Modelling of the radiological impact of radioactive waste

1,43

MB

dumping in the Arctic Seas

170

stron

4732

ID

International Atomic Energy Agency

2003

rok

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION. 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Rationale for establishing IASAP 3

1.3. Role and objectives of the Modelling and Dose Assessment Group. 5

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA . 7

2.1. General oceanographic and geophysical description . 7

2.1.1. A Novaya Zemlya Bay. 7

2.1.2. Kara Sea . 7

2.1.3. Barents Sea. 15

2.1.4. The Arctic Ocean . 17

2.1.5. Ice cover and ice transport . 18

2.1.6. Other features. 19

2.2. Barents and Kara Seas ecosystems 19

2.2.1. Novaya Zemlya Fjord. 19

2.2.2. Ecological characteristics of the Kara Sea . 20

2.2.3. Ecological characteristics of the Barents Sea. 23

2.3. Human populations 33

2.3.1. A demographic description of the Russian territories adjacent to the Barents and Kara Seas

33

2.3.2. Population distribution and density . 33

2.3.3. Nationalities of the population in the regions adjacent to the Barents and Kara Seas. 34

2.3.4. Economic activities of the natives in the western part of the Russian Arctic 34

2.3.5. Peculiarities of the diet of the natives in the western part of the Russian Arctic 35

3. MODEL DESCRIPTION 37

3.1. Models used in IASAP work . 37

3.1.1. Model descriptions. 37

3.1.2. Validation and verification processes 39

3.2. Detailed model descriptions 39

3.2.1. Compartmental models 39

3.2.2. Hydrodynamic models . 47

3.2.3. Modified compartment model 51

3.2.4. Summary 53

4. MODEL INTER-COMPARISON 55

4.1. Source term and release patterns . 55

4.2. Prediction endpoints 56

4.3. Results and analysis of model inter-comparisons 58

4.3.1. Results and analysis of model inter-comparisons 75

4.4. Summary of benchmark findings. 89

4.5. Sensitivity analysis on sediment 93

4.5.1. Discussion 94

5. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 101

5.1. Radiological assessment and source scenarios 101

5.1.1. Scenario A, “best estimate” discharge scenario. 101

5.1.2. Scenario B, “plausible worst case” 101

5.1.3. Scenario C, “worst case” 101

5.2. Dose estimation . 103

5.2.1. Definition of critical groups. 103

5.2.2. Kd s, concentration and dose conversion factors 104

5.2.3. Fishery statistics. 104

6. RESULTS . 110

6.1. Results from Scenario A 110

6.1.1. Results from all sources combined 110

6.1.2. Results from individual sources. 110

6.1.3. Conclusions 114

6.2. Results from Scenario B 115

6.2.1. Maximum individual dose due to Tsivolka Fjord 115

6.2.2. Conclusions 115

6.3. Results from Scenario C 115

6.3.1. Results from all sources combined 118

6.3.2. Results from individual sources. 118

6.3.3. Conclusions 118

6.4. Submarine No. 601 122

6.4.1. Scenario A 122

6.4.2. Scenario C 122

6.5. Collective dose calculations 122

6.5.1. Truncation times 122

6.5.2. Results 124

6.5.3. Comments 124

6.6. Conclusions 126

6.7. Other features. 127

6.7.1. Sensitivity studies – dynamic food chain models 127

6.7.2. Transport of sediment in sea-ice 127

6.8. Impact on species other than man 128

7. FINAL CONCLUSIONS 132

APPENDIX I: COMPLETE RESULTS FROM BENCHMARK CALCULATIONS REFERENCES 161

CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW.. 167