mar-2013 COMPLETED - Oleg

Voitsekhovych prepared a

presentation on possibilities for a case

study on the Dneprodzherzhinsk

Legacy Uranium Production Facility,

based on his presentation given during

first WG1 Meeting in November

2012.

1-9 Presentation of the case study on


contaminated lands in the

Ukraine.

Valerii Kashparov June 2013

(WG1 IM)


action identified) – Valerii Kashparov

did a presentation of the case study on


contaminated lands in the Ukraine

during the IM of WG1.

At the WG1 IM, it was determined

that initial focus should be placed on

developing templates to capture key

information and questions from the

literature that can then be used to

refine the case studies. With this in

mind, the post-Chernobyl case study

will be revisited and refined during

the November 2013 TM.

1-10 Presentation of the case study on

remediation of a legacy uranium

production facility in the

Ukraine.

Oleg Voitsekhovych June 2013

(WG1 IM)


action identified) – A presentation of

the case study on remediation of the

Dneprodzherzhinsk Legacy Uranium

Production Facility in the Ukraine

was presented by Oleg Voitsekhovych

at the IM during the joint of WG1 and

WG3.

As noted with respect to WG1 Action


*WG1 Action


1-9 above, WG1 participants agreed

that the case studies will need to be

revisited and refined once more

information has been compiled from

the literature and a template

identifying key information has been

developed. This will facilitate the

development of targeted evaluation of

the case studies.

1-11 Application of available

decision-making approaches,

frameworks and models to the

post-Chernobyl and legacy

uranium production facility case

studies.

All participants 2014 WG1 IM WG1 members will be asked to apply

existing decision making approaches

to case studies to compare outcomes

and decisions that would result from

using different decision making

approaches. These outcomes would

then be compared to actual decisions

that have been made (as applicable)

and lessons learned.

1-12 Development of a survey for

distribution to other MODARIA

WGs, and to other individuals

and groups outside of

MODARIA that may have

relevant input.

To be determined 2nd

MODARIA

TM

11-Nov-2013

A survey will be developed for

distribution to other MODARIA

WGs, and to other individuals and

groups that may have relevant input.

The questions and information will be

structured based on what is learned in

reviewing the available literature on

decision-making approaches, from the

case studies, and through constructing

the standardized template in tabular

format to capture relevant

information. This template can then

be populated with information from

MS presentations, from the literature,

and from case studies.

2-1 The authors of the submitted

presentations and paper will be

contacted by Ms Tamara

Yankovich to determine if they

would be interested in presenting

their information at a future

MODARIA WG1 meeting.

Tamara Yankovich 31-Jul-2013 COMPLETED – emails have been

sent to Mr Simon Turner (UK), Mr

Stuart Walker (USA), Ms Maryline

Moutier (Belgium) and Mr Henri

Halen (Belgium) to determine if they

would be interested in presenting their

information at a future MODARIA

meeting and responses are pending. If

there is interest, presentations on the

submitted approaches will be

incorporated into the Agenda for the

November 2013 MODARIA WG1

TM.

2-2 Presentation by Mr Jiri Hulka on

considerations for decision-

making related to early phases

following accidents for

consideration by WG1.

Jiri Hulka November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-3 Mr Wolfgang Raskob will give a

technical presentation on MCDA

theory, along with a

demonstration of a decision-

Wolfgang Rashkob November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)


*WG1 Action


making tool and its application.

At the meeting, Wolfgang

Rashkob will provide

information on how to gain

access to an MCDA tool, which

is free.

2-4a Development of a standardized

matrix table summarizing key

decision-making parameters/

considerations that should be

extracted from MODARIA WG1

presentations.

Michael Webster /

Tamara Yankovich /

Martin Klukas to

develop a

standardized matrix

table summarizing

information to be

extracted.

15-Aug-2013 COMPLETED – a standardized

approach summarizing key

parameters and considerations for

decision-making has been drafted,

based on information extracted from

MODARIA WG1 presentations, and

has been distributed to WG1 and

WG3 for input.

2-4b All WG1 members (and possibly

others, e.g., WG3 members)

would then be asked to review

the template to finalize it.

WG1 and WG3 5-Sep-2013

2-4c Extraction of key decision-

making criteria and

considerations from presentations

that were given during the

November 2012 1st WG1 Meeting

(during the MODARIA TM) and

the June 3-7, 2013 WG1 IM.

Each presenter will

extract the

information from

his/her own

presentation and

input it into the

matrix.

30-Sep-2013

2-5a Mr Michael Webster will provide

his more detailed decision-

making framework for the

Beaverlodge properties.

Michael Webster 31-Jul-2013 COMPLETED – a “Beaverlodge

Management Decision Flowchart”

and a document entitled

“Beaverlodge Mine Site Path

Forward Report” (December 2012)

have been provided by Michael

Webster.

This material has been distributed to

MODARIA WG1 members by email

and is being posted on the WG1

Members web-page, which can be

accessed by WG1 members by

logging in.

2-5b Sergey Fesenko will prepare a

summary of applications of

decision-making approaches for

Chernobyl sites (e.g., considering

different ecosystem types) and

will present this information at

the 3rd

WG1 Meeting in

November 2013.

Sergey Fesenko November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-6 Presentation on weighting of

health vs. technical feasibility vs.

public perception, based on

Canadian example.

Tamara Yankovich November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)


*WG1 Action


2-7a Mr Michael Webster will provide

information on the cost-benefit

analysis that has been conducted

for the Beaverlodge properties in

northern Saskatchewan, Canada

to weigh out different

remediation options (information

to be provided to Tamara

Yankovich for distribution to

WG1).

Michael Webster 31-Jul-2013 COMPLETED – a document entitled

“Former Eldorado Beaverlodge

Properties – Remedial Options

Evaluation & Feedback Workshop”

(Project No. 1CC007.043, July 2012)

has been provided by Michael

Webster. The document summarizes

the key considerations in selecting

remedial options for the Beaverlodge

properties in northern Saskatchewan,

taking account of the outcomes of the

Quantitative Site Model (QSM),

stakeholder and community input, and

cost-benefit.

This document has been distributed to

MODARIA WG1 members and is

being posted on the WG1 Members

web-page, which can be accessed by

logging in.

2-7b Mr Martin Klukas will provide

information on the framework

being applied to evaluate

remediation options for Atomic

Energy of Canada (AECL)’s

Chalk River Laboratories (CRL)

Site in Canada.

Martin Klukas 31-Jul-2013 COMPLETED– a document entitled

“Overview – Pre-Project Initiation”

(Document No. 140-508110-OV-001)

has been provided by Martin Klukas.

The document summarizes AECL’s

decision-making process for

decommissioning and remediation

planning for the CRL site and

includes the following topics:

Project definition;

Stakeholder engagement;

Establishment of Project

objectives;

Identification of preferred

options and limitations

associated with each option;

Identification of risk associated

with a given activity;

Cost-benefit analysis; and

An estimation of “order of

magnitude” life cycle costs.

This document has been distributed to

MODARIA WG1 members and is

being posted on the WG1 Members

web-page, which can be accessed by

logging in.

2-8 Compilation of information from

relevant IAEA standards for

consideration by WG1.

Volodymyr

Berkovskyy

30-Sep-2013


*WG1 Action


2-9 A copy of the papers on the

application of MCDA from the

recent literature survey by MM

will be uploaded on the

MODARIA WG1 web-site, so

they may be accessed by all

WG1 members

Tamara Yankovich

will provide the

papers to Ms Claire

Halsall

31-Jul-2013 COMPLETED – A copy of the

papers has been provided to

participants of the 3-7 June 2013

WG1 IM in Kiev, Ukraine.

Files are being uploaded to the WG1

Members web-page, which can be

accessed by logging in.

2-10 Review of the abstracts provided

by MM and summarization of the

key information to be extracted

into a standardized matrix for

distribution for consideration by

the WG1 [related to WG1

Actions 2-4a to 2-4c].

Ian Swainson /

Michael Webster /

Martin Klukas /

Eduardo Figueira da

Silva / Koen

Mannaerts/Tamara

Yankovich/Sergey

Fesenko

30-Sep-2013 A review of the abstracts provided by

MM in the file entitled “4b-

McKee_MCDA&RemedLitSurv.pdf”

will be performed and key

information will be summarized in a

tabular form.

2-11 Review of abstracts and literature

provided by MM to identify and

provide missing documents and

papers.

All WG1 members 15-Sep-2013 A review of the abstracts provided by

MM in the file entitled “4b-

McKee_MCDA&RemedLitSurv.pdf”

will be performed to identify key

documents and papers that are

missing and require consideration by

WG1.

2-12 Compilation of a list of literature

gaps provided by the WG1

members.

Ian Swainson 15-Oct-2013

2-13 Extraction of information from

the literature to populate the

standardized matrix (to be

completed by October 15, 2013

WG1 meeting for discussion at

the November 2013 WG1

meeting.

WG1 volunteers 15-Oct-2013

2-14 Koen Mannaerts will provide the

diagrams and matrix that underlie

his presentation (see MODARIA

WG1 IM web-page), which have

utilized a standardized approach

to compare the key aspects of

decision-making for a range of

situations.

Koen Mannaerts 30-Sep-2013

2-15a Scheduling of a session during

the November 2013 TM to

discuss the Post-Chernobyl and

Dneprodzherzhinsk Uranium

Legacy Site case studies in the

context of a standardized

decision-making framework.

WG1 Leader /

Valerii Kashparov /

Oleg Voitsekhovych

30-Sep-2013

2-15b Scheduling of a joint session

between MODARIA WG1 and

WG3 at the November 2013 TM

to discuss progress made and

next steps.

WG1 and WG3

Leaders

30-Sep-2013


*WG1 Action


2-15c Jiri Hulka and Jochen Tschiersch

are going to discuss the

possibility of proposing a case

study that is focused on

evaluating how decisions are

made regarding the consumption

of wild boar by hunters. They

will be prepared to discuss this

further during the November

2013 MODARIA WG1 TM.

Jiri Hulka / Jochen

Tschiersch

November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-15d Martin Klukas will be prepared

to discuss the CRL groundwater

remediation case study at the

November 2013 TM.

Martin Klukas November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-16a Ms Catherine Ollivier-Dehaye

(CO) will provide a standardized

matrix table that will be utilized

to compile key parameters and

aspects for consideration in

decision-making from case

studies for review by WG1 and

volunteers from MODARIA

WG3.

Catherine Ollivier-

Dehaye (CO)

15-Sep-2013

2-16b Mr Eduardo Figueira da Silva

will present case studies from

Brazil during the November 2013

MODARIA WG1 TM.

Eduardo Figueira da

Silva

November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-17 A copy of the documentation

regarding the CSA and CNSC

Environmental Protection

Framework that is under

development will be provided by

MM to WG1 via the WG1

Leader.

Malcolm McKee 30-Sep-2013

2-18 Mr Wolfgang Rashkob will be

meeting with the PREPARE

Work Package (WP) 2 on June

13-14, 2013. At the meeting, Mr

Rashkob will discuss the

possibility of a joint meeting

between PREPARE and

MODARIA WG1, along with

possible timing for the meeting

(for discussion at the November

2013 MODARIA TM).


MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

2-19a During the upcoming OPERRA

meeting, Jochen Tschiersch will

identify areas of potential overlap

between MODARIA WG1 and

OPERRA where we could work

together, and will provide an

update at the next WG1 meeting.

In doing so, it may be useful to

find out if OPERRA members

could identify relevant literature

Jochen Tschiersch November 2013

MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)


*WG1 Action


and case studies for consideration

by WG1.

2-19b Jochen Tschiersch will provide a

list of key persons involved in

each sub-task following the

OPERRA Kick-off Meeting

Jochen Tschiersch 31-Aug-2013 In progress.

2-20 Mr Wolfgang Rashkob will

invite Mr Simon French, who is

an expert on decision-making

approaches, to the next

MODARIA meeting to give an

overview.


MODARIA TM

(3rd

WG1

Meeting)

* Actions identified during both WG1 Meeting 1 (19-22 November 2012) and WG1 Meeting 2 (3-7 June 2013) are presented in the above consolidated

table. Actions from Meeting 1 are preceded by “1-”, whereas actions from Meeting 2 are preceded by “2-”. For example, Action 1 from WG1

Meeting 2 is labeled as “Action 2-1”, etc.

**IM – Interim Meeting; TM – Technical Meeting

*** Note that actions may be refined or additional actions may be identified as WG1 proceeds.

3.3 Future Considerations

Future considerations that will need to be discussed and agreed upon by MODARIA WG1 members

included the following:

Would it be useful to develop and distribute a questionnaire to collect information from other

MODARIA WGs or other experts or organizations?

What will be the final outputs of MODARIA WG1? Review papers? Peer-reviewed journal articles?

An IAEA Technical Document? A combination of these?

3.4 Next Meetings

The next meeting of WG1 will be held at IAEA headquarters in Vienna 11–15 November 2013 as part of

the Second MODARIA Technical Meeting.

Two possible hosts for the 2014 WG1 IM have been identified and are being discussed. Meeting venue

will be finalized during the 3rd

WG1 Meeting (at the 2nd

MODARIA TM in November 2013 in Vienna).


Attending

IAEA Scientific Secretary Working Group Leader

Mr Sergey Fesenko (SF)

Assessment & Management of Environmental Releases Unit

Waste & Environmental Safety Section (Room B0761)

Division of Radiation, Transport & Waste Safety

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100

1400 VIENNA, AUSTRIA

Tel: +43 (1) 2600-22491

Fax: +43 (1) 26007

Email: [email protected]

Ms Tammy (Tamara) Lynne Yankovich (TY)*

Remediation Manager, Environment Division

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC)

#125 - 15 Innovation Blvd.

S7N 2X8 SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA

Tel: +1 (306) 717-5083

Fax: +1 (306) 933-7299

Email: [email protected]

Participants

Name / Email Organization / Country

Mr Valerii A. Kashparov (VK) (Meeting Host)

([email protected]) Ukrainian Institute of Agricultural Radiology (UIAR), UKRAINE

Mr Anatoliy V. Bobrovytsky (AB)

([email protected] / [email protected])

National University of Life and Environmental Sciences

of Ukraine (NUBiP of Ukraine), UKRAINE

Ms Dejanira da Costa Lauria (DC)

([email protected] / [email protected]) Instituto de Radioproteção e Dosimetria (IRD/CNEN), BRAZIL

Ms Alla Dvorzhak (AD)

([email protected])

Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y

Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), SPAIN

Mr Eduardo Figueira da Silva (EF)

([email protected]) Instituto de Radioproteção e Dosimetria (IRD/CNEN), BRAZIL

Ms Heleny Florou (HF)

([email protected])

National Center for Scientific Research "Demokritos" (NCSRD),

GREECE

Mr Jiri Hulka (JH)

([email protected]) National Radiation Protection Institute (SÚRO), CZECH REPUBLIC

Mr Martin Klukas (MK)

([email protected])

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), Chalk River Laboratories

(CRL), CANADA

Mr Aleksei Konoplev (AK)

([email protected] / [email protected])

Scientific & Production Association (SPA) "Typhoon", RUSSIAN

FEDERATION

Mr M. Lazarev (ML)


Mr Koen Mannaerts (KM)

([email protected])

Federal Agency for Nuclear Control/Agence Fédérale de Controle

Nucléaire (FANC/AFCN), BELGIUM

Mr Malcolm McKee (MM)

([email protected]) Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), CANADA

Ms Catherine Ollivier Dehaye (CO)

([email protected]) Electricité de France (EDF) – CIDEN, FRANCE

Mr Wolfgang Raskob (WR)

([email protected]) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), GERMANY

Mr Ian Swainson (IS)

([email protected])

Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre of Nuclear Innovation (CCNI),

CANADA

Mr Jochen H. Tschiersch (JT)

([email protected])

Helmholtz-Zentrum München GmbH, German Research Center for

Environmental Health, GERMANY

Mr Oleg Voitsekhovych (OV)

([email protected]) Ukranian Hydrometeorological Institute (UHMI), UKRAINE

Mr Mike (Michael) Webster (MW)

([email protected]) Cameco Corporation, CANADA

Mr Vasyl Yoshchenko (VY)


* IMPORTANT NOTE: Since this meeting took place, Tamara Yankovich left SRC and started working from

the IAEA in Vienna. She can therefore be contact via email ([email protected]).

mailto:[email protected]






















