Radiological impact assessment approaches for Life Cycle Assessment: a review and possible ways forward

Paulillo, Andrea; Clift, Roland; Dodds, Jonathan M.; Milliken, Andrew; Palethorpe, Stephen J.; Lettieri, Paola

doi:10.1139/er-2018-0004

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This article presents a comprehensive LCA study on used nuclear fuels reprocessing that aims at informing policy and decision-makers concerned with the future of the UK nuclear fuel cycle. The study covers multiple impact categories and employs a novel methodology for assessing the impact of radionuclides [23][24][25][26] developed from a detailed review of currently available impact assessment methodologies [27]. The article is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the goal and scope, system boundary, allocation methodology and impact categories considered; Section 3 displays results of the LCA study, which are then discussed in Section 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels: A UK case study

Paulillo

Dodds

Milliken³

et al. 2020

Sustainable Materials and Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically the UK implemented a "nominal" twice-through cycle whereby used nuclear fuels were reprocessed, but uranium and plutonium were not recycled: they were stored pending a future decision by the UK Government. However, the policy for managing higher activity wastes is clear: it envisages their disposal in a Geological Disposal Facility. Consultations for siting a repository -which were suspended in 2013 -have recently restarted, but the repository will not be available for several decades at the earliest. This article presents a comprehensive LCA study on the historical UK approach for managing used nuclear fuels and the UK Government policy for disposal of higher activity wastes. The underpinning purpose is to inform policy and decision-makers concerned with decisions on the future of the UK nuclear fuel cycle. The study relies on a combination of operational data from the Sellafield site -the industrial complex home to the UK reprocessing plants -and literature data on the GDF, and on a number of assumptions regarding the GDF design and disposal of higher activity wastes. The results reveal that a great proportion of the environmental impacts can be linked to two specific causes: indirect burdens from production of uranyl nitrate, which is used to separate plutonium from uranium, and copper, proposed in one scenario to be used as the outer layer of the disposal canister for High Level Waste. The results also demonstrate that the carbon intensity of the management of used nuclear fuels is practically negligible when compared with results from other LCA studies that cover the entire fuel cycle.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels: A UK case study

Paulillo

Dodds

Milliken³

et al. 2020

Sustainable Materials and Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The characterisation factors for direct discharges estimated by the Human Health Damages methodology have been sufficiently reviewed to serve as an appropriate basis for validating the methodologies proposed here. The methodology however is not generally considered sufficiently established for inclusion in LCIA, primarily because it fails to include emissions from solid waste (Paulillo et al, 2018).…”

Section: Comparison Of Cgm and Ucrad With Human Health Damages Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over tens of thousands of years, waste canisters will deteriorate, releasing the stored radionuclides into the environment. Paulillo et al (2018) reviewed the methodologies proposed for including radiological impacts in LCIA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CML (Guinée et al, 2002), RECIPE (Goedkoop et al, 2013), Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001) and Impact 2002+ (Humbert et al, 2012) -although it has been classified as "recommended but in need of some improvements" (Hauschild et al, 2013). Paulillo et al (2018) concluded that a generally usable methodology must be site-independent, applicable to both direct discharges and emissions from a geological repository, and produce average (rather than worst case) estimates of impacts. This led to a general framework for assessing the human impacts of radioactive emissions, embodied in two alternative, and conceptually different, methodologies introduced in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiological impacts in Life Cycle Assessment. Part I: General framework and two practical methodologies

Paulillo

Clift

Dodds

et al. 2020

Science of The Total Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, impacts of ionising radiations have been largely disregarded in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This omission can be linked to the lack of a standard and comprehensive framework for including the effects of radionuclides alongside other emissions from industrial processes. Drawing on a recent review of Radiological Impact Assessment methodologies for LCA studies, this article proposes an overarching framework for integrating impacts of radionuclides in the Impact Assessment phase of LCA. From this framework, two alternative methodologies have been derived. They differ mainly in the way transport and dispersion of radionuclides in the environment are modelled: UCrad represents the first-of-its-kind compartment-type methodology for radionuclides, whereas the alternative Critical Group Methodology (CGM) has been adapted from standard Risk Assessment practices. Characterisation factors for a range of emitted species have been calculated using both methodologies and compared with those obtained from the Human Health Damages methodology, which is the only approach to radiological impacts yet implemented in LCA. For both UCrad and CGM the results are in general agreement with the Human Health Damages methodology, but UCrad gives factors closer to those obtained by the CGM approach. UCrad represents a major step towards incorporating ionising radiation impacts in LCIA. A subsequent paper will explore quantitatively the main differences between the UCrad and CGM methodologies.

show abstract

Characterizing human health damage from ionizing radiation in life cycle assessment

Paulillo,

McKone,

Fantke

2023

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Although a wide number of industrial processes routinely release radionuclides into the environment, the resulting potential impacts on human health have been largely overlooked in life cycle assessment (LCA). As part of the Life Cycle Initiative project on Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods (GLAM), we aim to develop a consensus-based source-to-damage framework and factors for characterizing human health damage from ionizing radiation in LCA. Methods Our framework comprises four modules. The fate and exposure modules are based on UCrad, an earlier developed compartment-based environmental model for radionuclides. The focus of the present work is on the dose response and severity modules, which are based on most recent data from the International Committee on Radiological Protection and the Global Burden of Disease project series. The characterization factors are expressed in terms of DALY per kBq released. Results and discussions We obtain characterization factors for 115 radionuclides and 8 environmental compartments. To evaluate our approach, we compare both effect factors (combining dose response and severity) and characterization factors with those proposed in earlier studies. Our analysis demonstrates that differences are explicable by the different approaches used in the fate and exposure modelling. We also test the sensitivity of our factors to different approaches for filling data gaps, suggesting that our factors are robust. Finally, we apply our factors in an illustrative case study on rice production and consumption under various scenarios to identify dominant radionuclides and how these differ when other approaches are used. Conclusions Our framework is aligned with widely adopted methodologies for human health impact assessment, thus enabling robust comparisons, and covers nearly all radionuclides released by anthropogenic activities, including those that may arise from disposal of nuclear waste. Our factors are readily applicable for assessing radionuclide emissions in LCA. As next step we recommend (i) incorporating decay products into the fate model and (ii) integrating a model for indoor emissions of radon and indoor exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides (NORM).

show abstract

Radiological impact assessment approaches for Life Cycle Assessment: a review and possible ways forward

Cited by 4 publications

References 59 publications

The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels: A UK case study

The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels: A UK case study

Radiological impacts in Life Cycle Assessment. Part I: General framework and two practical methodologies

Characterizing human health damage from ionizing radiation in life cycle assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About