Sediment Distribution Coefficients and Concentration Factors for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

at-sea waste disposal practices by nations and a number of post-TRS 247 internationalradiological assessments, in addition to those carried out as part ofroutine national programmes [6–8].1.2.1. Regional and international regulatory frameworkThe most significant changes to the international regulatory frameworksince 1985 have been:(a)(b)(c)In 1992 the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment ofthe North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) was adopted by the 14 signatorystates to the Oslo and Paris Conventions, Switzerland and theEuropean Commission (EC). The OSPAR Convention commits theContracting Parties to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollutionof the marine environment of the northeast Atlantic by applyingthe precautionary approach and using the best environmental technologiesand environmental practices. At the 1998 Ministerial Meeting of theOSPAR Commission held in Sintra the signatories to the OSPARConvention pledged to undertake a progressive and substantial reductionof discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimateaim of reducing concentrations in the environment to near backgroundlevels for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close tozero for artificial radioactive substances. In achieving this objective, issuessuch as legitimate uses of the sea, technical feasibility and radiologicalimpacts on humans and biota should be taken into account [9].In 1993 the Sixteenth Consultative Meeting of the London Convention1972 adopted Resolution LC.51(16), amending the London Conventionand prohibiting the disposal at sea of all radioactive waste and otherradioactive matter [10]. The resolution entered into force on 20 February1994 for all Contracting Parties, with the exception of the RussianFederation, which had submitted to the Secretary General of theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO) a declaration of nonacceptanceof the amendment contained in Resolution LC.51(16),although stating that it will continue its endeavours to ensure that thesea is not polluted by the dumping of waste and other matter.In the past few years there has been an increasing emphasis on the needto address radiological impacts on the environment as a whole, includingnon-human biota. The long held view that protection of the environmentwas assured as a consequence of protecting the human population,endorsed by International Commission on Radiological Protection2
(d)(ICRP) Publication 60 [11], is at present under review. In 1999 the IAEApublished a discussion report [12] on the protection of the environmentfrom the effects of ionizing radiation. The European Union has recognizedthe need for further initiatives [13], and this issue is under discussionin the peer reviewed scientific literature [14–16].In 1996 the IAEA adopted the new Basic Safety Standards for radiationprotection [17].These International Basic Safety Standards for Protectionagainst Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources werebased on the recommendations of the ICRP and were sponsored by fiveother organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, the International Labour Organization, the OECD NuclearEnergy Agency, the Pan American Health Organization and the WorldHealth Organization. Over the past few years the Basic Safety Standardshave become the basis for national regulations in a large number of countriesand their adoption has led many countries to review and revise theirrelevant national regulations.1.2.2. Radionuclide sourcesThe most significant events since the publication of TRS 247 that have ledto an actual or potential input of radionuclides into the marine environmenthave been the following.(a)(b)The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 was thesingle largest contribution to radioactivity in the marine environmentresulting from accidental releases from land based nuclear installations.The most radiologically significant radionuclides released in the accidentwere 137 Cs, 134 Cs, 90 Sr and 131 I. The inventories of 137 Cs and 134 Cs ofChernobyl origin in northern European waters, from direct depositionand runoff, were estimated to be 10 PBq and 5 PBq [18], respectively,affecting mainly the Baltic Sea. It has also been estimated that the totalinput of 137 Cs into the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea was between 3and 5 PBq and 2.4 PBq, respectively [19].In May 1993 the Russian Federation disclosed information on sea disposaloperations of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and the Russian Federationin the Kara Sea, Barents Sea and Sea of Japan [20]. In October of the sameyear the Russian Federation informed the IAEA and IMO about a liquidwaste disposal operation that had taken place in the Sea of Japan in 1993[21]. Additional information on disposal operations carried out by Swedenin 1959 and 1961 in the Baltic Sea and by the United Kingdom in its coastalwaters from 1948 to 1976 was also made public in 1992 and 1997 [22, 23].3
Page 1: Technical Reports SeriEs No.422Sedi
Page 4 and 5: The following States are Members of
Page 6 and 7: IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publica
Page 8 and 9: EDITORIAL NOTEAlthough great care h
Page 10 and 11: 3.3.4. Molluscs (Table V) . . . . .
Page 14 and 15: In addition, changes in the pattern
Page 16 and 17: (g)In recent years a number of asse
Page 18 and 19: information that would allow an ass
Page 20 and 21: TABLE I. OPEN OCEAN K dsElementReco
Page 22 and 23: TABLE I. (cont.)ElementRecommendedK
Page 24 and 25: The recommended K ds (column 2) are
Page 26 and 27: For technetium, the recommended K d
Page 28 and 29: TABLE II. OCEAN MARGIN K dsElementR
Page 30 and 31: TABLE II. (cont.)ElementRecommended
Page 32 and 33: [125, 126, 142]. Many more K ds hav
Page 34 and 35: observed in other experimental stud
Page 36 and 37: 3. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FORBIOLOGI
Page 38 and 39: ule, differences between polar and
Page 40 and 41: type of organism, in nearly every c
Page 42 and 43: database were considered before a m
Page 44 and 45: includes many groups; prominent amo
Page 46 and 47: TABLE III. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FO
Page 48 and 49: 1 × 10 3 . There is, however, a si
Page 50 and 51: F30F31F32The only concentrations of
Page 52 and 53: TABLE IV. (cont.)ElementIAEA-TECDOC
Page 54 and 55: C19C20C21C22C23Concentrations of ca
Page 56 and 57: TABLE V. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR
Page 58 and 59: M5M6The only concentrations of scan
Page 60 and 61: M30 The recommended CF was derived
Page 62 and 63:
TABLE VI. (cont.)ElementIAEA-TECDOC
Page 64 and 65:
[64], for example, indicate that co
Page 66 and 67:
TABLE VII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FO
Page 68 and 69:
copepods and euphausiids quoted by
Page 70 and 71:
TABLE VIII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS F
Page 72 and 73:
P6P7P8P9P10P11P12P13A very large ra
Page 74 and 75:
TABLE IX. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR
Page 76 and 77:
CE15 Guary et al. [245] give a CF o
Page 78 and 79:
using seawater data for a correspon
Page 80 and 81:
TABLE XII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FO
Page 82 and 83:
AppendixCONCENTRATION FACTORS FORDE
Page 84 and 85:
TABLE XIII. DEEP OCEAN FERROMANGANE
Page 86 and 87:
REFERENCES[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
Page 88 and 89:
[26] POOLE, A.J., DENOON, D.C., WOO
Page 90 and 91:
[57] NYFFELER, U.P., LI, Y.H., SANT
Page 92 and 93:
[88] JOHNSON, H.M., GILLHAM, R.W.,
Page 94 and 95:
[116] SHANBHAG, P.M., MORSE, J.W.,
Page 96 and 97:
[148] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY A
Page 98 and 99:
[178] NAKAHARA, M., EUDA, T., SUZUK
Page 100 and 101:
[212] HODGE, V.F., KOIDE, M., GOLDB
Page 102 and 103:
[243] HAMANAKA, T., KATO, H., TSUJI
show all

Sediment Distribution Coefficients and Concentration Factors for ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?