Biota Modelling Biota Modelling Working Group Working Group (WG4) (WG4)
‘Exercise 3 Exercise 3’ ’ ‘ Purpose: Compare unweighted internal and external absorbed dose rates assuming 1 Bq kg -1 in organism & 1 Bq unit -1 media respectively Radionuclides considered – those from ICRP ‘RAP’ report (+ 55 Fe) Did not include noble gases (Ar, Kr Rn) which had been requested by some group members
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Organism geometries taken from information supplied for ICRP RAPs to BWG Exercise 1: Hmmmm – 4.19x10 -6 kg Flatfish egg 0.2 0.2 0.2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exposure scenarios results requested for:
Model Participant RESRAD-BIOTA [‘basics’] Sunita Kamboj (ANL, USA) RESRAD-BIOTA [available software] Mike Wood (Liverpool, UK) EA R&D128 [‘basics’] Jordi Vives i Battle (WSC, UK) EA R&D128 [available spreadsheets] Laura Newsome (EA, UK) EA R&D128 [analogue approach] Laura Newsome (EA, UK) EDEN Karine Beaugelin-Seiller (IRSN, France) EPIC DOSES3D Ali Hosseini (NRPA, Norway) ICRP RAP report Nick Beresford (CEH, UK) K-Biota Dong-Kwon Keum (KAERI, Korea) SUJB Jan Horyna (SUJB) VIC Susumu Ryufuku (VIC) DosDimEco Geert Olyslaegers (SCK·CEN, Belgium) ERICA [default] Laura Newsome (EA, UK)/Hildegarde Vandenhove (SCK·CEN, Belgium) ERICA [create organism] Mat Johansen (ANSTO, Australia)
1.E+00 Duck 1.E-01 DCC (microGy/h per Bq/kg) 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 32P 33P 35S 36Cl 40K 45Ca 51Cr 54Mn 55Fe 57Co 58Co 59Ni 63Ni 65Zn 75Se 79Se 89Sr 95Zr 94Nb 95Nb 99Tc 103Ru 106Ru 110mAg 109Cd 124Sb 125Sb 132Te 125I 129I 131I 140Ba 140La 141Ce 144Ce 152Eu 154Eu 155Eu 192Ir 210Pb 210Po 226Ra 228Ra 227Th 228Th 229Th 129mTe 134Cs 135Cs 136Cs 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
Beaverlodge uranium mine (CNSC) uranium mine (CNSC) Beaverlodge
Beaverlodge Beaverlodge • 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
Po- -210 fish 210 fish Po 1000000 Predicted {Po-210} fish (Bq/Kg) 100000 1:1 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Measured {Po-210} fish (Bq/Kg)
Beaverlodge - - future future Beaverlodge • 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, 3 H, Pu Am, Cs, Sr, Co
Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO) Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO) • Different range of species present than considered in assessment • Radionuclides include: U, 3 H, 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 tiers Screening 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) in screening tier predictions
Recommend
More recommend
