Spanish experience on the design of radon surveys based on the use of geogenic information

Abstract

One of the requirements of the recently approved EU-BSS (European Basic Safety Standards Directive, EURATOM, 2013) is the design and implementation of national radon action plans in the member states (Annex XVIII). Such plans require radon surveys. The analysis of indoor radon data is supported by the existing knowledge about geogenic radiation. With this aim, we used the terrestrial gamma dose rate data from the MARNA project. In addition, we considered other criterion regarding the surface of Spain, population, permeability of rocks, uranium and radium contain in soils because currently no data are available related to soil radon gas concentration and permeability in Spain. Given that, a Spanish radon map was produced which will be part of the European Indoor Radon Map and a component of the European Atlas of Natural Radiation. The map indicates geographical areas with high probability of finding high indoor radon concentrations. This information will support legislation regarding prevention of radon entry both in dwellings and workplaces. In addition, the map will serve as a tool for the development of strategies at all levels: individual dwellings, local, regional and national administration.

Qualitative overview of indoor radon surveys in Europe

“…Results of descriptive statistic were presented in 55 papers, describing the analysis of measurement results from 39 countries In 27 papers, covering the results of surveys in Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine, authors used the obtained average values to assess the percentile, or number of houses where the indoor radon concentration exceeded some predetermined levels (Andersen et al, 2001; Baluci et al, 2013; Bochicchio et al, 2005; Bode Tushe et al, 2016; Cinelli et al, 2011; Cucoş (Dinu) et al, 2017; Hoffmann et al, 2017; Ivanova et al, 2013; Jensen et al, 2004; Kemski et al, 2004; Nikolopoulos et al, 2002; Pavlenko et al, 2014; Poffijn et al, 1994; Sainz Fernández et al, 2017; Stoop et al, 1998; Swedjemark, 2002; Swedjemark et al, 1993; Tondeur et al, 1997; Valmari et al, 2010; Vicanova et al, 1998; Vukotic et al, 2018; Weltner et al, 2002; Yaroshevich et al, 2012; Z.S. Žunić et al, 2010a, Žunić et al, 2010b; Žunić et al, 2009).…”

“…National surveys were conducted in 22 EU countries: Austria (Friedmann, 2005) Croatia (Radolić et al, 2006), Czech Republic (Hůlka, 2014; Slezáková et al, 2013; Thomas et al, 2004), Denmark (Andersen et al, 2007, 2001), Estonia (Pahapill et al, 2003), Finland (Valmari et al, 2010; Weltner et al, 2002), France (Gambard et al, 2000; Rannou et al, 2006), Greece (Nikolopoulos et al, 2002), Hungary (Hámori et al, 2006; Nikl, 1996), Ireland (Dowdall et al, 2017; Fennell et al, 2002), Italy (Bochicchio et al, 2005; Carelli et al, 2009), Lithuania (Morkunas and Akelbrom, 1999), Luxembourg (Kies et al, 1997), Malta (Baluci et al, 2013), Netherlands (Lembrechts et al, 2001; Stoop et al, 1998), Poland (Przylibski et al, 2011), Portugal (Faisca et al, 1992), Slovakia (Vicanova et al, 1998; Vladár et al, 1996), Slovenia (Humar et al, 1995; Križman et al, 1996), Spain (Sainz Fernández et al, 2017), Sweden (Swedjemark, 2002; Swedjemark et al, 1993), United Kingdom (Daraktchieva et al, 2015; Miles et al, 2007, 2011). Only regional surveys were identified in 5 member states: Belgium (Cinelli et al, 2011; Poffijn et al, 1994; Tondeur et al, 1997; Zhu et al, 2001, 1998), Bulgaria (Ivanova et al, 2013), Cyprus (Anastasiou et al, 2003; Theodoulou et al, 2012), Germany (Kemski et al, 2004, 1996), Latvia (Dambis, 1996), Romania (Cucoş (Dinu) et al, 2017).…”

“…However, there is a large diversity within sampling strategies in existing radon surveys. In many countries, territory was subdivided into administrative units (Denmark (Andersen et al, 2007, 2001), France (Rannou, 1990) and Netherlands (Lembrechts et al, 2001; Stoop et al, 1998)) or grid cells – 10 km × 10 km (Albania (Bode Tushe et al, 2016), Azerbaijan (Hoffmann et al, 2017), Hungary (Nikl, 1996), Ireland (Fennell et al, 2002), Romania (Cucoş (Dinu) et al, 2017) and Spain (Sainz Fernández et al, 2017)), 5 km × 5 km (Malta (Baluci et al, 2013)), 1 km × 1 km (Cyprus (Theodoulou et al, 2012) and United Kingdom (Daraktchieva et al, 2015; Miles et al, 2007, 2011)) or even 0.5 km × 0.5 km (Montenegro (Vukotic et al, 2018)). In case of Poland, country was divided into geological regions (Przylibski et al, 2011).…”

Development of a Geogenic Radon Hazard Index—Concept, History, Experiences

“…[60] Classification of lithology, U concentration, and presence of features like faults and mines. [61,62] Classification of geology and ADER. [31] Principal component analysis (PCA) of various geogenic factors.…”

Untitled

“…There are two general approaches to the mapping of the radon phenomenon: the rst one relies on the values of indoor radon levels to derive a radon risk map, where the second one combines the indoor radon data with the available geological data. While the values of indoor radon levels are usually used for determining areas at risk, as in the example of the EIRM project (Dubois, 2005), due to the complexity and demanding nature of data collection, different authors are developing radon potential maps through geologically based methods (Ielsch et al, 2010;Szabó et al, 2014;Kemski et al, 2001;Watson et al, 2017;Sainz Fernández et al, 2017;Ciotoli et al, 2017;Minda et al, 2009).…”