Amado, V.

Anderson, A.

Baumelle, L.

Bonchuk, Y.

Carny, P.

Charrasse, B.

Cohenny, E.

Fojcikova, E.

Gunawardena, N.

Ikonen, A.

Kangasniemi, V.

Leclerc, E.

Liptak, L.

Mora, Jc.

Smith, J.

Telleria, D.

Zorko, B.

ANDERSON, Amanda

MORA, Juan C.

SMITH, Justin

COHENNY, Emilie

IKONEN, Ari T.

KANGASNIENMI, Ville

ZORKO, Benjamin

Bonchuk, Yuri

Beaumelle, Lea

Gunawardena, Nipun

AMADO, valeria

LIPTAK, Ludovit

Leclerc, Elisabeth

TELLERIA, Diego

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

HAL Id: cea-02339469
https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-02339469
Submitted on 27 Nov 2019
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Investigation of the importance of site-specific fauna in
environmental risk assessment for routine atmospheric
radionuclidesreleases
B. Charrasse, Amanda Anderson, Juan C. Mora, Justin Smith, Emilie
Cohenny, Ari T. Ikonen, Ville Kangasnienmi, Benjamin Zorko, Yuri Bonchuk,
Lea Beaumelle, et al.
To cite this version:
B. Charrasse, Amanda Anderson, Juan C. Mora, Justin Smith, Emilie Cohenny, et al.. Investigation
of the importance of site-specific fauna in environmental risk assessment for routine atmospheric
radionuclidesreleases. Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments - IAEA, Oct 2018,
Vienne, Austria. ￿cea-02339469￿
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF 
SITE-SPECIFIC FAUNA IN ENVIRONMENTAL 
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ROUTINE 
ATMOSPHERIC RADIONUCLIDES 
RELEASES 
Sent to Sci.Tot.Env. – summer 2018 
Benoit Charrasse1, Amanda Anderson2, Juan C. Mora3, Justin Smith4, Emilie 
Cohenny1, Ari T K.Ikonen5, Ville Kangasniemi5, Benjamin Zorko6, Yuri 
Bonchuk7, Léa Beaumelle8, Nipun Gunawardena9, Valeria Amado10, Lodovit 
Liptak11, Elisabeth Leclerc12 and Diego Telleria13 
1 CEA, DEN, DTN, Cadarache, Saint-Paul-lès-Durance Cedex, France 
2 Office of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 
20585, USA 
3 Environment Department. CIEMAT. Avda. Complutense, 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain 
4 Radiation Assessments Department, Public Health England - Centre for Radiation, Chemical & Environmental 
Hazards,Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0RQ, United Kingdom 
5 EnviroCase Oy/Ltd. Hallituskatu 1 D 4, 28100 Pori, Finland  
6 Jozef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, Slovania 
7 Ukrainian Radiation Protection Institute, 53, Melnykova str., Kyiv, 04050, Ukraine 
8 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany 
9 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah, 1495 East 100 South (1550 MEK), Salt Lake City, UT 
84112, United States of America 
10 Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Av. del Libertador 8250 - (C1429BNP) Buenos Aires, Argentina 
11 ABmerit s.r.o., Hornopotocna 1, 917 01 Trnava, Slovakia 
12 Andra 1-7, Rue Jean-Monnet, 92298 Châtenay-Malabry Cédex, France  
13 IAEA Assessment and Management of Environmental Releases Unit, Wagramer Str. 5, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, 
Austria 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 1 
In all the cases, methodologies for determining the potential impact of radiation 
to wildlife involves several key steps: 
(1) identification and characterization of potentially affected ecosystems and 
wildlife species of interest; 
(2) assignment of geometries and occupancy factors within environmental 
media for the species of interest; 
(5) evaluation of effects on species and the ecosystem using dose-effects 
relationships.  
(3) determination of the transfer of radionuclides to biota from their 
surrounding medium; 
(4) calculation of the absorbed dose rate for both internal and external 
exposure;  
CONTEXT 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 2 
In all the cases, methodologies for determining the potential impact of radiation 
to wildlife involves several key steps: 
(1) identification and characterization of potentially affected ecosystems and 
wildlife species of interest; 
(2) assignment of geometries and occupancy factors within environmental 
media for the species of interest; 
CONTEXT 
Reference Organisms (ROs) (FASSET) 
Reference Animal and Plant (RAPs) (ICPR) 
Organisms by media (RESRAD-BIOTA) 
… 
Several entities (with different 
form / different number) 
A major challenge in 
environmental radiological 
protection due to the immense 
variability in and within 
species (Penthreat and Woolead, 2001) 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 3 
Risk assessments of ionising radiation impact to wildlife is mainly 
conducted using 
the default ROs or  RAPs  (Batlle et al., 2011; Brown et al., 
2016; Carolan et al., 2011; Kautsky et al., 2016; Lavrentyeva et al., 2016; 
Robinson et al., 2010; Shishkina et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2010; 
Vandenhove et al., 2013, Stark et al., 2017) 
Are the ROs / RAPs representative of the diversity of flora and fauna?  
 
Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment really protect* all species 
in the different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry? 
1 
Eurasian 
nuthatch 
Meadow 
pipit Little owl 
? 
*Dose rate point of view 
CONTEXT 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 4 
identified species relevant to the study site 
(Batlle et al., 2016; Jaeschke, B et al., 2013; Posiva, 2014; Torudd and 
Saetre, 2013, Stark et al., 2017) 
Does the creation of new organisms within the methodologies increase the 
relevancy of the analysis?  
 
 
2 
? 
Meadow 
pipit Little owl 
Eurasian 
nuthatch 
CONTEXT 
Risk assessments of ionising radiation impact to wildlife is mainly 
conducted using 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 5 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
GENERIC approach (simplified and conservative not realistic) 
Activity concentration in the 
media (max or average) 
 
 
 
|  PAGE 7
Soil
deposition
Contaminated soil
Radionuclides 
released 
Soil / Air activity
Facility
Atmospheric dispersion
|  PAGE 7
Concentration ratio* 
*ICRP, 2008; 2009; WTD; www. wildlifetransferdatabase.org/, 
Copplestone et al., 2013, Beresford et al, 2016  
In case of endangered/protected species or not well characterized species, a major 
assumptions is made :  
Meadow 
pipitLittle owl
Eurasian 
nuthatch
Identical 
CR  
FEW CLARIFICATIONS 
|  PAGE 6 
Concentration into organism 
GENERIC approach (simplified and conservative) 
Activity concentration in the 
media (max or average) 
 
 
 
Concentration into organism 
Concentration ratio* 
Dose coefficient 
(int/ext) 
Dose rate 
Geometric shape  Spherical, ellipsoidal 
(prolate/oblate)  
Mass  elementary composition (density fixed at 
1.0 g cm-3)  
a
b
c
Sediment Soil Sediment
Water column Water column
Air Air Air
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
Org.
River (fresh water) Terrestre Marin
FEW CLARIFICATIONS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 7 
Habitat  On soil, in soil, on air + position in 
the different media and occupancy factor 
  
PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY 
 
PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
|  PAGE 8 
  
PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY 
 
PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
|  PAGE 9 
Atmospheric releases  
Compilation of 
ecological surveys 
Calculation and 
evaluation of total 
dose rate for site-
specific species 
Species selection based 
on ecological and shape 
criteria  
Final list of site-specific 
species 
Site-specific species Reference organisms 
defined in ERICA 
approach  
Simulation with the 
atmospheric dispersion 
model 
Calculation and 
evaluation of total dose 
rate for Reference 
organisms 
Dose Coefficient 
calculation 
Radionuclide 
concentration in 
biota 
Exposure scenario 
definition (characteristic, 
habitat, occupancy factor) 
In brief: 
 
Radionuclide concentration in 
environmental media : air and 
soil 
Determination of a list of 
species  
Dosimetric approach 
(EDEN*)  
Specific case study  
*(Beaugelin-Seiller et al., 2006) 
CONCEPTUAL FLOWCHART OF THE METHODOLOGY 
|  PAGE 10 
  more than 1,600 hectares 
  the vast majority of which are wooded 
areas, dry grass, or Mediterranean 
scrub 
  the remainder of the property consists 
of urbanized areas, including large 
areas of maintained lawns and cleared 
lands 
Eco-complex ITER
Cadarache centre
DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 11 
DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 12 
Species selection based on 
ecological stakes : listed on 
the conservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora / on the red lists, on the 
protected species in France… 
Compilation of ecological 
surveys and 
environmental studies 
(≈30 since 2003) (more 
than 400 species) 
Initial species  
Filter 1 
 From the first filter  128 species remained 
DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 13 
Amphibians; 
5%
Birds; 38%
Chiropterans; 
15%
Mammals 
(exclusive of 
chiropterans); 
8%
Reptiles; 
8%
Insects; 27%
Species selection based on 
non-human biota 
representation for 
dosimetric calculation  
Final list  
Initial species  
Filter 2 
 The second filter: 
 Species with geometrical characteristics relatively different from the geometrical 
characteristics of the ROs; 
 
 Species with different lifestyles from the ROs, specifically their position and 
frequency in their habitats 
Filter 1 
DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 14 
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Bird group
 Inventoried species ellispoid volume to RO
ellipsoid volume
Inventoried species Area/Volume to Area/volume
RO
 An example of species selection (case of bird) : 
Eurasian blue tit 
Griffon vulture 
DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 15 
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060
Lang's short-tailed blue
Cricket specie
Southern festoon
Spiked Magician
Festive Toothed Grasshopper
Flying insects- RO
Hermit beetle
Scarabaeus specie
Yellow scorpion
Arthropod - detritivorous-RO
Montpellier snake
Sand lizards specie
Reptile- RO
Red squirrel
European badger
Eurasian beaver
Wood mouse
Mammal Small- RO
 Red deer
 Wild boar
Mammal Large- RO
Black-crowned night heron
Moustached warbler
Eurasian blue tit
Eurasian nuthatch
Tawny pipit
Red-legged partridge
Eurasian eagle-owl
Griffon vulture
Bird- RO
European toad
Marsh frog
Mediterranean tree frog
Common parsley frog
Amphibian- RO
Total Dose Rate (μG h-1)
  intra- species  DRtot difference 
range from 0.1 % to 48 % 
Difference less than a factor of 2 
Considered as marginal by comparison 
with significant uncertainties 
associated with the transfer models 
  28 species finally selected 
Despite the range of geometric 
characteristics, habits and habitats of 
the site-specific species and ROs 
RESULTS : DOSE RATE CALCULATION 
Bird 
Mammal (L) 
Amphibian 
Mammal (S) 
Reptile 
Arthropod 
Fying insects 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 16 
Do not improve the numerical risk 
assessment quality for any selected 
biota in this release scenario 
CONCLUSION (PART 1)  
 Are the ROs / RAPs representative of the diversity of flora and fauna?  
 
In term of habitat and size  No BUT the aim of the ERA is to be conservative and 
not necessarily realistic  
Extending to other release facilities  *Dose rate point of view 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 17 
 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment really protect* all species in 
the different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?  
 
For this specific case study  DR within a factor of 2 (between site-specific 
organisms and ROs) 
 Does the creation of new organisms within the methodologies increase the 
relevancy of the analysis?  
 
Not necessarily in this case, BUT what about for other cases 
  
PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY 
 
PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
|  PAGE 18 
DR
DR
DR difference
= DRcreated organism/DRRO
1
MaxMin
??
Eurasian 
nuthatch
Meadow 
pipitLittle owl
BIRD - RO
Spherical bodies = conservative for  
external exposure to gamma-
radiation (Ulanovsky, A., 2014) 
Max. mass
Mass, shape and 
habitat of the RO
IN soil
ON soil
  Estimation of the maximal dose rate 
difference between hypothetical organisms 
and ROs (assumptions from ERICA) 
released (routine atmospheric 
radionuclides 
releases) 
• Creation of fictitious organisms with 
extreme dosimetric characteristics 
(masses, shapes and habitats)  
EXTENDING TO OTHER RELEASE FACILITIES  
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 19 
• Source term : 81 radionuclides (except nobles 
gases) 
Ag-110m Cr-51 La-140 Pu-240 Te-132 
Am-241 Cs-134 Mn-54 Pu-241 Th-227 
Ba-137m Cs-135 Nb-94 Pu-242 Th-228 
Ba-140 Cs-136 Nb-95 Ra-226 Th-230 
C-14 Cs-137 Ni-59 Ra-228 Th-231 
Ca-45 Cs-138 Ni-63 Ru-103 Th-232 
Cd-109 Eu-152 Np-237 Ru-106 Th-234 
Ce-141 Eu-154 P-32 S-35 U-234 
Ce-144 H-3 P-33 Sb-124 U-235 
Cf-252 I-125 Pa-231 Sb-125 U-236 
Cl-36 I-129 Pa-234 Se-75 U-238 
Cm-242 I-131 Pa-234m Se-79 Zn-65 
Cm-243 I-132 Pb-210 Sr-89 Zr-95 
Cm-244 I-133 Po-210 Sr-90 
Co-57 I-134 Pr-144 Tc-99 
Co-58 I-135 Pu-238 Te-123m 
Co-60 Ir-192 Pu-239 Te-129m 
EXTENDING TO OTHER RELEASE FACILITIES  
|  PAGE 20 
DR
DR
DR difference
= DRcreated organism/DRRO
1
MaxMin
??
Eurasian 
nuthatch
Meadow 
pipitLittle owl
BIRD - RO
  Estimation of the maximal dose rate 
difference between hypothetical organisms 
and ROs (assumptions from ERICA) 
released (routine atmospheric 
radionuclides 
releases) 
• Creation of fictitious organisms with 
extreme dosimetric characteristics 
(masses, shapes and habitats)  
Ag-110m Cr-51 La-140 Pu-240 Te-132 
Am-241 Cs-134 Mn-54 Pu-241 Th-227 
Ba-137m Cs-135 Nb-94 Pu-242 Th-228 
Ba-140 Cs-136 Nb-95 Ra-226 Th-230 
C-14 Cs-137 Ni-59 Ra-228 Th-231 
Ca-45 Cs-138 Ni-63 Ru-103 Th-232 
Cd-109 Eu-152 Np-237 Ru-106 Th-234 
Ce-141 Eu-154 P-32 S-35 U-234 
Ce-144 H-3 P-33 Sb-124 U-235 
Cf-252 I-125 Pa-231 Sb-125 U-236 
Cl-36 I-129 Pa-234 Se-75 U-238 
Cm-242 I-131 Pa-234m Se-79 Zn-65 
Cm-243 I-132 Pb-210 Sr-89 Zr-95 
Cm-244 I-133 Po-210 Sr-90 
Co-57 I-134 Pr-144 Tc-99 
Co-58 I-135 Pu-238 Te-123m 
Co-60 Ir-192 Pu-239 Te-129m 
 1 Bq.m-3  / 1 Bq.kg-1 dw  
• DR for created organism (fictitious) and ROs 
 ERICA tool 
|  PAGE 7
Soil
deposition
Contaminated soil
Radionuclides 
released 
Soil / Air activity
Facility
Atmospheric dispersion
|  PAGE 7
EXTENDING TO OTHER RELEASE FACILITIES  
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 21 
• Source term : 81 radionuclides (except nobles 
gases) 
DR
DR
DR difference
= DRcreated organism/DRRO
1
MaxMin
??
Eurasian 
nuthatch
Meadow 
pipitLittle owl
BIRD - RO
  Estimation of the maximal dose rate 
difference between hypothetical organisms 
and ROs (assumptions from ERICA) 
released (routine atmospheric 
radionuclides 
releases) 
• Creation of fictitious organisms with 
extreme dosimetric characteristics 
(masses, shapes and habitats)  
Estimation of the maximal dose rate difference between hypothetical organisms 
and ROs (assumptions from ERICA) 
Maximal DRcreated 
org. / DRRO 
Considered 
Rn
Maximal DRcreated 
org. / DRRO 
Considered 
Rn
Flying insects 1.07 241Pu 1.50
90
Sr
Mollusc - Gastropod 2.60 124Sb 2.93
65
Zn
Mammal small 1.11 231Th 1.38
134
Cs
Mammal large 1.40 231Th 1.09
65
Zn
Bird 1.09 192Ir 1.56
65
Zn
Reptile 1.18 231Th 1.07
90
Sr
Amphibian 1.04 234Th 1.32
65
Zn
Annelid 1.02 54Mn 1.60
75
Se
Arthropod-
detritivorous
1.05 89Sr 1.82
90
Sr
Created organism with a mass lower 
than the RO (minimal mass)
Created organism with a mass higer 
than the RO (maximal mass)
Terrestrial fauna 
ROs
DR = DRint + DRext 
RESULTS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 22 
Max. mass
Mass, shape and 
habitat of the RO
IN soil
ON soil
Max. mass
Mass, shape and 
habitat of the RO
IN soil
ON soil
Max. mass
Mass, shape and 
habitat of the RO
IN soil
ON soil
Max. mass
Mass, shape and 
habitat of the RO
IN soil
ON soil
 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment really protect all species in the 
different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?  
 
Weak influence of the mass and the size (quantified) (Stark 2017, Publication 136 ICRP, 2016,  
Ulanovsky, 2014) 
 
 
 
  3H and 14C are classically the  main radiation contributors (main activities released) to 
the total dose rate  
GBq y-1
Chinon NPP - 
annual 
(France)
Spain
Spent fuel 
(FIN)
LILW 
(France)
Research 
center 
(France)
KOR (Not 
recommeded
)
3H 2.12E+03 1.98E+02 2.50E+00 9.50E-2 5.43E+1 3.44E+04
133Xe 1.15E+03 1.78E+03 7.02E+03 3.00E+04
14C 6.10E+02 1.00E-02 3.60E-2 7.58E-01 2.70E+02
135Xe 1.73E+02 3.69E+00
41Ar 1.36E+02 1.26E+03
85Kr 2.94E+01 3.00E+01 1.14E+04 1.81E+05
  Dose coefficients for 3H and 14C are size and shape independent, whatever the 
radiation type (only internal contribution) 
Higher the 3H or 14C contribute to the DR, smaller is the DR difference between the RO/RAP 
and a site-specific specie 
RESULTS 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 23 
For the RO of “Mollusc- Gastropod”, generic organism is sufficient when the 
sum of the β+γ emitters represent 1/40 of the 14C OR 1/200 of the 3H 
releases 
 
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
D
is
c
h
a
rg
e
 r
a
te
 r
a
ti
o
 o
f 
3
H
 o
r 
1
4
C
 t
o
 
β
/γ
e
m
it
te
r
∆DR observable between RO and hypothetical organism
2
40
SRS19 
(conservative 
assomptions) 
 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment really protect all species in the 
different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?  
 
Weak influence of the mass and the size (quantified) (Stark 2017, Publication 136 ICRP, 2016,  
Ulanovsky, 2014) 
 
 
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 |  PAGE 24 
CONCLUSIONS (PART 2) 
CONCLUSIONS (PART 2) AND PERSPECTIVES 
 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment really protect* all species in 
the different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?  
 
Weak influence of the mass and the size (quantified) (Stark 2017, Publication 136 ICRP, 2016,  
Ulanovsky, 2014) 
 
 Does the creation of new organisms within the methodologies increase the 
relevancy of the analysis?  
 
Not necessarily (in term of dose) but perhaps for communication strategy 
 
Further works should be done to confirm those results 
  Extending the mass ranges 
  Consideration of all the exposure pathways (plume irradiation) 
  Extending to a wider range of radionuclides (including noble 
gases) 
  Evaluate the influence of the life stage/life span 
  Modification of the CR value (predictive vision) 
  Influence of deposition parameters 
BIOTADC (http://biotadc.icrp.org/)  
(Done) 
Applying this 
methodology to 
terrestrial flora 
and for aquatic 
organisms 
|  PAGE 25 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 
 
AND  
 
A SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL 
THE PARTICIPANTS FROM THE WG3 
AND THE SCIENTIFIC SECRETARIES  
IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 
|  PAGE 26 


English

Investigation of the importance of site-specific fauna in environmental risk assessment for routine atmospheric radionuclidesreleases

International audienceAlthough there is still some development of radiological assessment models for non-human biota and their usage, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have already established an internationally recognized system to be used on such assessments. They are often used to evaluate whether or not regulatory decisions are protective of the environment. Non-human biota is typically evaluated using Reference Organisms (ROs) or Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs), the latter defined by the ICRP for a default set general to all exposure situations and the former more dependent on the specifics of the assessment. However, it still remains open whether the use of an increased number of ROs or RAPs would improve the ability to demonstrate protectiveness of the environment or not. In this paper, the representativeness of a hypothetical broader list of fauna is tested in terms of the geometrical characteristics and habits for radiological risk assessments in the case of routine discharges from a nuclear installation. A list of terrestrial representative animal species, compiled from ecological surveys carried out around the Cadarache centre located in the South-East of France, was evaluated. In this compilation, the characteristics (dimensions, habits, etc.) differ from default ROs used in the Environmental Risks from Ionising Contaminants Assessment and management (ERICA) and from the ICRP RAPs. Despite the differences between geometries for those site-specific species and the ROs (including RAPs), the absorbed dose rates calculated for the ROs were very close to those calculated for the site-specific species. Regardless of the organism represented, the absorbed dose rates from calculated for discharge scenarios for the Cadarache centre releases is mainly related to internal exposure, particularly for tritium (3H) and carbon 14 (14C). Dose coefficients (DCs) are shown to be size independent for 3H and 14C, which are the dominant radionuclides for the source term. This shows that there would be an acceptable difference between species from the same organism group. Additional, sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine if the use of generic, predefined ROs is enough to assure an adequate protection of endangered species. The result of this evaluation indicates that, at least technically, the use of generic ROs for non-human biota radiological risk assessment covers sufficiently other species, including endangered ones

Investigation of the importance of site-specific fauna in environmental risk assessment for routine atmospheric radionuclides releases

HAL-CEA

Anderson, Amanda

Mora, Juan C.

Smith, Justin

Cohenny, Emilie

Ikonen, Ari T.

Kangasnienmi, Ville

Zorko, Benjamin

Amado, Valeria

Liptak, Ludovit

Telleria, Diego

https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-02339469/file/201800003801.pdf

Investigation of the importance of site-specific fauna in environmental risk assessment for routine atmospheric radionuclidesreleases

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

HAL-CEA

HAL-CEA