3.2.2 Exposure of the population to Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials Exposure due to natural radioactivity in drinking water The results of the monitoring of the radiological quality of the tap water distributed to consumers carried out by the Regional Health Agencies (ARS) between 2008 and 2009 (DGS/ASN/IRSN report published in 2011) showed that 99.83% of the population receives tap water whose quality complies at all times with the total indicative dose of 0.1 mSv/year set by the regulations. This generally satisfactory assessment also applies to the radiological quality of bottled water produced in France (DGS/ ASN/IRSN report published in 2013). The water quality control implemented by ARS includes a step of screening the distributed water using gross alpha and gross beta activity concentrations and the tritium content. The associated quality guidelines and reference values are 0.1 becquerel per litre (Bq/L), 1 Bq/L and 100 Bq/L, respectively. If any one of these values is exceeded in the tested water, the radionuclides causing this activity (natural and/or artificial) are identified and an indicative dose is calculated. The corrective action to be taken if the calculated indicative dose exceeds the quality reference of 0.1 mSv/year depend on both the origin of the radioactivity (natural or artificial) and/or the dose level attained. With regard to tritium, although it can be measured in drinking water at levels that exceed the environmental background radiation (approximately 1 Bq/L), none of these measurements have exceeded the quality reference level in force for this radionuclide (100 Bq/L). Furthermore, none of these measurements have revealed any exceedance of the health reference level established for this radionuclide by the WHO (10,000 Bq/L). TABLE 4 Radiological impact of the BNIs since 2018 calculated by the licensees from the actual discharges from the facilities and for a “person representative” of the most exposed persons within the population (data provided by the nuclear licensees) Licensees/Site Representative persons in 2023 Distance to site in km Estimation of received doses, in mSv (a) (the values calculated by the licensee are rounded up to the next higher unit) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Andra / CSA Multi-activity group Ville‑aux‑Bois 1.7 3.10‑7 3.10‑7 4.10-7 3.10-7 2.10-7 3.10-7 Andra’s Manche repository Hameau És Clerges 1.5 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 2.10‑4 CEA / Cadarache (b) Saint‑Paul‑lez‑Durance 5 <3.10‑3 <2.10‑3 <6.10‑4 <5.10‑4 <6.10‑4 <2.10‑3 CEA / Fontenay‑aux‑Roses (b) Achères 30 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑4 CEA / Grenoble (c) – – (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) CEA / Marcoule (b) (Atalante, Centraco, Phénix, Melox, CIS bio) Codolet 2.4 <2.10‑3 <2.10‑3 <2.10‑3 <2.10‑4 <2.10‑3 <2.10‑3 CEA / Saclay (b) Le Christ de Saclay 1 <2.10‑3 <4.10‑3 <2.10‑3 <2.10‑3 <8.10‑4 <1.10‑3 EDF / Belleville‑sur‑Loire Neuvy‑sur‑Loire 1.6 4.10‑4 4.10‑4 3.10‑4 4.10‑4 3.10‑4 3.10‑4 EDF / Blayais Braud-et-Saint-Louis 1.1 5.10‑4 4.10‑4 5.10‑4 2.10‑4 5.10‑4 4.10‑4 EDF / Bugey Vernas 2.7 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 9.10‑5 2.10‑4 1.10‑4 2.10‑4 EDF / Cattenom Cattenom 2.2 9.10‑3 1.10‑2 7.10‑3 7.10‑3 5.10‑3 4.10‑3 EDF / Chinon Savigny-en-Véron 2.4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 EDF / Chooz Chooz 0.8 5.10‑4 5.10‑4 3.10‑4 4.10‑4 1.10‑4 3.10‑4 EDF / Civaux Civaux 1.1 8.10‑4 2.10‑3 1.10‑3 1.10‑3 1.10‑4 4.10‑4 EDF / Creys‑Malville Briord 0.6 2.10‑5 2.10‑5 8.10‑6 2.10-5 4.10-6 3.10‑6 EDF / Cruas‑Meysse La Coucourde 1.1 3.10‑3 3.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 EDF / Dampierre‑en‑Burly Lion‑en‑Sulias 1.6 5.10‑4 5.10‑4 3.10‑4 5.10-4 4.10-4 5.10-4 EDF / Fessenheim Fessenheim 1.3 5.10‑5 4.10‑5 3.10‑5 7.10‑6 5.10‑6 2.10‑6 EDF / Flamanville Flamanville 0.8 2.10‑4 7.10‑5 2.10-5 6.10-5 2.10-4 7.10-5 EDF / Golfech Donzac 1.8 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 4.10‑5 EDF / Gravelines Gravelines 2.2 8.10‑4 1.10‑3 8.10‑4 7.10‑4 1.10‑3 2.10‑3 EDF / Nogent‑sur‑Seine La Saulsotte 2.6 5.10‑4 4.10‑4 4.10‑4 5.10‑4 6.10‑4 4.10‑4 EDF / Paluel Paluel 1.7 4.10‑4 3.10‑4 3.10‑4 2.10‑4 9.10‑4 5.10‑4 EDF / Penly Petit-Caux 3.5 5.10‑4 4.10‑4 3.10‑4 3.10‑4 9.10‑4 2.10‑4 EDF / Saint‑Alban / Saint-Maurice Saint-Alban-du-Rhône 1.7 2.10‑4 3.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 EDF / Saint‑Laurent‑des‑Eaux Saint-Laurent-Nouan 1.8 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 9.10‑5 1.10‑4 6.10‑5 EDF / Tricastin Bollène 1.3 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 1.10‑4 1.10‑4 2.10‑4 2.10‑4 Framatome Romans Ferme Riffard 0.2 2.10‑5 3.10‑5 1.10‑5 1.10‑5 1.10‑5 5.10‑6 Ganil / Caen IUT 0.4 8.10‑3 7.10‑3 7.10‑3 7.10‑3 7.10‑3 8.10‑3 ILL / Grenoble Fontaine, Saint-Égrève, Grenoble (gaseous discharges) and Saint-Égrève (liquid discharges) 1 and 1.4 2.10‑5 3.10‑5 5.10‑5 2.10‑4 3.10‑5 2.10‑4 Orano Cycle / La Hague Digulleville 2.6 2.10‑2 2.10‑2 1.10‑2 1.10‑2 1.10‑2 1.10‑2 Orano / Tricastin (Comurhex, Eurodif, Socatri, SET) Clos de Bonnot 1.7 9.10‑5 8.10‑5 4.10-5 6.10-5 1.10-4 8.10‑5 a. For the installations operated by EDF, only the “adult” values were calculated until 2008. From 2010 to 2012, the dose of the most exposed representative person of each site for the two age classes (adult or baby) is mentioned. As from 2013, the dose of the “representative person” is provided for three age classes (adult, child, infant) for all the BNIs. The dose value indicated is the harshest value in the age classes. b. For the Cadarache, Saclay, Fontenay-aux-Roses and Marcoule sites, the dose estimates entered in the table are the sum of the dose estimates transmitted by the CEA. As these estimates comprise at least one term of less than 0.01 microsieverts (µSv), the values indicated are preceded by the “less than (<)” sign. c. As the site has no longer had radioactive discharges since 2014, the radiological impact caused by radioactive discharges has been nil since 2014. ASN Report on the state of nuclear safety and radiation protection in France in 2024 111 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 AP Nuclear activities: ionising radiation and health and environmental risks
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjQ0NzU=