Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T14:44:43.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Assessment approaches – practicality, relevance and merits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2009

J. Barescut ,
N. A. Beresford ,
K. Beaugelin-Seiller ,
J. E. Brown ,
D. Copplestone ,
A. Hosseini ,
P. Andersson  and
B. J. Howard
N. A. Beresford*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, CEH-Lancaster, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Av., Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK
K. Beaugelin-Seiller
Affiliation:
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France
J. E. Brown
Affiliation:
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Norway
D. Copplestone
Affiliation:
England & Wales Environment Agency, UK
A. Hosseini
Affiliation:
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Norway
P. Andersson
Affiliation:
Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, Sweden
B. J. Howard
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, CEH-Lancaster, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Av., Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In common with the assessment of chemical stressors many of the methods used for the assessment of risk of non-human biota exposed to radiation use tiered approaches. The initial tier within these approaches is designed to be simple and conservative with the aim to identify sites of negligible concern which can be excluded from more detailed assessment with a high degree of confidence. In this paper we compare the outputs of the screening tiers of three tools which are freely available as software packages. Outputs were compared for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems assuming 1 Bq per unit media. Considerable variability between the risk quotients (RQ) estimated by the three approaches used was seen for some radionuclide-organism-ecosystem combinations. Reasons for this are explored with differences in transfer parameters used by the models being a common contributor. The large variation within RQ values estimated by the approaches requires further investigation as it does not promote the level of confidence required by the user. The practicalities of applying a single generic screening dose rate in assessments are also explored.

Type
Research Article
Information
Radioprotection , Volume 44 , Issue 5: ECORAD 2008 - Radioecology and Environmental Radioactivity , 2009 , pp. 623 - 628
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beresford N.A., Balonov M., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Brown J., Copplestone D., Hingston J.L., Horyna J., Hosseini A., Howard B.J., Kamboj S., Nedveckaite T., Olyslaegers G., Sazykina T., Vives i Batlle J., Yankovich T.L. and Yu C., Appl. Radiat. Isot. Available on line: doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.04.009 (2008).
Beresford N.A., Barnett C.L., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Brown J.E., Cheng J-J., Copplestone D., Gaschak S., Hingston J.L., Horyna J., Hosseini A., Howard B.J., Kamboj S., Kryshev A., Nedveckaite T., Olyslaegers G., Sazykina T., Smith J.T., Telleria D., Vives i Batlle J., Yankovich T.L., Heling R., Wood M.D. and Yu C., Radioprotection (this issue).
Vives i Batlle J., Balonov M., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Beresford N.A., Brown J., Cheng J-J., Copplestone D., Doi M., Filistovic V., Golikov V., Horyna J., Hosseini A., Howard B.J., Jones S.R., Kamboj S., Kryshev A., Nedveckaite T., Olyslaegers G., Pröhl G., Sazykina T., Ulanovsky A., Vives Lynch S., Yankovich T. and Yu C., Rad. Environ. Biophys. 46 (2007) 349–373.
USDOE, A graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota, Technical Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002 (United States Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2002).
Brown J.E., Alfonso B., Avila R., Beresford N.A., Copplestone D., Pröhl G. and Ulanovsky A., J. Environ. Radioact. Available on line: doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.01.008 (2008).
Copplestone D., Bielby S., Jones S.R., Patton D., Daniel P. and Gize I., Impact assessment of ionising radiation on wildlife, R&D Publication 128, ISBN: 1 85705590 X. (Environment Agency, Bristol, 2001).
Copplestone D., Wood M.D., Bielby S., Jones S.R., Vives i Batlle J. and Beresford N.A., Habitat regulations for Stage 3 assessments: radioactive substances authorisations (R&D Technical Report P3-101/SP1a, Environment Agency, Bristol, 2003).
Larsson C.-M., J. Environ. Radioact., Available on line: doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2007.11.019 (2008).
Allott R. and Copplestone D., Update on habitats assessments for England and Wales. National Dose Assessment Working Group, Paper 13-04, Available from: http://www.ndawg.org/documents/Paper13-04.pdf (2008).
Beresford N.A., Anderson P., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Brown J., Copplestone D., Garnier-Laplace J., Hosseini, A., Howard B.J. and Oughton, D.H., Approaches to demonstrate protection of the environment from ionising radiation, Workshop report for the EC EURATOM PROTECT project (Contract Number: 036425 (FI6R)), Available from: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/protect (2008).
Andersson P., Beaugelin-Seiller K., Beresford N.A., Copplestone D., Della Vedova C., Garnier-Laplace J., Howard B.J., Howe P. and Oughton D.H., Numerical benchmarks for protecting biota against radiation in the environment: proposed levels and underlying reasoning, Deliverable 5B (draft) of the EC EURATOM PROTECT project (Contract Number: 036425 (FI6R)), Available from: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/protect (2008).
UNSCEAR, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Report to the general assembly with scientific annex, United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation (United Nations, New York, 1996).