Issues and practices in the use of effects data from FREDERICA in the ERICA Integrated Approach
Creators
- 1. Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), DEI/SECRE, Laboratory of Radioecology and Ecotoxicology, Cadarache Building 186, BP3, 13115 St-Paul-lez-Durance Cedex (France)
- 2. Environment Agency, Ecosystems and Radioactive Substances, P.O. Box 12, Richard Fairclough House, Knutsford Road, Latchford, Warrington, Cheshire WA4 1HG (United Kingdom)
- 3. Electricite de France, Division Recherche et Developpement, Departement Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement, 6 quai Watier, 78401 Chatou (France)
- 4. Soedertoern University College, School of Life Sciences, Huddinge 141 89 (Sweden)
- 5. Research Centre for Energy, Environment and Technology (CIEMAT), Avenida Complutense 22, 28040 Madrid (Spain)
- 6. Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 As (Norway)
- 7. Norvegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), Department of Emergency Preparedness and Environmental Radioactivity, Grini naeringspark 13, Postbox 55, NO-1332 Oesteraas (Norway)
- 8. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSI), S-171 16 Stockholm (Sweden)
Description
The ERICA Integrated Approach requires that a risk assessment screening dose rate is defined for the risk characterisation within Tiers 1 and 2. At Tier 3, no numerical screening dose rate is used, and the risk characterisation is driven by methods that can evaluate the possible effects of ionising radiation on reproduction, mortality and morbidity. Species sensitivity distribution has been used to derive the ERICA risk assessment predicted no-effect dose rate (PNEDR). The method used was based on the mathematical processing of data from FRED (FASSET radiation effects database merged with the EPIC database to form FREDERICA) and resulted in a PNEDR of 10 μGy/h. This rate was assumed to ascribe sufficient protection of all ecosystems from detrimental effects on structure and function under chronic exposure. The value was weighed against a number of points of comparison: (i) PNEDR values obtained by application of the safety factor method, (ii) background levels, (iii) dose rates triggering effects on radioactively contaminated sites and (iv) former guidelines from literature reviews. In Tier 3, the effects analysis must be driven by the problem formulation and is thus highly case specific. Instead of specific recommendations on numeric values, guidance on the sorts of methods that may be applied for refined effect analysis is provided and illustrated
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.04.012Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.04.012;
- PII
- S0265-931X(08)00065-9;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
- Journal Volume
- 99
- Journal Issue
- 9
- Journal Page Range
- p. 1474-1483
- ISSN
- 0265-931X
- CODEN
- JERAEE
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 40001426
- Subject category
- S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; S61: RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY;
- Descriptors DEI
- BIOLOGICAL RADIATION EFFECTS; CHRONIC EXPOSURE; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DISEASE INCIDENCE; DOSE RATES; ECOSYSTEMS; HEALTH HAZARDS; IONIZING RADIATIONS; MORTALITY; RECOMMENDATIONS; REPRODUCTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SCREENING
- Descriptors DEC
- BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS; EVALUATION; HAZARDS; RADIATION EFFECTS; RADIATIONS
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2008 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.