Brenda Howard (CEH) Historical perspective – previous ICRP guidance Why this has changed - prime motivations International initiatives at the EC,

Brenda Howard (CEH)

Radiation protection of the environment – an introduction

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Outline Historical perspective – previous

ICRP guidance Why this has changed - prime

motivations International initiatives at the EC,

IAEA, ICRP and UNSCEAR The situations in which

assessments may be used Radiation protection of the

environment in the UK Tiered assessments Comparison with chemicals Expectations

Credit: John Foster / US Fish & Wildlife Service


International responsibilities ICRP – radiation protection guidelines IAEA – unique statutory responsibilities within

UN for establishing standards of radiation safety (and by

implication also for environmental protection) Providing for the application of the standards at the

request of any state UNSCEAR – to estimate sources and effects of

exposure to ionising radiation and to report its estimates to the UN General Assembly


Key international drivers

IAEA

ICRPUNSCEAR

Member States

EU

Historical perspective – previous ICRP guidance

“The Commission believes that the standard of environmental control needed to protect man to the degree currently thought desirable will ensure that other species are not put at risk. Occasionally, individual members of non-human species might be harmed, but not to the extent of endangering whole species or creating imbalance between species. At the present time, the Commission concerns itself with mankind’s environment only with regard to the transfer of radionuclides through the environment, since this directly affects the radiological protection of man”

ICRP, 1991, Para. 16

CEH photographyCEH photography

History

Focus on worker/most exposed individuals Incomplete ecological information Limited evidence provided to support

statement (in the context of the environment)

Credit: John Sarvis / US Fish & Wildlife Service

History

Focus on worker/most exposed individuals Incomplete ecological information Limited evidence provided to support

statement Changing attitudes

Late 1990s tools and techniques available Recognition of environmental risks (e.g. Rio) Conservation and protection drivers

History

Focus on worker/most exposed individuals Incomplete ecological information No evidence provided to support statement Changing attitudes


Counter arguments

History

Focus on worker/most exposed individuals Incomplete ecological information No evidence provided to support statement Changing attitudes


Counter argumentsThe need to explicitly

demonstrate no im

pact…

History

ICRP Task group set up in 2000 New ground ICRP strongly influenced by development of

radiological protection of humans Others working on environmental issues

ICRP Publication 91 (2003) A framework for assessing the impact of ionising

radiation on non-human species

History

New Committee (5) setup in 2005 Take a structured approach Address key ‘conceptual gap’ Develop the framework Parallel approach used for humans Input into new Recommendations in

2007 Appointed for second term in 2009

Credit: Art Weber / US Fish & Wildlife Service

2007 Recommendations

ICRP (Publication 103) recognised Need for advice and guidance Lack of consistency at an international level More proactive approach needed Complex nature of environmental protection Need to develop a clearer framework

Assess exposure – dose – effect relationships Pragmatic approach, which can develop No “dose limits”


ICRP Exposure Situations

Planned – current activities, not historic (yrs of discharge) and new nuclear sites and

U mines etc Mostly for planned NPP and waste repositories (current or prospective

discharges)

Existing – exposure to natural radiation sources and contamination of areas by residual radioactive material

Past activities that were never subject to regulatory control or were not regulated according to present requirements;

An emergency, after the emergency exposure situation has been declared ended

Residues from past activities for which their is no longer legally accountability

Aim, relevance - used in USA for previously contaminated sites

Emergency – eg accidents, malevolent acts Low priority in acute phase

History

In response, IAEA develop Plan of Activities on Radiation Protection of Environment (approved by Board of Governors Sept 2005)

The revision of the IAEA Basic Safety Standards does include the drafting of a requirement on radiation protection of the environment in line with Principle 7 of the Safety Fundamentals.

Stockholm conference 2003: “the time is ripe for launching a number of international initiatives to consolidate the present approach to controlling radioactive discharges to the environment by taking explicit account of the protection of species other than humans”


Other drivers

National legislation National interpretation of

international legislation Various bodies – need to explicitly

demonstrate/why diff to chemicals IUR promoted need for an approach

not based on humans OECD-NEA has highlighted the

need for radiological assessment of non-human biota and supported tiered assessment approach

Credit: Mike Lockhart / US Fish & Wildlife Service

Credit: Art Sowls / US Fish & Wildlife Service


Other International initiatives: IAEA

IAEA Standards

Action plan Biota Co-ordination

Group Basic Safety Standards

Approaches Environmental Modelling

for Radiation Safety Application

Technical cooperation on wildlife regulation RER 7005

CEH photograph


IAEA BSS – draft May 2010Protection of the environment

“1.26. In a global and long term perspective, protection of people and the environment against radiation risks associated with the operation of facilities and the conduct of activities — risks that may transcend national borders and may persist for long periods of time — is important to achieving equitable and sustainable development. The aim of radiation protection of the environment is to protect ecosystems against radiation risks. The system of protection and safety in these Standards generally provides appropriate protection of ecosystems in the human environment against harmful effects of radiation exposure. Nevertheless, international trends in this field show an increasing awareness of the vulnerability of the environment. Trends also indicate the need to be able to demonstrate (rather than to assume) that the environment is protected against effects of industrial pollutants, including radionuclides, in a wider range of environmental situations, irrespective of any human connection with them. This is normally accomplished through an environmental assessment, which identifies the target(s), defines the appropriate criteria for protection, assesses the impacts and compares the results of the available protection options. The methods and criteria for these radiological assessments are being developed and will continue to evolve. Radiation impacts within a particular environment constitute only one type of impact and in most cases, may not be the dominant impact of a particular facility or activity. Further, the assessment of impacts on the environment should be viewed in an integrated manner with the other features of the system of protection to establish the conditions applicable to a particular source. These Standards are designed to clearly identify protection of the environment as an issue to be assessed, while leaving flexibility to incorporate the results into the appropriate decision making processes.”


UNSCEAR

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

Established in 1955 UN Scientific Committee reports to General Assembly Assesses global levels and effects of ionizing

radiation Provides scientific basis for radiation protection Governments and organisations rely on Committee's

estimates as the scientific basis for evaluating radiation risk and establishing protective measures


UNSCEAR - environment

Report on “Effects of radiation on the Environment” in 1996

Limited available data Review of data, including Chernobyl Based largely on acute data Effects difficult to estimate due to long term

recovery, compensatory behaviour and

confounding environmental factors

New report imminent

UNSCEAR 1996

Acute doses


EC Euratom Basic Safety Standards

New BSS outline Title X: Protection of the Environment

Euratom projects FASSET ERICA PROTECT FP7 - Network ??


Draft European Basic Safety Standards Directive – Version 24 February 2010

TITLE X: PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Article 102Member States shall include, in the legal framework for radiation protection, provision for the radiation

protection of non-human species in the environment; this legal framework shall introduce environmental criteria aiming at the protection of populations of vulnerable or representative non-human species with regard to their significance as part of the ecosystem. Where appropriate, practices shall be identified for which regulatory control is warranted to implement the requirements in this legal framework and take account of appropriate environmental assessment criteria.

Article 103

Member States' competent authorities, when establishing authorised limits on discharges of radioactive effluents, in accordance with Article 91 paragraph 2, shall also ensure adequate protection of non-human species; for this purpose a generic screening assessment may be conducted to provide reliance that the environmental criteria are met.

Article 104

Member States shall require undertakings to take appropriate technical measures with the aim to avoid that in the event of an accidental release there will be significant environmental damage, or to mitigate the extent of such consequences.

Article 105

While establishing environmental monitoring programmes, or requiring such programmes to be carried out, Member States' competent authorities shall include representative nonhuman species, if necessary, in addition to such environmental media which constitute a pathway of exposure to members of the public.


UK Legislative framework Europe: Habitats and Birds

Directives On the conservation of natural

habitats and of wild flora and fauna

UK: Conservation (Natural Habitats) regulations 1994 Implements the Habitats

Directive in the UK. Requires steps to maintain and restoration to favourable conservation status of habitats and species of Community level interest

Credit: John Sarvis / US Fish & Wildlife Service


The Environment Agency’s role

Has a duty to comply with the EU Habitats and Birds Directives

EA obligations to review: Existing authorisations, consents, licences and

permissions for chemicals All requests for variations to existing or new applications Ensure that no Agency-authorised activity or permission

results in an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly on the integrity of identified European sites (Natura 2000 sites)

The driver is from conservation perspective not radiological protection

Credit: Eric Engbretson / US Fish & Wildlife Service


The Environment Agency’s role

Given the requirement to assess the impacts of consent and authorisations affecting Natura 2000 sites: The EA took the view , based on legal advice

and with the support of English Nature (statutory consultee), that these assessments should include radiation

(now also SEPA)

Credit: Sue Matthews / US Fish & Wildlife Service

Credit: US Fish & Wildlife Service division of public affairs

Tiered Assessments

Many approaches use a tiered assessment structure (in common with other areas of risk assessments) simple initial screening through to more refined

assessments Also referred to as:

staged or graded approaches

Credit: Dave Menke / US Fish & Wildlife Service

Credit: Greg Wilker / US Fish & Wildlife Service


ERICA flow chart

ERICA Integrated Approach

Concentration screening value

Dose rate screening value

Detailed analysis and evaluation of data. Interaction and supplementation with all relevant databases

Extrapolation (e.g. population, ecosystem)

Management Assessment Tool CharacterisationManagement Assessment Tool Characterisation

Tier 3

Site-specific

Probabilistic analysis

Tier 2

Tier 1

Sta

keho

lder

Invo

lvem

ent

Issues

and

options

Plan

Evaluation of assessment

April 2006

Problem formulation

Exit

Exit

Tiered approach

Environmental and health protection

Conservatism

Resources

TIER 1Risk screening

TIER 2Generic quantitative

TIER 3Detailed Quantitative

Data needs

Tiered approach

Environmental and health protection

Conservatism

Resources

TIER 1Risk screening

TIER 2Generic quantitative

TIER 3Detailed Quantitative

Data needs

The level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportio

nate

with the nature and complexity of the risk being addressed and

consistent with decision-making needs

Direct toxicity in soil and water: the assessment of toxicity thresholds for plants, invertebrates and microbial processes

Higher organism health: comparison withConcentration in food eaten Ingested amount per unit liveweight of receptor speciesConcentration in organs of species compared to a risk quotient

Human health: quantifying exposure to contaminants and assessing acceptable intake values

Approaches for chemicals in the environment

Soil solids Soil water

M-DOM

M-X

M-soil

M output = [M]aq x runoff

M inputg ha-1 a-1

H+

Mz+

Maq

Soil bioavailability

Critical Loads

The critical load is the rate of deposition of a metal from the atmosphere, which at steady

state, leads to the metal concentration in soils or water reaching a threshold for

adverse effects (the critical limit)

Credit: Calexico New River Committee (CNRC)

Critical Loads for LeadLead

0 - 200

200 - 400

400 - 800

>800

Lead

0 - 200

200 - 400

400 - 800

>800

0 - 200

200 - 400

400 - 800

>800

no exceedance

0 - 10

1 - 20

>20

no exceedance

0 - 10

1 - 20

>20

Critical Load for Pb (g ha-1 y-1)Exceedance of Critical Load for Pb in Managed Broadleaf Woodland

(ratio)


Why are we giving these courses?

Assessments are being done – little formal training available

We are being asked for advice on use of assessment tools

The tools are only recently developed and there are various complexities and assumptions which need to be understood


Course participants expectations

Fundamentals of radiation protection of the environment

Background to development of the ERICA tool To learn how to use the ERICA Tool

Some asking for detailed understanding limitations

Comparison with, and knowledge of, other tools Transfer in the environment Dose impacts


Elements of assessment

Media concentration

Release

Dose rate

Risk

Dispersion model

Transfer model

Dosimetry model(internal exposure)

Wholebody activity concentrationsDosimetry model

(external exposure)

Effects understanding/ numerical benchmark

Documents

Brenda Howard (CEH) Historical perspective – previous ICRP guidance Why this has changed - prime motivations International initiatives at the EC,