DOE-STD-1153-2002, A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota

TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1153-2002 July 2002 DOE STANDARD A GRADED APPROACH FOR EVALUATING RADIATION DOSES TO AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL BIOTA U.S. Department of Energy AREA ENVR Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from ES&H Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Energy, (800) 473-4375, fax: (301) 903-9823. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 605-6000. DOE-STD-1153-2002 Foreword 1. Department of Energy (DOE) activities may expose populations of plants and animals to radioactive materials in environmental media, or to radioactive materials released in waste streams. This DOE voluntary consensus technical standard provides methods, models, and guidance within a graded approach that DOE personnel and contractors may use to characterize radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota that are exposed to radioactive materials. 2. The graded approach to biota dose evaluation can be used to address requirements for radiological protection of the environment contained in DOE Orders. It can also be used to support radiological protection of the environment program elements within Environmental Management Systems (EMS) at DOE sites. 3. These methods (and the Biota Concentration Guides contained in them) are not intended to be used as design criteria, indicators of the severity of accidental releases of radioactive materials, or guides for mitigating the consequences of accidental releases. Furthermore, this technical standard does not apply to the irradiation of biota for experimental purposes, nor to research or experimental studies. 4. This technical standard and the RAD-BCG Calculator (an electronic calculational tool provided with the technical standard) can be downloaded from the Department’s Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC) web site (http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac). 5. The graded approach to biota dose evaluation and associated guidance contained in this technical standard is also intended for use with the RESRAD-BIOTA code. The RESRAD­ BIOTA dose evaluation code was designed to be consistent with the graded approach and the BCGs contained herein. 6. DOE technical standards, such as this standard, do not establish requirements. However, all or part of the provisions in a DOE standard can become requirements under the following circumstances: (a) they are explicitly stated to be requirements in a DOE requirements document; or (b) the organization makes a commitment to meet a standard in a contract or in an implementation plan or program plan required by a DOE requirements document. Throughout this standard, the word “shall” is used to denote actions which must be performed if the objectives of this standard are to be met. If the provisions in this standard are made requirements through one of the two ways discussed above, then the “shall” statements would become requirements. However, “should” statements would not automatically be converted to “shall” statements if provisions in this standard become requirements, as this action would violate the consensus process used to approve this standard. iii http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac DOE-STD-1153-2002

7. This technical standard has undergone extensive review throughout its development: (1) it was prepared and reviewed by the Department's Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC), an approved DOE Technical Standards Program topical committee; (2) it has undergone a formal DOE review and comment resolution process as required by the Department's Technical Standards Program; (3) it was made available to other federal agencies for their review and comment through the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS); (4) it was reviewed by an independent external technical expert; and (5) five papers on the graded approach methodology and associated guidance contained in this technical standard have undergone external peer review for publication in scientific journals. 8. Comments in the form of recommendations, pertinent data, and lessons learned from implementation of DOE’s graded approach to biota dose evaluation that may improve future versions of this technical standard, the RAD-BCG Calculator, or the RESRAD-BIOTA code, are welcome and should be sent to: Mr. Stephen Domotor U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environment, Safety and Health Air, Water, and Radiation Division (EH-412) 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585-0119 Stephen.Domotor@eh.doe.gov iv mailto:Stephen.Domotor@eh.doe.gov DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Scope, Purpose and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxix Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlvii MODULE 1 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-1 1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-1 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-2 1.2.1 Increasing Interest and Need for Biota Dose Evaluation Methods . . . M1-2 1.2.2 Basis for Biota Dose Limits Applied in this Technical Standard . . . . . M1-3 1.2.2.1 Aquatic Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-4 1.2.2.2 Terrestrial Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-5 1.2.2.3 Additional Summaries and Reviews of Radiation Effects Data on Biota Confirming NCRP and IAEA Findings . . . . . . . M1-6 1.2.2.4 Application of Biota Dose Limits as “Dose Rate Guidelines” for Evaluating Doses to Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-7 1.2.3 Protection of Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-7 2 OVERVIEW OF THE DOE GRADED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-9 2.1 Key Features of the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-10

2.2 Key Points Regarding Methods Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-11 2.3 Relationship of the Graded Approach to Ecological Risk Assessment . . . . . M1-16 3 APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-17 3.1 Evaluating Doses to Individual Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-20 3.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-21 3.1.2 Commercially and Culturally Valued Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-21 3.2 Evaluating Doses to Aquatic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-21 3.3 Experimental Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-22 3.4 Hazardous Chemicals and Industrial Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-22 3.5 Frequency of Conducting Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-22 v DOE-STD-1153-2002 4 STEP-BY-STEP IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRADED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . M1-23 4.1 Parameter Values that can be Modified in the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . M1-26 4.2 Use of the RAD-BCG Calculator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-27 4.3 The Biota Dose Assessment Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-28 5 DATA ASSEMBLY PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-31 5.1 Step 1: Consider the Sources, Receptors, and Routes of Exposure . . . . . . M1-31 5.2 Step 2: Define Your Area of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-31 5.3 Step 3: Assemble and Organize Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-32 5.3.1 Aquatic System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-32 5.3.2 Terrestrial System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-32 6 GENERAL SCREENING PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-33 6.1 Step 1: Compare Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media with Generic BCGs Contained in Look-up Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-33 6.1.1 Aquatic System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-35 6.1.2 Dealing with High Background Levels of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-36 7 ANALYSIS PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-43 7.1 Analysis Phase - Site-Specific Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-43 7.1.1 Step 1: Assess the Representativeness of Your Input Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media and the Delineation of Your Evaluation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-44 7.1.1.1 Consider Using Mean Radionuclide Concentrations . . . . . . M1-44 7.1.1.2 Consider Refining the Evaluation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-44 7.1.1.3 Consider Obtaining Additional Radionuclide Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-44 7.1.2 Step 2: Re-Run the Screening Evaluation Using Revised

Radionuclide Concentration Data and/or Evaluation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-44 7.1.3 Step 3: Assess the Representativeness of Default Parameters and Assumptions Used in Deriving the Generic BCGs; Select Site-Specific Parameters and Generate Site­ Specific BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-45 7.1.3.1 Identify Radionuclide-Specific Limiting Medium and Organism Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-45 7.1.3.2 Review and Select Site-Specific Lumped Parameters . . . . M1-45 7.1.3.3 Review and Select Site-Representative Kds . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-46 7.1.4 Step 4: Re-Run the Screening Evaluation and Compare Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media with Newly-Generated Site-Specific BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-47 7.2 Analysis Phase - Site-Specific Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-47 vi DOE-STD-1153-2002 7.2.1 Step 5: Assess the Representativeness of Default Parameters and Assumptions Employed in Kinetic/Allometric Models; Select Site-Specific Parameters and Generate Site-Specific BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-48 7.2.1.1 Identify Radionuclide-Specific Limiting Medium and Organism Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-48 7.2.1.2 Consider Correction Factor for Exposure Area or Receptor Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-48 7.2.1.3 Riparian and Terrestrial Animals: Review and Select Parameters Representative of Site-Specific Conditions and Receptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-50 7.2.1.4 Riparian and Terrestrial Animals: Review and Select Food Source Parameter Values Representative of Site- Specific Receptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-50 7.2.2 Step 6: Re-Run the RAD-BCG Calculator and Compare Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media with Newly Generated Site-Specific BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-50 7.3 Analysis Phase - Conducting a Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment . . . . . M1-51 7.3.1 Determine if Additional Analysis is Warranted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-51 7.3.2 An Important Note Concerning the Use of Available Biota Tissue Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-52 7.3.3 Step 1: Assemble a Biota Dose Assessment Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-52 7.3.4 Step 2: Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-53 7.3.5 Step 3: Review Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-53 7.3.6 Recommended Approaches to Designing and Conducting the Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-54 7.3.7 Designing and Conducting the Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-55 8 DOCUMENTING YOUR BIOTA DOSE EVALUATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-69 9 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF THE GRADED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-71 9.1 Generic Example of an Aquatic System Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-71 MODULE 2 1 THE GRADED APPROACH, ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, AND GUIDANCE ON THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN EVALUATING RADIATION DOSES TO BIOTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-1

1.1 Purpose of this Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-1 1.2 Relationship of the Graded Approach and the Ecological Risk Assessment Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-1 1.3 Principal and Alternative Uses of the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-2 1.4 Technical Issues to be Considered when Evaluating Radiation as a Stressor to the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-3 1.4.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-3 1.4.1.1 Scope of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-3 vii DOE-STD-1153-2002 1.4.1.2 Stressor Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-4 1.4.1.3 Assessment Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-5 1.4.1.4 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-6 1.4.1.5 Analysis Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-6 1.4.1.6 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-7 1.5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-7 1.5.1 Exposure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-7 1.5.2 Effects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-9 1.6 Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-10 2 GUIDANCE ON SOURCES, RECEPTORS, AND ROUTES OF EXPOSURE . . . . M2-13 2.1 General Considerations for Identifying Sources, Receptors, and Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-13 2.1.1 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-14 2.1.2 Receptors and Routes of Exposure Considered in the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-15 2.1.3 Examples of Receptors That Could Serve as Good Indicators of Radiological Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-15 2.2 Rationale for the Active Air Pathway as a Minor Source of Exposure . . . . . . M2-20 2.2.1 Behavior of Radionuclides Discharged to the Atmosphere . . . . . . . . M2-20 2.2.2 Exposure Pathways Resulting from Atmospheric Releases . . . . . . . M2-21 2.2.3 Compliance with Human Radiation Dose Limits at DOE Sites Relative to Biota Dose Limits: A Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-21 2.2.4 Derivation of Biota Concentration Guides for Active Air Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-22 2.2.5 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-23 2.3 Aquatic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-23 2.4 Direct Measurement of Radiation Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-23 2.4.1 Considerations for Evaluating Doses to Biota around Accelerators or other Sources of Direct Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-24

3 GUIDANCE ON SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL AVERAGING REGARDING APPLICATION OF BIOTA DOSE LIMITS AND MEAN RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-27 3.1 Use of Time Averaging in Applying Dose Limits for Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-27 3.1.1 Guidance on Time Averaging in Applying Daily Dose Limits . . . . . . M2-27 3.1.2 Rationale for Guidance on Time Averaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-28 3.2 Guidance on Spatial Variability in Applying Dose Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-29 3.3 Guidance on Estimating Mean Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-31 3.3.1 Adjustments to Account for Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Radionuclides in the Environment When Estimating Mean Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-31 viii DOE-STD-1153-2002 4 GUIDANCE FOR DEFINING THE EVALUATION AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-35 4.1 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-35 4.2 Step-by-Step Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-35 5 GUIDANCE ON SOIL SAMPLING RELATIVE TO PLANT ROOTING DEPTHS . . . M2-39 5.1 Overview of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-39 5.2 Plant Rooting Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-40 5.3 Consider the Need for Site-Specific Plant Uptake Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-41 5.4 Survey Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-41 6 GUIDANCE ON BIOTA SAMPLING TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRADED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-45 6.1 An Important Note about Biota Sampling and Temporal Variation . . . . . . . . M2-45 6.2 General Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-46 6.2.1 Use of Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-48 6.2.2 Selection of Receptor Species Sampled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-48 6.2.3 Variability of Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-49 6.2.4 Representative Population Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-50 6.2.5 Dosimetry Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-50 6.2.5.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-50 6.2.5.2 Terrestrial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-52 6.2.5.3 Analytical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-52 6.2.5.4 Other Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-52 6.3 Sampling Design and Statistical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-53 6.3.1 Sampling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-53 6.3.1.1 Definition of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-53

6.3.1.2 Sampling Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-54 6.3.1.3 Types of Sampling Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-54 6.3.1.4 Sampling Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-55 6.3.1.5 Background/Reference Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-55 6.3.2 Statistical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-56 6.3.2.1 Determination of Underlying Data Distribution . . . . . . . . . . M2-56 6.3.2.2 Calculation of Summary Statistics and Confidence Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-57 6.3.2.3 Determination of Minimum Sampling Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-59 6.3.3 Uncontrollable Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-60 6.4 Biota Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-60 6.4.1 Aquatic Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-61 6.4.1.1 Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-61 6.4.1.2 Benthic Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-62 6.4.1.3 Amphibians and Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-63 6.4.2 Terrestrial Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-63 6.4.2.1 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-64 6.4.2.2 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-64 6.4.2.3 Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-65 6.4.2.4 Earthworms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-67 ix DOE-STD-1153-2002 6.4.2.5 Terrestrial Arthropods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-68 6.4.3 Additional Sampling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-68 6.4.3.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-68 6.4.3.2 Sample Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-68 6.4.3.3 Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-69 6.4.3.4 Euthanasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-70 6.4.3.5 Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-70 7 GUIDANCE ON RADIATION WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR ALPHA PARTICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-75 7.1 Statement of Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-75 7.2 Previous Assumptions About Radiation Weighting Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-75 7.3 Radiation Effects of Concern in Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-76 7.4 Data on Deterministic RBEs for High-LET Radiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-76 7.5 Recommendations on Radiation Weighting Factor for Alpha Particles . . . . . M2-77 7.6 Guidance on Radiation Weighting Factor for Alpha Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-78

8 GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GRADED APPROACH FOR EVALUATING DOSE TO INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-79 8.1 Considerations on the Meaning of "Individual" Organism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-79 8.2 Applicability of Methods and Models Contained in the Graded Approach to Evaluations of Individual Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-79 8.3 Applicability of Biota Dose Limits to Protection of Individual Organisms . . . . M2-80 8.4 Use of the DOE Graded Approach for Evaluating Dose to Individual Organisms: Application Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-80 8.5 Consideration of Deterministic vs. Stochastic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-81 MODULE 3 1 INTRODUCTION AND BASIS FOR APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-1 1.1 Pathways, Media Types, and Organism Types Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-1 1.2 Selection of Target Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-2 1.3 Overview of the Technical Approach for Deriving the BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-2 1.4 Selection of the Most Limiting BCGs for Use in General Screening . . . . . . . . M3-3 2 DOSE COEFFICIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-5 2.1 External Dose Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-5 2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-5 2.1.2 Approach to Calculating External Dose Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-5 2.1.2.1 Screening-Level External Dose Coefficients for Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-6 2.1.2.2 Screening-Level External Dose Coefficients for Terrestrial Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-8 2.1.3 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-8 2.2 Internal Dose Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-16 2.2.1 Approach to Calculating Internal Dose Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-16 x DOE-STD-1153-2002 3 EQUATIONS AND MODELS FOR CALCULATING DOSE TO BIOTA AND DERIVING BCGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-19 3.1 An Important Note on Estimating Internal Tissue Concentrations for Use in Dose Equations: The Lumped Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-19 3.2 Equations and Models for Aquatic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-22 3.2.1 Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-22 3.2.2 Riparian Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-23 3.2.3 Important Considerations When Implementing Equations and Models in an Aquatic System Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-25 3.3 Equations and Models for Terrestrial Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-26 3.3.1 Terrestrial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-26 3.3.2 Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-27

3.4 Alternatives to Lumped Parameters for Riparian and Terrestrial Animals: The Kinetic/Allometric Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-29 3.4.1 A Scaling Approach to Predicting Tissue Concentrations . . . . . . . . M3-30 3.4.1.1 Estimating Intake (Soil Pathway) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-31 3.4.1.2 Estimating the Total Loss Rate from the Organism . . . . . . . M3-33 3.4.1.3 Calculating the Fractional Buildup to Equilibrium Tissue Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-34 3.4.1.4 Calculating Species-Independent Tissue Concentrations from Soil Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-34 3.4.1.5 Calculating Limiting Soil Concentrations (BCGs) Using the Kinetic/Allometric Method: An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-35 3.4.2 Application of the Kinetic/Allometric Method in the Derivation of BCGs for Riparian Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-36 3.4.3 Application of the Kinetic/Allometric Method in the Derivation of BCGs for Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-38 3.5 Selection of Lumped Parameters for Riparian and Terrestrial Animals . . . . . M3-39 4 DEFAULT PARAMETERS AND THEIR SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-47 4.1 Bioaccumulation Factors (Bivs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-47 4.2 Distribution Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-51 4.3 Coefficients Used in the Kinetic/Allometric Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-53 xi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Figures FIGURE PAGE 1 Organization and Contents of the DOE Technical Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii MODULE 1 1.1 Approximate Acute Lethal Dose Ranges for Various Taxonomic Groups . . . . . . . . M1-8 2.1 Overview of the DOE Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-9 2.2 Exposure Pathways for Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-13 2.3 Exposure Pathways for Riparian Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-13 2.4 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-14 2.5 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-15 4.1 Flowchart Illustrating Step-by-Step Guidance for Progressing Through the DOE Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-23 7.1 Problem Formulation, Phase 1 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-56 7.2 Analysis, Phase 2 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-57 7.3 Risk Characterization, Phase 3 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-58 MODULE 2 1.1 Problem Formulation, Phase 1 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-4 1.2 Analysis, Phase 2 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-8 1.3 Risk Characterization, Phase 3 of Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-11

2.1 Exposure Pathways for Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-18 2.2 Exposure Pathways for Riparian Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-18 2.3 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-19 2.4 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-20 4.1 Hypothetical Maps of Contaminated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-37 xii DOE-STD-1153-2002 4.2 Hypothetical Maps of Intersecting Contaminated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-38 5.1 Average Rooting Depth by Plant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-40 6.1 Flow Diagram for Collecting Biological Samples to Provide Data for Dosimetric Assessments of Non-Human Receptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-47 MODULE 3 1.1 Selection of Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Use in Aquatic and Terrestrial System Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-4 3.1 Process for Selecting Default Biv/Lumped Parameter Values for Use in the General Screening Phase of the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-21 xiii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Tables TABLE PAGE MODULE 1 2.1 Summary of the DOE’s Three-Step Process for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-10 2.2 Assumptions Regarding Sources, Receptors, and Routes of Exposure Applied in the General Screening Phase of the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-12 2.3 General Dose Equation and Approach Used to Derive BCGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-15 3.1 Applications Matrix Summarizing Intended and Potential Uses of the DOE Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-17 4.1 Summary of Parameter Values that Can be Modified Corresponding to Each Phase of the Graded Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-26 4.2 Contents of the RAD-BCG Calculator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-29 6.1 Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Water and Sediment (in SI Units) for Use in Aquatic System Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-37 6.2 Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Water and Sediment (in Special Units) for Use in Aquatic System Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-38 6.3 Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Water and Soil (in SI Units) for Use in Terrestrial System Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-39 6.4 Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs) for Water and Soil (in Special Units) for Use in Terrestrial System Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-40 6.5 Part 1 of Dose Factors and Common Parameters Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-41 7.1 Aquatic Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-59 7.2 Part 1 of the Riparian Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . M1-60 7.3 Terrestrial Plant Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-61

7.4 Part 1 of the Terrestrial Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . M1-62 7.5 Part 2 of the Riparian Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . M1-63 7.6 Part 3 of the Riparian Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . M1-64 xiv DOE-STD-1153-2002 7.7 Part 2 of the Terrestrial Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . M1-65 7.8 Part 3 of the Terrestrial Animal Biota Concentration Guide Spreadsheet . . . . . . . M1-66 7.9 Part 2 of Dose Factors and Common Parameters Spreadsheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M1-67 MODULE 2 2.1 General Considerations for Defining Sources, Receptors, and Rates of Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-13 2.2 Examples of Representative Organisms That Could Serve as Indicators of Radiological Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-16 5.1 Average and Ranges of Rooting Depths by Plant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-41 6.1 Comparison of Common Arthropod Sampling Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M2-71 MODULE 3 2.1 Screening-Level External Dose Coefficients for Exposure of Aquatic Animals to Contaminated Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-11 2.2 Screening-Level External Dose Coefficients for Exposure of Aquatic Animals to Contaminated Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-13 2.3 Screening-Level External Dose Coefficients for Exposure of Terrestrial Biota to Contaminated Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-15 2.4 Screening-Level Internal Dose Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-18 3.1 Parameters Used in Kinetic/Allometric Method Uncertainty Analysis for Riparian and Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-41 3.2A A Comparison of Lumped Parameter Values Determined by Uncertainty Analysis on the Kinetic/Allometric Method, Product Approach, and Empirical Data (Literature Values): Riparian Animal to Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-43 3.2B A Comparison of Lumped Parameter Values Determined by Uncertainty Analysis on the Kinetic/Allometric Method, Product Approach, and Empirical Data (Literature Values): Riparian Animal to Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-44 3.2C A Comparison of Lumped Parameter Values Determined by Uncertainty Analysis on the Kinetic/Allometric Method, Product Approach, and Empirical Data (Literature Values): Terrestrial Animal to Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-45 xv DOE-STD-1153-2002 3.2D A Comparison of Lumped Parameter Values Determined by Uncertainty Analysis on the Kinetic/Allometric Method, Product Approach, and Empirical Data (Literature Values): Terrestrial Animal to Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-46 4.1 Default Bioaccumulation Factors (Bivs) for Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-48 4.2 Default Bioaccumulation Factors (Bivs) for Terrestrial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-49

4.3 Most Probable Kd Values for Use in Calculating BCGs for Sediment or Water for an Aquatic System Evaluation in the Absence of Co-Located Water and Sediment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-52 4.4 Source of Default f1 Values Used for Riparian and Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . M3-53 4.5 Source of Data Used in Estimating Biological Half-Times for Riparian and Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-54 4.6 Factors Used in Assessing the Relative Contribution to Internal Dose from Animal Inhalation versus Ingestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-55 4.7 Allometric Equations and Parameter Values Used in Estimating Intake of Riparian Animal Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-56 4.8 Allometric Equations and Parameter Values Used in Estimating Intake of Terrestrial Animal Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3-57 xvi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Acknowledgments This voluntary consensus technical standard was prepared by the Department's Air, Water and Radiation Division (EH-412) and the Core Team of the Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC). The BDAC is a technical standards topical committee organized under the Department of Energy Technical Standards Program. The purpose of the BDAC is (a) to assist, consistent with DOE needs, in developing and promoting technical standards and associated guidance for DOE-wide applications in assessing radiation dose to biota, (b) to serve as a major forum within DOE for obtaining technical assistance, discussing technical issues, and sharing lessons learned regarding biota dose standards and assessment methods, and (c) to serve as a technical resource and advisory group for DOE program and field elements in the design and review of site-specific biota dose assessments. The committee has broad representation from DOE Offices, national laboratories, universities, and the private sector. The BDAC charter can be obtained from the BDAC web site at: http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac. A guiding principle for the BDAC is that both "developers" and "users" be part of the methods development process. Consistent with the BDAC’s values and guiding principles documented in the BDAC charter, this technical standard was prepared using an interdisciplinary team approach. Each member of the Core Team brought with them specific expertise in health physics, ecology, radioecology, environmental monitoring, or risk assessment. The collective knowledge gained through this teaming orientation proved to be essential for developing the methods and implementation guidance presented in this technical standard. The Core Team consists of the following members: Mr. Ernest Antonio, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); Dr. Gordon Bilyard, PNNL; Mr. Stephen Domotor, DOE-EH-412; Dr. Gary Friday, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC); Dr. Kathryn Higley, Oregon State University; Mr. Daniel Jones, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); Dr. David Kocher, SENES-Oak Ridge; Dr. Randall Morris, Environmental Science and Research Foundation, and TREC, Inc.; Dr. Bradley Sample, CH2MHill; and Ms. Patricia Scofield, ORNL.

Members of the Core Team, and other members of the BDAC, served as lead developers or contributors for several key areas of the technical standard. These individuals, and their specific contributions, are highlighted below. We are grateful to them for their contributions. Technical Standard Development BDAC Chairperson: Mr. Stephen Domotor (EH-412); technical standard preparation, integration, and coordination: Mr. Stephen Domotor (EH-412), with support from Ms. Audrey Lamanna, Ms. Melissa Hatcher, Mr. Jamie McDonald, and Mr. Clyde Lichtenwalner (Energetics, Inc.); screening methodology concepts and development: Dr. Kathryn Higley (Oregon State University) and Dr. David Kocher (SENES-Oak Ridge); kinetic/allometric modeling concepts and development, and RAD-BCG Calculator design: Dr. Kathryn Higley (Oregon State University). xvii http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac DOE-STD-1153-2002 Specific Contributions Conceptual framework and application of the graded approach: Mr. Stephen Domotor (EH-412), with support from the BDAC Core Team; primer on ecological risk assessment concepts and issues concerning the evaluation of radiation as a stressor: Mr. Daniel Jones (ORNL); interpretation and application of biota dose limits: Dr. David Kocher (SENES-Oak Ridge); sources, receptors, and routes of exposure: Dr. Gordon Bilyard (PNNL); defining the area of evaluation: Dr. Randall Morris (Environmental Science and Research Foundation, and TREC, Inc.); dealing with high background levels of naturally-occurring radionuclides: Dr. Randall Morris (Environmental Science and Research Foundation, and TREC, Inc.) and Mr. Daniel Jones (ORNL); soil sampling guidance: Dr. Gordon Bilyard (PNNL) and Mr. Daniel Jones (ORNL); biota sampling guidance: Mr. Daniel Jones (ORNL) and Dr. Bradley Sample (CH2MHill); guidance on radiation weighting factor for alpha particles: Dr. David Kocher (SENES-Oak Ridge); evaluating dose to individual organisms: Dr. David Kocher (SENES-Oak Ridge); derivation of dose coefficients, dose equations and models, and BCGs: Dr. Kathryn Higley (Oregon State University), Dr. David Kocher (SENES-Oak Ridge), Mr. Ernest Antonio (PNNL), and Mr. Stephen Domotor (EH-412); preparation of example applications of the graded approach: Mr. Ernest Antonio (PNNL) and Ms. Patricia Scofield (ORNL). We are grateful to Dr. Gary Friday of the Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation (WSRC) for his valuable comments and recommendations concerning ecological risk issues and technical considerations. We are grateful to Dr. Ward Whicker (Colorado State University) for his independent technical peer review of this technical standard. We thank Dr. Alvin Young, DOE Office of Environmental Management Center for Risk Excellence, for sponsoring and coordinating the independent technical peer review of this technical standard. We thank all of the BDAC members who provided comments and recommendations on previous drafts of this technical standard, and who provided recommendations on the screening and analysis methods which were piloted at the 1999 BDAC Meeting. We also thank the representatives from federal and state agencies, and international organizations, who provided review comments on previous drafts of this technical standard. We thank Mr. Fred Baes (ORNL) for BDAC web site design, database design, and maintenance support. We thank Mr. Richard Serbu of the Department’s Technical Standards Program (DOE-TSP) for guidance and support provided in establishing the BDAC.

We thank the DOE-TSP Managers and points of contact for their helpful comments and suggestions on this technical standard during the DOE-TSP formal review process. xviii DOE-STD-1153-2002 We thank Mr. Andrew Lawrence, Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance (EH-41); Mr. Andrew Wallo III, Director of the Air, Water, and Radiation Division (EH-412); and Mr. Harold Peterson, EH-412 Environmental and Radiological Evaluation Unit Leader, for sponsoring the BDAC and supporting the development of this technical standard. We thank Mr. Raymond Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment (EH-4), for his support and recognition of the BDAC’s pioneering spirit and efforts in developing the biota dose evaluation methods in this technical standard. xix DOE-STD-1153-2002 INTENTIONALLY BLANK xx DOE-STD-1153-2002 Scope, Purpose and Organization This technical standard provides methods, models, and guidance within a graded approach that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors may use to evaluate doses of ionizing radiation to populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial animals from DOE activities for the purpose of demonstrating protection relative to Dose Rate Guidelines. It provides dose evaluation methods that can be used to meet the requirements of DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” (1990a) and DOE Order 5400.1, “General Environmental Protection Program” (1990b). The technical standard assumes a threshold of protection for plants and animals at the following doses: for aquatic animals, 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d); for terrestrial plants, 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d); and for terrestrial animals, 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d). Available data indicate that dose rates below these limits cause no measurable adverse effects to populations of plants and animals. The DOE graded approach includes a screening method and three more detailed levels of analysis for demonstrating compliance with applicable dose limits for protection of biota. The general screening method provides appropriately conservative limiting concentrations of radionuclides in environmental media (termed "Biota Concentration Guides" or BCGs). Radionuclide concentrations in samples of environmental media are easily compared with the BCGs to evaluate compliance with biota dose limits. The three more detailed analysis methods require more effort, but yield more accurate and realistic biota dose evaluations. This technical standard is designed to be user-friendly, and is organized into three principal Modules for ease of implementation. Material in each Module is cross-referenced to pertinent sections in other Modules. There is some duplication of material across Modules by design, in order to allow each to be used separately, if desired. Module 1 serves as the principal users guide for step-by-step implementation of the graded approach to biota dose evaluation. Module 2 serves as a resource guide, providing detailed guidance for implementing key elements of the graded approach identified in Module 1, and providing a “primer” on technical issues to be considered when evaluating radiation as a stressor to the environment. Module 3 serves as a technical reference source, providing the technical basis for the derivation of dose models, screening values, and selection of default assumptions and parameters applied in the graded approach. The organization and content of the technical standard are provided in Figure 1.

xxi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Figure 1 Organization and Contents of the DOE Technical Standard xxii DOE-STD-1153-2002 References Addy, C. E. 1956. Guide to Waterfowl Banding. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. American Society for Quality Control (ASQC). 1994. American National Standard: Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs. ANSI/ASQC E4-1994, ASQC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1995. Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites. ASTM E 1689-95, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1997. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 11.05. Biological Effects and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides. ASTM, West Conshohoken, Pennsylvania. Amiro, B. D. 1997. “Radiological Dose Conversion Factors for Generic Non-Human Biota Used for Screening Potential Radiological Impacts.” J. Environ. Radioactivity 35(1):37-51. Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. “Length, Weight, and Associated Structural Indices.” In Fisheries Techniques, 2nd Edition, eds. B. R. Nurphy and D. Willis, pp. 447-482. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Baes, C. F., R. D. Sharp, A. L. Sjoreen, and R. W. Shor. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture. ORNL-5786, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Baker, D. A., and J. K. Soldat. 1992. Methods for Estimating Doses to Organisms from Radioactive Materials Released into the Aquatic Environment. PNL-8150, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Barnthouse, L. W. 1995. Effects on Ionizing Radiation on Terrestrial Plants and Animals: A Workshop Report. Environmental Sciences Division, ORNL/TM-13141, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Bastian, R.K., and W.B. Jackson. 1975. “137 Cs and 60 Co in a Terrestrial Community at Enewetak Atoll.” In Radioecology and Energy Resources, Publication No. 1, May, ed. C.E. Cushing, pp. 12-14. Oregon State University, Oregon. Bilyard, C. R., H. Beckert, J. J. Bascietto, C. W. Abrams, S. A. Dyer, and L. A. Haselow. 1997. Using the Data Quality Objectives Process During the Design and Conduct of Ecological Risk Assessments. DOE/EH-0544, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, Washington, D.C. Blaylock, B.G., M.L. Frank, and B.R. O’Neal. 1993. Methodology for Estimating Radiation Dose Rates to Freshwater Biota Exposed to Radionuclides in the Environment, ES/ER/TM-78. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. xxiii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Breckenridge, R. P., and A. Crocket. 1998. “Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites.” Environ. Monit. Assess. 51:621-656. Breda, N., A. Granier, F. Barataud, and C. Moyne. 1995. “Soil Water Dynamics in an Oak Stand.” Plant and Soil 172: 17-27. Bub, H. 1990. Bird Trapping and Bird Banding. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Burmaster, D. E., and D. A. Hull. 1997. “Using Lognormal Distributions and Lognormal Probability Plots in Probabilistic Risk Assessments.” Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 3:235-255. Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.

Bysshe, S. E. 1988. “Uptake by Biota.” In Environmental Inorganic Chemistry: Properties, Processes, and Estimation Methods. eds. I. Bodek, W. J. Luman, W. F. Reehl and D. H. Rosenblatt, pp. 4-1 to 4.7-1. Pergamon Press, New York. Calder, W. A., III. 1984. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. California Environmental Protection Agency (California EPA). 1997. Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. Final Policy Report, Human and Ecological Risk Division, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California EPA, Sacramento, California. Call, M. Y. 1986. “Rodents and Insectivores.” In Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat, eds. A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, pp. 429-452. U.S. Dept. Inter., Bur. Land Manage. Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Canadell, J., R.B. Jackson, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala, and E.D. Schulze. 1996. “Maximum Rooting Depth of Vegetation Types at a Global Scale.” Oecologia 108: 583-595. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection (CNSC­ ACRP). 2002. Protection of Non-Human Biota From Ionizing Radiation. Document No. INFO­ 0730. June 2002. Cooper, R. J., and R. C. Whitmore. 1990. “Arthropod Sampling Methods in Ornithology.” Studies in Avian Biology 13:29–37. Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Miflin Co., Boston. xxiv DOE-STD-1153-2002 Copplestone, D., S. Bielby, S. Jones. D. Patton, P. Daniel, and I. Gize. 2001. Impact Assessment of Ionizing Radiation on Wildlife. Environment Agency, Rio House, Bristol (BS32 4UD), UK. Craig, J. F. 1980. “Sampling with Traps.” In Guidelines for Sampling Fish in Inland Waters, eds. T. Backiel and R. L. Welcomme, pp. 55–70. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Cummins, C.L. 1994. Radiological Bioconcentration Factors for Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Wetland Ecosystems at the Savannah River Site. WSRC-TR-94-0391. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Dietrick, E. J., E. I. Schlinger, and R. Van den Bosch. 1959. “A New Method for Sampling Arthropods Using a Suction Collection Machine and a Berlese Funnel Separator.” Journal of Economic Entomology 52:1085-1091. Dowdy, S., and S. Wearden. 1983. Statistics for Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Dunning, J. B., Jr. 1984. Body Weights of 686 Species of North American Birds. Western Bird Banding Association, Monograph No. 1, Eldon Publishing, Cave Creek, Arizona. Dunning, J. B., Jr. 1993. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Eisler, R. 1994. Radiation Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. Biological Report 26, National Biological Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Endangered Species Act. 1973. Public Laws 93-205 through 100-707, as amended, 87 stat. 884, 16 USC 1531 et seq. Eyman, L.D., and J.R. Trabalka. “Patterns of Transuranic Uptake by Aquatic Organisms: Consequences and Implications.” In Transuranic Elements in the Environment, ed. Wayne Hanson, pp. 612-624. Foxx, T.S., G.D. Tierney, and J.M. Williams. 1984. Rooting Depths of Plants on Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites. LA-10253-MS. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Friday, G.P., C.L. Cummins, and A.L. Schwartzman. 1996. Radiological Bioconcentration Factors for Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Wetlands Ecosystems at the Savannah River Site. WSRC­ TR-96-0231. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Gamble, J.F. 1971. A Proposed Mechanism for Recycling Radiocesium in Florida Soil Systems. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, conf-71501-p1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. xxv DOE-STD-1153-2002 Gentner, N. 2002. “What Harm Do We Wish to Protect Against and How Should it be Assessed.” Nuclear Energy Agency, Radiological Protection of the Environment: “The Path Forward to a New Policy?” Taormina, Sicily, Italy, February 12-14, 2002. Garten, C. T., Jr. 1981. “Comparative Uptake of Actinides by Plants and Rats from the Shoreline of a Radioactive Pond.” J. Environ. Qual. 10:487-491. Garten, C. T., Jr., E. A. Bondietti, J. R. Trabalka, R. L. Walker, and T. G. Scott. 1987. “Field Studies on the Terrestrial Behavior of Actinide Elements in East Tennessee.” In Environmental Research on Actinide Elements, eds. J. E. Pinder III, J. J. Alberts, K. W. McLeod, and R. G. Schreckhise, pp. 109-119 in CONF-841142, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Gerzabek, M.H., F. Strebl, and B. Temmel. 1998. Plant uptake of radionuclides in lysimeter experiments. Environmental Pollution 99: 93-103. Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Gilman, E.F. 1989. “Tree Root Depth Relative to Landfill Tolerance.” HortScience 245:857. Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Greenleaf-Jenkins, J., and R. J. Zasoski. 1986. “Distribution, Availability, and Foliar Accumula­ tion of Heavy Metals from Dewatered Sludge Applied to Two Acid Forest Soils.” In Nutritional and Toxic Effects of Sewage Sludge in Forest Ecosystems, eds. S. D. West and R. J. Zasoski, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Gullet, P. A. 1987. “Euthanasia.” In Field Guide to Wildlife Diseases: General Field Procedures for Migratory Birds, ed. M. Friend, pp. 59-63, Res. Publ.167, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Gunn, A. 1992. “Use of Mustard to Estimate Earthworm Populations.” Pedobiologia. 36:65–67. Hamley, J. M. 1980. “Sampling with Gillnets.” In Guidelines for Sampling Fish in Inland Waters, eds. T. Backiel and R. L. Welcomme, pp. 37-53. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Hartley, W. G. 1980. “The Use of Electrical Fishing for Estimating Stocks of Freshwater Fish.” In Guidelines for Sampling Fish in Inland Waters, eds. T. Backiel and R. L. Welcomme, pp. 91-95. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Hays, R. L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables. FWS/OBS-81/47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. xxvi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster. 1994. Measuring and Monitoring of Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Howe, J.R., and M.k. Lloyd. 1986. “Radio-Iodine in Thyroid Glands of Swans, Farm Animals and Humans, also in Algae and River Water from the Thames Valley, England.” In Science and the Total Environment 48:13-31.

Hubbell, J. H. 1969. Photon Cross Sections - Attenuation Coefficients and Energy Absorption Coefficients from 10 KeV to 100 GeV. NSRDS-NBS-29, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hubert, W. A. 1983. “Passive Capture Methods.” In Fisheries Techniques, eds. L. A. Nielsen and D. L. Johnson, pp. 95-122. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1976. Effects of Ionizing Radiation Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems. Technical Report No. 172, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1990. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series No. 332, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1994. Manual of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments. Technical Report Series No. 364, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1999. Protection of the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A Report for Discussion. IAEA-TECDOC-1091, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979a. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Part 1, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979b. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Supplement to Part 1, Pergamon Press, New York. xxvii DOE-STD-1153-2002 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1980. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Part 2, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1981a. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Supplement to Part 2, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1981b. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Part 3, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1982a. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Supplement A to Part 3, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1982b. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Supplement B to Part 3, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1983. Annals of the ICRP, “Radionuclide Transformations: Energy and Intensity of Emissions.” ICRP Publication 38, Vols. 11-13, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1988. Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 Part 4, Pergamon Press, New York. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, New York.

Isom, B. G. 1978. “Benthic Macroinvertebrates.” In Methods for the Assessment and Prediction of Mineral Mining Impacts on Aquatic Communities: a Review and Analysis Workshop Proceedings, ed. W. T. Mason, Jr., pp. 67-74. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Jackson, R.B., J. Canadell, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala, and E.D. Schulze. 1996. “A Global Analysis of Root Distributions in Terrestrial Biomes.” Oecologia 108: 389-411. Jacobs, K. E., and W. D. Swink. 1982. “Estimations of Fish Population Size and Sampling Efficiency of Electrofishing and Rotenone in Two Kentucky Tailwaters.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:239–248. Jenkins, J.H., and T.T. Fendley. 1971. Radionuclide Biomagnification in Coastal Plain Deer. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, conf-710501-p1, pp. 116-122. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. xxviii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Jiang, Q. Q., and B. R. Singh. 1994. “Effect of Different Forms and Sources of Arsenic on Crop Yield and Arsenic Concentration.” Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 74:321-343. Johnson, C. G., and L. R. Taylor. 1955. “The Development of Large Suction Traps for Airborne Insects.” Annals of Applied Biology 43:51–62. Jones, C., W. J. McShea, M. J. Conroy, and T. H. Kunz. 1996. “Capturing Mammals.” In Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals, eds. D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M.S. Foster, pp. 115-155. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Jones, D.S. 2000. “Radiological Benchmarks for Effects on Aquatic Biota at the Oak Ridge Reservation.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 6, 789-807. Jones, K. B. 1986. “Amphibians and Reptiles.” In Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat, eds. A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, pp. 267-290. Bur. Land Manage. Service Center, U.S. Dept. Inter., Denver, Colorado. Julliet, J. A. 1963. “A Comparison of Four Types of Traps Used for Capturing Flying Insects.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 41:219–223. Kaye, S. V., and P. B. Dunaway. 1962. “Bioaccumulation of Radioactive Isotopes by Herbivorous Small Mammals.” Health Phys. 7:205-217. Kennedy, W. E., Jr., and D. L. Strenge. 1992. Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning. NUREG/CR-5512, PNL-7994, Vol. 1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Keyes, B. E., and C. E. Grue. 1982. “Capturing Birds with Mist Nets: a Review.” North American Bird Bander 7:2–14. Klepper, E.L., K.A. Gano and L.L. Cadwell. 1985. Rooting depth and distributions of deep- rooted plants in the 200 area control zone of the Hanford Site. PNL-5247/UC-11. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Kocher, D. C. 1980. A Radionuclide Decay Data Base—Index and Summary Table. NUREG/CR-1413, ORNL/NUREG-70, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Kocher, D. C. 1981. Radioactive Decay Data Tables—A Handbook of Decay Data for Application to Radiation Dosimetry and Radiological Assessments. DOE/TIC-11026, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Kocher, D. C. 1983. “Dose Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons.” Health Physics 45(3):665-686. xxix DOE-STD-1153-2002 Kocher, D. C., and K. F. Eckerman. 1981. “Electron Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure of the Skin.” Health Phys. 40(4):467-475. Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper & Row, New York. Kunz, T. H. 1988a. Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

Kunz, T. H. 1988b. “Methods of Assessing the Availability of Prey to Insectivorous Bats.” In Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats, ed. T. H. Kunz, pp. 191-210. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Kunz, T. H., R. Rudran, and G. Gurry-Glass. 1996. “Human Health Concerns.” In Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals, eds. D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, pp. 255-264. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Land, C. E. 1975. “Tables of Confidence Limits for Linear Functions of the Normal Mean and Variance.” In Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics. Vol. III, pp. 385-419. Am. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island. Layher, W. G., and O. E. Maughan. 1984. “Comparison Efficiencies of Three Sampling Techniques for Estimating Fish Populations in Small Streams.” Progress in Fisheries Culture 46:180–184. Ludwig, J. A, and J. F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology: a Primer and Methods and Computing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Murkin, H. R., D. A. Wrubleski, and F. A. Ried. 1994. “Sampling Invertebrates in Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats.” In Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats, 5th Edition, ed. T. A. Bookhout, pp. 349–369. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Nagorsen, D. W., and R. L. Peterson. 1980. Mammal Collectors’ Manual: a Guide for Collecting, Documenting, and Preparing Mammal Specimens for Scientific Research. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications, Toronto, Canada. Napier, B. A., R. A. Peloquin, D. L. Strenge, and J. V. Ramsdell. 1988a. Conceptual Representation. Volume 1 of GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584, Vol. 1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Napier, B. A., R. A. Peloquin, D. L. Strenge, and J. V. Ramsdell. 1988b. User's Manual. Volume 2 of GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584, Vol. 2, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. xxx DOE-STD-1153-2002 Napier, B. A., R. A. Peloquin, D. L. Strenge, and J. V. Ramsdell. 1988c. Code Maintenance Manual. Volume 3 of GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584, Vol. 3, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland. Newman, M. C. 1995. Quantitative Methods in Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Ng, Y. C. 1982. “A Review of Transfer Factors for Assessing the Dose from Radionuclides in Agricultural Products.” Nuclear Safety 23(1):57-71. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 1997. Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report for 1996. ES/ESH-73, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Onishi, Y., R. J. Serne, E. M. Arnold, C. E. Cowan, and F. L. Thompson. 1981. Critical Review: Radionuclide Transport, Sediment Transport, and Water Quality Mathematical Modeling; and Radionuclide Adsorption/Desorption Mechanisms. NUREG/CR-1322, PNL-2901, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Ophel, I.L., and C.D. Fraser. 1971. The Fate of Cobalt-60 in a Natural Freshwater Ecosystem. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, conf-710501-p1. Parker, M.M. and D.H. Van Lear. 1996. “Soil Heterogeneity and Root Distribution of Mature

Loblolly Pine Stands in Piedmont Soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 1920-1925. Polikarpov, G. G. 1994. “CIS Workshop in Radioecology.” IUR Newsletter 16:6-7. Price, K. R. 1971. A Critical Review of Biological Accumulation, Discrimination and Uptake of Radionuclides Important to Waste Management Practices. BNWL-B-148, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington. Provost, L. P. 1984. “Statistical Methods in Environmental Sampling.” In Environmental Sampling for Hazardous Wastes, eds., G. F. Schweitzer and J. A. Santolucito. American Chemical Society Symposium Series, Washington, D.C. Raw, F. 1959. “Estimating Earthworm Populations Using Formalin.” Nature 148:1661–1662. Reiss, M.J. 1989. The Allometry of Growth and Reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Reynolds, J. B. 1983. “Electrofishing.” In Fisheries Techniques, eds. L. A. Nielsen and D. L. Johnson, pp. 147–164. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxxi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Rice, T.R. 1961. Review of Zinc in Ecology. Proceedings of the First National Symposium of Radioecology, pp. 619-631, eds. V. Schultz and A.W. Klement. Rickard, W.H. and L.J. Kirby. 1987. “Trees as Indicators of Subterranean Waster Flow from a Retired Radioactive Waste Disposal Site.” Health Physics 52(2): 201-206. Romney, E.M., W.A. Rhoads, A. Wallace, and R.A. Wood. 1971. Persistence of radionuclides in soil, plants, and small mammals in areas contaminated with radioactive fallout. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, conf-71501-p1. Ryti, R., EE. Kelley, M. Hooten, G. Gonzales, G. McDermott, and L. Soholt. 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Methods. LA-UR-99-1405, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Sadana, U. S., and B. Singh. 1987. “Yield and Uptake of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc by Wheat Grown in a Soil Polluted with Heavy Metals.” J. Plant Sci. Res. 3:11-17. Sample, B. E., M. S. Aplin, R. A. Efroymson, G. W. Suter II, and C. J. E. Welsh. 1997. Methods and Tools for Estimation of the Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants. ORNL/TM-13391, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Satchell, J. E. 1970. “Measuring Population and Energy Flow in Earthworms.” In Methods of Study in Soil Ecology, ed. J. Phillipson, pp. 261–267. UNESCO, New York. Schemnitz, S. D. 1994. “Capturing and Handling Wild Animals.” In Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats, 5th Edition, ed. T. A. Bookhout, pp. 106–124. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Schmidt-Neilsen, K. 1977. “Problems of Scaling: Locomotion and Physiological Constraints.” In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion, ed. T.J. Pedley, pp. 1-22. Academic Press, London, England. Shine, R. 1986. Diets and Abundances of Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Reptiles in the Alligator Rivers Region. Technical Memorandum No. 16, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia. Shleien, B., L. A. Slayback, Jr., and B. K. Kirby, eds. 1998. Handbook of Health Physics and Radiological Health. 3rd ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland. Silva, M., and J. A. Dowling. 1995. CRC Handbook of Mammalian Body Masses, pp. 359. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Smock, L. A., J. E. Gladden, J. L. Riekenberg, L. C. Smith, and C. R. Black. 1992. “Lotic Macroinvertebrate Production in Three Dimensions: Channel Surface, Hyporheic, and Floodplain Environments.” Ecology 73:876–886. xxxii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th Edition. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 2nd Edition. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York. Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological Methods. Chapman and Hall, New York. Springett, J. A. 1981. “A New Method for Extracting Earthworms from Soil Cores, with a Comparison of Four Commonly Used Methods for Estimating Populations.” Pedobiologia 21:217–222. Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. Suter, G. W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Suter, G. W. 1995. Guide for Performing Screening Ecological Risk Assessments at Doe Facilities. ES/ER/TM-153, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Suter, G. W. 1996. Guide for Developing Conceptual Models for Ecological Risk Assessment. ES/ER/TM-186, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Suter, G. W., II., B. E. Sample, D. S. Jones, and T. L. Ashwood. 1995. Approach and Strategy for Performing Ecological Risk Assessments on the Oak Ridge Reservation. 1995 rev. ES/ER/TM-33/R2, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Suter, G.W., II, R.A. Efroymson, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Talmage, S. S., and B. T. Walton. 1993. “Food Chain Transfer and Potential Renal Toxicity to Small Mammals at a Contaminated Terrestrial Field Site.” Ecotoxicology 2:243-256. Temple, P. J., and R. Wills. 1979. “Sampling and Analysis of Plants and Soil.” In Manual of Methodology for the Assessment of Air Pollution Effects on Vegetation, eds. W. W. Heck, S. V. Krupa, and S. N. Linzon, pp. 13-1–13-23. Tierney, G.D. and T.S. Foxx. 1987. Rooting lengths of plants on Los Alamos National Laboratory Lands. LA-10865-MS/UC-48. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Till, J.E. and H.R. Meyer. (1983) Radiological Assessment: A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis. NUREG/CR-3332, ORNL-5968. Prepared for Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC. xxxiii DOE-STD-1153-2002 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 1996. Effects of Radiation on the Environment. A/AC.82/R.549, United Nations, Vienna. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Multi- Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Revision 1, NRC Report NUREG-1575, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production. DOE/TIC-27601, D. Randerson, ed., DOE, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1984. “Iodine in Terrestrial Wildlife on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site in South central Washington.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 4:379-388. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1987. The Environmental Survey Manual. DOE/EH-0053, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1990a. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. DOE Order 5400.5. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1990b. General Environmental Protection Program. DOE Order 5400.1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1991. Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance. DOE/EH-0173T, DOE, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1993. “10 CFR 834, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register, March 25, 1993. Volume 58, No. 56, pp. 16268-16322. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Estimating the Cold War Mortgage. The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report. DOE/EM-0232. Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997. Site Conceptual Exposure Model Builder User Manual. Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance, RCRA/CERCLA Division (EH-413). U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1996. Baseline Environmental Management Report. DOE/EM-0290. Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998. Compendium of EPA-Approved Analytical Methods for Measuring Radionuclides in Drinking Water. Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy. xxxiv DOE-STD-1153-2002 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999a. U.S. Department of Energy Biota Dose Assessment Committee Summary Report. 1999 Annual Topical Committee Meeting. Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance, Air, Water and Radiation Division. September 27, 1999. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999b. Quality Assurance. DOE Order 414.1A. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000a. Availability of DOE Technical Standard, “A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota” (Project ENVR­ 0011), for use in DOE Compliance and Risk Assessment Activities. Washington, DC: DOE memorandum from Dr. David Michaels (EH-1); 2000 (July 19). U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000b. Guidance Memorandum: Guidance for the Preparation of Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Site Environmental Reports for Calendar Year 1999. Dr. David Michaels (EH-1) to Distribution. April 21, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-93/187 a and b, Vols. I and II, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994a. Vegetation Assessment Field Protocol. ERT SOP #2037. Rev. 0.0, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994b. Field Studies for Ecological Risk Assessment. Eco Update 2(3). EPA 540-F-94-014, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994c. Guidance for the data quality objectives process. EPA QA/G-4. Quality Assurance Management Staff, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Vegetation Assessment Field Protocol. ERT SOP #2038. Rev. 0.0, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment, Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Response Team, Edison, New Jersey. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997b. Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment. Part 1. Planning and Scoping. Science Policy Council, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9285. 7-28 P. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. xxxv DOE-STD-1153-2002

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1977. North American Bird Banding Manual. Vol. II. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Verkhovskaja, I.N., P.P. Vavilov, and V.I. Maslov. 1967. The Migration of Natural Radioactive Elements. International Symposium in Stockholm, April 1966. Eds. B. Aberg and F.P. Hungate, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1992. Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers. Publ. No. 92-54, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State. Publ. No. 94-115, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, Washington. West, G.B., Brown, J.H., and B.J. Enquist. 1977. “A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology.” Science 276:122-126. Whicker, F.W. 1997. “Impacts on Plant and Animal Populators.” Health impacts for large releases of radionuclides, 74-93. Ciba Foundation, London, England. Whicker, F.W., Pinder, J.E., III, Bowling, J.W., Alberts, J.J., and I.L. Brisban. 1990. “Distribution of Long-Lived Radionuclides in an Abandoned Reactor Cooling Reservoir.” Ecological Monographs 60: 471-496. Whicker, F.W. and V. Schultz. 1982. Radioecology: Nuclear Energy and the Environment. Vol. I and II. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Whicker, F.W., Shaw, G., Voigt, G, and E. Holm. 1999. “Radioactive Contamination: State of the Science and its Application to Predictive Models.” Environmental Pollution 100: 133-149. Wiley, M. L., and C-F. Tsai. 1983. “The Relative Efficiencies of Electrofishing Vs. Seines in Piedmont Streams of Maryland.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:243–253. Wilkie, D.R. 1977. “Metabolism and Body Size.” In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion. Ed. T.J. Pedley. Academic Press, London, England. Williams, D. D., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1973. “The Occurrence of Benthos Deep in the Substratum of a Stream.” Freshwater Biology 4:233–256. Wilson, D. E., F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster. 1996. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. xxxvi http:Locomotion.Ed DOE-STD-1153-2002 Woodhead, D. S. 1998. “The Impact of Radioactive Discharges on Native British Wildlife and the Implications on Environmental Protection.” R & D Technical Report P135, Environmental Agency, Bristol, UK, 80 pp. Yu, C., J.J. Cheng, L.G. Jones, Y.Y. Wang, Y.P. Chia, and E. Fallaice. 1993. Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois. Zach, R. 1985. “Contribution of Inhalation by Food Animals to Man’s Ingestion Dose.” Health Physics 49: 737-745. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. xxxvii DOE-STD-1153-2002 INTENTIONALLY BLANK xxxviii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Definitions As defined and used in this technical standard: Absorbed Dose (D) is the energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated material at the place of interest in that material. More specifically, for any radiation type and any medium, absorbed dose (D) is the total energy (e) absorbed per unit mass (m) of material: D = e/m. The absorbed dose is expressed in units of rad (gray), where 1 rad = 0.01 joule/kg material (1 gray = 100 rad). For the purposes of this technical standard, the absorbed dose in an organism is assumed to be the average value over the whole organism.

Allometric refers to the relative growth of a part in relation to the entire organism. Alpha Particle is a helium-4 nucleus consisting of two protons and two neutrons, given off by the decay of many heavy elements, including uranium and plutonium. Because the particles are slow moving as well as heavy, alpha radiation can be blocked by a sheet of paper. However, once an alpha emitter is in living tissue, it can cause substantial damage because of the high ionization density along its path. Aquatic Biota is plant or animal life living in or on water. Arithmetic Mean is the most commonly used measure of central tendency, commonly called the “average.” Mathematically, it is the sum of all the values of a set divided by the number of values in the set: n j Xi X̄ ' i'1 n Assessment Endpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be protected, operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes. For example, salmon are valued ecological entities; reproduction and age class structure are some of their important attributes. Together "salmon reproduction and age class structure" form an assessment endpoint. Average - See “Arithmetic Mean.” Beta Particle is an electron. It has a short range in air. Beta particles are moderately penetrating and can cause skin burns from external exposure, but can be blocked by a sheet of plywood. Bias is a consistent underestimation or overestimation of the true values representing a population. Bioaccumulation is the ratio of the contaminant concentration in the organism relative to the contaminant concentration in an environmental medium resulting from the uptake of the xxxix DOE-STD-1153-2002 contaminant from one or more routes of exposure. This ratio is typically described through a bioaccumulation factor (Biv). Biomagnification is the tendency of some contaminants to accumulate to higher concentrations at higher levels in the food web through dietary accumulation. Biota is plant and animal life of a particular region. Biota Concentration Guide (BCG) is the limiting concentration of a radionuclide in soil, sediment, or water that would not cause dose limits for protection of populations of aquatic and terrestrial biota (as used in this technical standard) to be exceeded. Carnivore is a flesh-eating animal. Chronic refers to an extended continuous exposure to a stressor or the effects resulting from such an exposure. Community is an assemblage of populations of different species within a specified location in space and time. Conceptual Model is a written description and visual representation of predicted relationships between ecological entities and the stressors to which they may be exposed. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify technical and quality objectives for a study, define the appropriate type of data, and specify tolerable levels of uncertainty that a data user is willing to accept in the decision. DQOs specify the problem to be solved, the decision, the inputs to the decision, the boundaries of the study, the decision rule, and the limits of uncertainty. Deterministic Effects are those for which the severity is a function of dose, and for which a threshold usually exists. Discharge Point is a conduit through which any radioactively contaminated gas, water, or solid is discharged to the atmosphere, waters, or soils.

Distribution Coefficient is the ratio of the mass of solute species absorbed or precipitated on the soil or sediment to the solute concentration in the water. This ratio is typically described through a Kd factor. Ecological Relevance is one of three criteria for assessment endpoint selection. Ecologically relevant endpoints reflect important characteristics of the system and are functionally related to other endpoints. Ecological Risk Assessment is the process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. xl DOE-STD-1153-2002 Effluent is any treated or untreated air emission or liquid discharge, including storm water runoff. Effluent Monitoring is the collection and analysis of samples or measurements of liquid, gaseous, or airborne effluents for the purpose of characterizing and quantifying contaminant levels and process stream characteristics, assessing radiation exposures to members of the public and the environment, and demonstrating compliance with applicable standards. Environmental Medium is a discrete portion of the total environment, animate or inanimate, that may be sampled or measured directly. Environmental Surveillance is the collection and analysis of samples of air, water, soil, foodstuffs, biota, and other media and the measurement of external radiation and radioactive materials for purposes of demonstrating compliance with applicable standards, assessing radiation exposures to members of the public, and assessing effects, if any, on the local environment. Error is the difference between an observed or measured value and its true value. Exposure is the co-occurrence or contact between the endpoint organism and the stressor (e.g., radiation or radionuclides). Facility means a building, structure, or installation subject to the regulations/standards pertinent to this technical standard. Forb is an herb other than grass. Gamma Rays are high-energy electromagnetic photons similar to X-rays. They are highly penetrating and several inches of lead or several feet of concrete are necessary to shield against them. Geometric Mean is mathematically expressed as the nth root of the product of all values in a set of n values: 1/n n X̄g ' J Xi i'1 or as the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of all the values of a set of n values: n j log Xi i'1X̄g ' antilog n xli DOE-STD-1153-2002 The geometric mean is generally used when the logarithms of a set of values are normally distributed, as is the case for much of the monitoring and surveillance data. Geometric Standard Deviation is mathematically expressed as the antilog of the standard deviation of the logarithms of the measurements: n 1/2 j log Xi 2 log Xi & i'1 n nSg ' antilog Xi…0j n&1i'1 Grab Sample is a single sample acquired over a short interval of time. Herbivore is a plant-eating animal. Lentic refers to living in or relating to still waters (as lakes, ponds, or swamps). Lotic refers to living in or relating to actively moving water (as streams or rivers). Median is the middle value of a set of data when the data are ranked in increasing or decreasing order. If there is an even number of values in the set, the median is the arithmetic average of the two middle values; if the number of values is odd, it is the middle value. Mode refers to the value occurring most frequently in a data set. Monitoring is the use of instruments, systems, or special techniques to measure liquid,

gaseous, solid, and/or airborne effluents and contaminants. Nuclide refers to an isotope, either stable or unstable, of any chemical element. Phylogenetic refers to the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism. Poikilothermic refers to a cold-blooded organism. Population is an aggregate of individuals of a species within a specified location in space and time. Proportional Sample is a sample consisting of a known fraction of the original stream. Quality refers to the totality of features and characteristics of a material, process, product, service, or activity that bears on its ability to satisfy a given purpose. xlii DOE-STD-1153-2002 Quality Assurance (QA) refers to those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a measurement represents the sampled population. Quality assurance includes quality control (QC), which comprises all those actions necessary to control and verify the features and characteristics of a material, process, product, or service to specified requirements. Quality Control (QC) refers to those actions necessary to control and verify the features and characteristics of a material, process, product, service, or activity to specified requirements. The aim of quality control is to provide quality that is satisfactory, adequate, dependable, and economical. Rad is a unit of absorbed dose of ionizing radiation equal to an energy of 100 ergs per gram of irradiated material. Radiation (Ionizing) refers to alpha particles, beta particles, photons (gamma rays or x-rays), high-energy electrons, and any other particles capable of producing ions. Radioactive Material refers to any material or combination of materials that contain radionuclides that spontaneously emits ionizing radiation. Radionuclide is an unstable nuclide that undergoes spontaneous transformation, emitting radiation. There are approximately 2,200 known radionuclides, both man-made and naturally occurring. A radionuclide is identified by the number of neutrons and protons in the atomic nucleus and its half-life. Random Error refers to variations of repeated measurements made within a sample set that are random in nature and individually not predictable. The causes of random error are assumed to be indeterminate or non-assignable. Random errors are generally assumed to be normally distributed. Random Samples are samples obtained in such a manner that all items or members of the lot, or population, have an equal chance of being selected in the sample. Range is the difference between the maximum and minimum values of a set of values. Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) is defined as the ratio of the absorbed dose of a reference radiation (normally gamma rays or X rays) required to produce a level of biological response to the absorbed dose of the radiation of concern required to produce the same level of biological response, all other conditions being kept constant. Representative Individual is an individual organism within a population that receives a radiation dose which is equivalent to the value of the appropriate measure of central tendency (i.e., mean, median, mode) of the distribution of doses received by that population. The individual is assumed to be representative of the population as a whole. xliii DOE-STD-1153-2002

Representative Sample is a sample taken to depict the characteristics of a lot or population as accurately and precisely as possible. A representative sample may be a “random sample” or a “stratified sample” depending upon the objective of the sampling and the characteristics of the conceptual population. Riparian Organisms are those organisms related to, living, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse (as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater. Safety Factor is a factor applied to an observed or estimated toxic concentration or dose to arrive at a criterion or standard that is considered safe. Sample has two definitions: 1) A subset or group of objects selected from a larger set, called the “lot” or “population;” and 2) an extracted portion or subset of an effluent stream or environmental media. Sampling is the extraction of a prescribed portion of an effluent stream or of an environmental medium for purposes of inspection and/or analysis. Sequential Sampling refers to timed samples collected from an effluent stream. Site refers to the land or property upon which DOE facilities or activities are located and access to which is subject to Departmental or DOE contractor control. Source (Radioactive) is either (1) a known amount of radioactive material emanating a characteristic amount of energy in the form of alpha, beta, gamma, neutron, or x-ray emissions (or a combination of such emissions), or (2) a single process or release point that contributes to or causes a release to the environment and that can be separated from other processes by a break in the flow of material. Standard Deviation is an indication of the dispersion of a set of results around the average of samples collected or the mean of a population; it is the positive square root of the sample variance. For samples taken from a population, the standard deviation, s, is calculated as: n 1/2 ¯j (Xi & X)2 i'1s ' n & 1 ¯where X = average value of the samples measured; n = number of samples measured; and Xi = individual measurement value for sample I. For a finite population, the standard deviation (σ) is xliv DOE-STD-1153-2002 N 1/2 j (Xi & µ)2 i'1σ ' N where F is the mean value of the population and N is the number of values within the population. Stochastic Effects are those for which the probability of occurrence is a function of dose, but the severity of the effects is independent of dose. Stratified Sample (Stratified Random Sample) refers to a sample consisting of various portions that have been obtained from identified subparts or subcategories (strata) of the total lot or population. Within each category or stratum, the samples are taken randomly. The objective of taking stratified samples is to obtain a more representative sample than might be obtained by a completely random sampling. Systematic Error is the condition in which there is a consistent deviation of the results from the actual or true values by a measurement process. The cause for the deviation, or bias, may be known or unknown; however, it is considered “assignable” (i.e., the cause can be reasonably determined). Terrestrial Biota is plant and animal life living on or in land. Variability is a general term for the dispersion of values in a data set. Variance is a measure of the variability of samples within a subset or the entire population. Mathematically, the sample variance (s2) is the sum of squares of the differences between the individual values of a set and the arithmetic average of the set, divided by one less than the number of values:

n ¯j (Xi & X)2 2 i'1s ' n & 1 where Xi = value of sample i; X̄ = average of samples measured; and n = number of samples measured. For a finite population, the variance (σ2) is the sum of squares of deviations from the arithmetic mean, divided by the number of values in the population: xlv DOE-STD-1153-2002 N j (Xi & µ)2 σ2 i'1 ' N where F is the mean value of the population and N is the number of values within the population. xlvi DOE-STD-1153-2002 Acronyms and Abbreviations λbio biological decay constant λeff the combination of biological and radiological decay constants λrad radiological decay constant ACRP Advisory Committee on Radiation Protection ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Biv bioaccumulation factor BCG Biota Concentration Guide BDAC Biota Dose Assessment Committee CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CV coefficient of variation D absorbed dose H dose equivalent DOE U.S. Department of Energy DQO data quality objectives EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis EH DOE’s Office of Environment, Safety, and Health EMS Environmental Management System EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection Kd solid/solution distribution coefficient M&O management and operating (contractor) xlvii DOE-STD-1153-2002 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Levels NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment PRA population-relevant attribute QA quality assurance QC quality control QF quality factor RBE relative biological effectiveness RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wT tissue or organ weighting factor xlviii DOE-STD-1153-2002 A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota MODULE 1 PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION M O D U L E 1 : P R IN C IP L E S A N D A P P L IC A T IO N DOE-STD-1153-2002 INTENTIONALLY BLANK DOE-STD-1153-2002 1 Introduction The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is accountable to Congress and the public for the safe conduct of its activities, including facility operation, waste management and disposal activities, and remediation of environmental contamination. These routine activities may result in releases of radionuclides to the air and water, accumulation of radionuclides in soil and sediment, and the potential for plants, animals, and members of the public to be exposed to radiation. DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” (1990a), lists the environmental radiation protection requirements that DOE and DOE- contractor employees must meet to protect aquatic animals. In addition, dose limits below which deleterious effects on populations of aquatic and terrestrial organisms have not been observed, as discussed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992), are considered by DOE to be relevant to the protection of all aquatic and terrestrial biota on DOE sites.

1.1 Purpose This DOE technical standard provides a graded approach (including screening methods and methods for detailed analyses) and related guidance that DOE and DOE contractors may use to evaluate compliance with specified limits on radiation dose to populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial animals due to anthropogenic sources at DOE sites. Specifically, the technical standard provides dose evaluation methods that can be used to meet the requirements for protection of biota in DOE Orders 5400.1, "General Environmental Protection Program" (DOE 1990b), 5400.5 (DOE 1990a), and the dose limits for protection of biota developed or discussed by the NCRP (1991) and IAEA (1992). Accordingly, this technical standard uses the biota dose limits specified below within a graded approach to demonstrate that populations of plants and animals are adequately protected from the effects of ionizing radiation: C Aquatic Animals. The absorbed dose to aquatic animals should not exceed 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the aquatic environment. This dose limit is specified in DOE Order 5400.5. C Terrestrial Plants. The absorbed dose to terrestrial plants should not exceed 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the terrestrial environment. C Terrestrial Animals. The absorbed dose to terrestrial animals should not exceed 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) from exposure to radiation or radioactive material releases into the terrestrial environment. Avoiding measurable impairment of reproductive capability is deemed to be the critical biological endpoint of concern in establishing the dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota. Module 1, Section 1.2.2 discusses this issue further. Guidance for interpreting and applying M1-1 DOE-STD-1153-2002 these dose limits with respect to the length of time and geographic area over which actual doses should be compared with the limits is provided in Module 2, Section 3. DOE has proposed these dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota under proposed rule Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 834 (10 CFR 834), “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” (DOE 1993). DOE has decided not to promulgate these dose limits until guidance for demonstrating compliance has been developed. Consequently, this technical standard was developed, in part, in response to comments and recommendations received by DOE through the proposed rule comment period. Principal themes in the comments included: (1) requests for development of cost-effective methods to support the use of DOE's existing and proposed biota dose limits, (2) support for a multi-tiered approach to include screening, (3) requests for guidance on biota monitoring, and (4) requests for development of a generic method to promote consistency, while retaining some flexibility for site-specific methods and information. These themes served as the guiding principles for development of the methods contained in this technical standard.

The specific methods and guidance in this technical standard are acceptable for use by DOE and DOE-contractors when evaluating doses to biota in relation to the above dose limits. The methods and guidance in this technical standard should also be useful to ecological risk assessors who must evaluate risks to biota from radionuclides that occur on DOE sites. Using the graded approach provided in this technical standard, risk assessors can use soil, sediment, and water radionuclide concentration data to determine whether radionuclide concentrations at a site are likely to result in doses in excess of those listed above and would, therefore, have the potential to impact resident populations of plants and animals. The methods can also give risk assessors an immediate qualitative assessment of the importance of doses of ionizing radiation to the resident receptors. The dose equations in this technical standard also provide methods of estimating upper-bound (e.g., conservatively derived) doses to specific plants and animals. Refer to Module 1, Section 3, for a description of intended and potential applications of the DOE graded approach. 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Increasing Interest and Need for Biota Dose Evaluation Methods There is growing national and international interest in establishing a regulatory framework (e.g., to include standards or criteria) and supporting evaluation methodologies for demonstrating protection of the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. Regarding environmental protection, the ICRP statement that "...if man is adequately protected then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected" (ICRP 1977; 1991) uses human protection to infer environmental protection from the effects of ionizing radiation. This assumption is most appropriate in cases where humans and other biota inhabit the same environment and have common routes of exposure, and less appropriate in cases where human access is restricted or pathways exist that are much more important for biota than for humans. The inclusion of M1-2 DOE-STD-1153-2002 radiation as a stressor within ecological risk assessments is also a consideration. Ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites being considered for remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) generally require an assessment of all stressors, including radiation. Assessments of radiation impacts on contaminated ecosystems are currently underway in the U.S. under CERCLA regulations (EPA 1988). Nationally and internationally, no Benefits of a Screening Process standardized methods have been adopted for evaluating doses and “A multi-tiered screening approach is normally used in demonstrating protection of plants and ecological risk assessments. Screening may also be a potentially cost-effective and easy way of animals from the effects of ionizing demonstrating compliance with radiation criteria or standards for protection of the environment. Screening radiation. In 1999, the IAEA convened a technical committee examining values should be used to identify radionuclides in protection of the environment from the situations of concern, and to determine whether these effects of ionizing radiation and radionuclides warrant further assessment, or if they are provided recommendations and at levels that require no further attention. In practice,

discussion points for moving forward this initial screening is expected to be sufficient in the with the development of protection majority of cases. When initial screening fails, frameworks and dose assessment additional analysis or assessment may be needed. A methods. The resulting IAEA two- or three-tiered scheme would help ensure that the Technical Document, "Protection of magnitude of the assessment effort would be scaled to the likelihood and severity of environmental impacts.” the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (1999) references From: IAEA-TECDOC-1091, Protection of the multi-tiered screening as a potentially Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A cost-effective and easy way of Report for Discussion (July 1999) demonstrating compliance with radiation criteria for protection of biota. The IAEA has subsequently hosted a series of Specialists’ Meetings on radiological protection of the environment, and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the ICRP have sponsored a series of fora on this issue. It is hoped that the methods and guidance provided in this DOE technical standard will serve as a platform for national and international discussion of radiation protection frameworks, standards, and dose assessment methods for biota. 1.2.2 Basis for Biota Dose Limits Applied in this Technical Standard A dose limit for controlling radiological impacts from DOE activities to native aquatic animals is specified in DOE Order 5400.5. At present, DOE Orders do not specify dose limits for terrestrial organisms. However, an intended objective of DOE Orders 5400.1 and 5400.5 is to protect the aquatic and terrestrial environment, including populations of plants and animals, within and beyond the boundaries of DOE sites from impacts of routine DOE activities. The dose limits in this technical standard are consistent with (a) the intent of DOE Orders 5400.1 M1-3 DOE-STD-1153-2002 and 5400.5, (b) the dose limit for aquatic animals specified in DOE Order 5400.5, and (c) findings of the IAEA and NCRP regarding doses below which deleterious effects on populations of aquatic and terrestrial organisms have not been observed. They are also consistent with the intent of the IAEA document, “The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management” (IAEA 1995), in which Principle 2 states that “radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to provide an acceptable level of environmental protection.” The background for the dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial biota is briefly discussed below. These dose limits represent expected safe levels of exposure, and are consensus No Adverse Effects Levels (NOAELs) for effects on population-relevant attributes in natural populations of biota. 1.2.2.1 Aquatic Organisms At the request of DOE, the NCRP (1991) reviewed the literature on the effects of radiation on aquatic organisms and prepared a report on the then-current understanding of such effects. The report also provided guidance for protecting populations of aquatic organisms, concluding that a chronic dose of no greater than 1 rad/d (0.4 mGy/h) to the maximally exposed individual in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection of the population. The IAEA examined and summarized the conclusions regarding aquatic organisms of several previous reviews (IAEA 1992): • Aquatic organisms are no more sensitive than other organisms; however, because they are poikilothermic animals, temperature can control the time of expression of radiation effects.

• The radiosensitivity of aquatic organisms increases with increasing complexity, that is, as organisms occupy successively higher positions on the phylogenetic scale. • The radiosensitivity of many aquatic organisms changes with age, or, in the case of unhatched eggs, with the stage of development. • Embryo development in fish and the process of gametogenesis appear to be the most radiosensitive stages of all aquatic organisms tested. • The radiation-induced mutation rate for aquatic organisms appears to be between that for Drosophila (fruit flies) and mice. Furthermore, the 1992 review found that the conclusions of an earlier IAEA review (1976) were still supported; namely, that appreciable effects in aquatic populations would not be expected at doses lower than 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) and that limiting the dose to the maximally exposed individuals to less than 1 rad/d would provide adequate protection of the population. M1-4 DOE-STD-1153-2002 1.2.2.2 Terrestrial Organisms The IAEA (1992) summarized information about the effects of acute ionizing radiation on terrestrial organisms as follows: • Reproduction (encompassing the processes from gametic formation through embryonic development) is likely to be the most limiting endpoint in terms of survival of the population. • Lethal doses vary widely among different species, with birds, mammals, and a few tree species being the most sensitive among those considered. • Acute doses of 10 rad (100 mGy) or less are very unlikely to produce persistent and measurable deleterious changes in populations or communities of terrestrial plants or animals. The IAEA (1992) also summarized information about the effects of chronic radiation on terrestrial organisms: • Reproduction (encompassing the processes from gametogenesis through embryonic development) is likely to be the most limiting endpoint in terms of population maintenance. • Sensitivity to chronic radiation varies markedly among different taxa; certain mammals, birds, reptiles, and a few tree species appear to be the most sensitive. • In the case of invertebrates, indirect responses to radiation-induced changes in vegetation appear more critical than direct effects. • Irradiation at chronic dose rates of 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) or less does not appear likely to cause observable changes in terrestrial plant populations. • Irradiation at chronic dose rates of 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) or less does not appear likely to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. The assumed threshold for effects in terrestrial animals is less than that for terrestrial plants, primarily because some species of mammals and reptiles are considered to be more radiosensitive. • Reproductive effects on long-lived species with low reproductive capacity may require further consideration. The NCRP and IAEA concluded for aquatic organisms and the IAEA concluded for terrestrial organisms that the statement by the ICRP (1977; 1991), "...if man is adequately protected, then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected" was reasonable within the M1-5 DOE-STD-1153-2002

limitations of the generic exposure scenarios examined. A similar assessment was made at a DOE-sponsored workshop (Barnthouse 1995) held to evaluate the adequacy of existing effects data and approaches to radiation protection of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to support moving forward with setting regulatory limits. DOE workshop participants agreed that protecting humans generally protects biota, except under the following conditions: (1) human access to a contaminated area is restricted but access by biota is not restricted, (2) unique exposure pathways exist for plants and animals that do not affect exposure of humans, (3) rare or endangered species are present, or (4) other stresses on the plant or animal population are significant. 1.2.2.3 Additional Summaries and Reviews of Radiation Effects Data on Biota Confirming NCRP and IAEA Findings UNSCEAR. In 1996, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) summarized and reviewed information on the responses to acute and chronic radiation of plants and animals, both as individuals and as populations (UNSCEAR 1996). The conclusions from the UNSCEAR review were consistent with findings and recommendations made earlier by the NCRP and IAEA concerning biota effects data and appropriate dose limits for protection of biota. In 2002, UNSCEAR reported that these dose rate criteria (1 rad/d for aquatic animals and terrestrial plants; 0.1 rad/d for terrestrial animals) remain defensible for protection of populations of plants and animals. The UNSCEAR plans to develop a new scientific annex to further address radioecology and effects of radiation on the environment (Gentner 2002). UK Environment Agency. In 2001, the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom (UK) conducted a review of the available body of radiation effects data on biota (Copplestone et al. 2001). They concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any significant effects in: • populations of freshwater and coastal organisms at chronic dose rates below 400 uGy/h (or 1 rad/d; 10 mGy/d); • terrestrial plant populations at chronic dose rates below 400 uGy/h (or 1 rad/d; 10 mGy/d); and • terrestrial animal populations at chronic dose rates below 40 uGy/h (or 0.1 rad/d; 1 mGy/d). It is noteworthy that the UK Environment Agency’s review findings are largely consistent with the findings and biota dose recommendations of the NCRP, the IAEA, and UNSCEAR cited above. Additionally, they concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any significant effects in populations of organisms in the deep ocean at chronic dose rates below 1,000 uGy/h (or 2.5 rad/d; 25 mGy/d). M1-6 DOE-STD-1153-2002 ACRP. In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Radiation Protection (ACRP), charged with providing advice to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regarding approaches needed for the radiological protection of the environment, provided recommendations concerning appropriate dose rate criteria for protection of biota. The ACRP recommended that the generic dose rate criterion for protecting biota should be in the range of 1-10 mGy/d (0.1-1 rad/d). The ACRP indicated that this dose rate criterion is based on population-level effects and, given the current state of knowledge and consensus views of radiation effects on biota, represents the level at which ecosystems will suffer no appreciable deleterious effects. The criterion is specified in terms of daily dose rather than annual dose. The intent is to avoid, for example, what would be the annual dose at this dose rate criterion being received in a few days. The ACRP further recommended that there should be some flexibility in the averaging time used in interpreting this dose rate criterion (CNSC-ACRP 2002).

1.2.2.4 Application of Biota Dose Limits as “Dose Rate Guidelines” for Evaluating Doses to Biota The biota dose limits specified in this technical standard are based on the current state of science and knowledge regarding effects of ionizing radiation on plants and animals. They should not be interpreted as a “bright line” that, if exceeded, would trigger a mandatory regulatory or remedial action. Rather, they should be interpreted and applied more as “Dose Rate Guidelines” that provide an indication that populations of plants and animals could be impacted from exposure to ionizing radiation and that further investigation and action is likely necessary. 1.2.3 Protection of Populations The intent of the graded approach (i.e., the screening and analysis methods) in this technical standard is to protect populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, and terrestrial plants from the effects of exposure to anthropogenic ionizing radiation. As noted above, certain taxa are more sensitive to ionizing radiation than others. Based on this observation, it is generally assumed that protecting the more sensitive taxa will adequately protect other, less sensitive taxa. Hence, in cases where site-specific evaluations may be required, receptors should be selected that (1) are important to the structure and function of the community, (2) are expected to receive a comparatively high degree of exposure (e.g., expected to receive a radiation dose to reproductive tissues which is relatively high per unit of radionuclide present in the ecosystem, in comparison with other receptors in the same community), and (3) have a comparatively high degree of radiosensitivity (e.g., radiation effects of concern occur at relatively low doses, in comparison with other receptors in the same community). Figure 1.1 shows the relative radiosensitivity of various taxa for both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Participants at the DOE-sponsored workshop to evaluate the adequacy of existing effects data and approaches to radiation protection of aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Barnthouse 1995) concluded that existing data support the application of recommended dose limits to M1-7 DOE-STD-1153-2002 representative rather than maximally exposed individuals within populations of plants and animals. Participants concluded that exposure below the recommended dose limits would not cause adverse effects at the population level, even though some individuals within the population might be adversely affected. Viruses Molluscs Protozoa Bacteria Moss, Lichen, Algae Insects Crustaceans Reptiles Amphibians Fish Higher Plants Birds Mammals ACUTE LETHAL DOSE (Gy) ACUTE LETHAL DOSE (rad) 1 100 10 1,000 100 10,000 1,000 100,000 10,000 1,000,000 Figure 1.1 Approximate Acute Lethal Dose Ranges for Various Taxonomic Groups Source: Whicker and Schulz 1982; UNSCEAR 1996. M1-8 2 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Overview of the DOE Graded Approach DOE's graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota consists of a three-step process which is designed to guide a user from an initial, conservative general screening to, if needed, a more rigorous analysis using site-specific information (Figure 2.1). The three-step process includes: (1) assembling radionuclide concentration data and knowledge of sources, receptors, and routes of exposure for the area to be evaluated; (2) applying an easy-to-use general screening methodology that provides limiting radionuclide concentration values (i.e., Biota Concentration Guides - BCGs) in soil, sediment, and water; and (3) if needed, conducting an analysis through site-specific screening, site-specific analysis, or an actual site-specific biota dose assessment conducted within an eco-risk. Any of the steps within the graded approach may be used at any time, but the general screening methodology will usually be the simplest, most cost-effective, and least time-consuming. Table 2.1 provides a summary of DOE’s graded approach.

Figure 2.1 Overview of the DOE Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota M1-9 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 2.1 Summary of DOE's Three-Step Process for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 1. Data Assembly Knowledge of sources, receptors, and routes of exposure for the area to be evaluated is summarized. Measured radionuclide concentrations in water, sediment, and soil are assembled for subsequent screening. 2. General Screening Maximum measured radionuclide concentrations in an environmental medium (i.e., water, sediment, soil) are compared with a set of Biota Concentration Guides (BCGs). Each radionuclide-specific BCG represents the limiting radionuclide concentration in an environmental medium which would not result in recommended dose standards for biota to be exceeded. 3. Analysis (a) Site-Specific Screening (b) Site-Specific Analysis (c)Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment This phase consists of three increasingly more detailed steps of analysis. Site-specific screening, using more realistic site-representative lumped parameters (e.g., bioaccumulation factors) in place of conservative default parameters. Use of mean radionuclide concentrations in place of maximum values, taking into account time dependence and spatial extent of contamination, may be considered. Site-specific analysis employing a kinetic modeling tool (applicable to riparian and terrestrial animal organism types) provided as part of the graded approach methodology. Multiple parameters which represent contributions to the organism’s internal dose (e.g., body mass, consumption rate of food/soil, inhalation rate, lifespan, biological elimination rates) can be modified to represent site and organism- specific characteristics. The kinetic model employs allometric equations relating body mass to these internal dose parameters. An actual site-specific biota dose assessment involving the collection and analysis of biota samples. The dose assessment would involve a problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization protocol consistent with the widely-used ecological risk assessment paradigm. 2.1 Key Features of the Graded Approach The graded approach was designed for flexibility and acceptability: • It provides users with a tiered approach for demonstrating compliance with biota dose limits that is generally cost-effective and easy-to-implement. • It allows for the use of measured radionuclide concentrations in environmental media typically collected as part of routine environmental surveillance programs. M1-10 DOE-STD-1153-2002 • It is designed for multiple applications. The technical standard is applicable to demonstrations of compliance with biota dose limits and for use in ecological risk assessments of radiological impact. • It provides a framework that supports the use of site-specific information. • It incorporates ecological risk assessment concepts and provides guidance for site-specific biota dose assessments (where needed) employing the widely-used ecological risk assessment (ERA) paradigm. • All of the equations and resulting BCGs contained in this technical standard have been encoded into a series of electronic spreadsheets. The spreadsheets were built using Microsoft Excel® and incorporate Visual Basic® commands to help guide and automate the user’s progression through the biota dose evaluation process. Use of these spreadsheets, termed the "RAD-BCG Calculator," is described in Module 1, Sections 4-8. Refer to Module 1, Section 4 for an overview of the RAD-BCG Calculator and its contents for use as a companion tool to this technical standard.

• It provides users with “a place to start” and “an analysis path forward.” The BCGs are not stand-alone. Exceedance of BCGs leads the user to the more-detailed tiers of analysis as needed in a stepwise manner. These linkages are an integral part of the graded approach framework and are built into the companion software tool, the RAD-BCG Calculator. 2.2 Key Points Regarding Methods Derivation Internal and external sources of dose (and their contributing exposure pathways) are incorporated in the derivation of the graded approach methodology. Sufficient prudence has been exercised in the development of each of the assumptions and default parameter values to ensure that the resulting BCGs are appropriately conservative. In the event that an individual default parameter value is subsequently found to be an upper-end value but not the “most limiting” value for a unique site-specific exposure scenario, the other prudent assumptions and default parameter values will ensure that the BCGs (and resultant doses to biota) should continue to carry the appropriate degree of conservatism for screening purposes. Refer to Module 3 for a detailed description of the derivation of dose equations and default parameters used in the graded approach. Key assumptions used in deriving the BCGs that highlight the conservatism applied in the general screening phase are presented in Table 2.2. Exposure pathways for each of the reference organism types considered in the graded approach are presented in Figures 2.2 through 2.5. A summary of the general dose equation and approach used to derive the BCGs is provided in Table 2.3. M1-11 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 2.2 Assumptions Regarding Sources, Receptors, and Routes of Exposure Applied in the General Screening Phase of the Graded Approach Dose Limits • BCGs were derived for aquatic animal, riparian animal, terrestrial plant, and terrestrial animal reference organisms. The dose rate limits used to derive the BCGs for each organism type are 1 rad/d, 0.1 rad/d, 1 rad/d, and 0.1 rad/d respectively. • While existing effects data support the application of these dose limits to representative individuals within populations of plants and animals, the assumptions and parameters applied in the derivation of the BCGs are based on a maximally exposed individual, representing a conservative approach for screening purposes. External Sources of Radiation Exposure • Estimates of the contribution to dose from external radioactive material were made assuming that all of the ionizing radiation was deposited in the organism (i.e., no pass-through and no self-shielding). This is conservative, and is tantamount to assuming that the radiosensitive tissues of concern (the reproductive tissues) lie on the surface of a very small organism. • For external exposure to contaminated soil, the source was presumed to be infinite in extent. In the case of external exposure to contaminated sediment and water, the source was presumed to be semi-infinite in extent. • The source medium to which the organisms are continuously exposed is assumed to contain uniform concentrations of radionuclides. • These assumptions provide for appropriately conservative estimates of energy deposition in the organism from external sources of radiation exposure. Internal Sources of Radiation Exposure • Estimates of the contribution to dose from internal radioactive material were conservatively made assuming that all of the decay energy is retained in the tissue of the organism, (i.e., 100% absorption).

• Progeny of radionuclides and their decay chains are also included. This provides an over-estimate of internal exposure, as the lifetime of many of the biota of interest is generally short compared to the time for the build-up of progeny for certain radionuclides. • The radionuclides are presumed to be homogeneously distributed in the tissues of the receptor organism. This is unlikely to under-estimate the actual dose to the tissues of concern (i.e., reproductive organs). • A radiation weighing factor of 20 for alpha particles is used in calculating the BCGs for all organism types. This is conservative, especially if non- stochastic effects are most important in determining harm to biota. The true value may be a factor of 3 to 4 lower. M1-12 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Figure 2.2 Exposure Pathways for Aquatic Animals Figure 2.3 Exposure Pathways for Riparian Animals M1-13 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Figure 2.4 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Plants M1-14 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Figure 2.5 Exposure Pathways for Terrestrial Animals Table 2.3 General Dose Equation and Approach Used to Derive BCGs Dose Rate Limit Limiting Concentration ' (Internal Dose Rate)%(External Dose Ratesoil /sed.)%(External Dose Rate )water • The limiting concentration in an environmental medium was calculated by first setting a target total dose (e.g., 1 rad/d for aquatic organisms and terrestrial plants, or 0.1 rad/d for riparian and terrestrial animals) and then back-calculating to the medium concentration (i.e., the BCG) necessary to produce the applicable dose from radionuclides in the organism (internal dose), plus the external dose components from radionuclides in the environment (external dose). • The denominator of the generic equation represents the dose per unit media concentration and may be broken down into the base components of internal and external dose. • Internal doses originate from radionuclides inside the organism’s body. The internal dose is calculated as the product of the internal radionuclide concentration and internal dose conversion factor. External doses originate from radionuclides external to the organism and are calculated as the product of the radionuclide concentration in the environmental medium in which the organism resides and an appropriate dose conversion factor. M1-15 DOE-STD-1153-2002 2.3 Relationship of the Graded Approach to Ecological Risk Assessment The graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota is consistent with the standard ecological risk assessment (ERA) paradigm (EPA 1998). The ERA structure provides a process for organizing and evaluating information to determine the nature, likelihood, and magnitude of potential impacts on environmental receptors (Suter 1993). The three major phases of an ERA are problem formulation, analysis of exposure and effects, and risk characterization. The ERA is typically done in successively rigorous tiers, each of which includes the three general ERA phases (Suter, Efroymson, The Graded Approach Is a Framework for Organizing Successively Rigorous Tiers of Assessment, with a Particular Emphasis on Ionizing Radiation. The graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota is consistent with the standard ecological risk assessment (ERA) paradigm (EPA 1998). As in the standard ERA paradigm, the graded approach moves from a simple and relatively conservative screening evaluation to a more detailed and realistic assessment. Each step in the graded approach addresses, either explicitly or implicitly, the principal ERA components. That is, the graded approach is a framework for organizing the successively rigorous ERA tiers, but with a particular emphasis on ionizing radiation.

Sample & Jones 2000). As in the widely- used ERA paradigm, the graded approach moves from a simple and relatively conservative screening evaluation to a more detailed and realistic assessment. Each step in the graded approach addresses, either explicitly or implicitly, all of the aforementioned ERA components. That is, the graded approach is a framework for organizing the successively rigorous ERA tiers, but with a particular emphasis on ionizing radiation. The ERA process is general in nature and could be applied to the evaluation of radiation as a stressor, but not without some modifications and provision of additional guidance. There are some noteworthy technical issues concerning the evaluation of radiation that require further consideration and elaboration. Some issues are the same as for chemicals, but some are unique to radionuclides. In response to requests for guidance on this topic, Module 2, Section 1 provides a basic “primer” on technical issues that should be considered when evaluating radiation as a stressor to the environment, and draws on the experiences gained by BDAC members in developing the graded approach and conducting radiological ERAs. To our knowledge, standardized guidance on how to address these issues is not available elsewhere. M1-16 DOE-STD-1153-2002 3 Application Considerations The principal application of the graded approach is to demonstrate that routine DOE operations and activities are in compliance with the biota dose limits for protecting populations of plants and animals. In addition, the design of the graded approach (e.g., assumptions used; a multi- tiered screening and analysis approach; flexibility to allow use of site-specific information on sources, receptors, and routes of exposure) permits its application in ecological assessments of radiological impact and in other environmental assessment scenarios. Discussions on other intended or potential applications of the graded approach were first held in 1999 at a Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC) Meeting (DOE 1999). Additional applications of the graded approach were identified by users and reviewers of an interim version of this Data Quality Objectives technical standard that was made available for a trial use period beginning in July 2000 Data quality objectives (DQOs) shall be (DOE 2000a). Recommendations made by considered when determining the BDAC members and users on the intended appropriateness of applying the DOE graded and potential applications of the graded approach to other environmental assessment approach are summarized in an applications scenarios identified in Table 3.1. matrix (Table 3.1). Table 3.1 Applications Matrix Summarizing Intended and Potential Uses of the DOE Graded Approach APPLICATIONS INTENDED / POTENTIAL USE CONSIDERATIONS Types of Receptors Populations of plants and animals This is the primary intended use. Individual plants and animals, including threatened and endangered species, and commercially or culturally valued species Equations used within the graded approach are technically sound for application to individual organisms. Applying dose limits intended for the protection of populations to evaluations of individuals may require further consideration. Use of effects endpoints/dose limits appropriate for protection of the individuals being evaluated; and/or application of safety factors, conservative exposure assumptions, and parameter values. Dose evaluations should be performed under the provisions of the applicable Federal and/or state statutes or regulations for rare and endangered species.

M1-17 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 3.1 (Continued) Applications Matrix Summarizing Intended and Potential Uses of the DOE Graded Approach APPLICATIONS INTENDED / POTENTIAL USE CONSIDERATIONS Types of Exposure Chronic The methodology assumes chronic exposure and equilibrium conditions. Acute The methodology is not intended to be used for assessing acute exposures. The models and assumptions used in the graded approach assume equilibrium conditions. Accidents Could be used to provide an indication of long-term "recovery" or health of the population over time following an accident. Equations and models used within the graded approach are technically sound for this application. Accidents typically result in short- term, acute exposures for which the methodology is not intended. However, it can be applied for assessing long-term exposures due to accidents. Types of Environments Fresh water, coastal, and marine environments The methodology is intended to be applied to fresh water environments, and can be applied to coastal and marine environments. Care must be taken when selecting parameter values (e.g., receptor lumped parameters; Kd values), as fresh water, coastal, and marine equilibrium chemistry differ considerably. Terrestrial environments The methodology is intended to be applied to terrestrial environments. Compliance / Impact Assessment Demonstration that DOE activities are in compliance with biota dose limits This is a principal DOE application of the graded approach. M1-18 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 3.1 (Continued) Applications Matrix Summarizing Intended and Potential Uses of the DOE Graded Approach APPLICATIONS INTENDED / POTENTIAL USE CONSIDERATIONS Compliance / Impact Assessment (Continued) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The graded approach could be coupled with predictive dispersion codes that model a facility’s effluents prior to construction, to estimate doses to biota in the Environmental Impact Statement. C Comparison of alternatives C Screen for issues needing analysis C Defining significance criteria C Mitigation action plan Effects and assessment endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Screening for potential radiological impacts within an ecological risk assessment. C Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) C Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Effects and assessment endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. Natural Resource Damage Screening assessments. Effects and assessment Assessments (NRDA) endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. Decommissioning Could be used to evaluate doses to biota, and to predict future doses to biota, associated with pre- and post- site or facility decommissioning activities. Effects and assessment endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. Resource Conservation and C Mixing zone definition Effects and assessment Recovery Act (RCRA) C Alternative concentration limits endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. M1-19 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 3.1 (Continued) Applications Matrix Summarizing Intended and Potential Uses of the DOE Graded Approach

APPLICATIONS INTENDED / POTENTIAL USE CONSIDERATIONS Compliance / Impact Assessment (Continued) Clean Water Act Mixing zone assessments. Effects and assessment endpoints selected for use in the biota dose evaluation should be relevant to the management goals of the study. As mentioned earlier, the principal driver and basis of need for developing the graded approach was to provide DOE field and program elements with methods for demonstrating compliance with DOE biota dose limits and recommendations for radiological protection of the environment. Thus, many of the decisions that are traditionally made when conducting a case-specific assessment (e.g., choice of indicator receptors; defining receptor exposure profiles; selection of effects endpoints) were made at a programmatic level and incorporated into the screening phase of the graded approach a priori. For example, the thresholds for adverse effects were set at the recommended limits for protection of natural populations of biota. Those are the appropriate effects levels for demonstrating protection with DOE requirements and recommendations for the protection of the environment from ionizing radiation (Module 1, Section 1.2). If the graded approach is used for other purposes (e.g., Table 3.1), then the programmatic objectives and the methods should be reviewed and discussed with the relevant decision makers and stakeholders, preferably via the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process (Bilyard et al. 1997) to ensure that the results obtained through application of the graded approach will support the management goals and objectives of the environmental assessment. 3.1 Evaluating Doses to Individual Organisms The equations and models used within the graded approach for estimating the dose per unit concentration of radionuclides in environmental media and for deriving the BCGs are also applicable to individual organisms. However, there are questions concerning the applicability of the biota dose limits to individual organisms. While the biota dose limits presented in Module 1, Section 1.1 were derived based on dose-response information for the most radiosensitive of all species studied, and taking into account the most radiosensitive life stages, the question of whether these dose limits can be applied to protection of individual members of a species, in contrast to protection of populations of species, requires further consideration. That is, for individual plants and animals, especially threatened and endangered species, the health effects of concern could be different from the effects of concern in protection of populations. The application of safety factors to these dose limits is one approach that has been used in evaluating doses to individual organisms (e.g., for culturally valued species). Use of safety M1-20 DOE-STD-1153-2002 factors, appropriate default parameter values, maximum radionuclide concentrations in environmental media, and 100 percent organism residence time and exposure are factors to consider in the application of the graded approach for evaluating doses to individuals. Refer to Module 2, Section 8 for a more detailed discussion on this issue. Specific cases where evaluation of individual organisms may be needed are discussed below. 3.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

Care must be taken by the user if the graded approach is applied in an evaluation of potential radiological impacts to endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise sensitive species of plants and animals managed under the Federal Endangered Species Act or similar state laws or regulations pertaining to rare or endangered species (Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531 et seq.). It is the users responsibility to select effects and assessment endpoints, and the required input parameter values that reflect actual or expected exposure profiles, for the individuals being evaluated. Protection of endangered species should be performed under the provisions of the applicable Federal and/or state statutes or regulations for rare and endangered species. 3.1.2 Commercially and Culturally Valued Species Care must be taken by the user if the graded approach is applied in an evaluation of potential radiological imacts to these categories of species. These would include species that are routinely harvested for their economic value (e.g., salmon) or their cultural value (e.g., medicinal plants used by Native Americans). One issue is whether or not these species should be evaluated at the individual or the population level. It is the users responsibility to select effects and assessment endpoints, and the required input parameter values that reflect actual or expected exposure profiles, for the individuals being evaluated. 3.2 Evaluating Doses to Aquatic Plants Available information about the effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic plants does not appear to be adequate to characterize their sensitivity to ionizing radiation, or to establish defensible recommendations (i.e., in the form of dose standards or criteria) for allowable exposures of populations or individuals. However, regarding this technical standard, indirect means can provide a general qualitative indication of the effects to aquatic plants relative to effects on other organisms. In general, one would expect substantially lower radiosensitivity in higher plants in comparison to the most sensitive birds, fishes and mammals (Whicker and Schultz 1982; Whicker 1997). Therefore, an evaluation using this technical standard that demonstrates protection of aquatic and riparian animals should provide an indication that aquatic plants are also likely protected. Alternatively, appropriate bioaccumulation factors (Bivs) for aquatic plants could be used in the appropriate aquatic system spreadsheets to calculate BCGs for aquatic plants. Refer to Module 2, Section 2.3, and Module 3, Section 3.2.1, for guidance in this area. M1-21 DOE-STD-1153-2002 3.3 Experimental Facilities The methods in this technical standard are not directly intended to be applied to properly permitted experimental facilities that expose biota to ionizing radiation without releasing materials to the environment (e.g., particle beam accelerators). Although the operation of such facilities may be considered to be “routine,” any inadvertent exposure of biota as a result of such operations should have been addressed in the operating permit, precluding any need to apply the methods described herein. Additionally, any such exposures would be localized, and would thus be unlikely to affect substantial populations of any species that this technical standard addresses. Refer to Module 2, Section 2.4 for detailed considerations and methods for evaluating potential impacts to biota around accelerators or other sources of direct radiation.

3.4 Hazardous Chemicals and Industrial Hazards The methods in this technical standard are not appropriate for evaluating potential impacts on biota from hazardous chemicals or industrial-type hazards, including noise and traffic. 3.5 Frequency of Conducting Evaluations Dose evaluations for aquatic and terrestrial biota shall be conducted annually in conjunction with the preparation of annual site environmental reports that are required under DOE Orders 5400.1 and 5400.5. More frequent evaluations could be required at the direction of DOE’s Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH). M1-22 Yes No DOE-STD-1153-2002 4 Step-by-Step Implementation of the Graded Approach Here we present an overview of the complete process for implementing the graded approach. This section is provided to help orient you to the step-by-step guidance corresponding to each phase of the graded approach which follows in Sections 5 - 8 of this Module. A flowchart showing how to progress through each phase of the graded approach, and the components of each phase, is provided in Figure 4.1. Refer to this figure as you proceed through the step-by­ step guidance presented in subsequent sections. References to more comprehensive guidance (presented in Module 2 of this technical standard) are provided throughout the step­ by-step guidance. Example applications of the graded approach, using actual DOE site data, are presented in Section 9 of this Module. Figure 4.1 Flowchart Illustrating Step-by-Step Guidance for Progressing Through the DOE Graded Approach. Section numbers within this technical standard corresponding to each phase are highlighted for reference. • Consider sources, receptors and routes of exposure • Define the area of evaluation • Assemble radionuclide concentration data for each medium • Compare maximum radionuclide concentration data with generic BCGs. Sum all fractions for each radionuclide and medium Is sum of fractions < 1.0? Evaluation is complete. Document rationale and results. Proceed to ANALYSIS PHASE. Yes No D at a A ss em b ly P h as e (5 ) G en er al S cr ee n in g P h as e (6 ) M1-23 DOE-STD-1153-2002 M1-24 Yes No DOE-STD-1153-2002 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment • Consider use of available biota tissue data • Assemble a biota dose assessment team • Review requirements and assumptions • Design and conduct the biota dose assessment • Problem formulation • Analysis • Risk characterization Document rationale and results. Site-Specific Analysis • Identify media and nuclide-specific limiting organism types • Consider correction factor for exposure area or receptor residence time • For riparian and terrestrial animals, review and select parameters contributing to internal dose (e.g., body mass; ingestion and inhalation rates; biological decay and f1 values) appropriate for site-specific receptors • Use site-specific parameters to generate site-specific BCGs • Compare radionuclide concentration data with site- specific BCGs. Sum all fractions for each radionuclide and medium Evaluation is complete. Document rationale and results. Is sum of fractions < 1.0? Yes No A n al ys is P h as e (7 ) M1-25 DOE-STD-1153-2002 4.1 Parameter Values that Can be Modified in the Graded Approach

DOE's three-phased approach is designed to guide you from an initial conservative evaluation using general screening to, if needed, a more rigorous analysis using site-specific information. The amount of effort required for your biota dose evaluation and the information needed on site-specific conditions and receptors increases as you progress through the three phases of the graded approach, particularly during the analysis phase. The result will be a set of less conservative, more realistic site-representative BCGs. Table 4.1 provides a general summary of parameter values that can be modified or applied corresponding to each phase of the graded approach. Use this table as a reference when progressing through the step-by-step guidance provided in subsequent sections of this Module. Table 4.1 Summary of Parameter Values that Can, with Technical Justification, be Modified Corresponding to Each Phase of the Graded Approach Phase Parameters1 Data Assembly • • Size of evaluation area Radionuclide concentrations in environmental media General Screening • Initial general screening using maximum radionuclide concentrations: No parameter modifications are allowed Analysis: Site-Specific Screening • • • Use of mean radionuclide concentrations, taking into account time dependence and spatial extent of contamination, may be considered Site-specific lumped parameter values in place of default values used in the general screening phase Sediment Kd values may be modified, with technical justification, for aquatic system evaluations where only water or only sediment concentration data are available for the screening process Site-Specific Analysis • • A correction factor for exposure area or receptor residence time for all organism types may be considered For riparian and terrestrial animals: - Food source Biv value for riparian and terrestrial animals - Body mass - Uptake fraction of radionuclide ingested/absorbed (f1) - Biological elimination rate constant of radionuclide exiting the organism (λ bio) M1-26 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Table 4.1 (Continued) Summary of Parameter Values that Can, with Technical Justification, be Modified Corresponding to Each Phase of the Graded Approach Phase Parameters1 - Food intake rate and supporting parameters - Soil intake rate and supporting parameters - Inhalation rate and supporting parameters - Soil inhalation rate and supporting parameters - Water consumption rate - Maximum life span - Allometric equations provided can be modified Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment • Design, collection, and direct analysis of environmental media and biota 1 The RAD-BCG Calculator provides the capabilities to modify the dose limits for aquatic and terrestrial organisms, to modify the RBE weighting factor for alpha emitters, and to de-select inclusion of energies for progeny of chain- decaying nuclides with regard to internal dose conversion factors. These default values shall be used in dose evaluations conducted for DOE sites. See Module 2, Section 7 for a detailed discussion on the selection of the RBE weighting factor for alpha emitters. 4.2 Use of the RAD-BCG Calculator The RAD-BCG Calculator is a companion tool to the technical standard. It contains a series of electronic spreadsheets for use in: • entering site data on radionuclide concentrations in soil, sediment, or water, • comparing radionuclide-specific data with radionuclide-specific BCGs,

• determining if the sum of fractions for all radionuclide data/BCG comparisons is less than 1.0, and • when technically justified, modifiying default parameters used in the general screening phase, and calculating site-specific BCGs using site-specific information representing the evaluation area and receptors. A Table of Contents within the RAD-BCG Calculator provides a listing of the spreadsheets and information text screens, with a brief statement about their application. The contents of the RAD-BCG Calculator are also provided in Table 4.2. Within these electronic spreadsheets, several fields (e.g., columns) of cells contain notes, viewed by placing the cursor over the cell, that provide additional information on the source of the number of parameter value cited in that cell. The equations used to derive the BCG calculations and to link values across different spreadsheets are presented in a separate M1-27 DOE-STD-1153-2002 protected spreadsheet within the RAD-BCG Calculator. The equations and assumptions used to derive the BCGs are described in detail within Module 3 of this technical standard. 4.3 The Biota Dose Assessment Committee The Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC), chaired by DOE’s Air, Water and Radiation Division (EH-412), is available as a resource to answer questions concerning the graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to biota. The BDAC is an approved technical standards topical committee organized under the DOE Technical Standards Program. As stated in its charter, the purpose of the The BDAC is available as a resource to DOE BDAC is (a) to assist, consistent with DOE program and field elements needs, in developing and promoting technical standards and associated guidance for DOE- The Department’s Biota Dose Assessment Committee is available as a technical resource wide applications in assessing radiation dose and advisory group concerning evaluation of to biota, (b) to serve as a major forum within radiation doses to biota. Questions concerning DOE for obtaining technical assistance, the application of the DOE graded approach discussing technical issues, and sharing should be coordinated through DOE’s Air, lessons learned regarding biota dose Water and Radiation Division (EH-412). standards and assessment methods, and (c) to serve as a technical resource and advisory group for DOE program and field elements regarding site-specific biota dose assessments. The BDAC web site (http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac) provides internet access to guidance, methods, and related tools associated with this technical standard; links to related web sites also are provided. Specific questions concerning the guidance and methods contained in this technical standard, and requests for consultation with the BDAC Core Team, should be coordinated through EH-412 (contact Stephen Domotor, 202-586-0871, Stephen.Domotor@eh.doe.gov). M1-28 mailto:Stephen.Domotor@eh.doe.gov http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/public/bdac DOE-STD-1153-2002 T ab le 4 .2 C on te nt s of th e R A D -B C G C al cu la to r. A li st in g of th e sp re ad sh ee ts a nd in fo rm at io n te xt s cr ee ns , w ith a b rie f st at em en t o n th ei r ap pl ic at io n an d re la tio ns hi p to ta bl es c on ta in ed in th is te ch ni ca l s ta nd ar d, is p ro vi de d. S p re ad sh ee t T yp e S p re ad sh ee t T it le C o n te n t D es cr ip ti o n P ar am et er

s T h at C an B e M o d if ie d In fo rm at io n T ex t S cr ee n s F ro nt P ag e W el co m in g co m m en ts a nd a d es cr ip tio n of th e pu rp os e of th e R A D ­ B C G C al cu la to r, a nd it s in te nd ed u se . P ro vi de s a lin k to b eg in a se m i-a ut om at ed b io ta d os e ev al ua tio n us in g th e R A D -B C G C al cu la to r. O ve rv ie w P ro vi de s an o ve rv ie w o f D O E 's g ra de d ap pr oa ch fo r ev al ua tin g ra di at io n do se s to a qu at ic a nd te rr es tr ia l b io ta . S um m ar iz es th e th re e ph as es ( da ta a ss em bl y, g en er al s cr ee ni ng , a na ly si s) o f t he gr ad ed a pp ro ac h. P ro vi de s a lin k to b eg in a s em i-a ut om at ed b io ta do se e va lu at io n us in g th e R A D -B C G C al cu la to r. T ab le o f C on te nt s Li st s al l s pr ea ds he et s an d in fo rm at io n te xt s cr ee ns in cl ud ed in th e R A D -B C G C al cu la to r. G et tin g S ta rt ed P ro vi de s ge ne ra l c on si de ra tio ns o n th e ge ne ra l s ite in fo rm at io n re qu ire d fo r de fin in g th e ev al ua tio n ar ea a nd c on du ct in g a bi ot a do se e va lu at io n us in g th e sc re en in g m et ho ds c on ta in ed in th e te ch ni ca l s ta nd ar d, a lo ng w ith g en er al c on si de ra tio ns w he n co nd uc tin g an a qu at ic v s. te rr es tr ia l s ys te m e va lu at io n. P ro vi de s a lin k fo r co nt in ui ng o n w ith a s em i-a ut om at ed e va lu at io n. P ri n ci p al S cr ee n in g a n d A n al ys is S p re ad sh ee ts In iti al C on di tio ns A llo w s th e us er to s el ec t S I ( e. g. , B q/ kg ) or s pe ci al ( e. g. , p C i/g ) un its in th e bi ot a do se e va lu at io n. P ro vi de s a fe at ur e to r es et a ll pa ra m et er s to th ei r de fa ul t v al ue s. R es to re in iti al d ef au lt pa ra m et er s; s el ec t u ni ts A qu at ic a nd T er re st ria l S ys te m D at a E nt ry /B C G W or ks he et s P ro vi de s th e en vi ro nm en ta l s ys te m d at a en tr y/ B C G w or ks he et fo r aq ua tic s ys te m e va lu at io ns a nd te rr es tr ia l s ys te m e va lu at io ns , re sp ec tiv el y. A llo w s th e us er to e nt er d at a on r ad io nu cl id e co nc en tr at io ns in s oi l, se di m en t a nd w at er . Li st s th e B C G s fo r ea ch ra di on uc lid e. C al cu la te s th e su m o f f ra ct io ns fo r al l r ad io nu cl id e da ta /B C G c om pa ris on s an d in di ca te s if th is s um o f f ra ct io ns is le ss th an 1 .0 . Li st s th e lim iti ng o rg an is m ty pe r es po ns ib le fo r th e B C G ci te d, w hi ch r ef er en ce s th e or ga ni sm ty pe s pr ea ds he et w he re de fa ul t p ar am et er s ca n be m od ifi ed w ith s ite -s pe ci fic v al ue s. S ite r ad io nu cl id e co nc en tr at io n da ta fo r so il, s ed im en t, an d w at er M1-29 DOE-STD-1153-2002 S p re ad sh ee t T yp e S p re ad sh ee

t T it le C o n te n t D es cr ip ti o n P ar am et er s T h at C an B e M o d if ie d S u p p o rt in g P ar am et er an d R ef er en ce S p re ad sh ee ts A qu at ic A ni m al C on ta in s th e ba si c pa ra m et er s us ed in th e ca lc ul at io n of w at er a nd s ed im en t B C G s fo r aq ua tic b io ta . C on ta in s al l o f t he s am e in fo rm at io n an d pa ra m et er s as is p re se nt ed in M od ul e 1, T ab le 7 .1 . B iv ; c or re ct io n fa ct or fo r ex po su re a re a an d tim e T er re st ria l P la nt C on ta in s th e ba si c pa ra m et er s us ed in th e ca lc ul at io n of w at er a nd s oi l B C G s fo r te rr es tr ia l p la nt s. C on ta in s al l o f t he s am e in fo rm at io n an d pa ra m et er s as is pr es en te d in M od ul e 1, T ab le 7 .3 . B iv ; c or re ct io n fa ct or fo r ex po su re a re a an d tim e R ip ar ia n A ni m al C on ta in s th e ba si c pa ra m et er s us ed in th e ca lc ul at io n of w at er a nd s ed im en t B C G s fo r rip ar ia n an im al s. C on ta in s al l o f t he s am e in fo rm at io n an d pa ra m et er s as is p re se nt ed in M od ul e 1, T ab le s 7. 2, 7 .5 , a nd 7 .6 . W ith " lu m pe d B C G s" s el ec te d: l um pe d pa ra m et er ; c or re ct io n fa ct or s fo r ex po su re ar ea a nd ti m e; w ith " al lo m et ric B C G s" se le ct ed : c or re ct io n fa ct or s fo r ex po su re ar ea a nd ti m e; fr ac tio n of in ta ke r et ai ne d; bi ol og ic al d ec ay c on st an t; al l a llo m et ric pa ra m et er s an d eq ua tio ns T er re st ria l A ni m al C on ta in s th e ba si c pa ra m et er s us ed in th e ca lc ul at io n of w at er a nd s oi l B C G s fo r te rr es tr ia l a ni m al s. C on ta in s al l o f t he s am e in fo rm at io n an d pa ra m et er s as is p re se nt ed in M od ul e 1, T ab le s 7. 4, 7 .7 , a nd 7 .8 . W ith " lu m pe d B C G s" s el ec te d: l um pe d pa ra m et er ; c or re ct io n fa ct or s fo r ex po su re ar ea a nd ti m e; w ith " al lo m et ric B C G s" se le ct ed : c or re ct io n fa ct or s fo r ex po su re ar ea a nd ti m e; fr ac tio n of in ta ke r et ai ne d; bi ol og ic al d ec ay c on st an t; al l a llo m et ric pa ra m et er s an d eq ua tio ns S u p p o rt in g S p re ad sh ee ts D os e F ac to rs an d C om m on P ar am et er s C on ta in s in te rn al d os e co nv er si on fa ct or s, a nd ex te rn al d os e co nv er si on fa ct or s in s oi l, se di m en t a nd w at er fo r ea ch r ad io nu cl id e. C on ta in s se di m en t a nd so il m os t p ro ba bl e K d va lu es u se d as d ef au lt pa ra m et er s, a nd p ro vi de s th ei r ra ng es . C on ta in s al l of th e sa m e in fo rm at io n an d pa ra m et er s as is pr es en te d in M od ul e 1, T ab le s 6. 5 an d 7. 9. M os t p ro ba bl e K d va lu es ; r ad ia tio n w ei gh tin g fa ct or fo r al ph a em itt er s; in cl us io n of e ne

rg ie s fo r pr og en y of c ha in - de ca yi ng n uc lid es w ith r eg ar d to in te rn al do se c on ve rs io n fa ct or s D ec ay C ha in s C on ta in s de ca y ch ai ns ( bo th w ith a nd w ith ou t pr og en y) fo r ea ch r ad io nu cl id e. T hi s sp re ad sh ee t i s no t p ro vi de d in th e te ch ni ca l s ta nd ar d. M1-30 DOE-STD-1153-2002 5 Data Assembly Phase The DOE graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota was designed to minimize the need for additional data collection above and beyond environmental radionuclide concentration data typically available through routine environmental monitoring and surveillance programs. The data assembly phase encompasses three steps: (1) considering the sources of radioactivity, the key receptors, and the routes of exposure to these receptors; (2) defining the geographic area to be evaluated; and (3) assembling and organizing data on radionuclide concentrations in water, sediments, and soil for use in the general screening phase, and for use in the analysis phase, if needed. Each of the three steps are interdependent and should be considered collectively when implementing the data assembly phase. 5.1 Step 1: Consider the Sources, Receptors, and Routes of Exposure It is expected that general knowledge concerning sources, receptors, and routes of exposure will be sufficient for defining the geographic area of evaluation when implementing the general screening phase of the graded approach. However, more detailed information regarding these elements may need to be considered as you progress through the graded approach. For example, if the BCGs for the general screening evaluation are exceeded, you may wish to refine your input data for site-specific screening (e.g., using mean radionuclide concentration data in place of maximum values; re-defining the geographic area of evaluation). Alternatively, you may wish to move to the site-specific analysis component of the graded approach, which may require consideration of internal dose parameters relating to site-specific receptors and routes of exposure. Detailed guidance on consideration of sources, receptors, and routes of exposure, for application in defining the area of evaluation and for use in the analysis phase, is provided in Module 2, Section 2. 5.2 Step 2: Define Your Area of Evaluation It is necessary to determine the spatial extent over which the graded approach will be applied. The assumptions regarding sources, receptors, and routes of exposure used in the development of the graded approach provide for conservative BCGs. In the derivation of the screening approach, the source medium to which the organisms are exposed is assumed to be infinite in extent and to contain uniform concentrations of radionuclides. The organisms are also assumed to be resident in the contaminated area (e.g., exposed to contaminated media) 100 percent of the time. Given these Three conditions should be present for a dose evaluation: C Radioactivity should be present or anticipated to be present in the environment as a result of DOE activities C Receptors (i.e., plants and/or animals) should be present in the vicinity of those sources C Routes of exposure should exist from those sources to the receptors M1-31 DOE-STD-1153-2002

assumptions, the first approach shall be to use maximum radionuclide concentration data applicable to your geographic area of interest (e.g., the entire site). A review of your effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance program design and resultant data should provide insights on sampling locations yielding the highest radionuclide concentrations. 5.3 Step 3: Assemble and Organize Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media The next step is to collect and organize relevant data on radionuclide concentrations in environmental media. Radionuclide concentrations in surface water and/or sediment and in soil are needed for implementing the graded approach. Acceptable sources of data include but are not limited to: Annual Site Environmental Reports, effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance data, remediation data, and data from special site-specific studies (e.g., ecological studies conducted for other purposes). The data should be organized by location and medium, and be applicable to the geographic area of evaluation identified in Step 2 above. Locations may be defined by management and administrative characteristics (e.g., remediation sites; operations areas; operable units), physical characteristics (e.g., watershed; pond; stream), or ecological characteristics (e.g., corresponding to habitat types). Maximum radionuclide concentrations in environmental media shall be used in the initial application of the general screening phase to provide the most conservative evaluation. 5.3.1 Aquatic System Considerations If you are conducting an aquatic system evaluation, note that use of radionuclide concentration data from co-located surface water and sediment samples is preferred and will result in a less conservative, more realistic evaluation. A mix of data from water and/or sediment samples collected from different locations within the vicinity of one another may be used, with justification. Note that where co-located samples are not available, only water or only sediment data may be used, but will result in a significantly more conservative evaluation. This is because the BCGs derived using individual water or sediment values involve the use of a conservative sediment distribution coefficient (Kd) to calculate the environmental media radionuclide concentration and dose contribution of either the missing water or sediment component. 5.3.2 Terrestrial System Considerations If you are conducting a terrestrial system evaluation, you should consider the types of receptors resident in your area of evaluation and the appropriateness of your soil samples with regard to these receptors. For example, surface soil samples may not be representative of potential radionuclide exposure to deep-rooted plant receptors. Refer to Module 2, Section 5 for detailed guidance in this area. Also note that if you have a water body in your evaluation area, you must also conduct an aquatic system evaluation. M1-32 DOE-STD-1153-2002 6 General Screening Phase A major goal of the general screening phase is to provide a method that allows you to easily apply data on radionuclide concentrations in an environmental medium to evaluate compliance with the dose limits for biota. In the general screening phase, data on radionuclide concentrations in environmental media are compared with a set of generic BCGs. Each radionuclide-specific BCG represents the limiting radionuclide concentration in environmental media which would not result in DOE’s established or recommended dose limits for biota to be exceeded. These limiting radionuclide concentrations, or BCGs, are presented in Tables 6.1 through 6.4. These "look-up" tables allow for quick, easy comparisons of radionuclide concentrations in environmental media with the BCGs. Guidance on using these look-up tables is provided below.

6.1 Step 1: Compare Data on Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Media with Generic BCGs Contained in Look-up Tables A sum of fractions approach is used in comparing data on measured radionuclide concentrations in Sum of Fractions Rule environmental media with the BCGs contained in the When multiple radionuclides are look-up tables. That is, when multiple radionuclides present in multiple environmental are present in multiple environmental media, the sum media, the sum of fractions rule shall of fractions rule shall be applied to account for all be applied to account for all sources sources of exposure. Hence, the sum of the ratios of of exposure. the measured concentration of each radionuclide to its corresponding BCG for each medium shall then be summed across media, and the total sum of fractions shall not exceed 1.0. For each environmental medium, for radionuclides A, B, ... N, with concentrations CA, CB ...CN, and corresponding screening BCG values BCGA, BCGB, ... BCGN, this relationship for aquatic and terrestrial system evaluations is as follows: • Aquatic System Evaluation: CA CB CN CA CB CN % %...% water % % %...% sediment<1.0 BCGA BCGB BCGN BCGA BCGB BCGN • Terrestrial System Evaluation: CA CB CN CA CB CN % %...% water % % %...% soil<1.0 BCGA BCGB BCGN BCGA BCGB BCGN M1-33 DOE-STD-1153-2002 If the sum of fractions (the summed ratios between the radionuclide concentrations in environmental media and the radionuclide- specific BCGs) is less than 1.0, the dose to an aquatic or terrestrial receptor is below the biota dose limit, and you have passed the general screening evaluation. Proceed to Section 8, Documenting Your Biota Dose Evaluation Results. If the sum is greater than 1.0, further investigation is required (e.g., initiating site-specific screening or analysis). Getting Started with the RAD-BCG Calculator Enable Macros. Click on “Enable Macros” when prompted. Select your units. You may work in either SI Units (e.g., Bq/kg) or Special Units (e.g., pCi/g). Select your units in the “Initial Conditions” spreadsheet of the RAD-BCG calculator. Enter your data. The RAD-BCG Calculator contains aquatic and terrestrial system data entry/BCG worksheets. These environmental data/BCG worksheets allow you to enter your data on radionuclide concentrations in environmental media, automatically calculate the sum of fractions, and determine whether the sum of fractions is greater or less than 1.0. When entering data for an aquatic system evaluation, be sure to select “water,” “sediment,” or “both,” corresponding to the data you are working with. The terrestrial system data entry/BCG worksheet provides a feature that allows you to import water data used in the aquatic evaluation, as appropriate. Prepare for General Screening. To prepare for general screening, be sure that the “lumped BCGs” button is selected within the riparian and terrestrial animal spreadsheets. Using the Sum of Fractions Rule: Terrestrial System Evaluation Maximum radionuclide concentrations for water and soil collected within the evaluation area and available through the existing site environmental surveillance program were summarized. Maximum radionuclide concentrations for Cs-137 and Sr-90 in soil were 1.21 and 1.30 pCi/g, respectively. Maximum radionuclide concentrations for Cs-137 and Sr-90 in water were 49.6 and 84.5 pCi/L, respectively. Applying the sum of fractions rule, and using the BCG values listed in Table 6.4, one obtains the following:

1.21 1.30 % ' 1.2E&01soil: 20 20 49.6 84.5 water: % ' 1.63E&03 6E%05 5E%04 1.2E-01 + 1.77E-03 = 0.12 (soil sum of fractions) (water sum of fractions) (total sum of fractions) Conclusion: Because 0.12 is less than 1.0, the dose to a terrestrial receptor does not exceed the recommended dose limits for protection of populations of terrestrial plants and animals. Note that the soil medium provides most of the contribution to dose. M1-34 DOE-STD-1153-2002 Using the Sum of Fractions Rule: Aquatic System Evaluation Maximum radionuclide concentrations for co-located water and sediment samples collected within the evaluation area and available through the existing site environmental surveillance program were summarized. Maximum radionuclide concentrations for water and sediment are: Sr-90 Cs-137 water (pCi/L) 1.5E-03 ND sediment (pCi/g) 3.8 7.9 Applying the sum of fractions rule, and using the BCG values listed in Table 6.2, one obtains the following: 1.5E&03 0 (sum of fractions for radionuclides in water) % ' 5.0E&06 3E%02 4E%01 3.8 7.9 % ' 8.96E&03 (sum of fractions for radionuclides in sediment) 6E%02 3E%03 (total sum of fractions for radionuclides 5.0E&06 % 8.96E&03 ' 8.96E&03 in water and sediment) Conclusion: Dose to an aquatic receptor does not exceed the recommended dose limits for aquatic or riparian animals. 6.1.1 Aquatic System Considerations In situations where co-located water and sediment data are not available, in the general screening phase you must estimate the missing radionuclide concentration data through the use of “most probable” radionuclide-specific Kd values. Radionuclide-specific most probable Kd values are provided in Table 6.5 of this Module and in the Dose Factors and Common Parameters spreadsheet of the RAD-BCG Calculator. The radionuclide concentration data estimated for the missing water or sediment medium is then used along Estimating Radionuclide Concentration Data in Situations where Co-Located Water and Sediment Data are not Available The RAD-BCG Calculator uses a “most probable” default Kd value to automatically calculate the missing radionuclide concentration, and then automatically enters it into the aquatic system data entry/BCG worksheet. M1-35 DOE-STD-1153-2002 with the radionuclide concentration data for the available medium in the sum of fractions calculation as described previously. Judgement should be applied in determining if measured radionuclide concentration data for water and sediment media can be considered as originating from co-located water and sediment samples. If measured radionuclide concentration data for water and sediment media are only available from separate locations, you should calculate the missing radionuclide concentration data for each missing medium, and apply the approach that results in the highest (e.g., most conservative) sum of fractions in your biota dose evaluation. Equations for estimating radionuclide concentration data in situations where co-located water and sediment data are not available are provided in Module 3, Section 3.2.3. If the sum of fractions is less than 1.0, the dose to an aquatic receptor is below the biota dose limit, and you have passed the general screening evaluation. Proceed to Section 8, Documenting Your Biota Dose Evaluation Results. If the sum is greater than 1.0, further investigation is required (e.g., initiating site- specific screening or analysis). 6.1.2 Dealing with High Background Levels of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides

Radiation dose rates at local background reference sites can be used to ensure that the site- related dose rates represent an actual increase in exposure. If the evaluation area is suspected or has been documented to have high background levels of naturally occurring radionuclides, these background levels may be taken into account when determining compliance of DOE activities with the biota dose limits. For example, this may be a consideration for the two isotopes of radium (see BCGs for Ra-226 and Ra-228, Tables 6.1 - 6.4). Background levels for environmental media should be estimated based on data for the same or similar media types in uncontaminated areas. If the sum of fractions for measured radionuclide concentrations in media from the contaminated area exceeds 1.0, this sum should be compared with the sum of fractions calculated using measured radionuclide concentrations in media from the background area. If the sum of fractions from the contaminated area does not exceed that from the background area, the contaminated area has passed the screening evaluation. Proceed to Module 1, Section 8 and document the results of the comparison. If it does exceed the background sum of fractions, proceed to the next phases of the graded approach. Refer to Module 2, Section 3.3.1, and Module 2, Section 6.3.1.5 for related guidance on this topic. M1-36 DOE-STD-1153-2002 T ab le 6 .1 B io ta C on ce nt ra tio n G ui de s (B C G s) fo r W at er a nd S ed im en t ( in S I U ni ts ) fo r U se in A qu at ic S ys te m E va lu at io ns . F or u se w ith r ad io nu cl id e co nc en tr at io ns fr om c o- lo ca te d w at er a nd s ed im en t. N u cl id e B C G ( w at er ), B q /m 3 O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in W at er B C G ( se d im en t) , B q /k g O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in S ed im en t 24 1 A m 2E + 04 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 14 4 C e 6E + 04 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 5 C s 2E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 2E + 06 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 7 C s 2E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 1E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 60 C o 1E + 05 A qu at ic A ni m al 5E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 15 4 E u 8E + 05 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 15 5 E u 1E + 07 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 06 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 3 H 1E + 10 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 1E + 07 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 12 9 I 1E + 06 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 1E + 06 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 1 I 5E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 2E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 9 P u 7E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 22 6 R a 2E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 4E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 22 8 R a 1E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 3E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 12 5 S b 1E + 07 A qu at ic A ni m al 3E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 90 S r 1E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 2E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 99 T c 2E + 07 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 2E + 06 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 2 T h 1E + 04 A qu at ic A ni m al 5E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 3 U 7E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 05 R ip ar ia n

A ni m al 23 4 U 7E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 5 U 8E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 8 U 8E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 9E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 65 Z n 5E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 5E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 95 Z r 3E + 05 A qu at ic A ni m al 9E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al M1-37 DOE-STD-1153-2002 T ab le 6 .2 B io ta C on ce nt ra tio n G ui de s (B C G s) fo r W at er a nd S ed im en t ( in S pe ci al U ni ts ) fo r U se in A qu at ic S ys te m E va lu at io ns . F or u se w ith m ea su re d ra di on uc lid e co nc en tr at io ns fr om c o- lo ca te d w at er a nd s ed im en t. N u cl id e B C G (w at er ), p C i/L O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in W at er B C G (s ed im en t) , p C i/g O rg an is m R es p o n si b le fo r L im it in g D o se in S ed im en t 24 1 A m 4E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 5E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 14 4 C e 2E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 3E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 5 C s 5E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 4E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 7 C s 4E + 01 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 3E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 60 C o 4E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 15 4 E u 2E + 04 A qu at ic A ni m al 3E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 15 5 E u 3E + 05 A qu at ic A ni m al 3E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 3 H 3E + 08 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 4E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 12 9 I 4E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 3E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 13 1 I 1E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 5E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 9 P u 2E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 6E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 22 6 R a 4E + 00 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 1E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 22 8 R a 3E + 00 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 9E + 01 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 12 5 S b 4E + 05 A qu at ic A ni m al 7E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 90 S r 3E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 6E + 02 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 99 T c 7E + 05 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 4E + 04 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 2 T h 3E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 1E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 3 U 2E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 5E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 4 U 2E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 5E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 5 U 2E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 4E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 23 8 U 2E + 02 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 65 Z n 1E + 01 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 1E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al 95 Z r 7E + 03 A qu at ic A ni m al 2E + 03 R ip ar ia n A ni m al M1-38 DOE-STD-1153-2002 T ab le 6 .3 B io ta C on ce nt ra tio n G ui de s (B C G s) fo r W at er a nd S oi l ( in S I U ni ts ) fo r U se in T er re st ria l S ys te m E va lu at io ns . N u cl id e B C G ( w at er ), B q /m 3 O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in W at er B C G (s o il) , B q /k g O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in S o il

24 1 A m 7E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 14 4 C e 1E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 5E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 5 C s 3E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 7 C s 2E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 8E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 60 C o 4E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 15 4 E u 8E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 5E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 15 5 E u 1E + 09 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3 H 9E + 09 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 12 9 I 2E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 1 I 7E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 9 P u 7E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 22 6 R a 3E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 22 8 R a 3E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 12 5 S b 3E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 90 S r 2E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 8E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 99 T c 6E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 2 T h 2E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 3 U 1E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 4 U 1E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 5 U 2E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 8 U 2E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 65 Z n 6E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 95 Z r 8E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 4E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al M1-39 DOE-STD-1153-2002 T ab le 6 .4 B io ta C on ce nt ra tio n G ui de s (B C G s) fo r W at er a nd S oi l ( in S pe ci al U ni ts ) fo r U se in T er re st ria l S ys te m E va lu at io ns . N u cl id e B C G (w at er ), p C i/L O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in W at er B C G (s o il) , p C i/g O rg an is m R es p o n si b le f o r L im it in g D o se in S o il 24 1 A m 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 4E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 14 4 C e 3E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 5 C s 8E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 7 C s 6E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 01 T er re st ria l A ni m al 60 C o 1E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 7E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 15 4 E u 2E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 15 5 E u 3E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3 H 2E + 08 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 12 9 I 6E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 13 1 I 2E + 06 T er re st

ria l A ni m al 9E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 9 P u 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 6E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 22 6 R a 8E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 5E + 01 T er re st ria l A ni m al 22 8 R a 7E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 4E + 01 T er re st ria l A ni m al 12 5 S b 7E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 90 S r 5E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 01 T er re st ria l A ni m al 99 T c 2E + 07 T er re st ria l A ni m al 4E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 2 T h 5E + 04 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 3 U 4E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 5E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 4 U 4E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 5E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 5 U 4E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 3E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 23 8 U 4E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 2E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al 65 Z n 2E + 05 T er re st ria l A ni m al 4E + 02 T er re st ria l A ni m al 95 Z r 2E + 06 T er re st ria l A ni m al 1E + 03 T er re st ria l A ni m al M1-40 T ab le 6 .5 P ar t 1 o f D os e F ac to rs a nd C om m on P ar am et er s S pr ea ds he et . M os t P ro ba bl e K d va lu es fo r us e in ca lc ul at in g ge ne ric B C G s fo r w at er a nd s ed im en t i n si tu at io ns w he re c o- lo ca te d w at er a nd s ed im en t s am pl es ar e un av ai la bl e. D is tr ib u ti o n C o ef fi ci en ts , K d N u cl id e M ax im u m V al u e L /k g ( m L /g ) R ef er en ce K d,m ax M in im u m V al u e L /k g ( m L /g ) R ef er en ce K d,m in M o st P ro b ab le V al u e (a ) L /k g ( m L /g ) R ef er en ce K d,m p 24 1 A m 6. 5E + 05 T & M 8. 5E + 01 T & M 5. 0E + 03 T & M 14 4 C e 1. 0E + 07 T & M 1. 0E + 02 R E S R A D 1. 0E + 03 R E S R A D 13 5 C s 8. 0E + 04 T & M 1. 7E + 01 T & M 5. 0E + 02 R E S R A D 13 7 C s 8. 0E + 04 T & M 1. 7E + 01 T & M 5. 0E + 02 R E S R A D 60 C o 3. 0E + 05 T & M 1. 0E + 02 R E S R A D 1. 0E + 03 R E S R A D 15 4 E u 1. 3E + 05 T & M 2. 0E + 02 T & M 5. 0E + 02 T & M 15 5 E u 1. 3E + 05 T & M 2. 0E + 02 T & M 5. 0E + 02 T & M 3 H 1. 0E -0 4 K A H 1. 0E -0 5 K A H 1. 0E -0 3 K A H 12 9 I 1. 0E + 02 T & M 1. 0E -0 5 K A H 1. 0E + 01 T & M 13 1 I 1. 0E + 02 T & M 1. 0E -0 5 K A H 1. 0E + 01 T & M 23 9 P u 1. 0E + 07 T & M 1. 0E + 02 T & M 2. 0E + 03 R E S R A D 22 6 R a 1. 0E + 03 T & M 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 7. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 22 8 R a 1. 0E + 03 T & M 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 7. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 12 5 S b 1. 0E + 03 K A H 1. 0E -0 3 K A H 1. 0E + 00 K A H 90 S r 4. 0E + 03 T & M 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 3. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 99 T c 1. 0E + 02 T & M 1. 0E -0 5 K A H 5. 0E + 00 T & M 23 2 T h 1. 0E + 06 T & M 1. 2E + 00 R E S R A D 6. 0E + 04 R E S R A D 23 3 U 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 23 4 U 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A

D 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 23 5 U 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 23 8 U 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 1. 0E -0 1 R E S R A D 5. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 65 Z n 1. 0E + 04 T & M 2. 0E + 00 R E S R A D 2. 0E + 01 R E S R A D 95 Z r 1. 0E + 05 T & M 1. 0E + 02 R E S R A D 1. 0E + 03 R E S R A D T & M = T ill a nd M ey er 1 98 3; R E S R A D = Y u et a l. 19 93 ; K A H = E st im at io n by K . A . H ig le y, O re go n S ta te U ni ve rs ity . (a ) = “ M os t P ro ba bl e” v al ue s sh al l b e us ed to g en er at e th e ge ne ric B C G s fo r us e in g en er al s cr ee ni ng in a c as e w he re on ly w at er o r se di m en t d at a ar e av ai la bl e. T hi s va lu e m ay b e m od ifi ed u si ng a s ite -r ep re se nt at iv e K d va lu e in th e an al ys is p ha se o f t he g ra de d ap pr oa ch . DOE-STD-1153-2002 M1-41 DOE-STD-1153-2002 INTENTIONALLY BLANK M1-42 DOE-STD-1153-2002 7 Analysis Phase The analysis phase of the graded approach contains three increasingly more detailed components of analysis for evaluating doses to biota: site-specific screening, site-specific analysis, and site-specific biota dose assessment. In the analysis phase, you are also increasingly moving away from the default parameters and assumptions used in the general screening phase of the graded approach. The amount of effort required for your biota dose evaluation and the information needed about site-specific conditions and receptors increase as you progress through the three components of the analysis phase. The amount of specialized assistance (e.g., in health physics, radioecology, and eco-risk assessment) that might be needed also increases as you progress through the components of the analysis phase. In return, the result w