Assessing emergency situations and their aftermath in urban areas: The EMRAS II Urban Areas Working Group

¹ SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., 102 Donner Drive, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA
² Risø-DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, P.O. Box 49, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
³ International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria
⁴ Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ, UK
⁵ Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, K0J 1J0 Chalk River, Ontario, Canada
⁶ Nuclear Research & Consultancy Group, P.O. Box 9034, 6800 ES Arnhem, The Netherlands
⁷ VÚJE Inc., Okruzna 5, 918 64 Trnava, Slovakia
⁸ Charles University, V. Holesovickah 2, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic
⁹ National Radiation Protection Institute, Bartoskova 28, 140 00 Prague 4, Czech Republic
¹⁰ Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 150 Dukjin-Dong, Yusong, 305-600 Daejeon, Republic of Korea
¹¹ SOGIN S.p.A., Via Torino 6, 00184 Roma, Italy
¹² Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, BP. 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, Cedex, France
¹³ ETSIA, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra Utrera km 1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
¹⁴ Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, 2444 Seibersdorf, Austria
¹⁵ Centro de Protección e Higiene de las Radiaciones, A.P. 6195, La Habana 10600, Cuba
¹⁶ State Office for Radiological and Nuclear Safety, Frankopanska 11, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
¹⁷ Helmholtz-Zentrum München GmbH, Postfach 1129, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
¹⁸ Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, 85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany

Abstract

The Urban Areas Working Group is part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s EMRAS II (Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety) Programme. The goal of this Working Group is to test and improve the capabilities of models used in assessment of radioactive contamination in urban settings, including dispersion and deposition events, short- and long-term contaminant redistribution following deposition events, and potential countermeasures or remediation efforts for reducing human exposures and doses. The Working Group has developed three modeling exercises, which are designed to permit intercomparison of model predictions and, in one case, comparison of model predictions with measurements. This paper describes the scenarios and provides comparisons of initial modeling results. Reasons for similarities and discrepancies among model predictions are discussed in terms of the modeling approaches, models, and parameter values used by different assessors. Preliminary conclusions emphasize the value of explaining individual approaches and the importance of understanding the effects of different assumptions and parameter values on the modeling results.