Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Nick Beresford (CEH) & David Copplestone (Stirling Univ.)
Advertisements

Application of ERICA outputs and AQUARISK to evaluate radioecological risk of effluents from a nuclear site J. Twining & J. Ferris Objectives of this study.
Do we have a problem with freshwater Kd values? B. Howard and E. Tipping CEH, UK Analysis for discussion only – do not quote.
The Need for Requirements and Guidance for Protection of Biota: Basis for DOE’s Biota Dose Limits and Guidance Biota Dose Assessment Committee Meeting.
Nick Beresford (CEH).  Give an overview of what may impact on assessment results using the available approaches  In part based on things we know are.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology – Lancaster 27 th – 29 th June 2012.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology – Lancaster 27 th – 29 th June 2012.
WSC Radioecology Research Group A new methodology for the assessment of radiation doses to biota under non-equilibrium conditions J. Vives i Batlle, R.C.
PROTECTFP Screening tier comparisons ERICA, RESRAD-BIOTA & EA R&D128 Follow-up actions from Vienna workshop.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology – Lancaster 27 th – 29 th June 2012.
Dose Assessments for Wildlife in England & Wales.
PROTECT Work Package 2 Meeting (June 2007) Institute for Sustainable Water Integrated Management and Ecosystem Research (SWIMMER) 1 Experiences of applying.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology – Lancaster 1 st – 3 rd April 2014.
Online transfer database David Copplestone Principal Scientist – Radioactive Substances EMRAS II Vienna January 2010.
PROTECTFP Terrestrial Assessment Comparison of human and non human dose assessments for prospective new nuclear power stations.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology - Lancaster 1 st – 3 rd April 2014 David Copplestone & Nick Beresford.
PROTECT Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context Oslo meeting, January 2008 OSPAR Convention for the Protection.
PROTECTFP Radioprotection of the environment in France: IRSN current views and workplan K. Beaugelin-Seiller, IRSN Vienna IC, June 2007.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology – Lancaster 1 st – 3 rd April 2014.
1 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION METHODS S. Vanderperre Belgatom Vanderperre, Belgatom, chapter 7.
Copyright © 2014 ALLIANCE Updates to the ERICA Tool Barcelona – 10 th September Nick Beresford & Justin Brown (NERC-CEH,
Risks to Insectivorous Birds in the Calumet Region from Transfer of Contaminants from Sediments to Emergent Aquatic Insects S. Gallo 1, D. Soucek 1, J.
Experiences from testing the ERICA Integrated Approach Case study application of the ERICA Tool and D-ERICA.
“to provide and apply an integrated approach of addressing scientific, managerial and societal issues surrounding environmental effects of ionising.
 The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.
The Nature of Molecules
Working Group Reference models for waste disposal.
Introduction to the ERICA Tool Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)
EMRAS Biota Working Group – Main findings. IAEA EMRAS Biota Working Group Regular participants: Belgium - SCK·CEN; Canada – AECL; France – IRSN; Japan.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology - Lancaster October 2011 David Copplestone & Nick Beresford.
Periodic Table – Filling Order
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— ICRP And Protection of The Environment Dr Jack Valentin Scientific.
RNL 04: Biomonitoring as a Means for Acquisition of Site-Specific Transfer Parameters for Nuclides of Concern and Their Application in Demonstrating Protection.
TREE project, Challenges and Future Updates Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)
Supported by the European Commission, contract number: Fission , and the Research.
Please do not write on this document. Thank you. Atomic Radius Data Element Name Atomic Number Atomic Radius (pm) Height of Straws (cm) H He
Trends of the Periodic Table
Periodic Table Of Elements
PROTECTFP PROTECT recommendations – application in practice.
Bellwork, Fri. Sept. 14 Which element is LEAST likely to combine with another element to form a molecule? -Chlorine (Cl), a halogen -Iron (Fe), a metal.
Animal Groups Your Name.
Modern Periodic Table Objective:
Alkali Metals, Group 1 H N OF Cl Br I Li Na K Fr Be Mg Ca Ra Sc Ac He Ne Ar Kr Rn Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu ZnGa Ge As Se Rb Sr Y Xe Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd.
Nick Beresford & David Copplestone Centre for Ecology & Hydrology - Lancaster 1 st – 3 rd April 2014.
Modelling noble gases Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Authorized Limits Request for Release of Neutron Scattering Experiment Samples From SNS and HFIR Donald.
Trends of the Periodic Table. Electronegativity ElectronegativityyElectronegativityy.
The animal kingdom.
Periodic Table Li 3 He 2 C6C6 N7N7 O8O8 F9F9 Ne 10 Na 11 B5B5 Be 4 H1H1 Al 13 Si 14 P 15 S 16 Cl 17 Ar 18 K 19 Ca 20 Sc 21 Ti 22 V 23 Cr.
Comparison of MCNP and ERICA results in two different marine areas
Making the most of what we have: application of extrapolation approaches in radioecological transfer modelling Nicholas A. Beresford, Michael D. Wood,
1 H 2 He 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 11 Na 12 Mg 13 Al 14 Si
Periodensystem Biomaterials Research - Manfred Maitz H He Li Be B C N
Emission of Energy by Atoms and Electron Configurations
Trends of the Periodic Table
Periodic Table Kelter, Carr, Scott, Chemistry A Wolrd of Choices 1999, page 74.
WHAT THE HECK DO I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO?
Soil processes and trace metals
Periodic Table of the Elements
The Endangered Species Act
4.2 IONIZATION ENERGY 4.6 TABLE 4.2 Ionization Energy of the Elements
Reminder EU & European Red lists produced so far:
PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS
Electron Configurations
DETECTION LIMITS < 1 ppt ng/L 1-10 ppt ng/L ppt ng/L
Line Spectra and the Bohr Model
The Periodic Table Part I – Categories of Elements
Sellafield Discharges and Environmental Monitoring 2017
Electron Configurations and the Periodic Table
→ Atomic radius decreases → Ionization energy increases → Electronegativity increases →
Presentation transcript:

Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)

 be aware of ‘Reference Organisms’  understand how activity concentrations in organisms are predicted (if not known)  appreciate how transfer parameters are selected when data are lacking By the end of this presentation and practical you should….

‘A series of imaginary entities that provides a basis for the estimation of the radiation dose rate to a range of organisms that are typical, or representative, of a contaminated environment. These estimates, in turn, would provide a basis for assessing the likelihood and degree of radiation effects. It is important to recognise that they are not a direct representation of any identifiable animal or plant species’

Selection criteria, reference organisms should encompass: Organisms likely to have comparatively high exposures Radiosensitive organisms Protected (European) species Range of trophic levels ICRPs proposed Reference Animals and Plants

Lichen & bryophytes Grasses & herbs Shrub Tree Mollusc - gastropod Flying insect Arthropod – detritivorous Annelid Mammal - large Bird Mammal – small-burrowing Reptile Amphibian Transfer (& effects) data collated at these broad levels ‘Representative’ geometry selected for dosimetry

Mammal –large Mammal – small-burrowing Flying insect Annelid Bird Amphibian Pelagic fish Benthic fish Crustacean Tree Grasses & herbs Macroalgae

Most approaches use concentration ratios (CR)

x CR = Bq/kg

Time   Activity            Statistical exponential process Half-life = Time taken for activity to reduce by 50% CR is by element NOT isotope ‘half-life’ ignored

Water Sediment

Freshwater RadionuclideFishVascular plantMolluscReptileAlgaePhytoplanktonCrustaceanInsect larvaeInsectZooplanktonMammalAmphibian Cs Sr Am Cm Pu Ra Ce Co Mn U Pb Cd Po Sb Se I Ni Th Zr Eu Ru Cl P Np S Tc Te Ag Nb n≤10 n>10<20 n>20<100 n≥100

 To derive concentration limits (EMCLs) for Tier 1  Provide user with ‘best estimate’ CR & k d values for Tier 2/3 if no/insufficient:  measured activity concentrations in biota (water/ sediment)  site specific CR or k d values  Therefore need:  Complete set of CR & kd values for all organism-radionuclide combinations considered in tool (Tier 1)  Probability distribution function

 The ERICA tool considers 39 elements for 13 terrestrial, 13 freshwater and 13 marine reference organisms  1521 CR values required  Sufficient data available for 622 of these  The rest??

 Input water and sediment concentrations  Biota concentration estimated as water conc. x CR  Sediment used in external dose calculation .... But if do not have water concentrations – what then?  Water concentrations estimated as biota conc./CR and/or sediment conc./Kd  Missing biota and/or sediment concs then estimated using predicted water concs and CRs & Kd respectively

 Freshwater ecosystem  Select Pu-240 & all organisms  No water data but have sediment (n=15), fish (n=150) & amphibian (n=3) activity concentrations  Sediment 8000 Bq/kg DM (70% DM content)  Fish 1E-1 Bq/kg FW  Amphibian 1E-3 Bq/kg (FW)