OSPAR Radioactive Substance STRATEGY: Draft Assessment on Impact of Anthropogenic Sources

1. OSPAR Radioactive Substance STRATEGY: Draft Assessment on Impact of Anthropogenic Sources of Radioactive Substances on Marine Biota K. Beaugelin-Seiller, for the ICG “In accordance with the general objective [of the OSPAR Convention], the objective of the Commission with regard to radioactive substances, including waste, is to prevent pollution of the maritime area from ionizing radiation through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances. In achieving this objective, the following issues should, inter alia, be taken into account: a. legitimate uses of the sea; b. technical feasibility; c. radiological impacts on man and biota.”

2.  Brief history • 1972: Oslo convention, for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft • 1974: Paris convention, for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources • 1992: update and unification of the former conventions (OS-PAR) OSPAR Convention, for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic Contracting Parties: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, together with the European Community Common concern : possibility of harm to the marine environment (and its users) from inputs of radionuclides => OSPAR Radioactive Substance Committee

3.  Current OSPAR RSC activities and associated deliverables • 2006 RA-1: First Periodic Evaluation (RadioActive Substance -RAS- discharges) • 2007 RA-2: Seconde Periodic Evaluation (RN activity concentrations in the environment + human dose) • 2008 RA-3: Impact on marine biota of anthropogenic sources of RAS => ICG Doses to biota • 2009 RA-4: Third Periodic Evaluation (overall assessment of radionuclides in the OSPARmaritime area)

4.  RA-3 expectations • Aim: to prepare an assessment of the impact on marine biota of anthropogenic sources of radioactive substances • Elements to provide • Brief state-of-the-art • Selection of a method • Application to the OSPAR area • Conclusion underlying limitations associated to gaps (data + knowledge)

5.  Proposed assessment method • Objectives: to demonstrate to which extent the progress in reducing inputs is propagated to doses or dose rates to biota • Inputs: yearly measured concentrations in biotic and abiotic compartments (if needed calculation / equilibrium) • Inputs:modelling of the absorbed dose rate delivered to biota • Combination between both entries • Basic lines: conceptuel ecosystem model, equations and parameters • Reference organisms: MARINA II ERICA tool • Equations • Parameters

6.  Concrete methodological choice: tool • ERICA • The only European project allowing an Integrated Assessment • Flexibility • Organisms user defined • All radionuclides available • Identified as corresponding to RA-3 requirements • Justification: intercomparison • RESRAD-BIOTA • Environmental Agency R&D 128

7. Past period : 1995 to 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  Spatial and temporal domain of interest

8. Past period : 1995 to 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  Spatial and temporal domain of interest 15 maritime regions x five time periods = 75 runs with the ERICA tool!

9.  ERICA tool application • Equation: DCC equivalent based on the single external component of dose rate in ERICA • Parameters: marine ERICA databases • Association MARINA II organisms with taxa described in database • Missing values

10.  Required extrapolations From published reviews Similar reference organism Allometric or other modelling approaches

11. R3 / Ra-226, Ra-228 R8/ Po-210, Pb-210, Ra-226  Naturally occuring radionuclide dose rates algae molluscs crustaceans fish OSPAR values (partial DR): Min from : Max from : R3 / Ra-226, Ra-228 R13/ Po-210, Pb-210

12.  Anthropogenic radionuclide dose rates Past period (1995-2001) 2002 2003 2004 2005

13.  Conclusions • some limitations were identified • Geographical representativeness of data (limited number of data points) • Variability in size & quality between data sets issued from different countries • Concentrations possibly influenced (Chernobyl, global fall-out, remobilisation) • a partial assessment, difficult to interpret in terms of potential impact • indication: partial estimated dose rates low, and below 10 µGy/h • needs for improvement of input data sets • Modelling => size of boxes + discharges ??? • Ranking of radionuclides • H-3, Cl-36, S-35, I (125,129,131,133) less important • Po-210, Pu (238,239,240) very important

14.  And now ? • draft submitted this week to the RSC • Some suggestions • No more work on assessment methodology on RAS impact • Statistical trend analysis of time evolution? • Use of modelling on release data to fill data gaps? • More radionuclides ?

15.  Conceptual marine ecosystem (organisms and data from MARINA II)

16.  Equations • external + internal = total dose rate • weighting low b, b+g and a = final DCC for organism o RN i

17. for water in Bq/L for sediment in Bq/kg in Bq/kg fresh weight  Parameters • ecologically plausible pathways (both internal & external) • equilibrium assumption acceptable vs time step of interest (i.e. the year)