Bounding uncertainties around the conceptual representation of species in radiological assessment in the context of routine atmospheric release.

Wildlife protection has become of regulatory interest since the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) developed an approach to assess the level of radiological protection specifically for animals and plants. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with regulation to protect the environment against routine authorised discharges from nuclear facilities, the wide variety of biota inhabiting an ecosystem needs to be condensed to a limited set of representative organisms, as proposed by the ICRP with a set of 'reference animals and plants' which can be considered representative of many other species. It is now recommended in the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards, and internationally accepted, that the use of such a limited number of organisms to represent a pool of species is adequate for radiation protection purposes, particularly in planned exposure situations.

Does the use of reference organisms in radiological impact assessments provide adequate protection of all the species within an environment?

Non-human biota in radiological risk assessment is typically evaluated using Reference Organisms (ROs) or Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs), for all exposure situations. However, it still remains open whether the use of an increased number of species would improve the ability to demonstrate protectiveness of the environment. In this paper, the representativeness of a broader list of fauna is tested in terms of the geometrical characteristics and habits for radiological risk assessments in the case of routine discharges from a nuclear installation: the Cadarache centre.