Post on 14-Jan-2016
description
Radiological Screening Values for Effects on Aquatic Biota
at the Oak Ridge Reservation
Presented at
The Annual Meeting of DOE Biota Dose Assessment Committee
August 18, 1999
Washington, D.C.
By
Daniel S. Jones
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Overview
• Sponsor: DOE-Oak Ridge Operations’ Environmental Management Program
• Intended use: CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessments at ORO waste sites 1) show spatial extent of potential ecological effects and
2) identify the need for additional site-specific investigation.
• Derived using formulas for estimating the dose rates to representative aquatic organisms (Blaylock et al., 1993).
• Screening values based on total dose rate of 1 Rad d-1
Recommended acceptable dose rate to natural populations of aquatic biota.
Overview
• If the total dose rate from all radionuclides and pathways exceeds a recommended acceptable dose rate, further analysis is needed to determine the hazards posed by radionuclides (e.g., biological surveys and realistic exposure modeling).
• If, however, the total dose rate falls below an acceptable dose rate, radionuclides may be eliminated from further study.
Methodology
• Point Source Dose Distribution (IAEA 1976, 1979)
– Uses empirically derived dose rate formulas– Size categories of organisms are represented by
ellipsoid geometries (Table 1)
• Used to estimate the fraction of emitted energy that is absorbed by the organism
Table 1. Dimensions of organisms representing selected size categoriesOrganism Mass (kg) Length of the major axes of the ellipsoid (cm)
Small fish 0.002 3.1 × 1.6 × 0.78Large fish 1.0 45 × 8.7 × 4.9
Formulas• Dose rates (Rad d-1) from an individual isotope in
the organism (D Internal), water (D External, w), and surface sediment (D External, s) are given by:– D Int = 5.11 × 10-8 E n Co ,
– D Ext, w = 5.11 × 10-8 E n (1 - ) Cw ,
– D Ext, s = 1.92 × 10-5 E n (1 - ) Cs ,
where:
E = the average emitted energy (MeV dis-1),
n = the proportion of transitions producing an emission of energy E,
= the fraction of the emitted energy absorbed by the organism,
Co = the radionuclide concentration in the organism (pCi kg-1 wet wt),
Cw = the radionuclide concentration in water (pCi L-1), and
Cs = the radionuclide concentration in sediment (pCi g-1 dry weight).
Formulas(Exposure Assumptions)
D Int = 5.11 × 10-8 E n Co
D Ext, w = 5.11 × 10-8 E n (1 - ) Cw
• 5.11 × 10-8 = conversion factor from MeV dis-1 to Rad d-1
• Assumes water exposure from all sides, including ventrally
D Ext, s = 1.92 × 10-5 E n (1 - ) Cs ,• 1.92 × 10-5 = conversion factor from MeV dis-1 to Rad d-1
• Assumes 50% immersion in sediment – i.e.sediment exposure from bottom half
• Includes the default wet weight-dry weight conversion factor of 0.75 presented in NCRP (1991).
Formulas• For each isotope and pathway, the total dose
rate is the sum of the dose rates from each type of radiation. For example:
• D Int, total = D Int, alpha + D Int, beta + D Int, gamma
• Then, the total dose rate per isotope is the sum of the dose rates from each pathway.
• D Total = D Int, total + D Ext, w, total + D Ext, s, total
• Then, the dose rate from all isotopes can be summed.– Must account for the Relative Biological
Effectiveness (RBE) of each type of radiation, i.e. a quality factor of 20 is used for alpha particles.
Parameters• Absorbed Dose is a function of the energy emitted
(E) and the fraction absorbed ()– is a function of E and the size of the organism. – Figure 1 presents one of the empirically derived
relationships used to estimate () from E.– Average E in Table 2 can be used in place of E and n
(ICRP 1983).
– is 1 for beta in large fish and alpha in all fish. Therefore, the external dose is 1-1=0.
Table 2. Emission energies (E) and absorbed fractions () for selected radionuclides a
Absorbed Fractionsc
Emission Energies (MeV) Beta Gamma
Radionuclide (yield) Half-lifeAverageAlpha
MaximumBetab
AverageBeta
AverageGamma
SmallFish
SmallFish
LargeFish
Plutonium-239 24065y 5.23e+00 6.65e-03 7.96e-04 1 1 1Plutonium-240 6537y 5.24e+00 1.06e-02 1.73e-03 1 0.7 0.94Thorium-232 1.41e+10y 4.07e+00 1.25e-02 1.33e-03 1 0.7 0.94 Radium-228 5.75y 5.50e-02 1.69e-02 4.14e-09 1 1 1 Actinium-228 6.13h 2.08e+00 4.60e-01 9.30e-01 0.93 0.012 0.11Thorium-228 1.9131y 5.49e+00 2.05e-02 3.30e-03 1 0.7 0.94 Radium-224 3.66d 5.78e+00 2.21e-03 9.89e-03 1 0.7 0.94 Radon-220 55.6s 6.40e+00 8.91e-06 3.85e-04 1 1 1 Polonium-216 0.15s 6.91e+00 1.61e-07 1.69e-05 1 1 1 Lead-212 10.64h 5.86e-01 1.75e-01 1.48e-01 1 0.01 0.1 Bismuth-212 60.55m 2.22e+00 2.26e+00 4.69e-01 1.85e-01 0.91 0.01 0.1 Polonium-212 (64.07% of Bi-212)
0.305us 8.95e+00
Thallium-208 (35.93% of Bi-212)
3.07m 2.38e+00 5.91e-01 3.36e+00 1 0.0085 0.08
Americium-241 432.2y 5.57e+00 5.19e-02 3.24e-02 1 0.04 0.34a Selected isotopes are a subset of those presented in Blaylock et al. (1993). Indented radionuclides are thedaughter products of the preceding long-lived radionuclide, as presented in Blaylock et al. (1993). Yields, half-lives, and average energies are from ICRP (1983).
Transfer Assumptions• Uptake from water is estimated using the
biological concentration factors (BCFs) for freshwater fish.
Co = Cw x BCF
• Available BCFs primarily for fish muscle– Underestimates Co for radionuclides preferentially
sequestered in other tissues (e.g., Sr in bone)– However, most isotopes do not appear to be
preferentially sequestered in the reproductive tissues.
(Garten 1981, Garten et al. 1987, and Kaye and Dunaway 1962).
Transfer Assumptions• Uptake from Sediment: there are no standard
sediment-to-fish transfer factors– sediment-water partition coefficient (Kd) used to
derive Cw as follows: Co = Cs/Kd x BCF
– Assumes overlying Cw = interstitial Cw (conservative for lotic systems)
– Used when there is no co-located water data.
• Adsorption to sediment: also derived using KdCs = Cw x Kd
– Used to provide external dose rate from sediment if sediment data are not available
Prudently Conservative Parameters
• “Expected” BCFs and Kds were converted from a wet weight to dry weight basis
• because their derivation was not clearly defined
– BCFs x default ww:dw factor of 0.2 (NCRP 1991) – Kds / default ww:dw factor of 0.75 (NCRP 1991)
• Corrected Kd used to estimate Cs from Cw
• Uncorrected Kd used to estimate Cw from Cs
– Extreme values did not appear to be credible (e.g., the maximum BCF for thorium was 10,000), but re-evaluating the original studies was beyond the scope of this effort
Radioactive Decay Chains
• Short-lived daughter product uptake is not explicitly modeled. – Long-lived parent is modeled, short-lived progeny
are assumed to be in secular equilibrium with the parent
• Conservative for extremely long-lived parents
– Considered short-lived if < 30 day half-life (180 days used for humans;Yu 1993).
– Activity of progeny = activity of parent times the yield of the progeny (Table 2)
Benchmarks
• Concentration of an isotope that results in a total dose rate of 1 Rad d-1 (Recommended acceptable limit, NCRP 1991)
• Single-media benchmarks consider exposures from only one medium (Figure 2)– Water(w) includes internal and external exposures
from water only
– Sediment(s) includes only external exposures from sediment
– used when both water and sediment data are available at a site
External Radiationfrom Water
External Radiationfrom Sediment
CW (Measured)
CS (Measured)
Uptake (CW x BCF)
Internal Radiation
CO (Estimated)
Figure 2. Exposure pathway assumptions for the single-media benchmarks Water(W) and Sediment(S). The measured concentration in water (CW) is screened against the Water(W) benchmark, which includes estimated internal
exposures, and the measured concentration in sediment (CS) is screened against the Sediment(S) benchmark.
Benchmarks
• Multimedia benchmarks incorporate exposures from sediment and water– Water(w+s) includes exposures that are internal,
external from water, and external from sediment (Figure 3)
– Sediment(s+w) includes internal exposures and external from exposures sediment (Figure 4)
– Used when only one medium was sampled at a site
External Radiationfrom Water
External Radiationfrom Sediment
CW (Measured)
CS (Estimated)
Uptake (CW x BCF)
Adsorption (CW x K d )
Internal Radiation
CO (Estimated)
Figure 3. Exposure pathway assumptions for the multi-media benchmark Water(W+S). The
measured concentration in water (CW) is screened against the Water(W+S) benchmark , which includes estimated external exposure from sediment and the estimated internal exposure.
External Radiationfrom Water
External Radiationfrom Sediment
CW (Estimated)
CS (Measured)
Uptake (CW x BCF)
Desorption (CS / K d )
Internal Radiation
CO (Estimated)
Figure 4. Exposure pathway assumptions for the multi-media benchmark Sediment(S+W). The
measured concentration in sediment (CS) is screened against the Sediment(S+W) benchmark, which includes estimated external exposure from water and the estimated internal exposure.
Screening Process
• Calculate a hazard quotient (HQ) for each radionuclide (HQ=measured concentration divided by benchmark)
– HQ >1 indicates that the dose rate is > 1 rad d-1
• Calculate a hazard index (HI) for each medium– The HI is a measure of the total dose rate to the
organism– It is the sum of the HQs for each radionuclide– HI >1 indicates that the total dose rate is > 1 rad d-1
• Two examples are worked using the small fish benchmarks (data are from DOE 1997)
Example 1Single-Media Benchmarks
• Water and sediment data are treated as co-located samples (Table 3). – CW is divided by the Water(w) benchmark
– CS is divided by the Sediment(s) benchmark
• HI-Water is the sum of the HQs for water
• HI-Sediment is the sum of the HQs for sediment.
• HI-Total is the sum of all HQs for small fish. – The HI-Total of 0.03 suggests that the radionuclides
measured at this location pose a negligible risk to aquatic biota.
Table 3. Example 1: Use of single-media benchmarks for thecalculation of hazard quotients (HQs) and hazard indices (HIs)
Radionuclide Concentrationa Benchmarkb HQc
Water (pCi L-1)Strontium-90 1.33 6.29e+04 2.11e-05Technetium-99 327 1.94e+06 1.69e-04Thorium-228 0.144 6.01e+01 2.40e-03Thorium-230 0.117 4.13e+02 2.83e-04Thorium-232 0.081 4.78e+02 1.69e-04Uranium-233/234 37.9 4.00e+03 9.48e-03
Uranium-235 2.33 4.37e+03 5.33e-04Uranium-238 83.1 4.55e+03 1.83e-02
HI - Water 3.13e-02Sediment (pCi g-1)
Americium-241 0.06 1.67e+06 3.59e-08Cesium-137 0.18 9.32e+04 1.93e-06Technetium-99d 8.74 N/A N/AThorium-228 1.45 3.31e+04 4.38e-05Thorium-230 1.03 1.12e+08 9.20e-09Thorium-232 0.99 5.47e+04 1.81e-05Uranium-234 16.77 1.00e+08 1.68e-07Uranium-235 0.73 2.96e+05 2.47e-06Uranium-238 27.38 1.75e+06 1.56e-05
HI - Sediment 8.22e-05
HI - Total 3.14e-02aWater and sediment concentrations are from DOE (1997).bBenchmarks are the Water(W) and Sediment(S) values for small fish.cThe hazard quotient is the media concentration divided by the benchmark value. The hazard index is the sum of the hazard quotients.dTechnetium-99 does not have a Sediment(S) benchmark because external exposure is not a significant pathway.
Example 2Multi-Media Benchmarks
• Water and sediment data are evaluated separately, as if only one of them were available (Table 4).– CW is divided by the Water(w+s) benchmark
– CS is divided by the Sediment(s+w) benchmark
• HI-Total is the sum of all HQs for a medium.
• HI based on water data only is 0.0314– equal to HI-Total from Example 1
• HI based on sediment data only is 0.211– Much higher than the HI-Total in Example 1, due to
use of Kd to derive internal dose rate
Table 4. Example 2: Use of multimedia benchmarks for thecalculation of hazard quotients (HQs) and hazard indices (HIs)
Radionuclide Concentrationa Benchmarka HQc
Water (pCi L-1)Strontium-90 1.33 5.80e+04 2.29e-05Technetium-99 327 1.94e+06 1.69e-04Thorium-228 0.144 5.93e+01 2.43e-03Thorium-230 0.117 4.13e+02 2.83e-04Thorium-232 0.081 4.49e+02 1.80e-04Uranium-233/234 37.9 4.00e+03 9.48e-03
Uranium-235 2.33 4.36e+03 5.34e-04Uranium-238 83.1 4.55e+03 1.83e-02
HI - Total 3.14e-02
Sediment (pCi g-1)Americium-241 0.06 5.83e+03 1.03e-05Cesium-137 0.18 7.13e+03 2.52e-05Technetium-99 8.74 9.69e+03 9.02e-04Thorium-228 1.45 5.90e+02 2.46e-03Thorium-230 1.03 4.13e+03 2.49e-04Thorium-232 0.99 4.40e+03 2.25e-04Uranium-234 16.77 2.02e+02 8.30e-02Uranium-235 0.73 2.18e+02 3.35e-03Uranium-238 27.38 2.27e+02 1.21e-01
HI - Total 2.11e-01aWater and sediment concentrations are from DOE (1997).bBenchmarks are the Water(W+S) and Sediment(S+W) values for small fish.cThe hazard quotient is the media concentration divided by the benchmark value. The hazard index is the sum of the hazard quotients.
Recommended Usage
• Screening values only for natural populations of aquatic biota.
• Not remediation goals, which must consider other issues
• Collect co-located samples of sediment and water– Single-media benchmarks are less uncertain than multi-media
benchmarks (i.e., no Kd)
Recommended Usage
• Screening Approach– NCRP (1991) recommends a comprehensive evaluation if the dose
rate > 0.25 rad d-1
– An expert panel recommends that representative exposures be used (Barnthouse 1995)
– Possible compromise: If maximum exposure > 0.25 rad d-1, then use representative exposure
– Consider other stressors (co-contaminants, siltation, etc.) if radiological risks are possible
Copies of
these and other
ORNL Benchmarks
are available on the internet at
http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/ecorisk/ecorisk
Barnt house, L
. W. 1995. E
f f ects of Ionizi ng Radi at ion on T
errestri al Pl ant s and A
n imals: A
Workshop
Repo rt , O
RN
L/ T
M-13141, O
ak Ri dge N
at l. Lab., O
ak Ri dge, T
enn.
Bl ayl ock, B
. G. , M
. L. F
ran k, and B. R
. O’N
eal. 19 93. Meth odolo gy f or E
sti ma ti ng R
adi ati on Do se R
at es t o F
reshwater B
i ota Exp osed t o R
adi onucl ides in t he Environm
ent, ES
/ER
/ TM
-78, Oak R
id ge Natl . L
ab ., O
ak Ridg e, T
enn.
DO
E (U
. S. D
epar tment of E
nergy) . 1997. Repo rt on t he R
emedial Invest ig ati on of B
ear Creek V
al ley at t he O
ak Ridge Y
-12 Pl ant , O
ak Ri dge, T
enn essee, DO
E/O
R/ 01-1455/ V
3&D
2, Lockheed M
ar t in En ergy
Syst em
s, Inc. , Oak R
idg e, Tenn.
Gart en, C
. T. , Jr. 1 981. C
o mparat i ve upt ake of act ini des b y pl ant s and rat s f ro m
the shoreli ne of a radi oact ive pond, J. E
n viron. Qual ., 10: 487–91.
Gart en, C
. T. , Jr. , E
. A. B
ondi ett i, J. R. T
r abal ka, R. L
. Wal ker , and T
. G. S
cot t. 19 87. Fi el d st udi es on the
t errest rial behavio r of act i nide el ement s i n E
ast Tennessee, P
ages 109–19 i n: Env ironm
ent al Research
on Act i nide E
l ements (eds. J. E
. Pi nder II I , J. J. A
l ber ts, K. W
. McL
eod, and R. G
. Schreckhi se),
CO
NF
-841142, U. S
. Dep art m
ent of Energ y, W
ashin gton, D. C
.
IAE
A ( Int ernati onal A
t omi c E
nergy Agency) . 197 6. E
f f ects of Ionizi ng Radi at ion on A
quat i c Organi sm
s and E
cosyst ems, IA
EA
Techni cal R
epor t Ser ies 172, V
ienn a, Aust r ia.
IAE
A ( Int ernati onal A
t omi c E
nergy Agency) . 197 9. M
eth odolo gy f or Assessi ng Im
pact s of Radi oacti vi ty on
Aqu ati c E
cosystems, IA
EA
Techni cal R
epor t Ser ies 190, V
ienn a, Aust r ia.
ICR
P ( Int ern at i onal C
omm
i ssi on on Radi ol ogical P
rotect io n). 1 983. Rad ionu cl i de T
ra nsformati ons: E
nergy and Intensi t y of E
mi ssions, IC
RP
Publ icat io n N
o. 38, Vi enna, A
u st r ia.
Kaye, S
. V., and P
. B. D
unaway . 1962. B
i oaccumul ati on of radi oacti ve isot opes b y herbi vorous sm
al l m
amm
al s, Healt h P
hys. , 7: 205–17.
NC
RP
(Nati onal C
ounci l on Radi ati on P
rot ect i on an d Measurem
ents) . 1991. Ef f ects of I onizi ng R
adi at ion on A
qu ati c Organi sm
s, NC
RP
Repor t N
o. 109, Nati onal C
ounci l on Radi at ion P
rot ecti on and M
easurement s, B
et hesda, Md.
Sut er , G
. W., I I . 1995. G
uide f or Perf orm
i ng Screeni ng Ecolog ical R
isk Assessm
ent s at DO
E F
aci li t ies, E
S/E
R/ T
M-153, O
ak Rid ge N
atl . Lab ., O
ak Ri dge, T
enn.
Yu, C
. , C. L
oureir o, J. J. Cheng, L
. G. Jones, Y
. Y. W
ang, Y. P
. Chia, and E
. Fai ll ace. 1993. D
ata Co ll ecti on
Handbook to Suppo rt M
o deli ng Impact s of R
adi oact ive Ma teri al i n Soi l , A
rgo nne Nati onal L
abor atory, A
rgo nne, I ll .
References