Factors affecting dose estimates for long-term performance assessments: case study-Armagosa Valley.
The purpose of this study was to review and evaluate some of the factors that influence the dose estimates to members of the public due to chronic, long-term releases of radioactive materials into the environment. Although the examples discussed are based on data from the Amargosa Valley located near the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository, the factors evaluated are common to any such assessment. While it is recognized that such factors include those related to both the environmental transport of radionuclides from the point of release through the environmental media to the receptor, and the influence of his/her location and living habits, the assessments that follow are primarily limited to the latter. The specific goal in all cases was to illustrate how the assumptions and input values relative to certain factors influence the dose estimates and to quantify, to the extent possible, their relative significance. At the same time, it must be recognized that the assessments presented here were limited to doses due to the ingestion of food and water; those due to the inhalation of airborne radionuclides and external exposures were not considered. The factor that proved most important from the standpoint of the overestimation of doses (i.e., conservatism) was the implementation of the regulatory requirements pertaining to the withdrawal of groundwater from the local aquifer. Another significant source of conservatism was the dose estimates provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, assuming that the Reasonably Maximally Exposed Individual (RMEI) resided at the U.S. EPA designated site, 18 km from the repository, vs. the Amargosa Valley, about 35 km away. Also important, for selected radionuclides, was the impact of their effective half-lives on the committed doses, as estimated, in comparison to those that would actually be received. Having lesser impacts were the status of a local aquaculture farm on the intake of C, and the intake of stable iodine on dose estimates for I. On the basis of these evaluations, one can reasonably conclude that the overall conservatism in the dose assessments, based on these sources that were identified, approaches an order of magnitude. The sole factor that led to an underestimation of the doses (i.e., non-conservatism) was the regulatory requirement that the concept of the RMEI, as defined by U.S. EPA, in contrast to that of the Critical Group (CG), as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, be applied in estimating the doses to potentially affected population groups. Rather than dwell on the differences in the impacts of the application of each of these two concepts, the next step should be to subject each concept to a systematic and rigorous analysis, the goal being to gain an understanding of the range of dose estimates that would be yielded, the underlying reasons for the differences that are observed, and the lessons to be learned in terms of improving the methodologies for estimating doses due to environmental radionuclide releases.
Moeller
Dade W
DW
Dade Moeller & Associates, 257 River Island Road, New Bern, NC 28562-3669, USA. dademoeller@cconnect.net
Ryan
Michael T
MT
Sun
Lin-Shen C
LS
D016477:Artifacts; D004781:Environmental Exposure / Q000032:analysis*; D009505:Nevada; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011834:Radiation Monitoring / Q000379:methods*; D011850:Radioactive Waste / Q000032:analysis*; D011868:Radioisotopes / Q000032:analysis*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
D011850:Radioactive Waste; D011868:Radioisotopes