Biota Modelling Biota Modelling Working Group Working Group

(WG4)(WG4)

‘‘Exercise 3Exercise 3’’Purpose:Compare unweighted internal and external absorbed dose rates assuming 1 Bq kg-1 in organism & 1 Bqunit-1 media respectivelyRadionuclides considered – those from ICRP ‘RAP’report (+55Fe)

Did not include noble gases (Ar, Kr Rn) which had been requested by some group members

Exercise 3Exercise 3Organism geometries taken from information supplied for ICRP RAPs to BWG Exercise 1:

Hmmmm –

Flatfish egg 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.19x10-6 kg

Exercise 3Exercise 3Exposure scenarios results requested for:

Susumu Ryufuku (VIC)VIC

Laura Newsome (EA, UK)EA R&D128 [analogue approach]Laura Newsome (EA, UK)EA R&D128 [available spreadsheets]

Mat Johansen (ANSTO, Australia)ERICA [create organism]

Laura Newsome (EA, UK)/HildegardeVandenhove (SCK·CEN, Belgium)

ERICA [default]

Geert Olyslaegers (SCK·CEN, Belgium)

DosDimEco

Jan Horyna (SUJB)SUJBDong-Kwon Keum (KAERI, Korea)K-BiotaNick Beresford (CEH, UK)ICRP RAP reportAli Hosseini (NRPA, Norway)EPIC DOSES3D

Karine Beaugelin-Seiller (IRSN, France)

EDEN

Jordi Vives i Battle (WSC, UK)EA R&D128 [‘basics’]Mike Wood (Liverpool, UK)RESRAD-BIOTA [available software]Sunita Kamboj (ANL, USA)RESRAD-BIOTA [‘basics’]

ParticipantModel

Duck

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

32P

33P

35S

36C

l

40K

45C

a

51C

r

54M

n

55Fe

57C

o

58C

o

59N

i

63N

i

65Zn

75S

e

79S

e

89S

r

95Zr

94N

b

95N

b

99Tc

103R

u

106R

u

110m

Ag

109C

d

124S

b

125S

b

129m

Te

132T

e

125I

129I

131I

134C

s

135C

s

136C

s

140B

a

140L

a

141C

e

144C

e

152E

u

154E

u

155E

u

192I

r

210P

b

210P

o

226R

a

228R

a

227T

h

228T

h

229T

h

DC

C (m

icro

Gy/

h pe

r Bq/

kg)

With some exceptions – approaches are giving similar estimates of dose. Some checks to be made of inputs.

More variation external exposure & small geometry (Flatfish egg)

Plan towards submitting a paper (Radiation Env. Biophysics) circa April

BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge uranium mine (CNSC)uranium mine (CNSC)

BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge• Sediment, water & fish data

available over a number of years [enables model-data comparison]

• Reduced invertebrate populations/effects in fish/multi-contaminants –interaction with WG6

• Provide informed opinion on real issue

• Phase 1: – Model-data comparison for fish (Po, Ra)– Model:model benthic invertebrates & fish

Measured {Po-210}fish (Bq/Kg)0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

Pred

icte

d {P

o-21

0}fis

h (B

q/Kg

)

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1:1

PoPo--210 fish210 fish

BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge -- futurefuture• Confirm fish predictions• Estimate Canadian CR values

– use these in future model runs (from database being collated for WP5)

• Concentrate on sites with data/of interest– Estimate dose– Put into context against various dose rate

benchmarks (summer workshop)– Interaction WP6

Little Forest Burial Ground Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)(ANSTO)

• Waste trenches (1960’s)

• Radionuclides include: U, 3H, Pu Am, Cs, Sr, Co

Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)

• Different range of speciespresent than considered in assessment

• Radionuclides include: U, 3H, Pu Am, Cs, Sr, Co

• Scenario presented here – available c. 1 month– review results summer workshop

• Focused participation

Wetland (Stockholm Univ.)Wetland (Stockholm Univ.)• Potential approach to scenario presented

• Will be worked up and presented to group in summer 2010

Screening tiersScreening tiers• Example - England & Wales ‘Habitats’ [Natura2000] assessments

•Assessed 715 radioactive discharge authorisations

• 600 authorisations did not require assessment more detailed than initial conservative level

•Screening level to enable sites of negligible concern to be identified and removed from need for further assessment – with a high degree of confidence But considerable variation

(2-5 orders of magnitude) inscreening tier predictions