Impact case study database

Significantly driven by our research activities (e.g. R1- 3, 6), the need to demonstrate protection of the environment from ionising radiation is now firmly established within ICRP recommendations and UN IAEA basic safety standards and associated guidance. Our specific impacts have been:

Impact 1: Development and use of the ERICA Assessment Tool and Noble Gas Calculator

Internationally, ERICA is the most widely used tool of its type in the world (Figure 2), being recommended by environmental regulators (e.g. C1, C2, C3, C4) and used in major nuclear markets such as France, Japan and the UK. It is used to test whether current radiological environment safeguards are sufficient when issuing permits to every nuclear power station, nuclear decommissioning and waste management activity, and hospital releasing radioactivity. It allows over 40 countries (C10) to comply with international recommendations and effectively implement and develop their national environmental radiological protection policies. C5 provides evidence of a wide range of examples where the ERICA Tool or Noble Gas Calculator have been used. Highlights include:

1) In the United Kingdom all UK environmental regulators (Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Natural Resources Wales, and Northern Ireland Environment Agency), the Health Protection Agency and the Food Standards Agency recommend use of ERICA and the noble gas calculator (e.g. C1, C2, C4). In C4, the UK environmental regulators confirm that they use ERICA ( R1) for their “assessments of radiological impacts of discharges upon non-human organisms” ( C4), and affirm their expectation that “ operators carry out an assessment and to draw conclusions about the effects of the site on the environment” ( C4).

To meet its “ legal duty” ( C1) under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, the Environment Agency used “ the internationally recognised ERICA tool” ( C1) for its Habitats Assessments for Radioactive Substances ( C5), to determine whether radioactive materials released under permit could impact on any Natura 2000 site in England. This involved conducting a detailed assessment of 603 permitted radioactive discharges on the 349 potentially at-risk Natura 2000 sites. They also state that demonstrating protection “from the harmful effects of radiation is vital if nuclear energy is to make a contribution to sustainable development goals” and that “ the ERICA tool is used routinely” as “an important part of our permitting process” ( C1). The use of nuclear energy moving forward was recently highlighted in the ‘ Green Industrial Revolution’ announcement from UK Government.

2) All nuclear licensed sites in the UK require an environmental permit to operate ( C1, C2). Without this permit, both routine and decommissioning activities are at risk. The latest estimate for nuclear clean-up (not including new power stations) is between GBP99,000,000,000 and GBP232,000,000,000 ( UK Government Nuclear Provision) with the Sellafield nuclear licensed site, alone, estimated to be around GBP91,000,000. In 2019, Sellafield was re-permitted for its continued operation as it transitions fully into decommissioning, with the ERICA Tool used to assess impacts on wildlife as one of “ several high-profile permit determinations undertaken in recent years” ( C1). Others include the independent assessment of proposed discharges from new nuclear power stations planned for the UK, such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C ( C5). Furthermore, Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, who lead on the UK’s geological disposal of radioactive waste, commented that our research to develop the ERICA tool “ helps to ensure societal confidence in nuclear programmes” having reduced uncertainty in assessments ( C6).

3) Magnox Ltd is responsible for the safe and secure clean-up of 12 nuclear sites in the UK. To address the requirements for nuclear licensed sites to be released from Radioactive Substances Regulation ( C4), Magnox Ltd have received bespoke training (see also Impact 2) on the use of the ERICA tool specifically for the purpose of undertaking ‘optioneering’ studies to identify the best approach to decommissioning nuclear facilities while taking into account social, environmental and economic factors. Magnox Ltd have stated that the ERICA Tool and bespoke training have “ built capacity within the Central technical function’s environment team” and through the use of the ERICA tool demonstrated there is no environmental risk from leaving contaminated materials in situ with “ estimates of the cost savings to the business” …. “expected to be in the £millions” ( C7).

4) In 2017 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission deployed the ERICA environmental risk assessment tool, which it describes as “ internationally and nationally recognized” ( C5), to demonstrate that radionuclides from three Canadian sites (totalling 18 operating reactors) do not pose an environmental threat to the Great Lakes region. This allowed Canada to demonstrate it was meeting its commitments under the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and specifically not threatening Great Lakes fisheries, which are valued at USD7,000,000,000 and directly support 75,000 jobs in Canada and the United States ( C5).

5) The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) employed ERICA in 2017 to develop accident scenarios for the release of radionuclides from the wreck of Russian nuclear-powered submarine K-159 (sunk 2003), which now lies at 238m depth on the seafloor of the Barents Sea. Such assessments are deemed critical by the NRPA, as it considers K-159 to represent the “ single largest potential source of radioactive contamination to the Arctic marine environment” and as such also a threat to Norway’s fishing industry and public health ( C5).

6) The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) consider that “ERICA is the most effective and efficient tool available to achieve [their] goals and is essential for ensuring robust and reliable environmental assessments” ( C3). They provide examples where the ERICA tool and noble gas calculator have been used to undertake wildlife assessments for uranium mining, Nuclear Medicine facilities and former nuclear weapons testing sites ( C3, C5).

7) In 2015 the ERICA tool was used by the UN IAEA to develop a radiological assessment procedure for determining the suitability of materials for disposal at sea under the London Convention 1972 and London Protocol 1996 ( C5).

Impact 2: Building capacity and resilience in the use of the ERICA Tool

To ensure the appropriate and effective use of the ERICA Tool ( R1) and Noble Gas Calculator ( R6) and that the ICRP recommendations and the international regulations that build on them are understood, Copplestone and colleagues deployed their research and expertise to deliver regular capacity building courses including for the UN IAEA (e.g. Egypt and Malaysia, see C9), and for national organisations in the UK (e.g. Environment Agency, SEPA, Magnox) and Australia (e.g. ARPANSA, Energy Resources of Australia) ( C1, C2, C3, C6, C7). These courses have been attended by more than 350 people, with, in some cases, bespoke materials tailored to the specific needs of the participants (e.g. in Australia focused on the uranium mining industry, see C3, and in the UK on the requirements of the nuclear industry, see C7). C10 provides evidence, collated from course participants and an associated recent international survey, on the effectiveness of the training and knowledge exchange, and the subsequent impact of this training, on the application of radiological dose assessments of the environment using ERICA. Participants report the course to be of “ outstanding quality” with delivery by “ the absolute experts in radiological risk assessment” and that it has given them “ confidence to use the ERICA Tool in practice” ( C3, C10). Approximately 80% of survey respondents stated that this training has changed the way in which they conduct assessments and “ allowed improved decisions to be made” ( C10). 97% of the respondents stated that they use the ERICA Tool for wildlife assessments, while national documentation in 50% of countries represented within the survey recommends ERICA ( C10).

Developing “ capability and capacity of the nuclear regulators” is a key part of the UK Government’s Clean Growth Strategy. Since 2014, more than 25 Environment Agency non-nuclear and nuclear regulators and “ nearly half of the SEPA radioactive substances team” have attended the ERICA training. This has been recognised by the Environment Agency and SEPA, respectively, as having: “ increased our in-house capability”, “increased resilience and reduced risk to our business” ( C1) and “ built our in-house resilience and capability” for wildlife radiological assessment ( C2).

Impact 3: Shaping recommendations and guidance

Our research on dosimetry ( R3) and the use of DCRL ( R4) has directly underpinned essential components of new ICRP guidance and recommendations on environmental protection ( C10). The UN IAEA General Safety Guidance ( C9) was also directly informed by these publications. The impact has been derived through Copplestone’s leading role in both national and international (ICRP and IAEA) approaches to protecting the environment from ionising radiation. He has participated in ICRP Committees on: i) Protection of the Environment (2009-2017) and ii) Applications of the ICRP’s recommendations (2017-present); three ICRP Task Groups (TG) (2010 to present); and UN IAEA activities (e.g. R2 and also ongoing revision of the IAEA’s modelling approaches for dose assessment to include wildlife (2005 to present) ( C9)). For example, ICRP TG 105, chaired by Copplestone, has provided guidance on site-specific decision making for the public (human) and wildlife exposures to ionising radiation under planned, existing, and emergency exposure situations. This guidance underpins implementation of radiological protection of the environment in the overall international system of radiological protection.

Since 2013, our research has made a “ tremendous contribution” ( C10) in shaping the ICRP framework for environmental protection. For example, based on Stirling research, ICRP TG 99 ( C10) has agreed a reduction in the DCRL (the dose rate band in which some deleterious effects of radiation exposure are expected to occur – see Figure 1) for the ‘Reference Bee’ ( R6).