Bounding uncertainties around the conceptual representation of species in radiological assessment in the context of routine atmospheric release.

Wildlife protection has become of regulatory interest since the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) developed an approach to assess the level of radiological protection specifically for animals and plants. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with regulation to protect the environment against routine authorised discharges from nuclear facilities, the wide variety of biota inhabiting an ecosystem needs to be condensed to a limited set of representative organisms, as proposed by the ICRP with a set of 'reference animals and plants' which can be considered representative of many other species. It is now recommended in the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards, and internationally accepted, that the use of such a limited number of organisms to represent a pool of species is adequate for radiation protection purposes, particularly in planned exposure situations. Adding site-specific species to that set of surrogate species can respond to various interests, such as ensuring a site-specific context to the assessment that addresses stakeholder interests and can aid in stakeholder consultation and risk communication. Moreover, there is a need to question whether the use of the set of surrogate organisms is conservative enough to cover a wider range of biodiversity. Previous studies partially answered this question and this paper adds a range of test cases. A selection of hypothetical representations of possible site-specific species are assessed on the basis of possible variations in size (mass) and occupancy habits. Dose rates are evaluated to determine the greatest difference between hypothetical organisms and those for reference organisms (ROs), considering radionuclides (RNs) potentially discharged in atmospheric routine release from different nuclear facilities. Differences observed in the results between hypothetical organisms and ROs were less than one order of magnitude in all cases, the difference being dependent on the RNs considered. These findings do not preclude the inclusion of site-specific species in environmental radiological assessments if it is considered necessary, but they provide reassurance that using ROs for radiological impact assessments in the case of routine atmospheric discharges is sufficient.

Does the use of reference organisms in radiological impact assessments provide adequate protection of all the species within an environment?

Non-human biota in radiological risk assessment is typically evaluated using Reference Organisms (ROs) or Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs), for all exposure situations. However, it still remains open whether the use of an increased number of species would improve the ability to demonstrate protectiveness of the environment. In this paper, the representativeness of a 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: the Cadarache centre. A list of terrestrial animal species, compiled from ecological inventories carried out around it was evaluated. A first survey around the centre inventoried >400 terrestrial fauna species, which were then filtered to reduce the number to 28 species for which dose assessments were carried out. Despite the differences between geometries for those site-specific species and the ROs (including RAPs), the absorbed dose rates calculated for both were very close (within a factor of two). Regardless of the studied organism, the absorbed dose rates calculated for the discharge scenario were mainly related to internal exposure, particularly for tritium (3H) and carbon 14 (14C), showing that there would be an acceptable dose rates difference between species from the same organism group. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine if the use of generic, predefined ROs was enough to assure an adequate protection of endangered species. It was observed that for every radionuclide the difference between assessments for site-specific species and ROs are unlikely to exceed a factor of 3. Hence, the result of this evaluation indicates that the use of generic ROs for non-human biota radiological risk assessment covers sufficiently other species, including endangered ones.