Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PROTECTFP6-036425 Terrestrial Assessment Comparison of human and non human dose assessments for prospective new nuclear power stations.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PROTECTFP6-036425 Terrestrial Assessment Comparison of human and non human dose assessments for prospective new nuclear power stations."— Presentation transcript:

1 PROTECTFP Terrestrial Assessment Comparison of human and non human dose assessments for prospective new nuclear power stations

2 PROTECTFP Outline Background Human assessment (assumptions) Non-human assessment (assumptions) Comparison of the results from the two assessments Discussion of results? Summary/Issues for PROTECT

3 PROTECTFP Background

4 PROTECTFP Background Assessment loosely based on proposed build of new nuclear power stations (AGR and PWR types) Terrestrial assessment looking at exposure to –humans via foodstuff/living nearby –Non-human species living in a (protected) Natura 2000 site at approximately the same distance as that for humans Uses probable permitted discharge limits as input Single source of radioactivity to assessment assumed

5 PROTECTFP Map of proposed facility Facility with sea discharge Terrestrial Natura 2000 site 500m from aerial discharge Agricultural land used for food crops/milk production 500m from aerial discharge Humans living at 100m from site

6 PROTECTFP Permitted discharge limits AGRPWR H-368 C S Noble Gases Other beta I In TBq per year

7 PROTECTFP Human assessment

8 PROTECTFP Approach Modelled using the Environment Agency Initial Radiological Assessment Tool Prospective assessment Simple spreadsheet tool

9 PROTECTFP Assumptions Assumes a ground level release & uniform windrose Exposure to humans is at 100m from discharge point; assumed to be consuming high levels of locally sourced foods such as milk, beef, lamb, offal, green vegetables, root vegetables and fruit (sourced 500m from discharge point) Other beta modelled as I-131 Noble gases modelled as C-14 (not available in ERICA) No direct shine assessment included (can’t do it for non-human species yet)

10 PROTECTFP

11 PROTECT

12 PROTECT

13 PROTECT

14 PROTECT Non-human assessment

15 PROTECTFP Assumptions Modelled terrestrial input concentrations through IAEA SRS19 transfer model Assumed ground level release Distance to receptor = 500m Used ERICA tool Tier 2, assuming reference organisms in the assessment and using all default concentration ratios, occupancy factors, etc for terrestrial environment Other beta modelled as I-131 Noble gases modelled as C-14

16 PROTECTFP AGR - Screened against 10 µGy/h

17 PROTECTFP PWR - Screened against 10 µGy/h

18 PROTECTFP Results comparison

19 PROTECTFP Predicted dose rates - human AGR Inhalation dose External dose (cloud and deposited) Food dose Total dose % Contrib ution uSv/y Tritium4.0E+000.0E+009.0E-014.9E+000.2% Carbon-141.2E+033.1E-021.9E+033.1E % Sulphur-353.2E+002.7E-045.8E+016.1E+011.9% Other beta/gamma1.8E+002.6E-012.8E+013.0E+010.9% Total doses1.2E+033.0E-012.0E+033.2E+03uSv/y PWR Tritium5.4E+000.0E+001.2E+006.6E % Carbon-145.4E+031.4E-018.7E+031.4E % Other beta/gamma3.0E+004.4E-014.6E+014.9E % Total doses5.4E+035.8E-018.8E+031.4E+04uSv/y

20 PROTECTFP Predicted dose rates - human AGR Inhalation dose External dose (cloud and deposited) Food dose Total dose % Contrib ution uSv/y Tritium4.0E+000.0E+009.0E-014.9E+000.2% Carbon-141.2E+033.1E-021.9E+033.1E % Sulphur-353.2E+002.7E-045.8E+016.1E+011.9% Other beta/gamma1.8E+002.6E-012.8E+013.0E+010.9% Total doses1.2E+033.0E-012.0E+033.2E+03uSv/y PWR Tritium5.4E+000.0E+001.2E+006.6E % Carbon-145.4E+031.4E-018.7E+031.4E % Other beta/gamma3.0E+004.4E-014.6E+014.9E % Total doses5.4E+035.8E-018.8E+031.4E+04uSv/y

21 PROTECTFP Non- human results – total doses µGy/h OrganismAGRPWR Amphibian1.3E+006.1E+00 Bird1.4E+006.4E+00 Bird egg8.9E-014.1E+00 Detritivorous invertebrate4.3E-012.0E+00 Flying insects4.3E-012.0E+00 Gastropod4.3E-012.0E+00 Grasses & Herbs8.8E-014.1E+00 Lichen & bryophytes8.8E-014.1E+00 Mammal (Deer)1.4E+006.4E+00 Mammal (Rat)1.4E+006.4E+00 Reptile1.4E+006.4E+00 Shrub8.8E-014.1E+00 Soil Invertebrate (worm)4.3E-012.0E+00 Tree1.3E+006.2E+00

22 PROTECTFP Non- human results – total doses µGy/h OrganismAGRPWR Amphibian1.3E+006.1E+00 Bird1.4E+006.4E+00 Bird egg8.9E-014.1E+00 Detritivorous invertebrate4.3E-012.0E+00 Flying insects4.3E-012.0E+00 Gastropod4.3E-012.0E+00 Grasses & Herbs8.8E-014.1E+00 Lichen & bryophytes8.8E-014.1E+00 Mammal (Deer)1.4E+006.4E+00 Mammal (Rat)1.4E+006.4E+00 Reptile1.4E+006.4E+00 Shrub8.8E-014.1E+00 Soil Invertebrate (worm)4.3E-012.0E+00 Tree1.3E+006.2E+00

23 PROTECTFP Non- human results – total doses µGy/h OrganismAGRPWR Amphibian1.3E+006.1E+00 Bird1.4E+006.4E+00 Bird egg8.9E-014.1E+00 Detritivorous invertebrate4.3E-012.0E+00 Flying insects4.3E-012.0E+00 Gastropod4.3E-012.0E+00 Grasses & Herbs8.8E-014.1E+00 Lichen & bryophytes8.8E-014.1E+00 Mammal (Deer)1.4E+006.4E+00 Mammal (Rat)1.4E+006.4E+00 Reptile1.4E+006.4E+00 Shrub8.8E-014.1E+00 Soil Invertebrate (worm)4.3E-012.0E+00 Tree1.3E+006.2E+00 C-14 is the main contributor

24 PROTECTFP Risk Quotients Human results compared to 1mSv/y Biota results compared to 10 and 40 µGy/h (EA uses 40 as action value currently)

25 PROTECTFP Risk Quotients Human –AGR = RQ of 3 –PWR = RQ of 14 Biota v 10 µGy/h (using reptile as most affected) –AGR = RQ of 0.14 –PWR = RQ of 0.64 Biota v 40 µGy/h (using reptile as most affected) –AGR = RQ of –PWR = RQ of 0.16

26 PROTECTFP Risk Quotients Human –AGR = RQ of (using Ar-41 not C-14) –PWR = RQ of (using Ar-41 not C-14) Biota v 10 µGy/h (using reptile as most affected) –AGR = RQ of 0.14 –PWR = RQ of 0.64 Biota v 40 µGy/h (using reptile as most affected) –AGR = RQ of –PWR = RQ of 0.16

27 PROTECTFP Open discussion of results

28 PROTECTFP Summary/Issues for PROTECT

29 PROTECTFP Issues/Future Include noble gases in the non-human assessments (unsure of actual dose predictions) However human and biota results should change ‘proportionally’ if/when noble gases are included in biota assessments This is a simple terrestrial only assessment (note in E&W’s no terrestrial habitat assessments ever triggered at Stage 2) Need to expand evaluation for purposes of ICRP Committee 4 (include ICRP approach in assessment?) –Combine terrestrial and aquatic assessments


Download ppt "PROTECTFP6-036425 Terrestrial Assessment Comparison of human and non human dose assessments for prospective new nuclear power stations."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google