Radiation protection of the environment – an introduction

1. Brenda Howard (CEH) Radiation protection of the environment – an introduction

2. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

3. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

4. Key international drivers UNSCEAR ICRP IAEA EU Member States www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

5. 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 transferof radionuclides through the environment, since this directly affects the radiological protection of man” ICRP, 1991, Para. 16 CEH photography CEH photography

6. 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

7. 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

8. History • Focus on worker/most exposed individuals • Incomplete ecological information • No evidence provided to support statement • Changing attitudes • Late 1990s tools and techniques available • Recognition of environmental risks (e.g. Rio) • Conservation and protection drivers • Counter arguments

9. History • Focus on worker/most exposed individuals • Incomplete ecological information • No evidence provided to support statement • Changing attitudes • Late 1990s tools and techniques available • Recognition of environmental risks (e.g. Rio) • Conservation and protection drivers • Counter arguments The need to explicitly demonstrate no impact…

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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”

13. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

14. 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 Standardsdoes 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”

15. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

16. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT CEH photograph

17. IAEA BSS – draft May 2010 Protection 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.” www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

18. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

19. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

20. UNSCEAR 1996 Acute doses

21. EC • Euratom Basic Safety Standards • New BSS outline • Title X: Protection of the Environment • Euratom projects • FASSET • ERICA • PROTECT • FP7 - Network ?? www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

22. Draft European Basic Safety Standards Directive – Version 24 February 2010 TITLE X: PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Article 102 Member 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. www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

23. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

24. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

25. 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: US Fish & Wildlife Service division of public affairs Credit: Sue Matthews / US Fish & Wildlife Service www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

26. 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

27. ERICA flow chart www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

28. Tiered approach TIER 1 Risk screening TIER 2 Generic quantitative TIER 3 Detailed Quantitative Environmental and health protection Data needs Conservatism Resources

29. Tiered approach TIER 1 Risk screening TIER 2 Generic quantitative TIER 3 Detailed Quantitative Environmental and health protection Data needs The level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate with the nature and complexity of the risk being addressed and consistent with decision-making needs Conservatism Resources

30. Approaches for chemicals in the environment Direct toxicity in soil and water:the assessment of toxicity thresholds for plants, invertebrates and microbial processes Higher organism health:comparison with Concentration in food eaten Ingested amount per unit liveweight of receptor species Concentration in organs of species compared to a risk quotient Human health: quantifying exposure to contaminants and assessing acceptable intake values

31. M input g ha-1 a-1 H+ Soil water Soil solids Maq M-soil Mz+ M-DOM M-X M output = [M]aq x runoff Soil bioavailability

32. 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)

33. Critical Loads for Lead Exceedance of Critical Load for Pb in Managed Broadleaf Woodland (ratio) Critical Load for Pb (g ha-1 y-1)

34. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

35. 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 www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

36. Elements of assessment Release Dispersion model Media concentration Transfer model Wholebody activity concentrations Dosimetry model (external exposure) Dosimetry model (internal exposure) Dose rate Effects understanding/ numerical benchmark Risk www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT