Ensuring robust radiological risk assessment for wildlife: insights from the International Atomic Energy Agency EMRAS and MODARIA programmes.

In response to changing international recommendations and national requirements, a number of assessment approaches, and associated tools and models, have been developed over the last circa 20 years to assess radiological risk to wildlife. In this paper, we summarise international intercomparison exercises and scenario applications of available radiological assessment models for wildlife to aid future model users and those such as regulators who interpret assessments. Through our studies, we have assessed the fitness for purpose of various models and tools, identified the major sources of uncertainty and made recommendations on how the models and tools can best be applied to suit the purposes of an assessment. We conclude that the commonly used tiered or graded assessment tools are generally fit for purpose for conducting screening-level assessments of radiological impacts to wildlife. Radiological protection of the environment (or wildlife) is still a relatively new development within the overall system of radiation protection and environmental assessment approaches are continuing to develop. Given that some new/developing approaches differ considerably from the more established models/tools and there is an increasing international interest in developing approaches that support the effective regulation of multiple stressors (including radiation), we recommend the continuation of coordinated international programmes for model development, intercomparison and scenario testing.

A method for estimating (41)Ar, (85)(,88)Kr and (131m,133)Xe doses to non-human biota.

A method is presented for estimating (41)Ar, (85,88)Kr and (131m,133)Xe dose rates to terrestrial wildlife without having to resort to comparisons with analogue radionuclides. The approach can be used to calculate the dose rates arising from external exposures to given ambient air concentrations of these isotopes. Dose conversion coefficient (DCC) values for a range of representative organisms are calculated, using a Monte Carlo approach to generate absorbed fractions based on representing animals as reference ellipsoid geometries. Plume immersion is the main component of the total DCC. DCC values calculated for a human-sized organism are compared with human dose conversion factors from ICRP Publication 119, demonstrating the consistency of the biota approach with that for humans. An example of application is provided for hypothetical nuclear power plant atmospheric discharges with associated exposures to birds and insects. In this example, the dose rates appear to be dominated by (133)Xe and (88)Kr, respectively. The biota considered would be protected from the effects of noble gas radiation from a population protection perspective.

Allometric methodology for the assessment of radon exposures to terrestrial wildlife.

A practical approach to calculate (222)Rn daughter dose rates to terrestrial wildlife is presented. The method scales allometrically the relevant parameters for respiration in different species of wildlife, allowing inter-species calculation of the dose per unit radon concentration in air as simple base-and-exponent power functions of the mass. For plants, passive gas exchange through the leaf surface is assumed, also leading to specific power relationships with mass. The model generates conservative predictions in which the main contributor to the dose rate of target tissues of the respiratory system is from α radiation arising from (222)Rn daughters. Tabulated (222)Rn DPURn values are given for 69 species used by the England & Wales Environment Agency for habitats assessments. The approach is then applied to assess the authorised discharges of (222)Rn from sites in England, demonstrating that, from a whole-body dose perspective, the biota considered are protected from effects at the population level.

Assessment of risk to wildlife from ionising radiation: can initial screening tiers be used with a high level of confidence?

A number of models are being used to assess the potential environmental impact of releases of radioactivity. These often use a tiered assessment structure whose first tier is designed to be highly conservative and simple to use. An aim of using this initial tier is to identify sites of negligible concern and to remove them from further consideration with a high degree of confidence. In this paper we compare the screening assessment outputs of three freely available models. The outputs of these models varied considerably in terms of estimated risk quotient (RQ) and the radionuclide-organism combinations identified as being the most limiting. A number of factors are identified as contributing to this variability: values of transfer parameters (concentration ratios and K(d)) used; organisms considered; different input options and how these are utilised in the assessment; assumptions as regards secular equilibrium; geometries and exposure scenarios. This large variation in RQ values between models means that the level of confidence required by users is not achieved. We recommend that the factors contributing to the variation in screening assessments be subjected to further investigation so that they can be more fully understood and assessors (and those reviewing assessment outputs) can better justify and evaluate the results obtained.

Generic performance assessment for a deep repository for low and intermediate level waste in the UK--a case study in assessing radiological impacts on the natural environment.

Concentrations of radionuclides in soil and surface water, taken from a generic performance assessment of a repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste, assumed to be located in the UK, have been used as the basis for a case study in assessing radiological impacts on the natural environment. Simplified descriptions of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types likely to be impacted have been developed. A scoping assessment has identified (226)Ra, (210)Po, (234)U, (230)Th and (238)U as having the highest potential for impact, with doses from internally incorporated alpha emitters as being potentially of particular importance. These nuclides, together with (36)Cl and (129)I (which have proved to be of importance in radiological risk assessments for humans) were included in a more detailed dose assessment. A basic methodology for dose assessment of ecosystems is described, and has been applied for the defined impacted ecosystems. Paucity of published data on concentration factors prevented a more detailed assessment for terrestrial ecosystems. For the aquatic ecosystem, a more detailed assessment was possible and highest calculated absorbed dose rates (weighted for the likely higher biological effectiveness of alpha radiation) were about 6.5 microGy h(-1). We conclude that harm to the impacted ecosystems is unlikely and make the observation that the lack of concentration factor or transfer factor data for a sufficiently wide range of species, ecosystems and nuclides appears to be the principal obstacle to establishing a comprehensive framework for the application of radiological protection to ecosystems.