An optimal model of the representative habit data for complex environmental exposure systems

Figures & data

Table 1 ICRP methods for determining the dose to the representative person [1].

	Calculation method
	Probabilistic	Deterministic
Environmental concentration data	Distribution of the estimated or measured concentration	Single values for parameters
Habit data	Range or fixed values for habit data	Average value for the more highly exposed group or 95th percentile of appropriate national or regional data
Dose coefficient	Fixed value based on age	Fixed value based on age
Dose to the representative person	Method selected by the operator or regulator. The representative person is identified such that the probability is less than about 5% that a person drawn at random from the population will receive a greater dose.	Product of above values

Figure 1 Schematic of a two-variable LP, illustrated with x=90 percentile

Figure 2 Procedure to determine the representative habit data

Table 2 Disposal system information used in the illust-ration [9].

Specification	Description
Name	Wolsong LILW Disposal Center
Location	East coastal area of Gyeongju, Korea
Disposal capacity	100,000 low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste packages (35,200 m^3)
Disposal units	Six underground concrete silos (EL. −130 to −80 m)
Host rock	Fresh granite formation
Groundwater level	EL. 100 m (West Hillock) to EL. 0 m (East Coast)

Table 3 A summary of habit data: food consumption rate of Korean adults.

Consumption rate of food per person [kg/yr]
	6705 persons aged over 17 years
Food group	Maximum	95th percentile	Mean	Median	5th percentile	Minimum
Drinking water	1825.0	730.0	364.3	365.0	146.0	0.0
Grains	528.4	169.4	94.1	90.0	27.8	0.0
Processed grain products	502.9	102.9	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0
Legumes	357.7	50.0	12.4	4.8	0.0	0.0
Vegetables, kimchi	541.9	136.2	53.3	40.8	1.1	0.0
Vegetables, leafy	518.3	146.5	53.1	40.9	1.1	0.0
Vegetables, root	503.8	89.7	28.2	18.2	0.1	0.0
Fruit vegetables	745.3	85.1	14.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
Fruit	910.6	108.0	17.9	0.6	0.0	0.0
Fish	391.4	73.0	16.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
Shellfish	276.3	20.9	3.8	0.0	0.0	0.0
Mollusks	228.1	20.1	3.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
Marine plants	182.8	21.9	3.8	0.2	0.0	0.0

Table 4 The representative group for the normal scenario.

Consumption rate of food [kg/yr]
S A	Fish	Shellfish + mollusks	Marine plants	Pathway combination
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(1+2)	(1+3)	(2+3)	(1+2+3)
Data	w 1	w 2	w 3	w 1,2	w 1,3	w 2,3	w 1,2,3
w 1	72.98	31.52	0.00	104.50	72.98	31.52	104.50
w 2	8.94	36.24	0.44	45.18	9.37	36.68	45.61
w 3	27.97	2.22	21.87	30.19	49.84	24.09	52.06
w 1,2	77.16	16.68	0.88	93.84	78.04	17.55	94.72
w 1,3	65.48	15.70	17.37	81.18	82.85	33.06	98.55
w 2,3	4.92	2.93	48.57	7.86	53.50	51.51	56.43
w 1,2,3	1.20	100.53	0.73	101.73	1.93	101.26	102.46

Figure 3 A complex system with two sources, five scenarios and six pathways

Figure 4 Radionuclide concentration profiles for the normal scenario

Figure 5 Distributions of the habit data and the exposure dose for the normal scenario

Figure 6 Expected concentration (pc) profiles for the abnormal scenario

Figure 7 Distributions of the habit data and the expected dose for the abnormal scenario

Figure 8 Radionuclide concentration profiles for the intrusion scenario

Figure 9 Distributions of the habit data and the exposure dose for the intrusion scenario

Figure 10 Probability distributions with time for the three scenarios

Table 5 The representative group for the intrusion scenario.

Consumption rate of food [kg/yr]
SC	Drinking water	Grains + fruits	Vegetables	Pathway combination
	(4)	(5)	(6)	(4+5)	(4+6)	(5+6)	(4+5+6)
Data	w 4	w 5	w 6	w 4,5	w 4,6	w 5,6	w 4,5,6
w 4	730.00	119.80	253.49	849.80	983.49	373.29	1103.29
w 5	219.00	336.54	58.05	555.54	277.05	394.59	613.59
w 6	438.00	198.05	286.27	636.05	724.27	484.31	922.31
w 4,5	584.00	339.96	144.95	923.96	728.95	484.92	1068.92
w 4,6	730.00	174.92	167.97	904.92	897.97	342.88	1072.88
w 5,6	219.00	339.48	217.63	558.48	436.63	557.11	776.11
w 4,5,6	730.00	167.01	228.75	897.01	958.75	395.75	1125.75

Figure 11 Expected dose and risk profiles for the complex case

Figure 12 Expected w ⁹⁵ _LP dose contributions by the three scenarios in the complex case

Figure 13 Expected w ⁹⁵ _LP dose contributions by the pathways in the complex scenario

2006 . Assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public and the optimization of radiological protection: broadening the process , International Commission on Radiological Protection . ICRP Publication 101

 Google Scholar

Seo , E J , Jeong , C W and Sato , S . 2012 . Application of risk-based approach to post-closure safety assessment in radioactive waste disposal: an integration of complex radiation exposure situations . Ann Nucl Energy. , 49 : 96 – 101 . doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2012.06.016

 Google Scholar