Difference between revisions of "Concept of collective dose (Sustainability Assessment)"
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This page is the "Appendix IV" to [[Environmental_Impact_of_Stressors_( | + | This page is the "Appendix IV" to [[Environmental_Impact_of_Stressors_(Sustainability_Assessment)|Environmental Impact of Stressors]] |
The concept of collective dose was found to be very useful for comparative analysis of radioactive emissions | The concept of collective dose was found to be very useful for comparative analysis of radioactive emissions | ||
from nuclear facilities and systems. | from nuclear facilities and systems. | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| − | Interpretation of the collective dose has been discussed by the ICRP, which, in its recommendations | + | Interpretation of the collective dose has been discussed by the ICRP, which, in its recommendations<ref name=r128>INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, The evolution of the system of radiological |
| + | protection: The justification for new ICRP recommendations, J. Radiol. Prot. 23 2 (2003) 129.</ref>, | ||
believes that the use of the collective dose concept is closely connected with formal CBA. The product of the | believes that the use of the collective dose concept is closely connected with formal CBA. The product of the | ||
average dose to an individual and the number of individuals in a group (i.e. how collective dose has been calculated | average dose to an individual and the number of individuals in a group (i.e. how collective dose has been calculated | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
approach leads to a more correct estimation of consequences (risks) of irradiation. The ICRP believes that this | approach leads to a more correct estimation of consequences (risks) of irradiation. The ICRP believes that this | ||
will avoid misinterpretation of the collective dose, which has resulted in serious errors in the prediction of lethal | will avoid misinterpretation of the collective dose, which has resulted in serious errors in the prediction of lethal | ||
| − | outcomes. A justification of these ICRP recommendations can be found in Ref. | + | outcomes. A justification of these ICRP recommendations can be found in Ref.<ref name=r128/>.<br> |
Collective doses are generally not used by regulators; instead, regulators usually limit the emission of single | Collective doses are generally not used by regulators; instead, regulators usually limit the emission of single | ||
radionuclides or classes of radionuclides represented by equivalent isotopes on the basis of doses to the critical | radionuclides or classes of radionuclides represented by equivalent isotopes on the basis of doses to the critical | ||
group. However, collective doses normalized per unit of electricity were used in the ExternE project for the | group. However, collective doses normalized per unit of electricity were used in the ExternE project for the | ||
| − | calculation of external costs for comparing different power technologies | + | calculation of external costs for comparing different power technologies<ref name=r110>EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ExternE, Externalities of Energy, Vol. 10: National Implementation, Rep. EUR 18528, Office for |
| − | have also been used for comparison of different options of nuclear cycles in Ref. | + | Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1999).</ref><ref name=r111>EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ExternE, Externalities of Energy, Vol. 5: Nuclear. European Commission DGXII, Science, |
| − | collective doses should be calculated in particular cases can be found in Refs | + | Research and Development JOULE, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1995).</ref><ref name=r119>DONES, R., et al., New Energy Technologies, Final Report on Work Package 6, Release 2, ExternE-Pol Project ‘Externalities |
| + | of Energy: Extension of Accounting Framework and Policy Applications’, European Commission, Brussels (2005).</ref>. Annual collective doses | ||
| + | have also been used for comparison of different options of nuclear cycles in Ref.<ref name=r116>AGENCE NATIONALE POUR LA GESTION DES DECHETS RADIOACTIFS, COMMISSARIAT A L’ENERGIE | ||
| + | ATOMIQUE, COGEMA, ÉLECTRICITE DE FRANCE, FRAMATOME ANP, INSTITUT DE RADIOPROTECTION ET DE | ||
| + | SURETE NUCLEAIRE, Évaluation environnementale et sanitaire de cycles électronucléaires: recherche méthodologique et | ||
| + | application à des scénarios prospectifs, Rapport du Forum d’Échanges ANDRA, CEA, COGEMA, EDF, FRAMATOME-ANP, | ||
| + | IRSN, Rapport commun référencé par le CEA – DEN/DDIN/DPRGD/RT/2004/2 (2004).</ref>. Recommendations on how | ||
| + | collective doses should be calculated in particular cases can be found in Refs<ref name=r23>INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of | ||
| + | Radioactive Substances to the Environment, Safety Reports Series No. 19, IAEA, Vienna (2001).</ref><ref name=r129>INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Impact of Radionuclides Dispersed on a Regional and | ||
| + | Global Scale: Methods for Assessment and their Application, Technical Reports Series No. 250, IAEA, Vienna (1985).</ref><ref name=r130>NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS, A Practical Guide to the Determination | ||
| + | of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and | ||
| + | Measurements, Rep. No. 119, NCRP, Bethesda, MD (1993).</ref>.<br> | ||
Use of collective doses also presents some disadvantages, e.g. the possibly prevailing importance given to | Use of collective doses also presents some disadvantages, e.g. the possibly prevailing importance given to | ||
very low doses occurring over very long time periods (applying the linear dose effect relationship without cut-offs), | very low doses occurring over very long time periods (applying the linear dose effect relationship without cut-offs), | ||
| Line 27: | Line 39: | ||
==Simplified determination of collective dose== | ==Simplified determination of collective dose== | ||
The IAEA generic models (see also Appendix II) include a simplified method to determine collective doses. | The IAEA generic models (see also Appendix II) include a simplified method to determine collective doses. | ||
| − | In section 7 of Ref. | + | In section 7 of Ref.<ref name=r23/>, tables contain collective effective dose commitments per unit activity (man Sv/Bq) |
of radionuclides discharged to the atmosphere, to marine water and freshwater bodies. All contributions from | of radionuclides discharged to the atmosphere, to marine water and freshwater bodies. All contributions from | ||
individual radionuclide species and pathways need to be summed.<br> | individual radionuclide species and pathways need to be summed.<br> | ||
The simplified conversion of release rates to dose factors has been derived using the results of two approaches: | The simplified conversion of release rates to dose factors has been derived using the results of two approaches: | ||
| − | one based on a simple method using generic parameters | + | one based on a simple method using generic parameters<ref name=r98>UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION, Sources and Effects of |
| − | which have been developed by the NRPB, in the United Kingdom. Reference | + | Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, UNSCEAR, New York (2000).</ref> and the other one based on complex modelling<ref name=r131>BEXON, A.P., Radiological Impact of Routine Discharges from UK Civil Nuclear Sites in the Mid 1990s, Rep. NRPB-R312, |
| + | National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton (1999).</ref>, | ||
| + | which have been developed by the NRPB, in the United Kingdom. Reference<ref name=r23/> suggests using simplified models | ||
with caution, noting that they can only provide order of magnitude estimates, and that collective doses: | with caution, noting that they can only provide order of magnitude estimates, and that collective doses: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 54: | ||
as cost–benefit analyses, nor for other purposes.” | as cost–benefit analyses, nor for other purposes.” | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | Reference | + | Reference<ref name=r23/> further states that “the site specific discharge conditions and the actual critical group location |
be taken into account if the predicted doses exceed a reference level of around 10% of the dose constraint.”<br> | be taken into account if the predicted doses exceed a reference level of around 10% of the dose constraint.”<br> | ||
Collective doses were estimated for most radionuclides only in local and regional zones, which may extend | Collective doses were estimated for most radionuclides only in local and regional zones, which may extend | ||
| − | from the point of release to distances varying from about a hundred kilometres to several thousand kilometres | + | from the point of release to distances varying from about a hundred kilometres to several thousand kilometres<ref name=r23/>. |
Four nuclides were considered for global analysis because of their relatively long radioactive half-lives or a high | Four nuclides were considered for global analysis because of their relatively long radioactive half-lives or a high | ||
environmental mobility: <sup>14</sup>C, <sup>3</sup>H, <sup>129</sup>I and <sup>85</sup>Kr; other long lived radionuclides, such as <sup>237</sup>Np or <sup>99</sup>Tc, may also | environmental mobility: <sup>14</sup>C, <sup>3</sup>H, <sup>129</sup>I and <sup>85</sup>Kr; other long lived radionuclides, such as <sup>237</sup>Np or <sup>99</sup>Tc, may also | ||
| Line 49: | Line 63: | ||
an analyst may need to consider these (and others), depending on the technical characteristics and expected | an analyst may need to consider these (and others), depending on the technical characteristics and expected | ||
performance of the NES.<br> | performance of the NES.<br> | ||
| − | Collective doses can be used for the purposes of optimization of radiation protection measures. WS-G-2.3 | + | Collective doses can be used for the purposes of optimization of radiation protection measures. WS-G-2.3<ref name=r33>POINSSOT, C., et al., Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and |
| + | open fuel cycles, Energy 69 (2014) 199.</ref> | ||
recommends using the estimations of collective dose arising from discharges to avoid spending resources to assess | recommends using the estimations of collective dose arising from discharges to avoid spending resources to assess | ||
options for reducing discharges in disproportion to the likely improvement in radiological protection. The collective | options for reducing discharges in disproportion to the likely improvement in radiological protection. The collective | ||
| − | dose from discharges, which can be estimated using Ref. | + | dose from discharges, which can be estimated using Ref.<ref name=r23/>, should be added to an estimate of the relevant |
collective dose from occupational exposure to provide an estimate of the total collective dose. If the result is less | collective dose from occupational exposure to provide an estimate of the total collective dose. If the result is less | ||
| − | than about 1 man Sv/a, an extensive formal optimization study most probably will not be needed | + | than about 1 man Sv/a, an extensive formal optimization study most probably will not be needed<ref name=r132>INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, IAEA |
| + | Safety Standards Series No. RS-G-1.7, IAEA, Vienna (2004).</ref>. If the value | ||
of the collective dose is greater than about 1 man Sv/a, a formal study by the designer (technology developer) is | of the collective dose is greater than about 1 man Sv/a, a formal study by the designer (technology developer) is | ||
required, with the use of decision aiding techniques such as CBA and multicriteria methods. | required, with the use of decision aiding techniques such as CBA and multicriteria methods. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 78: | ||
*[[Important stressors in nuclear energy systems (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix I]] | *[[Important stressors in nuclear energy systems (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix I]] | ||
*[[Simplified environmental analysis (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix II]] | *[[Simplified environmental analysis (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix II]] | ||
| − | *[[Basic concepts for optimizing management options for reduction of environmental impact (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix III]] | + | *[[Basic concepts for optimizing management options for reduction of environmental impact (Sustainability Assessment)|Appendix III]]</big> |
| + | |||
| + | {{Assessment_Methodology}} | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{Reflist}} | ||
| + | [[Category:Sustainability Assessment]] | ||
Latest revision as of 09:17, 10 December 2020
This page is the "Appendix IV" to Environmental Impact of Stressors
The concept of collective dose was found to be very useful for comparative analysis of radioactive emissions from nuclear facilities and systems.
Introduction
Interpretation of the collective dose has been discussed by the ICRP, which, in its recommendations[1],
believes that the use of the collective dose concept is closely connected with formal CBA. The product of the
average dose to an individual and the number of individuals in a group (i.e. how collective dose has been calculated
in the past) is a legalized quantitative value, but it is of a limited application, as it combines redundant information.
For decision making, the necessary information has to be presented as a matrix that indicates the number of
individuals exposed to a specific dose and the date it was received. This matrix needs to be considered as an
auxiliary decision making tool allowing the significance evaluation of individual matrix elements. The matrix
approach leads to a more correct estimation of consequences (risks) of irradiation. The ICRP believes that this
will avoid misinterpretation of the collective dose, which has resulted in serious errors in the prediction of lethal
outcomes. A justification of these ICRP recommendations can be found in Ref.[1].
Collective doses are generally not used by regulators; instead, regulators usually limit the emission of single
radionuclides or classes of radionuclides represented by equivalent isotopes on the basis of doses to the critical
group. However, collective doses normalized per unit of electricity were used in the ExternE project for the
calculation of external costs for comparing different power technologies[2][3][4]. Annual collective doses
have also been used for comparison of different options of nuclear cycles in Ref.[5]. Recommendations on how
collective doses should be calculated in particular cases can be found in Refs[6][7][8].
Use of collective doses also presents some disadvantages, e.g. the possibly prevailing importance given to
very low doses occurring over very long time periods (applying the linear dose effect relationship without cut-offs),
the dependency on key modelling assumptions that are not easily controllable such as population distributions
(in place and time) and the application, or not, of discounting.
Simplified determination of collective dose
The IAEA generic models (see also Appendix II) include a simplified method to determine collective doses.
In section 7 of Ref.[6], tables contain collective effective dose commitments per unit activity (man Sv/Bq)
of radionuclides discharged to the atmosphere, to marine water and freshwater bodies. All contributions from
individual radionuclide species and pathways need to be summed.
The simplified conversion of release rates to dose factors has been derived using the results of two approaches:
one based on a simple method using generic parameters[9] and the other one based on complex modelling[10],
which have been developed by the NRPB, in the United Kingdom. Reference[6] suggests using simplified models
with caution, noting that they can only provide order of magnitude estimates, and that collective doses:
“...should be used only as part of a screening or generic assessment procedure, for example to ensure compliance with dose limiting criteria or as input to an optimization exercise to compare options as part of an intuitive, semi-quantitative analysis. They should not be used for more rigorous optimization analyses, such as cost–benefit analyses, nor for other purposes.”
Reference[6] further states that “the site specific discharge conditions and the actual critical group location
be taken into account if the predicted doses exceed a reference level of around 10% of the dose constraint.”
Collective doses were estimated for most radionuclides only in local and regional zones, which may extend
from the point of release to distances varying from about a hundred kilometres to several thousand kilometres[6].
Four nuclides were considered for global analysis because of their relatively long radioactive half-lives or a high
environmental mobility: 14C, 3H, 129I and 85Kr; other long lived radionuclides, such as 237Np or 99Tc, may also
become globally dispersed following discharge, but they have not yet been accurately addressed. Therefore,
an analyst may need to consider these (and others), depending on the technical characteristics and expected
performance of the NES.
Collective doses can be used for the purposes of optimization of radiation protection measures. WS-G-2.3[11]
recommends using the estimations of collective dose arising from discharges to avoid spending resources to assess
options for reducing discharges in disproportion to the likely improvement in radiological protection. The collective
dose from discharges, which can be estimated using Ref.[6], should be added to an estimate of the relevant
collective dose from occupational exposure to provide an estimate of the total collective dose. If the result is less
than about 1 man Sv/a, an extensive formal optimization study most probably will not be needed[12]. If the value
of the collective dose is greater than about 1 man Sv/a, a formal study by the designer (technology developer) is
required, with the use of decision aiding techniques such as CBA and multicriteria methods.
See also
[ + ] Assessment Methodology | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, The evolution of the system of radiological protection: The justification for new ICRP recommendations, J. Radiol. Prot. 23 2 (2003) 129.
- ↑ EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ExternE, Externalities of Energy, Vol. 10: National Implementation, Rep. EUR 18528, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1999).
- ↑ EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ExternE, Externalities of Energy, Vol. 5: Nuclear. European Commission DGXII, Science, Research and Development JOULE, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1995).
- ↑ DONES, R., et al., New Energy Technologies, Final Report on Work Package 6, Release 2, ExternE-Pol Project ‘Externalities of Energy: Extension of Accounting Framework and Policy Applications’, European Commission, Brussels (2005).
- ↑ AGENCE NATIONALE POUR LA GESTION DES DECHETS RADIOACTIFS, COMMISSARIAT A L’ENERGIE ATOMIQUE, COGEMA, ÉLECTRICITE DE FRANCE, FRAMATOME ANP, INSTITUT DE RADIOPROTECTION ET DE SURETE NUCLEAIRE, Évaluation environnementale et sanitaire de cycles électronucléaires: recherche méthodologique et application à des scénarios prospectifs, Rapport du Forum d’Échanges ANDRA, CEA, COGEMA, EDF, FRAMATOME-ANP, IRSN, Rapport commun référencé par le CEA – DEN/DDIN/DPRGD/RT/2004/2 (2004).
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment, Safety Reports Series No. 19, IAEA, Vienna (2001).
- ↑ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Impact of Radionuclides Dispersed on a Regional and Global Scale: Methods for Assessment and their Application, Technical Reports Series No. 250, IAEA, Vienna (1985).
- ↑ NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS, A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Rep. No. 119, NCRP, Bethesda, MD (1993).
- ↑ UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, UNSCEAR, New York (2000).
- ↑ BEXON, A.P., Radiological Impact of Routine Discharges from UK Civil Nuclear Sites in the Mid 1990s, Rep. NRPB-R312, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton (1999).
- ↑ POINSSOT, C., et al., Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles, Energy 69 (2014) 199.
- ↑ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. RS-G-1.7, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
