Approaches to the definition of potentially exposed groups and potentially exposed populations of biota in the context of solid radioactive waste.

potentially exposed groups questionnaire MODARIA radioactive waste

Journal

Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection
ISSN: 1361-6498
Titre abrégé: J Radiol Prot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8809257

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 05 2022
Historique:
received: 22 12 2021
accepted: 23 03 2022
entrez: 20 5 2022
pubmed: 21 5 2022
medline: 24 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

A methodology for addressing the biosphere in safety assessments for solid radioactive waste disposal was developed through theme 1 of the IAEA coordinated research project on BIOsphere Modelling and ASSessment (BIOMASS) that ran from 1996 to 2001. This methodology provided guidance on how the biosphere can be addressed in safety assessments for disposal of solid radioactive waste. Since the methodology was developed, it has proven useful and has been widely referenced in assessments in a diversity of contexts encompassing both near-surface and deep geological disposal of solid radioactive waste. The principles that could be adopted for defining potentially exposed groups (PEGs) were an important aspect in the original BIOMASS methodology as the endpoint of an assessment usually includes the evaluation of individual dose or risk to human health. Identification of PEGs and definition of their characteristics are usually made to be consistent with the biosphere system description being developed, acknowledging that due to inherent uncertainties in projecting future human behaviour, the biosphere models adopted for assessing safety of a disposal system can only be illustrative. Since the publication of the original BIOMASS methodology, consideration has been extended to include potentially exposed populations of biota (PEPs), in the context of dose assessment and protection of the environment. Considering the need for the development of transfer pathways from a source term to an end point (for either PEGs or PEPs), the exposure modes that may occur and those to be assessed quantitatively should be identified. Within an expert working group (WG6) of the second phase of the IAEA coordinated project Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments (MODARIA II), the experience of participating organisations has been collected on topics associated with the definition of PEGs and PEPs using a questionnaire. The objective of the questionnaire was to review the current status and on-going discussions on the handling of issues related to definitions of PEGs and PEPs as an input to the development of biosphere models for assessing radiological impacts on human health and the environment. The answers received to the questionnaire provided a clear overview of the progress that has been made since the original BIOMASS methodology was published, together with the lessons learned from the application of that methodology in the development of safety cases. This paper summarises the questionnaire responses in five subject areas: (1) environment of the PEGs and its evolution; (2) linking the choice of PEGs to these environments; (3) food habits and consumption rates; (4) populations of non-human biota (PEPs) and (5) national and international regulations and guidance. We illustrate how the results of the questionnaire have been used to enhance the original BIOMASS methodology (IAEA Enhanced BIOMASS Methodology Report in press).

Identifiants

pubmed: 35593511
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac6045
doi:

Substances chimiques

Radioactive Waste 0
Solid Waste 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2022 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Lise Griffault (L)

Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs (Andra), 1-7 Rue Jean Monnet, Châtenay-Malabry, 92298, France.

Emilie Aubonnet (E)

Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs (Andra), 1-7 Rue Jean Monnet, Châtenay-Malabry, 92298, France.

Joanne Brown (J)

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria.

Reda Guerfi (R)

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Laippatie 4, PO Box 14, FI-00881 Helsinki, Finland.

Ulrik Kautsky (U)

Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB), PO Box 3091, SE-169 03 Solna, Sweden.

Raymond Kowe (R)

Nuclear Waste Services Ltd, Harwell OX11 0RL, United Kingdom.

Peter Saetre (P)

Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB), PO Box 3091, SE-169 03 Solna, Sweden.

Sanae Shibutani (S)

Nuclear Waste Management Organisation of Japan (NUMO), MitaNN Bldg. 1-23, Shiba 4-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0014, Japan.

Graham Smith (G)

Clemson University, South Carolina and GMS Abingdon Ltd, Tamarisk, Abingdon, United Kingdom.

Karen Smith (K)

RadEcol Consulting Ltd, 5. The Chambers, Vineyard, Abingdon OX14 3PX, United Kingdom.

Mike Thorne (M)

Mike Thorne and Associates Ltd, Quarry Cottage, Hamsterley, Bishop Auckland DL13 3NJ, United Kingdom.

Russell Walke (R)

Quintessa Ltd, Videcom House, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames RG9 1HG, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

Nigeria Environmental Monitoring Solid Waste Waste Disposal Facilities Refuse Disposal
Mediterranean Sea Seasons Microplastics Seawater Diatoms
1.00
Waste Disposal Facilities Mining Environmental Monitoring India Microplastics

Classifications MeSH