INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SITE-SPECIFIC FAUNA IN ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ROUTINE ATMOSPHERIC RADIONUCLIDES RELEASES

Submitted to Sci.Tot.Env. – summer 2018

Benoit Charrasse, Amanda Anderson, Juan C. Mora, Justin Smith, Emilie Cohenny, Ari T K.Ikonen, Ville Kangasniemi, Benjamin Zorko, Yuri Bonchuk, Léa Beaumelle, Nipun Gunawardena, Valeria Amado, Lodovit Liptak, Elisabeth Leclerc and Diego Telleria IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 1 IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 CONTEXT

 Collaboration with the WG 3 (« Assessments and control of exposures to public and biota for planned releases to the environment »)

 Several objectives

…

 To evaluate if generic organisms are conservative enough to demonstrate that the environment is protected in a risk assessment for routine release

…

TEC DOC

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 2 CONTEXT

Key parameters for determining the potential impact of radiation to wildlife include:

(1) identification and characterization of potentially affected ecosystems and wildlife species of interest;

(2) assignment of geometries and occupancy factors within environmental media for the species of interest;

(3) determination of the transfer of radionuclides to biota from their surrounding medium;

(4) calculation of the absorbed dose rate for both internal and external exposure;

(5) evaluation of effects on species and the ecosystem using dose-effects relationships.

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 3 CONTEXT

Key parameters for determining the potential impact of radiation to wildlife include:

(1) identification and characterization of potentially affected ecosystems and wildlife species of interest;

(2) assignment of geometries and occupancy factors within environmental media for the species of interest;

Several entities (with different form / different number) Reference Organisms (ROs) (FASSET)

Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs) (ICRP) A major challenge in environmental radiological Organisms by media (RESRAD-BIOTA) protection due to the immense variability in and within … species (Penthreat and Woolead, 2001)

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 4 CONTEXT

Risk assessments of ionising radiation impact to wildlife is mainly conducted using

1 Default ROs or RAPs (Vives i Batlle et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2016; Carolan et al., 2011; Kautsky et al., 2016; Lavrentyeva et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2010; Shishkina et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2010; Vandenhove et al., 2013, Stark et al., 2017)

Are the ROs / RAPs representative of the diversity of flora and fauna? Does the use of ROs / RAPs for dosimetric calculations in a risk assessment really demonstrate that all species in the different target ecosystems are protected? Meadow Little owl pipit

?

Eurasian nuthatch IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 5 CONTEXT

Risk assessments of ionising radiation impact to wildlife is mainly conducted using

2 Identify relevant species (Vives i Batlle et al., 2016; Jaeschke, B et al., 2013; Posiva, 2014; Torudd and Saetre, 2013, Stark et al., 2017)

Does the expension of new organisms within the methodologies increase the relevancy of the analysis?

Meadow Little owl pipit

?

Eurasian nuthatch IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 6 GENERIC APPROACH

Activity concentration in the Radionuclides Atmospheric dispersion media released

Soil deposition Concentration ratio* (CR) Facility

Soil / Air activity Concentration in organism Contaminated soil

| PAGE 7 | PAGE 7

Assumptions for endangered/protected species or not well characterized species :

Identical Meadow Little owl pipit CR

Eurasian *ICRP, 2008; 2009; WTD; www. wildlifetransferdatabase.org/, nuthatchIAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 7 Copplestone et al., 2013, Beresford et al, 2016 GENERIC APPROACH

Activity concentration in the media Air Air Air

Org.

Org. Org. Org. Concentration ratio* (CR)

a Org. Org. b c Concentration in organism Org. Water column Water column

Org. Org.

Dose coefficient Org. Org. Sediment Soil Sediment

(int/ext) River (fresh water) Terrestre Marin

Dose rate Geometric shape Mass

Habitat

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 8 GENERIC APPROACH

Activity concentration in the media Air Air Air

Org.

Org. Org. Org. Concentration ratio* (CR)

a Org. Org. b c Concentration in organism Org. Water column Water column

Org. Org.

Dose coefficient Org. Org. Sediment Soil Sediment

(int/ext) River (fresh water) Terrestre Marin

Dose rate Geometric shape Mass

Habitat

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 9 PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

| PAGE 10 PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

| PAGE 11 CONCEPTUAL FLOWCHART OF THE METHODOLOGY

In brief: Compilation of ecological surveys Atmospheric releases

Simulation with the Species selection based atmospheric dispersion on ecological and shape model criteria

Final list of site-specific Radionuclide concentration in species environmental media : air and soil

Exposure scenario definition (characteristic, habitat, occupancy factor) Specific case study

Site-specific species Reference organisms defined in ERICA Determination of a list of approach species Dose Coefficient calculation Dosimetric approach (EDEN*) Radionuclide concentration in Calculation and Calculation and biota evaluation of total evaluation of total dose dose rate for site- rate for Reference | PAGE 12 specific species organisms *(Beaugelin-Seiller et al., 2006) DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES

➢ More than 1,600 hectares

o Mostly wooded areas, dry grass, or Mediterranean scrub o Some urbanized areas with lawns and cleared lands

Eco-complex ITER

Cadarache centre

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 13 DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES (FAUNA)

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 14 DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES (FAUNA)

Compilation of ecological surveys and environmental studies (≈30 since 2003) (400+ Species selection based species) on ecological stakes : ➢ Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Filter 1 ➢ Red lists, on the protected species in France… Initial species

Amphibians  128 species remained 5% Insects 27%

Birds 37%

Reptiles 8%

Mammal (exclusive of Chiropterans chiropterans) IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 15 15% 8% DETERMINATION OF A LIST OF SPECIES (FAUNA)

Filter 1

Initial species

Species selection based on non-human biota representation for Filter 2 dosimetric calculation Final list

 Second filter:

 Species with geometrical characteristics different from the ROs;

 Species with habitat position and frequency differing from the ROs

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 16 EXAMPLE OF SPECIES SELECTION

10

1 Eurasian blue tit

Griffon vulture

0.1

Bird group 0.01 Inventoried species ellispoid volume to RO ellipsoid volume Inventoried species Area/Volume to Area/volume RO

0.001

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 17 RESULTS : DOSE RATE CALCULATION

Amphibian- RO Common parsley frog  28 species selected Mediterranean tree frog Amphibian Marsh frog European toad Bird- RO Griffon vulture Eurasian eagle-owl Red-legged partridge Tawny pipit Bird Eurasian nuthatch Eurasian blue tit Moustached warbler Black-crowned night heron Mammal Large- RO Wild boar Mammal (L) Red deer Mammal Small- RO Wood mouse Eurasian beaver Mammal (S) European badger Red squirrel Reptile- RO Sand lizards specie Reptile Montpellier snake Arthropod - detritivorous-RO Yellow scorpion Scarabaeus specie Arthropod Hermit beetle Flying insects- RO Festive Toothed Grasshopper Spiked Magician Southern festoon Fying insects Cricket specie Lang's short-tailed blue 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 Total Dose Rate (μG h-1) IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 18 RESULTS : DOSE RATE CALCULATION

Amphibian- RO Common parsley frog  28 species selected Mediterranean tree frog Amphibian Marsh frog European toad Bird- RO Griffon vulture  intra- species DR difference Eurasian eagle-owl tot Red-legged partridge less than a factor of 2 Tawny pipit Bird Eurasian nuthatch Eurasian blue tit Moustached warbler Black-crowned night heron Mammal Large- RO Wild boar Mammal (L) Red deer Mammal Small- RO Wood mouse Despite the range of geometric Eurasian beaver Mammal (S) European badger characteristics, habits and habitats Red squirrel numerical risk assessment is not Reptile- RO Sand lizards specie Reptile improved for any selected biota in this Montpellier snake Arthropod - detritivorous-RO release scenario Yellow scorpion Scarabaeus specie Arthropod Hermit beetle Flying insects- RO Festive Toothed Grasshopper Spiked Magician Southern festoon Fying insects Cricket specie Lang's short-tailed blue 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 Total Dose Rate (μG h-1) IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 19 CONCLUSION (PART 1)

 Are the ROs / RAPs representative of the diversity of flora and fauna?

Not for habitat and size  BUT the goal of the ERA is to be conservative and not necessarily realistic

 Does the use of ROs / RAPs for dosimetric calculations in a risk assessment really demonstrate that all species in the different target ecosystems are protected?

DR within a factor of 2 (for site-specific organisms and ROs)

 Does the creation of new organisms within the methodologies increase the relevancy of the analysis?

Not necessarily in this case, BUT what about for other cases

Extending to other facilities IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 20 PART 1. SPECIFIC CASE STUDY

PART 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

| PAGE 21 EXTENDING TO OTHER FACILITIES

 Estimation of the maximal dose BIRD - RO

Meadow rate difference between Little owl pipit hypothetical organisms and ROs released (routine atmospheric DR Eurasian radionuclides releases) nuthatch DR

1 • Use of hypothetical organisms with ? ?

extreme dosimetric characteristics Min Max (masses, shapes and habitats) DR difference

= DRcreated organism/DRRO

ON soil

Spherical bodies = conservative for external exposure to gamma- IN soil radiation (Ulanovsky, A., 2014)

Max. mass

Mass, shape and habitat of the RO IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 22 EXTENDING TO OTHER FACILITIES

 Estimation of the maximal dose BIRD - RO

Meadow rate difference between Little owl pipit hypothetical organisms and ROs released (routine atmospheric DR Eurasian radionuclides releases) nuthatch DR

1 • Use of hypothetical organisms with ? ?

extreme dosimetric characteristics Min Max Ag-110m Cr-51 La-140 Pu-240 Te-132 (masses, shapes and habitats) Am-241 Cs-134 Mn-54 Pu-241 Th-227 DR difference Ba-137m Cs-135 Nb-94 Pu-242 Th-228 = DR /DR Ba-140 Cs-136 Nb-95 createdRa-226organism Th-230RO • Source term : 81 radionuclides (except noblesC-14 Cs-137 Ni-59 Ra-228 Th-231 Ca-45 Cs-138 Ni-63 Ru-103 Th-232 gases) Cd-109 Eu-152 Np-237 Ru-106 Th-234 Ce-141 Eu-154 P-32 S-35 U-234 Ce-144 H-3 P-33 Sb-124 U-235 Ag-110m Cr-51 La-140 Pu-240 Te-132 Cf-252 I-125 Pa-231 Sb-125 U-236 Am-241 Cs-134 Mn-54 Pu-241 Th-227 Cl-36 I-129 Pa-234 Se-75 U-238 Ba-137m Cs-135 Nb-94 Pu-242 Th-228 Cm-242 I-131 Pa-234m Se-79 Zn-65 Ba-140 Cs-136 Nb-95 Ra-226 Th-230 Cm-243 I-132 Pb-210 Sr-89 Zr-95 C-14 Cs-137 Ni-59 Ra-228 Th-231 Cm-244 I-133 Po-210 Sr-90 Ca-45 Cs-138 Ni-63 Ru-103 Th-232 Co-57 I-134 Pr-144 Tc-99 Cd-109 Eu-152 Np-237 Ru-106 Th-234 Co-58 I-135 Pu-238 Te-123m Ce-141 Eu-154 P-32 S-35 U-234 Co-60 Ir-192 Pu-239 Te-129m Ce-144 H-3 P-33 Sb-124 U-235 Cf-252 I-125 Pa-231 Sb-125 U-236 | PAGE 23 Cl-36 I-129 Pa-234 Se-75 U-238 Cm-242 I-131 Pa-234m Se-79 Zn-65 Cm-243 I-132 Pb-210 Sr-89 Zr-95 Cm-244 I-133 Po-210 Sr-90 Co-57 I-134 Pr-144 Tc-99 Co-58 I-135 Pu-238 Te-123m Co-60 Ir-192 Pu-239 Te-129m EXTENDING TO OTHER FACILITIES

 Estimation of the maximal dose BIRD - RO

Meadow rate difference between Little owl pipit hypothetical organisms and ROs released (routine atmospheric DR Eurasian radionuclides releases) nuthatch DR

1 • Use of hypothetical organisms with ? ?

extreme dosimetric characteristics Min Max (masses, shapes and habitats) DR difference

= DRcreated organism/DRRO • Source term : 81 radionuclides (except nobles gases)

Radionuclides Atmospheric dispersion released • DR for hypothetical organisms and ROs Soil deposition Facility  1 Bq.m-3 / 1 Bq.kg-1 dw

Soil / Air activity  ERICA tool Contaminated soil | PAGE 7 | PAGE 7

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 24 ON soil RESULTS: ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMAL DOSE RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYPOTHETICALIN soil ORGANISMS AND ROS ON soil

IN soil

DR = (DRint + DRext) ON soil IN soil

Max. massMax. mass

Max. mass Mass, shape and habitat of the RO Mass, shape and Mass, shape and habitat of the RO habitat of the RO

Created organism with a mass lower Created organism with a mass higer than the RO (minimal mass) than the RO (maximal mass) Terrestrial fauna ROs Maximal DRcreated Considered Maximal DRcreated Considered

org. / DRRO Rn org. / DRRO Rn

Flying insects 1.07 241Pu 1.50 90Sr Mollusc - Gastropod 2.60 124Sb 2.93 65Zn Mammal small 1.11 231Th 1.38 134Cs Mammal large 1.40 231Th 1.09 65Zn Bird 1.09 192Ir 1.56 65Zn Reptile 1.18 231Th 1.07 90Sr Amphibian 1.04 234Th 1.32 65Zn Annelid 1.02 54Mn 1.60 75Se Arthropod- 1.05 89Sr 1.82 90Sr detritivorous

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 25 CONCLUSIONS (PART 2)

 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment demonstrate protectiveness all species in the different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?

Weak influence of the mass and the size (Stark 2017, Publication 136 ICRP, 2016, Ulanovsky, 2014) and above all…

 3H and 14C are classically the main radiation contributors to the total dose rate

 Dose coefficients for 3H and 14C are size and shape independent

The higher the 3H or 14C contribution to the DR, smaller the DR difference between the ROs/RAPs and a site-specific species

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018 | PAGE 26 CONCLUSIONS (PART 2) AND PERSPECTIVES

 Does the use of ROs / RAPs in a risk assessment demonstrate protectiveness all species in the different target ecosystems in terms of dosimetry?

Weak influence of the mass and the size (Stark 2017, Publication 136 ICRP, 2016, Ulanovsky, 2014)

 Does the creation of new organisms within the methodologies improve the relevancy of the analysis?

Not necessarily but perhaps for communication strategy

Further recommended work

 Extending the mass ranges Applying this  Consideration of all the exposure pathways (plume irradiation) methodology to  Extending to a wider range of radionuclides (including noble terrestrial flora (Done) gases) and for aquatic  Evaluate the influence of the life stage/life span organisms  Modification of the CR value (predictive vision)  Influence of deposition parameters | PAGE 27 BIOTADC (http://biotadc.icrp.org/) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

AND

A SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS FROM THE WG3 AND THE SCIENTIFIC SECRETARY

IAEA – MODARIA II – 22-25 Oct. 2018

| PAGE 28