• Aucun résultat trouvé

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

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

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

Copied!
27
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

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�

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

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)

(5)

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

(6)

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

(7)

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 pipit Little owl Eurasian nuthatch Identical CR

FEW CLARIFICATIONS

| PAGE 6

(8)

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

(9)

PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

(10)

PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

(11)

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

(12)

 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

(13)

DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES

(14)

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%

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)

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 DR

tot

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

(18)

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?

(19)

PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

(20)

DR DR DR difference = DRcreated organism/DRRO 1 Max Min ? ? Eurasian nuthatch Meadow pipit Little 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

(21)

• 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 Max Min ? ? Eurasian nuthatch Meadow pipit Little 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

(22)

 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 Max Min ? ? Eurasian nuthatch Meadow pipit Little 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)

(23)

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 90Sr Mollusc - Gastropod 2.60 124Sb 2.93 65Zn Mammal small 1.11 231Th 1.38 134Cs Mammal large 1.40 231 Th 1.09 65Zn Bird 1.09 192Ir 1.56 65Zn Reptile 1.18 231Th 1.07 90Sr Amphibian 1.04 234Th 1.32 65Zn Annelid 1.02 54Mn 1.60 75Se Arthropod-detritivorous 1.05 89 Sr 1.82 90Sr

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

(24)

 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 ) 3

H 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

(25)

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 3H o r 14C t o β e mit te r

∆DR observable between RO and hypothetical organism 200

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

(26)

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

(27)

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

Références

Documents relatifs

Table 1 Description of mean life history traits for reference individuals and for the three groups of accelerated individuals (defined according to their sea- sonal rhythm, Figure

Our study produced four main findings that were generally consistent across five natural grassland plant communities: (1) limiting- case predictions from the theo- retical model

Results presented in this study conftrm high animal prevalence of both tuberculosis and brucellosis, and surveys carried out in the human population concluded that the

FIB-SEM cross-section grain structure image of a ZnO test film (a); compared to typical pyramidal ZnO for cells, its unusual structure results from very non-standard LP-CVD

Figure 3: Comparison of MeHg concentrations (ng·g -1 , logarithmic representation) obtained by simultaneous species extraction (SSE) and MeHg selective extraction

Considering the length of gestation, the occurrence of meiosis at around birth in the female, the high number of foetuses in the litter and recent opportunities to investigate

Second, the use of CDFs to combined SRKW summer core areas with the results of JASCO’s cumulative noise modeling study (O’Neill et al., 2017) allowed to quantify

Both the Sentinel survey data and the harvester interviews suggest both spatial and temporal variability in wolffish distribution along the Newfoundland coast of the