)
)
)
R2004-021
)
Rulemaking
-
Water
)
)
STATE OF ILLJNOIS
PoUution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Sierra Club
have filed the attached POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER.
DATED: December 8, 2004
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
312-795-3707
Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No. 3125045)
Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy
Center and Sierra Club
REVVED
Ci~F~K’SOFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC 138 2004
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.307
AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM.
CODE 302.207 AND 302.525
Public Comment #28
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOJ~J~?!~
~~EP
REVISIONS TO RADIUM WATER
)
DEC 08 2004
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
)
pollut~OflContro’ Board
NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.307
)
R04-21
AND AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM.
)
Rulemaking
-
Water
CODE 302.207 AND 302.525
)
)
POST- HEARING COMMENTS OF THE SIERRA CLUB
AND
THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER
The Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Sierra Club do not envy the Board’s
position in trying to decide what to do in this proceeding. Despite four hearings, the information
available to the Board is not adequate to make a confident scientific judgment as to the proper
general use water quality standard to adopt for radium.
We believe that it is clear that the Board cannot properly adopt the Agency proposal as
submitted insofar as it removes water quality standards for general use waters. Although the
relevant scientific evidence in the record is much less -than one-might wish, the record does
establish that a water quality standard is needed to protect aquatic life andriparian wildlife and
that the numeric standard to be adopted to protect riparian wildlife probably must be more
stringent than that necessary to protect drinking water. Water quality standards must protect the
“most sensitive use” ofthe water body (40 CFR 131.11), which in this case appears to be
riparian mammals.
I. Introduction
The Board might well decide that it simply does not have the information necessary to
change the standard at this time. Assuming the Board believes it should go forward to adopt a
standard on the basis ofthe current record, we present below what we believe is the general use
standard best supported by the record in this proceeding. Before presenting this standard,
however it may be helpful to discuss several principles applicable to the decision.
First, because the proposal is for a statewide water quality standard that is to be
applicable to all general use waters ofthe state, the number adopted must protect the most
sensitive use present in general use waters. See generally,
In the Matter
of~
Petition ofIllinois
Power Company (Vermilion Power Station)for Adjusted Standardsfrom 35111. Adm. Code
302.208 (e),
AS No. 92-7, 1993 Ill, Env. Lexis 1018 (1993). Obviously, this means that the
standard adopted will be overprotective formany uses. For example, it may well be that the
Board must adopt a standard to protect riparian animals that is more stringent than would be
necessary to protect drinking water for humans. This does not mean that the Clean Water Act
prefers river otters over humans, but that river otters that live in and near a water body, and get
almost all their food and drink from that waterbody, will have a much greater exposure to
contaminants in the water than someone who just drinks water from the waterbody. The
standard we suggest below is far less stringent than a standard would be that was as protective of
river otters as the drinking water standard is ofhumans. See R04-21 Transcript ofProceedings
Oct. 22, 2004 at 234-38.
It is very common in the Illjnois water quality standards for a standard to be set that
protects aquatic life or some other use that is more stringent than the standard necessary to
protect drinking water. A comparison of35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 302 Subparts B and C
discloses that for many chemicals there is no standard for drinking water and food processing
watersupply that is more stringent than the standards designed to protect aquatic life. Water
quality standards must protect the most sensitive use, and often the most sensitive use is a fish or
animal population that has a far greater exposure to the toxin in question than humans.
Further, because the general use standards apply to almost all the waterbodies ofthe
state, the standards set may be overprotective of aquatic life in waters that do not contain the
most sensitive species. For example, if protection ofotters is the most sensitive use, the standards
may be stronger than necessary for waters that cannot possibly serve as river otter habitat. This
problem can possibly be addressed in later site specific proceedingsbut standards applicable to
all general use waters throughout the state must protect all the life dependent on those waters
throughout the state.
II. Radium
Rulemaking Recommendations
The Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Sierra Club recommend that the Board:
1) Maintain General Use and Lake Michigan basin water quality standards for radium
2) Set such standards at a level of 3.7 pCi/L combined radium 226 and radium 228
3) Ensure that particles containing high levels ofradium are not discharged into Illinois
waterways
The bases for our recommendations are detailed below.
A. The Board Should Maintain General Use and Lake Michigan Basin Water quality
Standards for Radium Protective ofRiparian Organisms.
1. The scientific community has expressed concern with the effects ofradium on non-
human life forms living in and/or near bodies ofwater through years ofdetailed study, resulting
in numerous peer-reviewed publications. See Exhibit 1: Literature Review ofRadium in Water,
Sediments & Biota, especially Clulow (We received this document on Nov. 30, 2004 from Doug
Leeper, Senior Environmental Scientist, Southwest Florida Water Management District.)
2. Under the federal Department ofEnergy Organization Act, the U.S. Department of
Energy has the responsibility to “ensure the incorporation ofnational environmental protection
goals in the formulation of energy programs, and advance the goal ofrestoring, protection sic,
and enhancing environmental quality.” See Exhibit 2: DOE 5400.1, citing 42 USC 7131. In this
role, DOE has recognized the threat that radiation poses to non-humans by promulgating a
radiation dose limit of 1 rad/d for the protection of aquatic animals and 0.1 rad/d for the
protection ofterrestrial animals (based on mammals’ higher sensitivity to radiation). Exhibit 3:
DOE Order
5400.5.
DOE adopted and implemented these radiation dose standards consistent
with the recommendations ofthe International Commission on Radiological Protection, an
international body utilizing the latest iri scientific understanding ofhealth risks and dosimetry.
Id.
3. DOE has been interested in assessing detrimental effects to aquatic biota from
radionuclides in the environment, using the dose limits above, since at least 1993. See Exhibit 4:
B.G. Blaylock, “Methodologyfor Estimating Radiation Dose Rates to Freshwater Biota Exposed
to Rádionuclides in the Environment,” (1993). The more recent DOE Technical Standard, “A
Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota” (DOE-STD-
1153-2002) (PCB R04-2 1, Exhibit
15)
hereafter “DOE Technical Standard”, sets forth a method
for evaluating actual orpotential doses to biota such that they can be compared to the dose limit
described above. This method demonstrates a consensus among radiation scientists on the need
to protect life forms other than humans from radiation from radium (and other radionuclides).
4. The DOE Technical Standard indicates that any Illinois general use and Lake
Michigan basin water quality standards for radium should be designed to protect riparian
organisms such as raccoons and river otters. These are the organisms in freshwater aquatic
systems found to be most sensitive to radiation from radium sources (Table 6.2, page Ml -38 in
DOE Technical Standard). Thus the DOE Technical Standard utilizes 0.1 rad/day, the dose rate
limit for mammals (see above), to derive Biota Concentration Guides (BCG) for both radium 226
and radium 228 in both sediment and water.
There was testimony in these proceedings that an organism like the manatee would be a
better candidate to use with the General Screening Phase ofthe graded approach ofthe DOE
Technical Standard than a raccoon. (See Transcript of Proceedings Oct. 2 1-22, 2004 at 296).
While the manatee certainly satisfies many ofthe assumptions used for the General Screen for
riparian animals (dose rate limit of0.1 rad/d, “semi-infinite” exposure to water and sediment),
the DOE Technical Standard clearly includes such common Illinois inhabitants such as raccoons
and river otters as riparian organisms to be protected by recommendation. This is shown by the
description ofriparian organisms given in various places in the document:
• Definition ofriparian organisms (DOE Technical Standard, p. xlviii)
-
Riparian
Organisms
are those organisms related to, living, or located on the bank ofa natural
watercourse (as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater.
• Figure
2.3 Exposure Pathways for Riparian Animals (DOE Technical Standard, p. Ml-
13) depicting a raccoon.
• Table
7.6 Riparian animal kinetic/allometric relationship parameter values default for
raccoon or river otter (DOE Technical Standard, p. M1-64)
• Table
2.2 Examples ofRepresentative Organisms That Could Serve as Indicators of
Radiological Impact (DOE Technical Standard, p. M2-16 & 17) listing beaver, raccoon,
alligator, mink, muskrat, and great basin spadefoot toad.
River otters clearly exist in Illinois, and currently are listed on the state’s threatened
species list. Otters feed primarily on fish, mussels, and other aquatic biota. See Exhibit 5: IDNR,
“Illinois Endangered and Threatened Species, River Otter;” Exhibit 6: U.S. EPA, “Species
Profile: River Otter,” at
5;
Exhibit 7: IDNR, “River Otter Species Account.” Thus, as feeding
habits largely determine an animal’s exposure to radium due to bioconcentration ofradium in
lower aquatic prey species, otters maybe expected to have a high exposure rate. According to an
official ofthe Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, river otters spend greater than 80 of
their life in river water. (Telephone conversation with Joe Kath, IDNR biologist, Dec. 7, 2004)
The typical life span ofan otter in the wild is 10 to 15 years, see Exhibit 6 at 6 and Exihibit 8:
San Diego Zoo, “Animal Bytes: Otter,” which is sufficiently long for an otter to be at risk for
tumor induction, especially given the expected discharge ofhigh radiation radium particulate
from sewage treatment plants (see below).
These threepoints indicate that a degree ofconservatism in selecting an appropriate
water quality screening standard is warranted.
B. If the Board decides to change the standard based on the current record, it should set
general use and Lake Michiganbasin water quality standards for radium at a level no less
stringent than 3.7 pCi/L combined radium 226 and radium 228
1. In the General Screening mode ofthe RAD-BCG calculator (an Excel spreadsheet
semi-automated tool for implementing screening and analysis methods contained in the DOE
Technical Standard), the maximum radionuclide concentration(s) in water which would not
result in biota dose limits (BCGs) being exceeded can be calculated for any combination of23
radionuclides present, including radium 226 and radium 228.
2. The General Screeningmode is the conservative initial screening step in the DOE
Technical Standard~sthree-step process for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial
biota. As little data is available to inform this Rulemaking, the use ofthe general screening mode
is appropriate. For example, the General Screening mode asks for radium levels in both water
and sediment in order to assess whether BCGs are exceeded. In the absence ofdata on levels of
radionuclides in either medium, the General Screen calculates a radium concentration for the
other medium. As no data have been provided in this rulemaking on the levels ofradium in
sediment in Illinois, the use ofthe General Screen is appropriate.
In the absence ofradiation from any other radionuclide source, a combined concentration
of3.7 pCi/L ofradium 226 and radium 228 in the water column does not exceed the BCG for
these two radionuclides. See Exhibit 9: RAD-BCG Calculations. In the absence ofmore Illinois
specific information, we would recommend this as an appropriate water quality standard for
Illinois general use waters and the Lake Michigan basin.
The DOE Technical Standard is the major piece ofinformation on the impact ofradiation
on organisms found in aquatic systems, with specifics for radiation stemming from radium,
which has been presented in these proceedings. While we would prefer to have more
information, webelieve that the DOE Technical Standard is a tool we should use in helping to
guide us towards appropriate radium water quality standards for Illinois general use waters and
the Lake Michigan basin. While the DOE Technical Standard states that ‘The principal
application ofthe graded approach is to demonstrate that routine DOE operations and activities
are in compliance with the biota dose limits forprotecting populations ofplants and animals.”
(DOE Technical Standard, p. Ml-17), it also indicates that the DOE graded approach can be used
for Clean Water Act applications such as mixing zone assessments (DOE Technical Standard, p.
Ml -20).
There has been much discussion regarding the conservative assumptions ofthe standard,
especiallywith regards to the initial General Screening Phase ofthe graded, three-step process in
evaluating radiation doses to biota. We agree that the General Screen is generally designed to be
a conservative first screen. The assumptions used in this General Screen are found in Table 2.2
(DOE Technical Standard, p. Ml-12). Inusing the General Screen as a tool to aid us in this
rulemaking, it is helpful to review a number ofthese assumptions.
H
Assumption
Impact on Radium Water Quality Standard Rulemaking
External source of
This is an appropriate assumption for a water quality standard.
radiation exposure from
water and sediment is
For animals such as the river otter, this is an appropriate
uniform, continuous and
assumption. For some raccoons, which may spend part of
“semi-infinite”
their time outside ofthe riparian area, this assumption maybe
too conservative. A site-specific analysis that reduced the
amount oftime spent in the riparian area could be developed
for organisms such as raccoons but as water quality standards
must protect all Illinois fauna, this is not an inappropriate
assumption in this situation.
At the same time, this assumption maybe viewed as overly
lenient, in that it only measures soluble radium and does not
account for highly radioactive particulates that may be
dischargedby wastewater treatment plants. While we cannot
now recommend writing a discharge standard forparticulates,
the threat from particulates may be recognized in the soluble
water quality standard by taking a conservative approach
overall.
Radiation exposure is
determined by levels of
up to 23 different
radionuclides present in
the water and sediment
A combined radium 226 and radium 228 standard based on
•the General Screen, without taking into account other sources
ofradioactivity, is not a completely conservative approach.
Populations ofplants and
animals are the primary
intended use ofthe DOE
Technical Standard.
(Table 3.1, p. M1-17)
The DOE Technical Standard warns “Applying dose limits
intended for the protection ofpopulations to evaluations of
individuals may require further consideration.” (Table 3.1, p.
Ml -17). Therefore, the use ofthe General Screen to protect
endangered and threatened species such as the river otter is a
liberal use ofthe tool.
C. The Board and Illinois EPA should ensure that particles containing high levels ofradium
are not discharged into Illinois waterways
In the course ofthis rulemaking, concerns have been raised about the possibility of
particles containing high levels ofradium being discharged to Illinois waterways. Such
particulates can contain thousands oftimes the radium level ofthe dose limit. It has been
suggested that the wastewater treatment process facilitates creation ofparticulates and a portion
ofthese particulates from wastewater treatment will be discharged back into the surface waters
ofIllinois.
Therefore, the water quality standard we recommend here (3.7 pCi/L for combined
radium 226 and radium 228) for possible adoption is based on the assumption that the radium is
present in a soluble form. We urge the Illinois EPA and the Board in permit writing,
consideration ofany site specific standards, and in future regulatory proceedings to take
measures to ensure that highly radioactive particles are not released into Illinois waterways.
III. Conclusion
There is no scientific basis for removing all the protections for aquatic and terrestrial life
provided by the current general use radium water quality standard. Ifthe Board believes the
record is sufficient, modest changes to the standard, as suggested above, may be justifiable. In
any case, in future proceedings the Illinois EPA and the Board should assure that radium is not
released into the environment in any form that poses significant risks.
DATED: December 8, 2004
C thia Skrukrud Ph.D.
Clean Water Advocate
Illinois Chapter, Sierra Club
200 N. Michigan Ave. Suite
505
Chicago, Illinois 60601-5908
312-251-1680
F. Ettinger
ELPC Senior Attorney and Water Issues
Coordinatorfor the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club
StaffAttorney
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
312-795-6500
Exhibit 1
Literature Review
Radium in Water, Sediments & Biota
Doug Leeper
12 December. 2002
Al-Masri, M.S. and Blackburn, R.. 1999. Radon-222 and related activities in surface waters of the English Lake District.
Applied Radiation and Isotopes 50: 1137-1143.
Filtered water samples from 9 English lakes yielded 226Ra activities fm below detection
level to 9.6 mBq/L (0.26 pCi/L).
Barisic, D.
,
Lulic,S. and Miletic, p. 1992. Radium and uranium in phosphate fertilizers and their impact on the radioactivity
of waters. Water Research 26: 607-611.
Analysis of
water,
ground water, fertilizers used in Eastern Slavonia.
Typical
fertilizer has Ra-226 activity of 4.5 dpmig
dry
and higher levels of U-238.
Bird, G. A, Schwartz, W. J, and Motycka, M. 1998. Fate of 60Co and 134Cs added to the hypolimnion of a Canadian Shield
lake: accumulation in biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 987-998.
Added cobalt and cesium to Lake 226 in the ELA-measured fate in biota.
Mussel species:
Anodanta grand/s grandis
“Clams accumulated relatively high concentrations of the radionuclides (Figure 4) compared to the other biota. Initialy, more ‘°Co
than IMCs was accumulated by the clams, which may reflect the fact that 60Co is particle bound whereas 134Cs tends to
remain in solution.”
Cite Ophel and Fraser (1971)
who
reported high concentration of60Co in
Eli/ptb
sp.
Moderate to high levels measured for mussels, periphyton,
Potamogeton, Hyaleiia,
odonates and tadpoles.
Brenner, M., Peplow, A J., and Scheiske, C. L. 19.94. Disequilibrium between ~6Raand supported 2lOPb in a sediment core
from a shallow Florida lake. Limnology and Oceanography 29: 1222-1 227.
Lake Rowell (north FL, Bradford County)
~6Rain surface sediments
=
—13 dpm/g dry based on grab sample.
Took
core
and found surface activity was 22.6 dpm/g dry (higher than other FL lakes surveyed at the time of the paper).
Total P and 226Ra correlated: r=0.97; suggests erosion or wash-in of “geologic material
rich in both Ra and total P’. Samples from creek inflow support this.
~°Rain Mollusc Shells collected just downstream:
Corbicuia
1.3 dpm/g
dry
Unionids 2.5
Pomacea
7.8
Brenner, M., Whitmore, T. J., Cutis, J. H. and Schelske, C. L. 1995. Historical ecology of a hypereutrophic Florida lake. Lake
and Reservoir Management 11:255-271.
Lake Hollingsworth data.
Brenner, M., Whitmore, 1. J., and Schelske, C. L. 1996. Paleolimnological evidence of historical trophic state conditions in
hypereutrophic Lake Thonotosassa, Florida, USA.
Lake Thonotosassa data.
Brenner, M., Schelske, C. L and Whitmore, T. J. 1997. Radium-226 stratigraphy in Florida lake sediments as an indicator of
human disturbance. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 26: 809-81 3.
Core data from 8 FL lakes showing Total P concentration and Ra-226 activity.
Correlation between P and Ra suggests common delivery mechanisms;increases upcore suggest anthropogenic cause. Could
include construction of buildings and roads, plowing for agriculture and phosphate mining.
Note:
Most cores show upcore increase in Ra and levels
10 dpm/g dry; some show mid-core peaks (Thonotasassa —3odpm/g
dry).
Lake Rowell had surface Ra activity of —23 dpm/g
dry (—10
pCi/g).
Brenner, M., Smoak, J. M., Allen, M. S., Schelske, C. L., and Leeper, D. A. 2000. Biological accumulation of~6Rain
groundwater-augmented Florida lake. Limnology and Oceanography45: 710-715.
1999 sanipies
‘26Ra
Sediment
—27
dpm/g dry
—12
pCi/g dry
(sediment value from Brenner and Whitmore 1999)
‘~6Ra
Well (mean of 4 values)
6.2
dpm/L
2.8
pCi/L
Lake (mean of 3 values)
3.4
1.5
pCi/L
(U.OOl5pCi/g)
N/tel/a
12.0
dpm/g dry5.4
pCi/g dry
Pomacea
Shell
10.2
4.6
Planorbe/Ia
Shell
3.9
1.8
Planorbe/ba
Tissue
1.8
0.8
Mussel
Shell
38
17
Mussel Tissue 356
160
(mussel values are mean of 4 separate samples)
FLGar
Bone
3.2
*
1.4
*
Fillet
nd
nd
Bluegill
Bone
6.5
*
2.9
*
nd
nd
Bass
Bone
2.1
1.0
Fillet
nd
nd
Lake Chub.
Bone
26.6
12.0
Fillet
0.6
0.3
Redear Bone
7.3
*
3.3
Fillet
nd
nd
Brown
Bone
4.0
*
1.8
Bullhead Fillet
.
nd
nd
nd
=
not detectable
* =
fish bone data expressed as activity/g ash
Concentration factors (CF, based on activity in lake water
=
0.0015 pCi/g):
Mussel shell
(l7pCi/g dry)
CF
11,333
io~
Mussel tissue
(160 pCi/g dry)
106,667
io~
Mussel tissue
(—16 pCi/g wet)
10,667
io~
Brunskill, C. J. and Wilkinson, P. 1987. Annual supply of 238U, 23OTh,226Ra, 2lOPb, 210Po, and 232Th to Lake239 (Experimental
Lakes Area, Ontario) from terrestrial and atmospheric sources. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44
(Supplement No. 1): 21 5-230.
Some information on movement of dissolved radium.
Burnett, W. C., Cowart, J. B., and Chin, P. A. 1987. Polonium in the surficial aquifer of west central Florida. Pages 251-269,
in Graves, B. (ed.), Radon, radium and other radioactiyity in ground water. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Relatively high polonium-210 levels in shallow wells sampled in central
Florida.
Byrne, M., and Besk, P.A 2000. Elemental composition of mantle tissue granules in
Hyridella depressa-(Unionidae)
from
the Hawksbury-Nepean River system, Australia: inferences from catchment chemistry. Marine and Freshwater Research 51:
183-192.
Used x-ray microanalysis to determine elemental composition of CaP granules in mussel mantle tissue. Includes discussion of the
possible role of the granules.
Cherry, R. D. 1964. Alpha-radioactivity of plankton~Nature 203: 139-143.
Total alpha-activity in marine plankton from samples in Indian? Ocean.
Zooplankton
Range:
1.8-12
pCi/g dry
4.0-26.6
dpm/g
dry
Phytoplankton
Range:
3.4-95.5 pCi/g dry
7.5-212 dpm/g dry
Clifford, D. A. 1990. Removal of radium from drinking water. Pages 225-247, in Cothern,C~R,and Rebers~
P.A.
(eds.),
Radon, radium and uranium in drinking water. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Not much
Clulow, F. V., Dave, N. K., Lim, T. P., and Cloutier, N. R. 1988. Uptake of ‘26Ra by established vegetation and black cutworm
larvae,
Agrotis ipsilon
(Class Insecta: Order Lepidoptera), on U mill tailings at Elliot Lake, Canada. Health Physics 55: 31.35.
Cutworm
Ra-226 levels (—7 dpm/g dry) considered to be too low to be a hazard to herring gulls that may feed on the insects.
Clulow, F. V., and Pyle, G. G. 1997. Radium-226 equilibrium between water and lake herring,
Coregonusartedi4.tissues
attained within fish lifetime: confirmation in this species of one assumption in the simple linear concentration factor model.
Environmental Pollution 96: 75-78.
Test of achievement of equilibrium (an assumption of a simple concentration factor
model) between environmental compartments and body tissues of lake herring from Quirke Lake.
Muscle
—0.07
pCi/g dry
max
Bone
. —0.5
max
(3 other samples —0.24 pCilg dry)
Clulow, F. V., Clouteir, N. R., Dave, N. K., and Lim, T. P. 1996. Radium-226 concentrations in faeces of snowhoe hares,
Lepus ameijcanus, established near uranium mine tailings. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 3: 305-314.
Terrestrial study.
Clulow, F. V., Dave, N. K., Lim, T. P., and Avadhanula, R. 1998. Radium-226 in water, sediments, and fish from lakes near the
city of Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution 99: 13-28.
Measured Ra-226 in water, lake sediments, fish bone, and fish muscle from 5 study and 2 control lakes near U mining and milling
operations and control area in Ontario, Canada.
Water (dissolved) Control 0.2
pCi/L
max
Study
2.0
max
Sediments
Control
9.1
pCi/g dry max
Study
42.8
max
Fish Bone
Control
0.4
pCi/g dry max
Study
2.0
max
Fish Muscle
Control
0.2
pCi/g dry max
Study
0.1
max
Clulow, F.V., Dave, N. K., Lim, T. P., and Avadhanula, R. 1998. Radionuclides (lead-210, polonium-210, thorium-230, and -
233) and thorium and uranium in water, sediments, and fish from lakes near the city of Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada.
Environmental Pollution 99: 199-213.
Companion study to Clulow et al. (1989) paper on Ra-226 levels.
Clulow,F. V., Dave, N. K., Lim, T. P., and Cloutier, N. R. Date Unkown. U- and Th.series radionuclides in snowshoe hare
(Lepus aniericanus)
taken near U mill tailings close to Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution X: 23.281.
Analyzed bone tissue samples. Radionuclide activity at levels thought to be below effects threshold for mammals.
GET HIS PAPER ON BEAVE RA LEVELS
Coats, B. 2002. Lake warning: please don’t eat the mussels. Published December 13, 2002 in the St. Petersburg Times, St.
Petesburg, Florida.
Popular article on lake radium data for P886 study. Includes a recommendation from me that mussels should not be consumed.
DeBortoli, M. and Gaglione, P. 1972. Radium-226 in environmental materials and foods. Health Physics 22:43.48.
Data for4 Italian lakes, including Lake Maggoire
~6Ra
Water
0.16
pCi/L
Fish
(Perca)
0.001-0.003
pCi/g fresh
Ehlers, S. 1972. Fresh water clams. Florida Wildlife 26: 14-19.
Popular article on potential food value of
Corbicuba man/lens/s.
Includes recipes.
Emerson, S~,Broeker, W., and Schindler, D. W. 1973. Gas-exchange rates in a small lake as determined by the radon
method. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:
1475-1 484.
Studied gas exchange of Lake 227 in the ELA by adding sufficient radium-226 (9.7mCi) to bring th~level to —200 dpm/L (—90 pCi/L).
One month after addition, levels were low - radium taken up in littoral zone
See Emerson and Hesslein (1973) for report on fate of the radium.
Emerson, S..and Hesslein, R. 1973. Distribution and uptake of artificially introduced radium-226 in a small lake. Jourñalof
the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30: 1485-1 490.
Radium-226 added to Lake 227 in ELA in 1970 to study gas exchange (see Emerson et al. 1973). Expected radium to stay in
solution, but it did not - the study was undertaken to evaluate fate of the radium.
Results: Ra taken up by epilithic community (which is mostly diatoms) in the littoral zone. Confirmed epithilic uptake of radium at
natural levels in two other lakes (Lakes 239 and 240). So, the deposition seems to be associated with the living biofilm,
rather than physical/sediment process, but. not enough data to fully confirm.
Photosynthesis experiment showed no correlation between photosynthesis and radium uptake, so the accumulation may be
adsorption, ratherthan uptake.
They note that fall turnover may redistribute radium from littoral zone to deeper areas.
Environmental Science
and Engineering, Inc. 1985. Ecological considerations of reclaimed lakes in central Florida’s
phosphateregion, Vols. I and II. Publications Number 03-01 8-029 and 03-01 8-030 of the Florida Institute of Phosphate
Research, Bartow, Florida.
Data on radium in water, sediments and biota of reclaimed phosphate mine pits and a few natural’ Polk County lakes (Arietta,
Hollingsworth, Hunter) and a reservoir (Lake Manatee) in Manatee County.
Ra-226 in reclaimed vs. natural lakes not different. Note that water values are lower than at Round Lake where Ra-226 — 2.9 pCi/L.
Water
Reclaimed Lakes
0.38
pCi/L
mean
0.6
pCi/L
max
Natural Lakes
0.35
pCi/L
mean
0.5
pCi/L
max
Ra-226 higher in sediments of reclaimed vs. natural lakes (based on geometric means)
Means listed here are arithmetic means.
Sediments
Reclaimed
48.0
dpm/g dry(21.6 pCi/g dry)
mean
Natural
6.0
dpm/g dry(2.7 pCi/g dry)
mean
Agrico#2
100.5
dpm/g drymax for all sites
Zooplankton analyzed as pooled samples for each lake; assemblages were similar
among lakes (according to authors) and dominated by rotifers and copepod nauplli. Ra-226 significantly higher in zoops
from reclaimed lakes.
Zooplankton
Reclaimed
1132
dpm/g drySl.0
pCi/g dry mean
Natural
72.8
dpm/g d1y32.8
pCi/g dry mean
Total Bethos (excluding Mollusca) did not differ between lake types.
Benthos Reclaimed
9.6
dpm/g dry4.3
pCi/g dry mean
Natural
7.5
dpm/g dry3.4
pCi/gdry mean
Corb/cula
was the dominant mollusk. Mollusc flesh typically had higher activity than shell.
Mollusca
Medard
Shell
0.70
dpmfg dryo.3
pCi/g dry
Flesh
9.8
dpm/gdry4.4
pCi/g dry
Arietta
Shell
3.1
dpm/g dry1.4
pCi/g dry
Flesh
47.5
dpm/g dry2l.4
pCi/g dry
Hunter
Shell
4.2
dpmlg dryl.9
pCilg dry
Flesh
2.4
dpm/g dry 1.1
pCi/g dry
Manatee
Shell
0.4
dpm/g dryo.2
. pCi/g dry
Flesh
4.7
dpm/g dry2.1
pCi/g dry
Smaller fish (e.g., golden shiner, threadfin shad, mosquitofish) processeciwhole for Ra-226; larger fish separated into bone and flesh
—whole activity for larger fish also determine as weighted average of bone and flesh values. Forage fish had higher activites —
therefore no evidence for biomagnification.
Ra-226 detected in numerous flesh samples (unlike P886 data with no detects).
Fish Flesh
Max Value
Fl Gar
2.9
dpm/g dry 1.3
pCi/g dry
(Agrico#1)
Ra-226 detected in most fish bone samples. “In general, Ra-226 was higher in bone than in fish flesh.”
Fish BoneMax Value
Chubs
29.4
dpm/g dry 13.3
pCi/g dry
(Arietta, which had relatively high values for manyspecies).
Plants as a group did not differ in Ra-226 activity between reclaimed vs. natural lakes.
Typha
belowground tissue activity was higher in reclaimed systems, but above
ground was not Ra-226 activity typically above 1 pCi/g dry for above ground tissue. Some taxa in some lakes exceeded
1 OpCi/g dry
(Lemna rn/nor, Hydil/a vetic/Ilata, Hydrocotyle umbe/late, Azolla, Eleocharis vivipara, & Najas quadalupensis)
Max Value
Hydrilla
Agrico#6
45.1
dpm/g dry2o.3
pCi/g dry
Max Value
Lemna
30.0
dpm/g dryl3.5
pCi/gdry
Other
Hydroco(yle
31.1
dpm/g dryl4.O
pCi/g dry
Taxa
Azobba
43.1
dpm/g dry 19.4
pCifg dry
Eleochar/s
41.5
dpm/g dry 18.7
pCi/g dry
Najas guada/up..
26.6
dpm/g dry 12.0
pCi/g dry
Fanning, K. A, Breland, J. A., and Byrne, R. H. 1982. Radium-226 and radon-222 in the coastal waters of west Florida: high
concentrations and atmospheric degassing. Science 215: 667-670.
Data obtained from cruisesand sampling trips around Tampa Bay and selected rivers in 1980 and 1981.
~6Ra
Tampa Bay surface waters - 1981
0.3-1.45 pCi/L
Peace River, 25 km upstream from mouth
0.45
Peace River, 35 km upstream from mouth
0.4
Alafia River, 8 km upstream from mouth
1.7
(Sam Upchurch, cited as pers. comm.)
Alafia River, at mouth, near fertilizer plant
2.5
(Sam Upchurch, cited as pers. comm.)
Little Manatee, 10 km upstream from mouth
0.8
Elevated
levels attributed to the geology ofwest central FL (phosphate deposits). Also some input from geothermal spring
southwest of Ft. Myers.
FIPR (Florida Institute of Phosphate Research). 1986. Radiation and your environment: a guide to low-level radiation for
citizens of Florida. Publication number 05-000-036 of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida.
General discussion of radiation sources and risks.
Fisher, N.S., Teyssie,J. L., Krishnaswami, S. and Maskaran, M. 1987. Accumulation of Th, Pb, U, and Rain marine
phytoplankton and its geochemical significance. Limnology and Oceanography 32: 131 -142.
Lab study of radionuclide uptake. Based on the measured accumulation, they speculate that sinking plankton could account for
“roost of the natural series radionuclides sedimenting out of oceanic surface waters”.
Florida Sportsman On-Line. 2000. Curbing your mussel intake. Florida
Sportsman Casts, October
2, 2000. Web site: www.floridasporsrnan.com.
Popular article indudes recommendation that people not eat mussels regularly.
Frank, B.J, and Irwin, G.A. 1980.
Chemical, physical, an radiological quality of
selected public water supplies in Florida,
January-May 1979. Water Resources
Investigations 80-13. United
States Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida.
Sampled 131 surface and groundwater public water supplies in 1979.
Gross-alpha
0.7— 8.2pCi/L
Surface supplies
3.7— 19.0
Ground water supplies
Harada, K., Burnett, W. C., LaRock, P. A., and Cowart, J. B. 1989. Polonium in Florida groundwater and its possible relation
to the sulfur cycle and bacteria. Chimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53: 143-150.
‘~6Ra
0.5 pCi/L Water from a single 5.5m deep well in SE
Hillsborough Co. Well has high Polonium and
Radon levels.
Hazardous Substance and Waste Management Research, Inc. 2000. Human health risk assessment and preliminary
ecologic evaluation regarding potential exposure to radium.226 in several central Florida lakes. Preparert.far the Southwest
Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida.
Estimates of cancer morbidity and mortality risks associated with Ra-226 activities in
Round Lake water, the groundwater used to augment the lake, sediments from 2 paleolimnological cores, and biota
(including samples reported in Brenner
eta!.
2000 and additional mussel samples).
Also includes risk assessments for Ra-226 activities in mussels from Lakes Armistead,
Jackson, Halfmoon, Saddleback, Panasoffkee,
Havlik, B. Radium in aquatic food chains: radium uptake by freshwater algae. Radiation Research 46: 490-505.
Lab uptake experiment. Some species absorb the radium, others adsorb it.
Discussion section begins with review of old reports on radium accumulation. One study cites accumulation in tubificids.
Heit, M., Klusek, C.
S., and Miller, K. M. 1980. Trace element, radionuclide, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
concentrations in Unionidae mussels from northern Lake George. Environmental Science and Technology 14: 465-468.
Mussels
(Lampsllus radiata, EI/Iiptio comp/anatus
and
Anodonata grandbs)
from Lake George, NY shown to concentrate some metals
and radionuclides, and possibly some polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in soft tissues. No activity or concentrations
determined for shell material.
ElIiptbo comp/anatus
(n=32)was the only taxon examined for radionuclide concentration: It accumulated radionuclides from weapons-
tests, but natural nuclides of the uranium-238 series (thorium-234, Pa-234m, radium-226, lead-214 and bismuth-214), the
thorium-232 series (Ac-238, lead-212, Tl-208) and potassium-40
were
notdetected in mussel soft tissue.
Suggest that the unionids may be used for biomonitoring for metals and radionuclides.
Hesslein, R. H., Broecker, W. S., and Schindler, D. W. 1980. Fates of metal radiotracers added to a whole lake: sediment-
water interactions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:
378-386.
Added several radiotracers (but not radium) to Lake 224 at the ELA, Ontario, Canda.
Isotopes that adsorb to particulate matter v~eremore readily transported to sediments than those in dissolved form.
Hesslein, R. H., and Slavicek, E. 1984. Geochemical pathways and biological uptake of radium in small Canadian Shield
lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:459-468.
Added Ra-226 tofoür Canadian lakes in the 1970s.
Water in 1981 (range)
0.2- 0.4 pCi/L
(an order of magnitude higher than values for 3 control lakes)
Plants:
Lobe/ba, Er/coaubon
and
Potamogeton
rapidly took up Ra when spiked Peaked within 20 days, stabilized in 3-4 mo.
Range: 0.3 1.4 pCi/g wet in L224
Lobe//a and
Er/ocaubon
averaged —1 pCi/g wet in L226.
Crayfish: peaked at —10 pCi/g wet
(Assuming a 10 wet/dry fudge factor peak would be —100 pCi/g dry)
(Range: —7 to 115 pCi/g dry based on fig. 3 & my fudge factor).
Fish: Ra accumulated by lake trout, white sucker, lake whitefish, pearl dace, northern redbelly dace, and fathead minnow.
Max value —0.03 pCi/g wet (whole fish?).
3-Step Process for Ra Fate & Transport
1. Rapid deposition in sediments.
2. Slower decrease associated with water renewal.
3. Long-term burial by sediment accumulation.
On p. 466 talks about the use of observed (Ca/Ra) ratios: “The fundamental principle irrthis~pproachis that radium (or strontium)
follows the same biological pathway as calcium but is favored or discriminated against to a greater or lessor extent in
different processes or organisms. The selection for or against radium as compared with calcium is expected to be greater
than for strontium because of the larger differences in atomicweight, radii, etc.’
Data suggests that “Radium is favored over calcium in macrophytes and crayfish but is discriminated against strongly in fish’. Fast-
growing fish or fish with lots of calcium in diet could be more influenced by Ra levels.
Low Ca and long water
residence time in Canadian Shield lakes makes them susceptible to radium uptake from U mining in area.
Hesslein, R. H. 1987. Whole-lake metal radiotracer movement in fertilized lake basins. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 44(Supplement 1): 74-82.
Isotopes of Se, Hg, St, Cs, Fe, Zn and Co added to the
two separated basins of Lake 226 in the ELA, Ontario (this lake is Schindler’s
eutrophication study lake).
Holtzman, R. B. 1967. Concentrations of the naturallyoccuring radionuclides ~6Ra,210Pb and 210Po in aquatic fauna. Pages
535-546, in Helson, D. J., and Evans, F. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Symposium~onRadioe~ology,Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Samples from fish store, biological supply houses, whale stomachs,
etc.
226Ra
0.05
pCi/g ash Ocean fish-bone
0.0016
pCi/g wet Ocean fish-soft tissue
0.02
pCilg ash Great Lakes-pike bone
0.0002
pCi/g wet Great Lakes-pike soft tissue
0.04
pCi/g wet Clams-canned (from Japan)
0.00~
pCi/g wet
Ca/anus
sp.
Humphreys, C. L. 1987. Factors controlling uranium and radium isotopic distributions in groundwater of thewest-central
Florida phosphate district. Pages 171-1 89, in Radon, Radium and Other Radioactivity in Ground Water: Hydrogeoiogic
Impact and Application to Indoor Airborne Contamination, Proceedings of the
NWWA
Conference, April 7-9, 1987, Somerset,
New Jersey. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Sampled 120 wells in central FL (SE Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee, DeSota, Manatee and Sarasota Couties). Samples collected from
land-pebble phosphate region (both mined and unmined areas) and from adjacent unmineralized area (southwestern
portion of study area) known to have high radium levels. Ra in unmineralized area considered to be secondary deposit of
mobile radionuclides from mineralized area — also influenced by salt content
~6Ra
Mined Area
Surficial
2.1
pCi/L (average)
Secondary artesian
3.5
Floridan
2.1
Unmined Area
Surficial
3.5
Secondary artesian
3.6
Floridan
4.1
Unmineralized
Surficial
10.4
Area
Secondary artesian
7.8
Floridan
.
5.8
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1992. Effects of ionizing radiation on plants and animals at levels implied by current
radiation protection standards. Technical Reports Series No. 332. Vienna, Austria.
Non-human effects associated with release of radionuclidesto surface waters (p. 40), based on fish consumption at rate of 100
kg/annually, water consumption at rate of 2L/day, and external exposure from contaminated sediments with an occupancy
rate of 2000 hours/annually.
Irwin, G. A. and Hutchinson, C. B. 1976. Reconnaissance water sampling for radium-226 in central and northern Florida,
December 1974- March 1976. U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 76-103. U. S. Geological Survey,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Analyzed 115 water samples (mostly ground water, some surface samples, principally from Peace River drainage) from Hillsborough,
Pollç, Manatee, Hardee, DeSoto and a few north FL counties. Sampling was limited to areas of active phosphate mining
and areas of undisturbed phosphate deposits, so data may not be representative of areas without phosphate deposits.
11 of 13 Surface samples (exceptions - slime pit and a site in Little Charlie Creek) did riot exceed the state standard (3pCi/I at the
time of the report).
~6Ra
Peace River surface water
0.12-1.5pCi/L
(mean of 13 sampl6s)
Alafia River at Lithia
0.06-0.53
Little Charlie Creek (Hardee Co.)
3.6
Ground Water samples (filtered, unacidified) in Hills Co.
226Ra
31 ft deep 0.2
pCi/L
SA (surficial aquifer)
17
4.5
SA
11
1.5
SA
22
0.2
SA
22
0.29
SA
17
0.2
SA
826
0.06
UF (upper Floridan)
160
0.24
UF
22
0.32
SA
23
0.2
SA
60
1.6
UF
22
0.94
SA
Ground Water samples (filtered, acidified) in Hills. Co.
226Ra
160 ft
20.0
pCi/L
826
0.14
Jeifree, R.
A. and Simpson, R. D. 1984. Radium-226 is accumul~tedin calcium granules in the
tissues of the freshwater
mussel,
Velesunio angasi:
support for a metabolic analogue hypothesis. Cornparitive Biochemistry and Physiology 79A: 61-
72.
Dissected and dried various tissues from 3 mussels collected from Georgetown and Corndorl Billabongs in the Magela Creek system,
close to the Ranger Uranium minesite.
-
Concentration of radium-226 correlated with concentrations of alkaline earths (Ca, Mg and Ba) indissectedlissues.
Ra, Ca, Ba varied by an order of magnitude among tissues. Mg varied by factor of 2.
226Ra
Visceral mass
266.4
dpm/g dry
(maximum value)
Visceral mass had highest activity in 2 of the 3 individauls — gut & contents?
Gills & mantle also relatively higher than foot, adductor muscles and kidney/heart.
Alpha track autoradibgraphy, electron microprobe analyses, x-ray analysis and histological studies sfiowRa, Ca, Mg and Ba are
mostly located in granular deposits dispersed through the body.
Granules ma~iaccumulate radium and act as store of exchangeable Ca. Also U-234, U-238, Th-230, Po-21 0 and Po-21 8 (Jeffree,
unpublished data). So, they may serve as end sites for immobilization of metals for excretion and source of calcium for
shell deposition.
Electron microprobe analysis peaks indicate that granules contain calciunTphosptrat~anttratiiump’ausphate~
Cite Davy and Conway (1974) which reported lower Ra-Ca ratio in shell vs. mantle tissue - indicates possible selective retention of
radium in body fluids and return to granules; also lower solubility of radium phosphate, relative to calcium phoshpate may
lead to selective retention in granules.
Jefiree, R.
A. 1985. The accumulation of radium-226 by populations of the freshwater mussel,
Velesunio angasi,
from the
Alligator Rivers Uranium Province, Northern Territory, Australia. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung Theoretische
und Angewandte Limnologie 22: 2486-2492.
Radium-226 in mussels collected from billabongs (isolated river pools) in Magela Creek of the Alligator Rivers system in Australia.
Georgetown Billabong receives nartural Ra-laden seepage from Ranger ore body.
Soft tissue samples dried at 70C for 12 hrs and radium-226measured by the Lucas radon emanation method. Also measured Ca
concentrations.
Size and Ca levels significant predictors of radium-226 levels. Mg signficant in one bilabong. Sex was not a significant predictor of
radium level.
So this mussel accumulates radium as it grows/ages.
226Ra
Georgetown Billabong
Water
5
pCi/L
Corndorl Billabong
Water
0.5
Mudginberri Bililabong
Water
0.5
Mussel SoftTissue
2.1-92.2 pCi/g dry
77-3415 mBqfg dry
4,7-204.7 dpm/g dry
Ca
Mussel Soft Tissue
10.1-94.8mg/g dry
(most 30)
Mg
Mussel Soft Tissue
0.65-2.60 mg/g dry
(most 1 .5)
Jeifree, R. A. and Simpson R. D. 1986. An experimental study of the uptake and loss of Ra-226 by the tissue of the tropical
freshwater mussel
Ve!Osunio angasi
(Sowerby) under varying Ca and Mg water concentration. Hydrobiologia 139:
59-8&
Exposed mussels to waterwith up to 50 pCi/L radium-226. Mussels accumulated radium up to 168-288 dpm/g dry (76-130 pCi/g
dry).
Accumulation rate is linear with respect to period of exposure (28 and 56 day periods).
Size and sexdo not affect accumulation rate.
Calcium in water possibly, competitively inhibits radium accumulation, suggesting Pals metaboiicanalogueof Ca; Mg inhibition
probably a different mechanism.
Biological half-life for Ra-226 is high in mussel soft tissue. Followed radium concentrations in experimental animals for up to 81
days-no decline in activity; also monitored non-experimental animals (with field-accumulated radium levels) for up to 286
days, and in a second experiment for 195 days - animals lost mass, but adjusted radium activity did not change, /.e. there
was no loss of radium.
Most Ra taken directly from water (at least under experimental conditions - this conclusion needs more support).
Jeffree, R.
A. 1988a. Experimental comparison
of radium-226 and calcium-45 kinetics in the freshwater mussel,
Velesunio
angasi.
Verhandlungen Internationale Verieinigung und Angewandte Limnologie 23:-2t93~2201.
During laboratory incubation in Ca and Pa-free water for up to 175 days, mussels lost Ca, but not Ra.
Mussels in food
(Chiamydornonas)
vs. no food treatments did not differ in Pa levels - concluded uptake is principally from
water
rather than food...
(I hypothesize that phytoplankton maybe a major source of Ra
-
according to other studies, plankton
and particulate matted do scavenge/accumulate radium from the water column).
Jeffree, R. A. 1988b. Patterns of accumulation of alkaline-earth metals in the tissue of the freshwater mussel
Velesunia
angasi
(Sowerby). Archive für Hydrobiologie 112: 67-90.
Collected animals from 3 billabongs in the Magela Creek system, Australia
Maximum Ra-226 tissue concentration = —210 dpm/g dry Mudginberri Billabong)
Ra-226, Ba and Ca tissue concentrations are correlated with size; Mg concentration is not.
Positive correlation of Ra and Ba with Ca indicates support for metabolic analogue theory.
Accumulation rates: RaBa—CaMg
correlate with stability constants of the hydrogen
phosphates of the alkaline-earth metals, supporting hypothesis that differential rate of retention of earth metals in granules
is related to theirsolubility.
-
-
-
Jeifree, R. A. 1991. An experimental study of ~6Raand ‘~Caaccumulation from the aquatic medium by freshwaterturtles
(fam. Chelidae) under
varying
Ca and Mg water concentrations. Hydrobiologia 218:205-231.
Exposed snapping turtles to water with radium activity similar to Magela Creek for up to 30 days to evaluate uptake since turtles are
included in diets of aboriginal peoples.
Levels of radium in treatment animals were higher in skin, bone and shell vs. control animals.
“The capacity of
E. dentata
to accumulate ~°Rafrom the aquatic environment is about two orders of magnitude
actually a factor of
80
less than that of the tissue of the freshwater mussel
Ve/esunio angasi
(Sowerby) exposed under similar experimental
conditions.’
Explanation: mussel skin more permeable, and they tend to accumulate radium in granules.
- Joshi, S. R. 1984. 137Cs, 226Ra and total U in fish from Lake Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior during 1976.1982. Water
Pollution Research Journal of Canada 19:110-119.
Fish collected from several of the Great Lakes.
~6Ra
Rainbow Trout
0.07
pCi/g fresh
maxium; ata river mouth
-
0.02
average
Justyn, J. 1973. Uptake of natural radioisotopes by aquatic organisms. Hydrobiological Studies 3: 145-1 71.
Paper on Ra accumulation in aquatic biota under natural conditions in an experimental
cascade below the outfall of an abandoned U mine and in other areas in Czechoslovakia.
“High cumulative capacities.found especially in filamentous algae, plankton,
Btyophyta
and several species of higher aquatic plants.’
~6Ra
mine area water
292
pCi/L
maximum
Plankton
9500
pCi/g of ash
maximum
-
21,090
dpm/gofash
Glyceria aquatica
14,540
pCi/g of ash
(plant in pond
32,279
dpm/g of ash
-(receiving mine
(1454)
pCi/g dry solids
effluent;
3228
dpm/g dry solids
192 pCi/L in water)
Hard to get data out of the paper.
Kada, J. and Heit, M. 1992. The inventories of anthropogenic Pb, Zn, As, Cd, and the ràdionuclides 137Cs and excess 210Pb
in lake sediments of the Adirondack region, USA. Hydrobiologia 246: 231-241.
Nothing
- Kaufmann, R. F. and Bliss, J. D. 1977. Effects of phosphate mineralization and the phosphate industry on radium-226 in
ground water of central Florida. EPAI52O-6-77-010. U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Analyzed available water table, Upper and Lower Floridan Ra-226 data from 1966 and 1973-1 976 for Polk, Hardee, Hillsborough,
Manatee and DeSoto Counties.
Water table aquifer in mineralized, unmined areas: geometric mean Ra-226 = 0.17 pCi/L; in mineralized, mined areas geometric
mean Ra-226=0.55 pCi/L.
Upper Floridan: poorly documented
Lower Floridan: three populations, 0.7, 3 and 10 pCi/L
Floridan levels in Manatee and Sarasota are elevated: Manatee mean 4.52 pCi/L vs 1.23 in water table wells. Sarasota mean 15
pCi/L in water table and 7.5 pCi/L in Floridan
Notes that data is marginal in terms of number and distribution of sites.
See Kaufmann and Bliss (1978) for publication containing same data.
Kaufmann, R. F. and Bliss, J. D. 1978. Radium-226 in ground water of west central Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 14:
1314.1330.
Data from 1966 and 1973-1 976- see Kaufmann and Bliss (1977).
Kernaghan, N.J., Ruessler, D.S., Miles, C.J., and Gross, T.S. Date Unknown. Bioaccumulation of methyl mercury by the
freshwater mussel, Elliptio buckleyl United States Geological Survey, Center for Aquatic Studies.
-
Lab study of mercury-accumulation from water and food (algae). Animals were collected from UF Fisheries Department experimental
pond in Gainesville.
-
Llewelling, B. R. and Wylie, R. W. 1993. Hydrology and water quality of unmined and reclaimed basins in phosphate-mining
areas, west-central Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4002.
~6Ra
0.07-1.2 pCi/L
Creeks in unmined basins in 1988-1990
-
Hillisborough, Polk and Hardee
-
Counties
0.02-0.6
Creeks in mined basins in
1988-1 989
-
-
Hillsborough, Polk and Hardee
- Counties
Lucas, H. F., Jr., Simmons, D., Markun, F., Farnham, J. and Keenan, M. 1979. Radon and radium retention by bluegill.
Health Physics 36:147-152.
-
-
Injected radium into bluegill and measured bone and scale content using autoradiography.
Lyman, G. H.,
Lyman,
C. G., and Johnson, W. 1985. Association of leukemia with radium groundwater contamination.
Journal of the American Medical Association 254: 621 -626.
Groundwater
supplies sampled in 27 counties by State (for another studr?).
Hillsbrough Qounty identified as a county with “low” Ra exposure (see Fig. 2).
Polk, Hardee, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties were designated as areas
-
of “high” exposure. Note other counties were included-in study.
-
Contrasted leukemia incidence in high vs. low-exposure counties and found significant difference.
Mahon, D.C.
1982. Uptake and translocation of naturally-occurring radionuclides of the uranium series. Bulletin of.
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 29: 697-703.
Sampled systems in British Columbia, Canada where naturally radioactivity is high.
Aquatic Food Chain
226Ra
Water
0.02
pCi/L
Sediments
2.2
pCig dry
Algae
0.02
-
Zooplankton
0.3
-
-
Pis/dium(clam)
-
0.3
-
-
-
Rainbow Trout
Meat
0.002
Bone
0.02
Finescale
Sucke Meat
0.002
-
-
-
Bone
0.02
-
Makarevich, T. A., Ostapenya, A. P, and Pavlyutin, A P. 1996. Role of periphyton in the migration of radionuclides in a lake
ecosystem. Hyrobiological Journal 32: 58-64.
- -
-
Measured 137Cs and IMC5 in Belorussian lake contaminated by Chemobly accident
Periphyton shows highest activity (vs. filamentous green algae,
Glyceria max/ma, Carex,
dragonfly nymph, “big-pond snail”, and
Chaoborina).
Marsteller, D. 2002. Park’s contamination level overstated, officials say. Published March 29, 200. Braderiton Herald,
Bradenton, Florida.
-
Article noting that EPA officials identified errors in a draft report, issued in 2001, on radioactive metals and heavy metals at Tenoroc
Fish Management Arrea in Polk County.
- -
-
Michel, J. and Jordana, M.J. 1987. Nationwide distribution of Ra-228, ra-226, Rn-22, and U in groundwater. Pages 227-240,
in Graves, B. (ed.), Radon, radium, and other radioactivity in ground water. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
Used ofa variety of federal and state data to assign risk for each US county of radon,
radium-226 and uranium in groundwater serving as water supply.
-
Potential risk zOnes for Ra~226include west-central FL, Appalchians, upper Midwest,
Rocky Mts., and Sierra/Coastal ranges.
Miller, R. L. and Sutcliffe, H., Jr. 1985. Occurrence of natural radium-226 radioactivity in ground water of Sarasota County,
Florida. Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4237. Prepared in cooperation with Sarasota County, Florida. U. S.
Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida.
-
-
Highest levels seen in the intermediate aquifer; max value = 110 pCi/I in a saline sample. Apparently mineralized water (marine-like
from saltwater encroachment or calcium magnesium strontium sulfate bicarbonate type)causes elevated radium levels.
Miller, R. L., Kraemer, T. F., and McPherson, B. F. 1990. Radium and radon in Charlotte Harbor estuary, Florida. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 31: 439-457.
Collected water samples from Charlotte Harbor (and lower Peace and Myakka Rivers) for radium-226 anttradorranalysis. Also
-
measured Ra activity in oysters shells.
-
Wateractivities highest in upper estuary/tidal river reaches vs freshwater reaches and Gulf of Mexico/Lower estuary.
-
-
Radium-226 activity in water “can exceed 500 dpm/100L, and activities above 150 dpm/L are common”. Maximum was 548
dpm/100L in tidal Myakka River. Note 500 dpm/100L = 22.5 pC/L; 100 dpm/100L= 4.5 pCi/L,
226Ra
0.1-0.2 pCi/L
Peace River atState Road 761
1983-1 984
-
See Table 1.
-
0.5-1.0
Peace River near mouth
1982-1 984
SeeTablel
~6Ra
-
0.07-3,6 dpm/g
OYSTER
SHELLS
(dried; collected live)
0.03-1.66 pCi/g
Highest values measured in tidal reaches of Peace and Myakka Rivers. See
Figure 7, p. 451. Peakvalues was atMyakka site.
Mirka, M. A., Clulow, F. V., Dave, N. K., and Lim, T. P. 1996. Radium-226 in cattails,
Typha Iafifolia,
and bone of muskrat,
Ondatra zibethica
(L.), from a watershed with uranium tailings near the City of Elliot Lake, Canada. Environmental Pollution
91: 41-51.
Radium in cattails and muskrat bone near Quirke Lake, Canada (and at sites nearby and some distance away-controls). Note that
muskrats are herbivorous and
Typha
is an important food and nesting plant for the species.
~6Ra
Study Area-High
2-26
pCi/L
-
Water
33.1
dpm/g dry
Typha
(whole plant) =14.9 pCi/g dry;
16.6
dpm/gdryleaves
-
14.9
dpm/g drystems
68.1
dpm/g dryroots
20.6
dpm/g dryMuskrat bone = 9.3 pCi/g dry
Study Area-Low (Dunlop and Elliot Lakes)
0.2-2
pCi/L
Water
Not sampled
Typha
4.9
dpm/g dryMuskrat bone = 2.2 pCi/g dry
-
-
Local Control Site
-
-
0.2
pCi/L
Water
-
1.3
dpm/g dry
Typha
(whole plant) 2.6 pCi/g dry
4.7
dpm/g dryMuskrat bone = 2.1 pCi/g dry
-
Distant Control Site
0.2
pCi/L
Water
0.9
dpm/g dry
Typha
(whole plant) = 0.4 pCi/g dry
-
0.09
dpm/g dry Muskrat bone = 0.04 pCi/g dry
Did dose estimate for consumption of muskrat and found to be OK.
Montalbano, F., III, Thul, J. E., and Boich, W. E. 1983. Radium-226 and trace elements
in mottled ducks. Journal of Wildlife
Management 47:
327-333
-
-
-
Collected 20 mottled ducks from settling basin near Bartow and 10 ducksfrom
Lake Okeechobee in 1980. Also collected a substrate sample (composite from 3 sites) atsettling pond
~°Ra
-
21.0
pCi/g dry Settling pond sediment
- -
-
composite sample
-
23.8
pCi/g dry Mean for 10 othercentral Fl
-
phosphate settling areas reported by
-
(Roessler et al. 1979).
0.003
pCi/g wet Duck muscle (reported as 3.08 pCi/kg wet) from settling pond on
phosphate
mine near Bartow
0.0009
pCi/g wet Duck muscle (reported as 0.86 pCi/kg wet) from Lake Okeechobee
Used water radium standard (5 pCiIL) and water consumption rate (1.2 L/day) to estimate that an individual would ingest 2190 pCi/yr.
“To obtain a similar amount from eating contaminated duck flesh, itwould be necessary to eat 1.95 kg of duck/flesh/day.
Therefore, levels of ~6Rathat might be ingested with mottled duck flesh are insignificant.’
Morales, D., Bolch, W.E., Jr., de Ia Cruz, J., and Nail, W. 2002. Dose potential fro
Consumption of select radionUclides(ra-226, Pb-210) and metals 4Cd, Hg,Ph)in
central Florida phosphate mineralized region freshwater fish protein, final report.
Prepared for the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida.
Analyzed samples of 5 fish species from four 4 unreclaimed lakes (Floral Lake-augmented, Saddle Creek, Dover Park & Tenoroc
Lake #5), 2 reclaimed lakes (IMC Fort Green #845 & Medard Park ), 3 natural lakes (Lake Arietta, Lake Hunter & Walk-in-
Water), and I reservoir (Lake Manatee).
Bass, catfish and tilapia subsampled fillets for analysis. Panfish specimens too small to fillet were scaled, finned, beheaded and
butterflied, so some bone material was included.
Ra-226 found in all species in all lakes. Non-detect (215 of434 samples) were assigned a value of one-halfthe detection limit.
Mean
for 434 samples
0.028
pCi/g wet
0.062
dpm/g wet
Range for all samples
0.0004 — 0.392
pCi/g wet
0.0009-0.87
dpm/g wet
Data from P886 study indicates dry mass for fillets is —20 of wet mass and dry mass for bone tissue is —30 of wet mass. Using a
20 conversion factor, the mean Ra-226 activity of 0.028 pCi/g wet = 0.31 dpm/g dry and the range = 0.0045-4.4 dpm/g
dry.
See report for data on individual lakes and species and Pb-21 0 data.
Moura, G., Guedes, R., and
Machado, J. 1999. The extracellular mineral concretions in
Anodonta cygnea
(L.):
differenhlypes
and manganese exposure-caused changes. Journal of Shellfish Research 18: 645-650.
Review in Introduction section covers use of granules for storage of insoluble Ca for shell production. May also be used for pH
buffering, and detoxification of heavy metals.
Muncaster, B.W., Hebert, P.D.N., and Lazar, R. 1990. Biological and physical factors affecting the body burden of organic
contaminants in freshwater mussels. Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 19: 25-34.
Review of mussel accumulation of toxic compounds. Discussion section includes
review of size/body burden relationships.
Myers,
0. B., Marion, W. R., O’Meary, T. E., and Roessler, G. S. 1989. Radium-226
in wetland birds from Florida phosphate
mines. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 1110-1116.
See O’Meary
etal.
(1986) report.
-
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. 1991. Effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic organisms.
NCRP Report No. 109. Bethesda, Maryland.
NEED TO LOOK AT.
O’Meary, 1. E., Marion, W. R., Roessler, C.
E., Roessler, G. S., Van Rinsfelt, H. A., and Myers, 0. B. 1986. Environmental
contaminants in birds: phosphate-mine and natural wetlands. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Prepared for the
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida, FIPR-05-003-045.
-
Measured radium-226 and trace elements in four bird species (double~crestedicoffnarants.common moorhens, wood ducks, and
mottled ducks) in settling area wetlands from mined areas and un-mined areas (Lakes Newnans, Orange and Kissimmee)
in north and central FL.
-
Measured soft tissue (muscle, liver, kidney) and bone activity (muscle sampled from
-
wood and mottled ducks only).
Also collected water and substrate samples and diet items (plants, inverts and fish).
Tissues freeze-dried and ground; bone and fish samples were ashed.
-
-
Also submitted some samples to a commercial lab.
-
Calculated annul radiation doses to individuals assuming a conversionfactorofi.I x 10~mrem/pCi ingested.
Mean ~6Ra
Substrate Central
0.2
pCi/g dry Control
23.4
-
Settling
North
1.4
Control
14.7
-
Settling
Water-TotCentral
0.08 (0.09)
pCi/L
-
Control
2.0 (24)
Settling
North
0
Control
-
0.4
Settling
o = commercial lab
-
Bird -Bone Central
0.05-0.3 - pCi/g ash Control
0.5-4.4
Settling
-
North
0.2-0.7
Control
0.2-1.9
Settling
Bone of ducks had higher leyels than cormorants of moorhens; possibly
-
due to diets or ingestion of sediment?
-
-
Duck Muscle
Central
0.01
pCi/g ash Control
0.2
Settling
North
0.002
Control
0.009
-
Settling
Diet?
Central
0.1
pCi/g dry Control
-
0.4
-
Settling
North
-
0.03
Control
1.2
-
Settling
Duck bone -
(0.3)
pCifg ash Control
(1.1)
-
Settling
(0.1)
pCi/g dry Control
- (2.4)
Settling
O=commercial lab
Central
Green Algae
9
-
- pCi/g dry Settling
Duckweed
9
Settling
Hydrilla 5.5
Settling
Watergrass
- 0.2
Control
Wild celery
0.1
Control
Central
Bladderwort
4.2
Settling
-
Spatterdock
0.02
Control
Brasenia 0
Control -
Duckweed
0.35
-
Control
North
Hydrilla 1
Control
Central
Bryozoan 1.6
pCi/g dry Settling
Pomacea 0.2
Control
Planorbid 0.1
Control
-
,
Beetle
0.6
Settling
Sunfish
0.03
Control
Sunfish 0.1
- -
Settling
Gambusia
0.4
Settling
North
Planorbid 0.05
Control
Shad
0.05
Control
Cranefly 1.6
Settling
Fish data are for whole fish.
Radiation dose to humans: assume consumption of 1.5 kg/yr and a maximum intake of 10 kg/yr. Dose from radium-226= 0.001
mrem/yrfrom northern Fl control areas to 0.01 mrem/yrfor consumers of ducks from central FL settling areas.
Refers to Stabin (1983) who derived working value of 3 mrem of radium-226 per year of 2700 pCi per year.
“More recently the Standards Committee of the Florida Phosphate-related Radiation Task Force (1984) has recommended 500
mrem/yras the appropriate standard for all exposure of individuals of the general public and has suggested that intake of
radium-226 be limited to 20 pCi/day. If the intake permitted by the Drinking Water Standard (10 pCi/day, Environmental
Protection Agency 1976) is subtracted, this corresponds to 10 pCi/day (3700 pCi/year) or 5 mrem/year from ingestion
sources other than drinking water”
-
“...at the maximum average concentration of 6 pCi/kg that we found, it would require an intake of over 450 kg/year (980 pounds/year)
to achieve an annual effective dose eqyivalent of 3 mrem. Thus, even at maximum hypothesized consumption rates,
waterfowl meat from settling ponds would not represent a health risk to humans.’
-
it is unkown whether the observed radium concentrations in bird bone would constitute a health hazard to birds.”
Note: values in report are greater, but same order of magnitude as those reported by Montalbano
eta!.
(1980).
Oural, C.R., Upchurch, S.B., and Brooker, H.R. 1988. Radon progeny as sources of gross-alpha radioactivity anomalies in
ground water. Health Physics 55:- 889-894.
Discusses problems with gross-alpha analyses that may introduce variability in results.
Owen, C. 2000. Memorandum to Marty Kelly on raw water quality data for the Hilisborough River Reservoir. City of Tampa,
Water Department, Tampa, Florida.
-
Gross
1.3 pCi/L
Hillsborough River Raw
August 1999
Alpha
1.3
Hillsborough River Raw
September 1999
1.3
Hillsborough River Raw
October 1999
1.8
- HillsboroughRiverRaw
-
November1999
Polikarpov, G. G. 1966. Radioecology of aquatic organisms. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
NEED TO LOOKAT
-
Pritchard, P. C. H., and Bloodwell, J. M. 1986. Multidisciplinary study of radionuclides and heavy metal concentrations in
wildlife on phosphate mined and reclaimed lands. Prepared by the Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, Florida, for the
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, FIorida~ FIPR-05-017-042.
Good review of previous studies (see pp. 4-7).
Sampled alligator, Florida softshell (Trionyx), snapping turtle
(Chlydra),
cooters
-
-
(Pseudemys
spp.) and armadillo
(Dasypus)
and one otter from mine-impacted, mineralized-unmined, and unmineralized -
lands in central Florida.
~6Ra
0.2 - 1.7 pCi/g ash Alligator neck tissue (including
bone, skin; also femurs; one
-
case used other tissues)
0.2- 3.8
Softshell turtle (entire shell)
-
0.2 - 8.7
Cooters (shells from dead animals)
3.8
Snapping turtle (1 whole animal, excluding gut)
1.5 max pCi/g ash Armadillo (intact tail)
0.4
-
pCl/g ash Otter bone
Pyle, G. G., and Clulow, F. V. 1997. Non-linear radionuclide transfer from the aquatic environment to fish. Health Physics
73:488-493.
-
Collected white suckers from 11 lakes that directly or indirectly receive U from mine activities and 5 nearbycontrol lakes - all near
Elliot Lake, Ontario. Sampled suckers because previous studies show they accumulate radionuclides as a
result of their bottom-feeding habits.
~6Ra
Water
-
—5400
pCi/I
max
-
Sediments -
—200
pCi/g
max
-
WhiteSucker Bone
—3
pCi/g dry max
White Sucker Muscle
—0.1
pCi/d dry max
Pyle, G. 6., and Clulow, F. V. 1998. Radioinuclide equalibria between the aquatic environment and fish tissues. Journal of
Environmental Radioactivity 40: 59-74.
-
Water, sediments and white sucker (a common bottom feeder) sampled from Quirke-
Lake, near Elliot Lake in Ontario, Canada. Lake is near four tailings (mill and waste) areas and receives radionuclides in
-
runoff, by leaching and by atmospheric deposition.
Water
-
2.2
pCi/L
-
Sediments
27.3
dpm/g dry
Sucker Bone
0.7
dpm/g dry geometric mean
Sucker Muscle
0.2
dpm/g drygeometric mean
-
Radium was approximately 2-4 times higher in bone than muscle
QST EnvirOnental, Inc. 1998. Draft final report: Four Corners mine monitoring, year
two,
July 1996-June 1997. Tampa and
Gainesville, Florida.
-
~6Ra
0.1-1.3 pCi/L
Creeks in Upper Manatee River watershed, prior to mining
0-1.9
Creek in Upper Manatee River watershed, aftermining.
Roessler, C.
E., Smith, Z. A., Bolch, W. E., and Prince, R.
J.
1979. Uranium and radium-226 in Florida phosphate materials.
Health Physics 37: 269-277.
-
-
Ore from central FL has higher U-238 and Ra-226 levels than ore from north FL.
-
Ammoniated phosphates (AP) fertilizer samples had relatively low levels of Ra-226, but ‘significant U-238”. Triple superphosphate
(TSP) fertilizer had significant concentrations of Ra and U (U activity was 2-15 times the Ra activity).
226Ra
Central FL
- Matrix
- 83.5
dpm/g dry
AP Fertilizer
9.1
TSP Fertilizer
43.7
-
Rope, S. K. and Whicker, F. W. 1985~A field study of
Ra
accumulation in trout with assessment of radiation doseto man~
Health Physics 49:
347-257.
-
Stocked 2 settling ponds at uranium mines in Wyoming with trout. Another set of ponds had been stocked previously. Sampled
water and fish from both systems for radium-226 activity.
~6Ra
Water (filtered)
12-23
pCi/L
-
Trout bone
—0.4-6
pCi/g wet
Trout skin/fins
—0.1-0.9
pCi/g wet
Flesh
—0.006-0.03
pCi/g wet
~‘Calculateddose based on consumption of one fish/week for 50 yrs: maximum 83 mrem/yr. “Comparison of the calculated dose
equivalent rates with radiation -protection standards suggests that the dose to manfrom ingested 226Ra in fish would not
-
preclude the establishment of a recreational lake at this site.’
-
Schelske,
C.L.,
Peplow, A., Brenner, m and Spencer, C.N. 1994. Low-background
- -
gamma counting: applications for 2lOPb dating of sediments. Journal of
-
-
Paleolimnology 10: 115-128.
-
226Ra in uppermost samples from sediment Oores(see Figure 2).
Lake Lucerne
surface core
—4
dpm/g dry
-
Whitefish Lake
—2
Lake Rowell
—23
Scott,
R.C.
and Barker, F.B 1962. Data on uranium and radium in ground water in the United States 1954 to
1957.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 426.
United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Separated US it-ito 10 regions and calculated range and median uranium and radium
-
concentrations.
Data are not well presented.
Shannon, L. V. and Cherry, R. D. 1971. Radium-226 in marine
phytoplankton. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11: 339-
343.
-
-
Phytoplankton in waters off South Africa.
-
~6Ra
7.7 xl
012
g/g dry
Mean for Agulhas Current
-
7.7
pCi/g dry
17.1
dpm/g dry
1.0 x1012 g/g dry
Mean for other areas (exiuding
-
1
pCi/g dry one site)
2.2
dpm/g dry
Zooplankton in waters-off South Africa.
-
-
226Ra
0.3 x1012 g/g dry
Mean for all sites
-
0.3
-
pCi/gdry
-
0.7
dpm/g dry
-
Stabin, M. G. 1983.
Radium-226 in waterfowl associated with Florida phosphate clay settling areas. M.E. Thesis, University
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Good review.
Sampled ducks in 7 north and central control (Lakes Newna, Lochloosa and Kissimmee) andmincrLwettauci areas. Wood clucks
from northern sites, Florida ducks from central sites.
226Ra
Northern FL
Natural Wetland
Sediment
1.0
pCi/g dry
Water
nd -
Duck Muscle
0.002
pCi/ g fresh
-
DuckBone
0.5
pCi/gash
Settling Area
Sediment
14.5
pCi/g dry
-
Water
0.5
pCi/L
-
Duck Muscle
0.005
pCi/g fresh
Duck Bone
2.0
pCi/g ash
- Central FL
Natural Wetland
Sediment
0.2
pCilg dry
-
Water
.
0.08
Duck Muscle
0.004
pCi/ g fresh
Duck Bone
0.4
pCi/ g ash -
-
Settling Area
Sediment
23.9
pCi/g dry
Water
4.1
pCi/L
-
Duck Muscle
0.008
pCi/g fresh
Duck Bone
3.1
- pCi/g ash
Stover, B. J., Atherton, D. R. and Arnold, J. S. 1957. Comparative metabolism of Ca-45 and Ra-226. Proceedings of the
Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 94: 269-272.
-
Early paper on radium as calcium analog.
Injected beagle pup with tracers; took blood samples, killed and dissected animal after
-
24 hrs.
Both Ra and Ca were retained at greater than 90, reflecting the growth phase of the
pup. Deposited in bone and teeth.
Swanson, S. M. 1983. Levels of 226Ra, 210Pb and
TOT~4LU
in fish near a Saskatchewan uranium mine and mill. Health Physics
45: 67-80.
-
Radium-226 and other radionuclides in water and fish in Canadian lakes.
Fish collected from Beaverlodge Lake, which received radionclide-tainted runoff from uranium mine tailings, and Lake Fulton, which
did not
-
For Ra analysis, larger fish were separated into skin, filets; smaller fish (300-400g)
-
species analyzed whole
-
ANJOVA indicated higher activity in Beaverlodge Lake, but also differences among
Species.
-
-
Activity higher in skin or bone than in fillets.
-
226Ra
- Water
0.1
pCi/L
.
Fulton Lake (control)
-
-
2.9-1 76
Tailings System
1.5-2.2
Beaverlodge Lake
Whole Fish
not det
pCi/g ash Fulton Lake (control)-
4.7-56.3
Beaverlodge Lake
Fish Bone
-
1
-
pCi/g ash Fulton Lake (control)
- (Large)
1-—Il
-
Beaverlodge Lake
Fish Flesh
1
pCi/g ash Fulton Lake (control)
-
(Large)
1
Beaverlodge Lake
Note: large fish data is not presented very well in the paper! Hard to figure out!
Stone,
S.S. 2000. Letter dated January
11,2000 to Marty Kelly on
archived water quality data for the Peace River. Peace
River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, Arcadia, Florida.
226Ra
0.3 pCi/L Water Plant at Ocean Blvd.
1987 -
0.6
Peace River Raw
1987
0.6
NJ. Port Water Plant
1987
Swanson, S. M. 1985. Food-chain transfer of U-series radionuclides in a northern Saskatchewan aquaticsystem. Health
Physics 49:
747-770.
-
-
Sampled water, insects, fish in streams and lakes near U mill tailing treatment area in Canada. Tailings system and Beaverlodge -
Lake receive U input.
226Ra
Water
up to 116 pCi/L
Tailings system
1.6
Beaverlodge Lake
Sediments
26
pCi/g wet Beavenlodge Lake
0.5
- Control Lake
up to 22
- Tailings system
Aquatic Insects
0.2-23
pCi/g wet Tailings system
0.2-3.5
Control creek
Forage
-
0.5-1.6
pCi/g wet Tailings creek
Fish (whole)
0.11
Beavenlodge Lake
1.1-3.8
-
Ace Creek
-
Forage
18-46
pCi/g ash Tailings creek
Fish (whole)
- 4.1
Beaverlodge Lake
23-1 08
Ace Creek
Large Fish
.005-0.3 pCilg wet Flesh- Beaver Lodge Lake
(whiteflsh&
0.5-2.7
pCi/g ash Flesh-Beaver Lodge Lake
sucker
)
0.8-2.2
pCi/g wet Bone-Beaver Lodge Lake
3-7.8
pCi/g ash Bone-Beaver Lodge Lake
Large fish values were significantly lower in two control lakes
“Dose to humans from reguIa~consumption of-Beaverlodge fish was relatively small (Table 21).’ “Because actual consumption rates
in the Beaverlodge area are considerably less than one serving per week, the risk is likelyclose to that associated with
background radiation.”
-
‘Radionuclide content decreaseswith successive trophic level in this study”
Torres, L. M. 1988. Radium-226 in plankton on the west Florida shelf. M.S.
Thesis, University of South Florida,- Tampa,
Florida.
Plankton collected in three Gulf transects: off the Suwanee River, Crystal and
-
Chassahowitzka Rivers and Tampa Bay.
-
Highervalues recorded at nearshore stations in 2 of 3 transects.
~6Ra
Phytoplankton
0.1-115 dpm/g dry
0.05-51.8
pCi/g dry
Zooplankton
0.l-63dpm/g dry
-
0.05-28.4 pCi/g dry
Turekian, K. K. and Cochran, J. K. 1986. Flow rates and reaction rates in the Galapagos Rise spreading center
hydrothermal system as inferred from 228Ra/226Ra in vesicomyid clam shells. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences
USA 83: 6241-6244.
-
Radium values in deep-see clams: 0.052 and 0.091 dpm/g.
Twining, J. R. 1988. Radium accumulation from water byfoliage of the water lily,
Nymphaea violacea.
Verhandlungen
Internationale Vereinigung Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie-23: 1954-1962.
Mesocosm study of uptake of radium by water lily (and associated epiphyton) from Corndorl Lagoon in the Magela Creek floodplain,
Australia. Area is downstream from U mine.
Rapid uptake and loss indicated surface adsorption or uptake by epiphyton are primary mechanism for accumulation of radium,
rather than actually uptake by lily.
-
Twining, J. R. 1989. Principal coordinate analysis of the distribution of radium-226 between water, sediment and the
waterlily,
Nymphaea violacea
(Lehm), in the vicinity of a uranium
ml einthe~NantherriTerritory, Australia. Journal of
Environmental Radioacitivy 10: 99-113.
Lily is a component ofthe Australian aboriginal diet.
-
Radium measured in water, sediments and lily tissues at 4 sites in the Magela Creek system.
~Ra
Laminae
5.3-25.5 mBqi/g dry
0.3-1.5 dpm/g dry
Petioles
7.4-16.7
-
0.4-1.0
Peduncles
4.2-17.4
—
0.3-1.0
Flowers
2.8-8.2
0.2-0.5
Fruit
-
1.7-2.9
-
0.1-0.2
Rhizome (whole)
44.0
(only I site)
2.6
Roots
-8.9-189 (differing portions) 0.5-11.3-
Also looked at senescence effect in lily and other species; higher in older leaves
226Ra
Nymhaee
4.2
dpm/g dry
-
Eleocharis
1.9
Pseudoraph/s
3.3
-
Polygonum
2.4
Fimbrisyl/s
0.6
Twining, J. R. 1993. A study of radium uptake by the water-lily,
Nymphaea vio!acea
(Lehm)Jrom contaminatedsediment.
Journal of Radioactivity 20: 169-189.
Introduction provides overview ofradium accumulation in plants.
For study, collected plants from field and grew in lab in radium-spiked sediments.
Radium accumulated on surface of roots and rhizomes; foliar accumulation attributed
to uptake from water contaminated by radium in sediments
-
Ulferts, A. 1999. EPA to set gas toxicity limit for well water. St. Petersburg Times, February 14, 1999. St. Petersburg,
Florida.
-
Newspaper article on proposed EPA limits on radon in drinking water.
Possible standard: 4,000 pCi/L.
-
Upchurch, S.B., Oural, C.R., Foss, D.W., and Brooker, H.R. 1991. Radiochemsitry of urnanium-series isotopes. Publication
No. 05-022-092, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida.
226Ra
-
13 Surficial aquifer monitor wells
0.15-3.37 pCi/L
13 Floridan aquifer monitor wells
0.2-2.89 pCi/L
Upchurch, S. B., Linton,
J. R., Spurgin, D. D., and Brooker, H. R. 1981. Radium-226 in central Florida aquatic organisms. FL-
USF-81-126. University
of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
-
Measured Ra-226 in water, plants, inverts, and fish from 11 central FL sites (in Pasco, Hillsborough, Polk Manatee, and Sarasota
Counties)
-
~6Ra
Water
0.7 &l .5 pCi/L
Lake on IMC property near Bartow
1.2
Lake in MaryHolland Park near Bartow
0.8
Lake on IMC property near Bartow
-
1.6
Alafia River at Lithia Springs
1.1
Lake Manatee at State Road 64
0.5
Cypress Creek atState Road 54
0.8
Lake at State Road 52 and County Road 587
0.5
-
-
Myakka River at State Road 780
Plants
0.2-25
pCi/g dry
4 sites
25.9
-Elodea,
93.0
Filamentous algae,
9.7 & 15.9
Myriophyllum,
2.1
Najas quadalupensis
-
0.2
Typha
Inverts
0.1
Pa/eomorietes pa/usdosus
0.4
~
Procambarus phalanx
Herb-Fish 0.1-5
Shad, molly, Tilapia
-
Cam-Fish 0.01-I .7
Numerous spp.
(Gambusia-high
Bass, bluegill, etc.in tabel)
AveO.2
Control area
-
Ave=0.2
Unmined, phosphate-bearing terranes
- Ave=0.4
Mined lands
See table 3 for Ra-226 content for various fish species (bluegill, bass, redear, gar, crappie, etc.)
No evidence of biomagnification.
-
-
-
-
“Based on our present- understanding, is seems that if only larger fish are eaten by man, if the majority of radium-226 is in bone, and
iffish constitute a small part of human diet, there should be minimal hazard to man. It seems that fish from most of the
environments sampled are relatively low in radium anyway. Fish from lands affected by phosphate mining constitute the
only area of concern and a study should be undertaken to determine the use of fish in human diet from these areas.
Of more immediate concern is the impact on the remainder of the food chain. No overt impacts can be detected from the superficial
examinations we have given the sample sites...
-
-
...chronic exposure to radium may have a subtle, negative impact on the aquatic plants and animals.”
Upchurch, S. B., Spurgin, D. D., Linton, J. R., and Brooker, H. R. 1985. Natural radiofluclides in Tampa Bay, Florida.
Pages
595-613, in Tampa Bay Area Scientific Symosium, Bellweather
Press,. Edna,Mtnriesota.
Summary paper which lists/cites data from other sources.
-
-
-
226Ra
Water
-
Cypress Creek
-
0.5
pCi/L-unfiltered
-
- Alafia River at Lithia
0.5-1.6
Little Manatee River
0.8
Lake Manatee
0.3-1.1
Tampa Bay sites
0.3-2.0
- Freshwater Biota
See Upchurch etal. 1981
Estuarine Inverts (whole)
Penaeus
sp.
-
0.4
max
pCi/g dry 0.9 dpm/g
Melongena
0.2 -
pCi/g dry 0.4
Misc. Mollusca
0.3
pCi/g dry 0.7
Callinectes sp (blue crab)
0.6
max
pCi/g dry 1.3
Estuarine Fish (whole & fillets)
-
Whitting (whole)
0.9
max
pCi/g dry 2.0
Tongue sole (whole)
0.4
max
pCi/g dry 0.9
Tongue sole (fillet)
0.007
max
pCi/g wet 0.02 /wet
Catfish (fillet)
0.002
pCilg wet 0.004/wet
Upchurch, S.~B. and Randazzo, A. F. 1997.
Environmental geology of Florida. Pages 217-249
in Randazzo, A. F. and Jones,
-D. S. (eds.) The Geology of Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
“The ulitimate source of most radioactivity in Florida is U indcorporated in carbonate-
fluorapatite at the time offormation.”
-
In FL, radium, polonium-2I0 and radon-22 are problem alpha emitters.
-
Radium-226 is relatively high in surficial and Upper Floridan in west-central FL. Derived
From weathering of phosphorites and transport; also a salt effect
Highest activities measured for Po are in Hillsborough County.
Van Der Borght., 0. 1963. Accumulation of radium-226 by the freshwater gastropod
Lyinnaea stagnalis
L. Nature
197:
612-
613.
Dosed snails with 0.04 uCi/L solution of radium-226; let them take it up (accumulated more than 90otthe
rlnse.&radium)
and
measured accumulation in tissues.
-
-
Concentration Factors (fresh weight to water):
-
Newiy formed shell
1,277
Older shell
376
Soft parts
140 -
Whole animals
108
-
Blood
21
-
Also conducted a “release” study for up to 3 days by putting animals in Ra-free water — found that they did not lose much of the
incorporated radium.
Van Der Borght.,
0. and
Puymbroeck, S. V. 1964. Active transport of alkaline earth ions
as a physiological base of the
accumulation of
some radionuclides in freshwater molluscs. Nature 204: 533-534.
Early paper on active uptake of radionuclides.
-
Vaughn, C.C., and Hakenkamp, C.C. 2001. The functional role of burrowing bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater
Biology 46:
1431-xxxx.
Freshwter bivalves are filter-feeders. Some taxa are also pedal feeders — they
-
use cilia on foot to collect buried organic matter. Some daim that pedal feeding is “almost universal in juvenile bivalves’
and that adults of some small species (e.g., sphaerids) also pedal feed. Corbicula juveniles and adults pedal-feed. A
study of unionicls in MI stream indicated animals were consuming 80 deposited and 20 suspended material (Raikow&
Hamilton 2000).
-
Veckon, A. 1999. Telephone conversation on March
5,
1999 regarding radioactivity
values for water at the Hillsborough
County Lake Park Pump Station.
Gross
2.7 pCi/L Note: 95-99 of Lake Park Station waterl 996
Alpha
is from Section 21 Well Field.
Von Gunten, H. R., Surbeck, H. and Rossler, E. Uranium
series disiquilibrium and high thorium and radium enrichments in
karst formations. Environmental Science and Technology 30: 1268-1274.
Paper documents Iead-210/radium-226 disequilibrium similar to that seen in some FL lakes.
WahI, R. D. 1980. A study of the amounts of radium-226 found in fish and waters of Tampa Bay,
Florida. M. A. Thesis,
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
-
-
~6Ra
Tampa Bay water (filtered) -
1.25-1.94 pCi/L
Fish filets
0.005
pCi/g
Whole fish
0.04-0.16 pCi/g
~Problemwith study: distilled/DI water used for water analyses had radium level of 0.4 pCi/L. Page 35 says water used for fish
sample processing had even higher radium levels- up to 113 pCi/L.
Walters, M.O. 1995. Radium in coastal Sarasota County ground water. Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation 15:114-
118.
-
-
Data obtained from samples submitted to the Environmental Section the Health and Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida by
private drinking well owners in 1986, and samples collected by HRS staff in 1987.
Data are considered representative of the intermediate aquifer.
226Ra
Well water
1.4— 29.5 pCi/L
-
228Ra
Well water
0.3—2.5
Warwick, W.F. Fitchko, J., McKee, P.M., Hart, D.M., and Burt, A.J. 1987. The incidence of deformities in
Chironomus
spp.
From Port Hope Harbour, Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 13: 88-92.
Greater incidence of deformities in more heavily polluted interior vs. outer harbour.
Problem is that the polluted site is contaminated with radionuclies and metals.
Discussion cites a few studies of radionuclide doses and possible effects in other studies.
Whicker,
F. W., Pinder, J. E., III, Bowling, J. W., Alberts, J. J. and Brisbin, I. L., Jr. 1990. Distribution of long-lived
radionuclides in an abandoned reactor cooling reservoir. Ecological Mongraphs 60: 471-496.
PAR Pond - Cs, Sr, Pu, AM, Cm in water, sediments, fish, plants, birds, zooplankton.
Whicker, F. W., Hinton, T. G., and Niquette, D.
J. Effects of a partial drawdown on the dynamics of 137Cs in an abandoned
reactor cooling reservoir. Pages 193-202 in Freshwater and Estuarine Radioecology, Demet, G.,
etaL
(eds). Elsevier
Science.
-
-
-
Measured cesium activity in fish and sediments follwing PAR Pond drawdown.
137Cs
Aquatic plants in littoral zone
2-29
-
pCi/g dry
Aquatic plants in exposed lake bed
up to 149
pCi/g dry
- Largemouth bass
16
pCi/g wet
Whitmore, T.J. and Brenner, M. 1997.
Historic water-quality assessment of Little Lake Jackson, HighlandsCounty,Florida.
Final report submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida.
Two cores collected for dating sediments..
~6Ra
Core 5 upper sample
8.36
dpm/g dry
Core 6 upper sample
9.38
Whitmore, T.J. and Brenner, M.
1999. Paleolimnological reconstruction of water quality in Lake Persimmon, Highlands
County, Florida. Final report submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida.
One core collected for dating sediments.
~6Ra
- upper sample
11.6
dpm/g dry
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Summary of clamming regulations for Wisconsin waters. Web site:
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fishlmussels.
Clamming regulations identify takes of less than 50 lbs/day as non-comercial. Commercial liscence is required for greater harvests.
Website gives information on “peaaling” and cooking of mussels.
Wren, C. D., Cloutier, N. R, Lim, T. P., and Dave, N. K. 1987. Ra-226 concentrations in otter,
Lutra canadensis,
trapped near
uranium tailings at Elliot Lake, Ontario. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology38: 209-242.
Radium-226 analysis of leg bones from six otters collected near Elliot Lake (uranium mine region) and one otterfrom Muskoka
(control site). Radium detected in 5 of 7 samples from Elliot Lake, but not in. I sample from control site.
226Ra
Otter Femur
Elliot Lake area
nd-I 2.6 pCi/g ash
-
Otter Femur
Control site
nd
-
-
-
Citations of other results:
-
226Ra
Meadow Vole Bone Elliot Lake area
52.3 (ave)pCi/g ash
Cloutier et al. -1985
Spottail shiners
Saskatchewan
70 (max) pCi/g?
-
Swanson 1983
Otters eat fish, clams, crayfish, some birds and small mammals. Typically eat slower, benthic feeding fish which according to
Swanson have higher levels of radium.
“Clams and other benthic invertebrates have also been shown to accumulate significant levels of radionuclides (MOE 1978).
Therefore, wildlife species such as otters, mink, and racoons, feeding on benthiô aquatic organisms near tailing sites are
potentially exposed to relatively high dietary Ra-226 levels.’
-
Exhibit 2
U.S. Department of Energy
ORDER
Washington, D.C.
SUBJECT: GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM
4.
REFERENCES.
d.
DOE Orders.
Vertical line denotes change.
DISTRIBUTION:
All Departmental Elements
DOE 5400.1
11-9-88
Chg 1: 6-29-90
PURPOSE. To establish environmental protection program requirements,
authorities, and responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE)
operations for assuring compliance with applicable Federal, State and
local environmental protection laws and regulations, Executive orders,
and internal Department policies. The Order more specifically defines
environmental protection requirements that are generally established in
DOE 5480. lB.
2.
SUPERSESS ION. DOE 548O.1A, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR DOE OPERATIONS, of 8-13-81,. Chapter XII,
Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution.
3.
SCOPE. The provisions of this Order apply to all Departmental elements
and contractors performing work for the Department as provided by law
and/or contract as implemented by the appropriate contracting officer.
(1) DOE 4300,1B, REAL PROPERTY AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, of
7-1-87, which establishes requirements for preparing site
development pIan~for DOE facilities.
(2) DOE 4700,1, PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, of 3-6-87, which
establishes requirements and objectives, and assigns
responsibilities and authorities necessary for acquisition
of major systems.
(3) DOE 5000.3A, OCCURRENCE REPORTING AND PROCESSING OF
OPERATIONS INFORMATION, of 5-30-90, which establishes a DOE
system for identification, categorization, notification,
analysis, reporting, fol lowup, and closeout of occurrences.
(4) DOE 5400.2A, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ISSUE COORDINATION, of
1-31-89, which sets forth policy, direction, and procedures
for coordinating environmental issues that are of
significance to DOE.
(5) DOE Orders in the 5400 series dealing with radiation
protection of the public and the environment.
INITIATED BY:
Assistant Secretary for Environment,
Safety, and Health
2
DOE 5400.1 Chg 1
-
6-29-90
(6) DOE 5440. 1C, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, of 4-9-85,
which establishes DOE policy for implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(7) DOE 548O.1B, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPERATIONS, of 9-23-86, which outlines
environmental protection, safety, and health protection
policies and responsibilities.
(8) DOE 5482.1B, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH APPRAISAL
PROGRAM, of 9-23-86, which establishes the DOE environmental
protection, safety, and health protection appraisal program.
(9)
DOE 5484.1, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
PROTECTION INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, of 2-24-81,
which establishes the requirements and prOcedures for
reporting and investigating matters of environmental
protection, safety, and health protection significance to
DOE operations.
-
(10) DOE 5500. 1A, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, of 2-26-87, which
establishes overall policies and requirements for DOE
emergency preparedness and response programs.
(11) DOE 5700.6B, QUALITY ASSURANCE, of 9-23-86, which
establishes DOE’s quality assurance program,
(12) DOE 582O.2A, RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT of 9-26-88 which
establishes policies and guidelines for the management of
‘
radioactive waste and contaminated facilities
(13) DOE 6430.1A, GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA, of 4-6-89, which
provides
general design criteria for use in acquisition of
DOE
facilities.
b.
Legislation.
(1) Title 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.. The Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, which authorizes the conduct of atomic
energy activities.
(2) Title 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq:, The Department of Energy
Organization Act, which establishes the statutory
responsibility
to ensure incorporation
of’
iiational
-
environmental protection goals in the formulation of energy
programs, and advance the goal of restoring, protection, and
enhancing environmental quality, and assuring public health
and safety.
-
Vertical line denotes change.
-
Exhibit 3
U.S. Department of Energy
ORDER
Washington,
D.C.
-
SUBJECT: RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND
THE ENVIRONMENT
1,
-
PURPOSE.
Depa rtment
members of
6. OBJECTIVES.
DISTRIBUTION:
All Departmental Elements
INITIATED BY:
_
DOE 5400.5
2-8-90
Change 2: 1-7-93
_______
To establish standards and requirements for operations of the
of Energy (DOE) and DOE contractors with respect to protection of
the public and the environment against undue risk from radiation.
2, SUPERSESSION. DOE 5480.1A, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
PROGRAM FOR DOE OPERATIONS, of 8-13-81, Chapter XI that addressed public and
environmental radiation protection standards and control practices.
3. SCOPE. The provisions of this Order apply to all Departmental Elements and
contractors performing work for the Department as provided by law and/or
contract and as implemented by the appropriate contracting officer.
4. IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES AND REOUIREMENTS. This Order becomes effective
5-8-90. Within 2 months from the date of issuance of the Order (2-8-90),
the DOE Field Office Manager shall provide to the appropriate Program Office,
with a copy to EH-1 for review and comment: a. a certification for those
areas covered by the Order for which field elements are in compliance; and/or
b. a request for exemption for areas not yet in compliance that includes a
Plan for achieving compliance. Within 3 months of issuance, the appropriate
Program Office will submit to I-I-i the certification and/or the request for
exemption(s). The compliance plan accompanying the request for exemption shall
include schedules of-activities which will lead to compliance with the
requirements of this Order.
5. POLICY. It is the policy of DOE to implement legally applicable radiation
protection standards and to consider and adopt, as appropriate,
recommendations by authoritative organizations, e.g., the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission
on Radiological Protection (ICRP). It is also the policy of DOE to adopt and
implement standards generally consistent with those of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) for DOE facilities and activities not subject to licensing
authority.
a. Protecting the Public. It is DOE’s objective to operate its facilities
and conduct its activities so that radiation exposures to members of the
public are maintained within the limits -established in this Order and to
control radioactive contamination through the management of real and
personal property. It is also a DOE objective that potential exposures
to members of the public be as far below the limits as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) and that DOE facilities have the capabilities, con-
sistent with the types of operations conducted, to monitor routine and
-
non-routine releases and to assess doses to members of the public.
Office of Environment, Safety
Vertical line denotes change.
and Health
2
-
DOE 5400.5 Chg 2
-
1-7-93
b. Protecting_the Environment. In addition to providing protection to
members of the public, it is DOE’S objective to protect- the environment
from radioactive contamination to the extent practical
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
authorizes the Department to protect the health and safety of the public
against radiation in conducting the Department’s programs.
8. REFERENCES.
a. DOE 1324.2A, RECORDS DISPOSITION, of 9-13-88, which prescribes
policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines for the orderly
disposition of records of the DOE and its operating contractors.
b. DOE 5000.3B, OCCURRENCE REPORTING AND PROCESSING OF OPERATIONS
INFORMATION, of 1-19-93, which establishes a system for reporting
operations information related to DOE-owned or operated facilities and
processing of the information.
c. DOE 5400.1, GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS-, of
11-9-88, whichestablishes general environmental protection
requirements.
d. DOE 5400.2A, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ISSUE COORDINATION, of 1-31-89,
which establishes requirements for coordination of significant
environmental compliance issues.
e. DOE 5400.4, COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND
-
LIABILITY ACT PROGRAM, of 10-6-89, which establishes requirements for
hazardous waste cleanup and notification.
f. DOE 5440.1E, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, of
11-10-92, which establishes DOE policy for implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
g.
DOE 548O.1B, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROGRAM FOR DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY OPERATIONS, of 9-23-86, which outlines environmental, safety, and
health protection policies and responsibilities.
h. DOE 5480.4, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION
STANDARDS, of 5-15-84., which identifies mandatory and reference
environmental, safety, and health standards.
i. DOE 5480.5, SAFETY OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, of 9-23-86, which establishes
nuclear facility safety program requirements.
j.
DOE 5480.6, SAFETY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-OWNED NUCLEAR REACTORS, of
9-23-86, which establishes nuclear reactor safety program requirements.
Vertical line denotes change.
11-8
-
DOE 5400.5 Chg 2
1-7-93
(2) Discharge at Less Than DCG Level.
Implementation of the BAT -process for
liquid radioactive wastes is not required where radionuclides are already
at a low level, i.e., the annual average concentration is less than DCG
level. In that case, the cost consideration component of BAT analysis
precludes the need for additional treatment, since any additional
treatment would be unjustifiable on a cost-benefit basis. Therefore;
additional treatment will not be requ-ired for waste streams that contain
radionuclide concentrations of not more than the DCG values in Chapter
III at the point of discharge to a surface waterway. However, the ALARA
provisions are applicable.
(3) Multiple Radionuclides. For purposes of II.3a(1), above, the DCG for
liquid waste streams containing more than one type of radionuclide shall
be
the sum of the fractional DCG values.
(4) Sedimentation.
To prevent the buildup of radi onucl ide concentrations in
sediments, liquid process waste streams containing radioactive material
in the form of
settleable solids may be released to natural waterways if
the concentration of radioactive material in the solids present in the
waste stream does not exceed 5 pCi (0.2 Bq) per gram above background
level, of settleable solids for alpha-emitting radionuclides or 50 pCi
(2 Bq) per gram above background level, of settleable solids for beta-
gamma-emitting radionucl ides.
-
- -
(5) Interim Dose Limit for Native Aquatic Animal Organisms. To protect
native animal aquatic organisms, the absorbed dose to these organisms
shall not exceed 1 rad per day from exposure to the radioactive material
in liquid wastes discharged to natural waterways. DOE publication
DOE/EH-O173T provides guidance on monitoring and calculating dose for
aquatic organisms.
-
(6)
-
New Facilities. New facilities shall be designed and constructed to meet
the discharge requirements shown in paragraph II.3a.
b. Discharges of Liquid Waste to Aquifers and Phaseout of Soil Columns.
(1) Phasing Out the Use of Soil Columns. The use of soil columns (i.e.,
trenches, cribs, ponds, and drain fields) to retain, by sorption or ion
exchange, suspended or dissolved radionuclides from liquid waste streams
shall be discontinued at the earliest practicable time in favor of an
acceptable alternative disposal means. DOE activities that currently
discharge liquids containing radioactive materials not first treated by
BAT to soil columns, shall develop, within 6 months of the issuance date
of this Order, a plan and schedule for implementing alternate acceptable
disposal at the earliest practicable time. The BAT selection process
shall be applied to those liquid waste streams that will continue to be
discharged to soil columns for indefinite periods and which contain
process-derived radionuclides. The plan shall be submitted for approval
Vertical line denotes change.
Exhibit 4
ES/ER/TM—78
Methodology for Estimating
Radiation Dose Rates
to Freshwater Biota
Exposed to Radionuclides
in the Environment
B. G. Blaylock
M. L. Frank
B.. R. O’Neal
ES/ER/TM-78
Methodology for Estimating
Radiation Dose Rates
to Freshwater Biota
Exposed to Radionudides
in the Environment
B. G. Blaylock
M. L. Frank
B. R. O’Neal
-
Date Issued—September 1993
Prepared forthe
-
U.S. Department of Energy
Office ofEnvironmental Management
under budget and reporting code EW 20
LOCKHEEDMARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
managing the
Environmental Management Activities at the
Oak Ridge K-25 Site Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
OakRidge National Laboratory
under contract
-
DE-ACO5-84OR21400for
the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CONTENTS
-
-
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vii
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
APPROACH
1
3. EFFECTS
OF
RADIATION ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS
2
4. RADIATION DOSE
TO BIOTA
2
4.1
U-radiation
3
4.2
U-radiation
5
4.3
U-radiation
6
5.
DOSE RATE CALCULATIONS
FOR FISH EGGS
7
6. DOSE
CALCULATIONS AND EFFECTS
9
Appendix
A
A-i
Appendix B
B-i
V
EXECUTWE
SUMMARY
- -
The purpose of this report is to present a methodology for evaluating the potential for
aquatic biota to incur effects from exposure to chronic low-level radiation in the
environment. Aquatic organisms inhabiting an environment contaminated with radioactivity
receive external radiation from radionuclides in water, sediment, and from other biota such
as vegetation. Aquatic organisms receive internal radiation from radionuclides ingested via
food and water and, in some cases, from radionuclides absorbed through the skin and
respiratory organs. Dose rate equations, which have been developed previously, are
presented for estimating the radiation dose rate to representative aquatic organisms from
alpha, beta, and gamma irradiation from external and internal sources. Tables containing
parameter values for calculating radiation doses from selected alpha, beta, and gamma
-
emitters are presented in the appendix to facilitate dose rate calculations.
The risk of detrimental effects to aquatic biota from radiation exposure is evaluated by
comparing the calculated radiation dose rate to biota to the U.S. Department of Energy’s
(DOE’s) recommended dose rate limit of 0.4 mGy h’ (1 rad d4). A dose rate no greater than
0.4 mGy h’ to the most sensitive organisms should ensure the protection of populati:ons of
aquatic organisms. DOE’s recommended dose rate is based on a number of published-reviews
on
the effects of radiation on aquatic organisms that are summarized in the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 109 (NCRP 1991). The literature
identifies the developing eggs and young of some species of teleost fish as the most
radiosensitive organisms. DOE recommends that if the results of radiological models or
dosimetric measurements indicate that a radiation dose rate of 0.1 mGy h’ will be exceeded,
then amore detailed evaluation ofthe potential ecological consequences ofradiation exposure
to endemic populations should be conducted.
Dose rates have been calculated for biota in aquatic ecosystems associated with three
national laboratories and one uranium mining andmilling facility (NCRP 1991). At all sites,
the dose rates were two orders ofmagnitude less than the value recommended by DOE for
the protection ofpopulations of aquatic biota. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that aquatic
-
organisms will encounter dose rates in aquatic ecosystems that will be detrimental at the
population level other than in man-made bodies ofwater associated with waste management
-
activities or from accidental releases of radionuclides.
-
VII
1. INTRODUCTION
-
Sources of radioactivity in the aquatic enviromnent include naturally occurring
radionuclides, fallout from the atmospheric, runoff from watersheds that have received
atmospheric deposition, and radioactive effluents from medical, industrial, and nuclear
facilities released either accidentally or routinely. Depending upon the element and the
chemical form, radionuclides may accumulate in bottom sediment or remain in the water
column in the dissolved state. From either location, they can subsequently accumulate in
biota andbe transferredthrough the aquatic food chain. Contamination of the environment
by radionuclides inevitably results in an increase in the radiation exposure of natural
populations of organisms that occupy the contaminated area. Aquatic organisms receive
external radiation exposure from radionuclides in water, sediment, and from other biota such
as vegetation. They also receive internal radiation exposure from radionuclides ingested via
food and water and from radionuclides absorbed through the skin and respiratory organs.
Generally, the discharge ofradioactive waste into the environment is such that it results
in only long-term, low-dose-rate exposure of organisms. In most cases, acute mortality can
be discounted. The very small increase in morbidity and mortality that is contributed by an
increased exposure to chronic irradiation is unlikely to be detectable because-ofthe natural
fluctuations in the sizes of populations of organisms in the aquatic environment. The
purpose of this report is to present a methodology for evaluating the ecological risk to
aquatic organisms that are exposed to anthropogenic radionuclides released into the
environment.
-
-
2.
APPROACH
Ecological risk to aquatic organisms exposed to radiation from anthropogenic
radionuclides in the environment will be assessed by 1) calculating the dose to the organism
and 2) comparing that dose to levels of radiation below which no detectable effects have
been observed. Special consideration will be given to effects on reproductive parameters
such as fecundity and embryo viability which would be the most likely to be adversely
affected by exposure to radiation.
-
Although most radiation
-
effect studies have evaluated effects at the organism level,
assessments of ecological risk are usually concerned with the viability and success of
populations. Unlike the case for humans in which malignancies and genetic abnormalities
can be a personal catastrophe, there usually is not a similar concern about the survival of
individual organisms in nature. An exception exists for threatened or endangered species
or species with low fecundity (typically uticommon in freshwater ecosystems), where the
survival of an individual could influence the success of the population. In most cases, the
potential for over-reproduction of aquatic organisms is large and most individuals either
become part of the natural food chain to be consumed by other organisms or starve.
Therefore, for aquatic organisms there is little concern about small increases in the
frequency ofmalignancies or genetic abnormalities because the weakest individuals are
usually eliminated first in the natural selection process.
-
1
2
3. EFFECTS OF RADIATION ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS
A largebody ofliterature exists on the effects of radiation on aquatic organisms and has
been reviewed extensively by a number ofauthors (IAEA 1976; Blaylock and Trabalka
1978; NRCC 1983; Egami and Ijiri 1979; Woodhead 1984; Anderson and Harrison 1986;
NCRP 1991). The general consensus of the reviewers is that the most sensitive aquatic
organisms known are teleost fish, particularly the developing eggs and young of some
species. Additionally, the reviewers point out that most radiation effects studies have been
-
conducted using acute exposures of radiation and less than 10 of the studies involved
chronic or continuous irradiation. Because most environmental exposures are long-term,
low-dose-rate exposures, data from chronic irradiation effect studies on the life cycle of
organisms are the most useful in assessing the ecological risk to biota~
-
One approach that is used in assessingthe risk of adverse ecological effects is to select
indicator species of organisms for study. Indicator species are usually biologically
significant- organisms and are representative of
-
the particular environment under
investigation. An assessment of the environment will usually allow the identification of a
few critical species of organisms for which dose estimates should be made. These species
should provide adequate data for an assessment of effects from the radiation exposure to the
community.
-
-
-
4.
RADIATION
DOSE TO BIOTA
-
-
-
Three approaches have been employed for calculating radiation doses to aquatic biota.
Results of using these three approaches were evaluated by Woodhead (NCRP 1991).
CRITR, a set of models and associated computer codes, was developed by Soldat et al.
(1974) and recently revised by Baker and Soldat (1992) for application to discharges of
effluents into surface waters.
A simplified means was provided for calculating the
concentrations of radionuclides in water, sediment, and two groups of organisms using a
restricted number of parameters relating to the discharge source and the receiving water
body.
-
A second approach involved two models, EXREM III and BIORAD (Trubey and Kaye
1973), which were developed from the starting point of a unit concentration of a
radionuclide in water from which the concentration in an organism is determined by the
application of a concentration factor. No means are given forestimating the concentration
of a radionuclide in sediment or determining the exposure from contaminated sediment
which may be significant.
Athird approach,- “Point Source Dose Distribution” (IAEA 1976, 1979), is advantageous
in that it can be applied to any combination of radiation sources and target geometries. For
any extended (nonpoint) source of ionizing radiation, the dose rate at a specified point can
be obtained by the integration of an appropriate point source dose function over the source
geometry. Although it is possible to derive theoretical expressionsfrom first principles, these
calculations are frequently complex due to the multiplicity of absorption and scattering
phenomena which must be considered. For ease of computation, simple empirical
expressions have been described for calculating doses to aquatic biota (IAEA 1976, 1979).
3
Several factors makes estimating the radiation dose to an organism difficult. Different
radionuclides are differentially distributed among the organs and tissues of an organism,
affecting the radiation dose that sensitive organs and tissues receive. In addition, the relative
significance of internal and external sources of radiation to an organism can be markedly
altered by the size and behavior of the organism.
Radiation exposure models have beendeveloped that incorporate parameters accounting
for differences in the size and shape of an organism. The “Point Source Dose Distribution”
methodology provides ameans for calculating the radiation dose to different size categories
of aquatic organisms using simplified equations. Measurements used to represent different
size categories for a select group of aquatic organisms are given in Table 1.
Table
1. Dimensions
oforganisms representing different
size
categories used in
the Point Source Dose Distribution
methodology
for
estimating radiation doses
Organism
Mass
(kg)
Length of the major
-
axes of the ellipsoid
(cm)
Small insects
and larvae
1.6 x 10~
0.62 x 0.31 x.0.16
Large insects
andmolluscs
1.Ox 10’
2.5x l.2x 0.62
Small fish
2.0 x 10’
3.1 x 1.6 x 0.78
Large fish
1.0
45 x 8.7 x 4.9
4.1
U-radiation
For large organisms with dimensions greater than a few cm, energy absorption and
scatteringbecome significant; therefore, a factor must be applied to account for these
processes. Monte Carlo calculations have been made to include absorption and scattering
for a number of geometries, andthese calculations can be adapted for aquatic organisms
(Brownell et al. 1968, Ellett and Humes 1971). The results are given in terms of the
absorbed fraction which, is defmed as:
-
- -
=
photon energy absorbed by target
photon energy emitted by source
4
Absorbed fractions (U) which have been derived for the biota listed in Table 1 as a
function of U-ray energies (ICRP 1991) are given in Figures A.1 through A.3.
The U-radiation dose rate from internal contamination is expressed as:
D~
=
5.76x10~E~n~
U C0
jiGyIi’
(1)
where
E~
is the photon energy emitted during transition from a higher to a lower energy
state (MeV)
-
-
n~
is the proportion of disintegrations producing aU-ray
U
is the absorbed fraction from Figures A. 1 through A.3 of energy E~(MeY)
(dimensionless)
C0
is the concentration of the radionuclide in the organism
(Bq kg’ wet weight)
-
If a U-emitter produces photons of different energy levels, the doses from all major
U -emissions should be included in the dose rate calculation.
It follows that the U-radiation dose rate to the organism from radionuclides in water
away from the sediment is
D0= 5.76 x 10~E~n~(1-U)C~
~tGyh’
(2)
where
C~
is the concentration of the radionuclide in water (Bq L1)
The U -radiation dose rate to organisms atthe sediment-waterinterface from a
uniformly contaminated sediment is
D0= 2.88 x 10~E~n~(1-L)C~R
-~Gyh’
(3)
where
C~
is the concentration of the radionuclide in sediment (Bq kg-’ wet weight). A
generic value of 0.75 can be used for converting sediment from dry weight to
wet weight.
R
is the fraction of time that the organism spends at the
sediment-water interface.
Because of deposition and resuspension of sediment, decay of the radioisotope, and
the variability in the rate at which aradionuclide may be released into a aquatic system,
sediment rarely presents a uniform, semi-infmite source of U-radiation. Therefore, in
most cases, equation (3) will over estimate the dose to biota at the sediment-surface water
interface. In those cases where detailed information is not available, 0.5 times the D~in
equation (3) can be used to account for the unequal distribution of radionuclides in the
sediment (IAEA 1976, Woodhead 1984).
5
Table A. 1 contains the average energyper transformation for a selected group of
gamma emitters. These values were taken from ICRP Report 38 (1983) and can be used
in place of E~and n~in the preceding equations to calculate the total U -radiation dose rate
in one step. Examples illustrating the calculation of U-radiation dose rates are given in
Appendix B.
-
4.2
U-radiation
The point source U-dose function (NCRP 1991, Woodhead 1979) was integrated over
the geometries given in Table 1, assuming a uniform distribution of the radionuclide in
the organism, to obtain the dose rate at the center of the organism as a fraction of the
total U-dose rate. The results are shown in Fig. A.4 as a function ofmaximum U-particle
energy forthe three small geometries. For large fish and turtles, the internal U-dose rate
is independent of the U-particle energy; therefore,
D~5.76x10.4U0n1jC0
~iGyh’
(4)
-
The internal U-radiation dose rate for the three small geometries is given by the
following equation
-
D~
=
5.76x 10~U~n~U C0
jtGyh’
-
(5)
where
-
U ~
is the average energy of the U-particle (MeV)
nu
is the proportion of transitions producing aU-particle of energy E~(MeV)
(dimensionless)
U
is the absorbed fraction from Fig. A.4
C0
is the concentration of the radionuclide in the organism (Bq kg-’ wet weight)
It is assumed that U-radiation from water contributes -a negligible amount to the
internal dose rate of large fish and turtles.
-
The external U-dose rate from water for the
smaller organisms described in Table 1 is
=
5.76 x l0~Uuna(1-U)
C,,
jiGyh’.
-
(6)
where
C,,
is the concentration of the radionuclide in water (Bq L’)
The external U-dose rate from sediment for organisms represented by the three small
-
geometries that are in contact with the sediment surface is
j2.88x10~Uunu(l-U)C.R
jiGylr’.
(7)
where
C~
is the concentration of the radionuclide in sediment (Bq kg-’ wet weight). A
generic value of 0.75 can be used for
converting sediment from dry weight to wet weight.
R
is the fraction of time that the organism spends atthe
sediment-water interface.
-
6
Some aquatic organisms may be surrounded by sediment during certain life stages
and, in such cases, 5.76 x 10~instead of 2.88 x lO4would be the appropriate unit
conversion factor.
-
Beta emitters that decay by alternative transitions produce an energy spectrum for
each mode of transition. The dose rates from the major spectra must be included when
calculating the total U-dose rate to an organism. Table A. 1 contains a list ofthe
maximum and average energies of selected U-emitters based on U-particles, conversion
electrons, and Augerradiations. These values were obtained from ICRP Report 38
(1983). Examples demonstrating the use ofthe data in Table A. 1 to calculate U-dose
rates are given in Appendix B.
4.3
U -radiation
For organisms of the sizes represented in -Table 1, the internal dose rate from
U -radiation closely approaches the dose rate from an infinite source because essentially
all the energy from U-particles is absorbed within the organism. The internal dose rate
from U -radiation is calculated as follows:
D0= 5.76 x 10~Eunu C0
jiGy h’
(8)
-
where
E~
is the energy of the U -particle (MeV)
n~
is the proportion of transitions producing an U -particle of energyE0(MeV)
(dimensionless)
C0
is the concentration of the radionuclide in the organism
(Bq kg-’ wet weight)
If U-particles of more than one energy level are produced during the decay of a
radioisotope, the dose rate from all transitions are summed to obtain the total a-dose rate.
It is assumed that external U-radiation from water and sediment is insignificant for
organisms of the sizes shown in Table 1.
-
Table A.2 gives the average U-energies for selected U-emitters including those in
naturally occurring U-decay chains. The average energy of U- and U-emissions produced
by the- U-decay are also given. Examples illustrating the calculation of dose rates for
a-emitters are presented in Appendix B.
The dose rates in this report are expressed in units of absorbed dose (~iGy);however,
different types of radiations differ in their relative biological effectiveness per unit of
absorbed dose. A quality factor,
Q,
is normally used to account for the difference in
biological effectiveness ofthe different radiations (NCRP 1987). Quality factors have
been derived from data on humans and are intended to be used only for low doses, not
high doses that might result from anuclear accident. A quality factor of 1 is used for x-,
U-, and U-radiation and 20 for U-radiation. Therefore, to equate the relative biological
effectiveness ofthe dose rate from U-radiation in jiGy to the rate from U- and U-
7
radiations, the U-dose rate should be multiplied by 20. In effect, the resulting dose rate
would be equivalent to microsieverts (jtSv), the dose equivalent unit used for humans.
5.
DOSE RATE
CALCULATIONS
FOR FISH EGGS
The calculation of aradiation dose to fish eggs/embryos exposed to radionuclides in
the environment is a complex procedure that requires answers to a number of questions.
These questions include: Is the radionuclide inside the egg or is it adsorbed to the outer
shell or chorion? If the radionuclide is inside the egg, is it uniformly distributed? What
is, the diameter of the egg? Where is the developing embryo located? Do the eggs float,
sink to the bottom, form clusters, adhere to, vegetation or other objects, etc.? How long is
the development period and does the radionuclide concentration change with time? If
answers to these questions are available, it is possible to use mathematical models for
different geometries andphysical conditions to calculate the radiation dose rate to fish
eggs/embryos (Adams 1968, Woodhead 1970, Ellett and Humes 1971, IAEA 1979).
However, for most purposes a conservative estimate ofthe radiation dose-rate-is-
sufficient. The following discussion presents a simplified approach for estimating the
dose rate to fish eggs/embryos from radionuclides in the environment.
U
-radiation to Fish
Eggs
Most fish eggs are only a few millin~etersin diameter; therefore, the radiation dose
rate from internal U -emitters would be insignificant (Ellett and Humes 1971, IAEA
1976). The external dose rate to an egg from U-emitters in the surrounding water would
be the average dose rate in an effectively infinite source (i.e., the dimensions of the
source are much greater than the attenuation length of the radiation). The unit density of
-
the fish eggs and the source (water) are assumed to be the same. The equation for the U-
dose rate from an infmite source is
Dg(U)5.76x10~Eu fl~C,,
pQyh” (9)
-
where
-
E0
is the photon energy emitted during transition from ahigher to a lower energy
-
state (MeV)
-
n~
is the proportion of disintegrations producing a U-ray of energy E~(MeV)
(dimensionless)
C,,
-
is the concentration of the radionuclide in water (Bq L’)
- -
Because the activity of most radionuclides in water is much lower than in biological
tissue andbecause eggs of most species of freshwater fish hatch in a few weeks or less, it
is unlikely that the radiation dose from U -emitters in the environment would have a
deleterious effect on fish eggs/embryos.
Fish eggs may receive external U-radiation from other sources such as sedimeht and
vegetation and a number of geometric factors would affect the dose rate. For most
radionuclides, the activity in the sediment is much higher than in the water, so that the
dose rate from the sediment will be higher than from the water. However, the dose rate
8
to fish eggs would depend upon the photon energy and their distance from the sediment
surface. Assuming that the sediment is a uniformly contaminated slab source of infmite
area and the eggs are lying on the sediment surface, the following equation can be used
to
estimate the U -dose rate to the eggs.
D0 (U)= 2.88 x 10~E0 n0 C,
~tGyh’
(10)
where
-
-
-
E0
is the photon energy emitted during transition from a higher to a lower energy
-
state (MeV)
nu
is the proportion of disintegrations producing aU -ray of energy E0 (MeY)
(dimensionless)
C,
is the concentration ofthe radionuclide in- sediment(Bq kg’ wet weight). A
generic value of 0.75 can be used for converting sediment from dry weight to
wet weight.
U-radiation to Fish Eggs
Equations for calculating the dose rate to fish eggs from internal U-emitters are
complex and beyond the scope of this report. By assuming that all the energy from
internal U-emitters is absorbed within the egg, the following equation can be used to
estimate the dose.
-
-
Do5.76x10~’UunuC0
jtGylr’
(11)
where
-
U0
is the average energy of the U-particle (Me\T)
n0
is the proportion of transitions producing a U-particle of energy U0 (MeV)
(dimensionless)
C0
is the concentration of the radionuclide in the organism-(Uq kg4wet- weight)
Results of equation (11) are approximately true for low-energy U-radiation; however,
as the U-particle energy increases, the extent of over estimation increases. If the
estimated dose rate indicates that harmful effects might occur, then a more accurate dose
rate should be detennined. Equations for calculating dose rates to fish eggs are available
in the literature (IAEA 1979, Adams 1968, and Woodhead 1970).
If the range of the U-radiation in the surrounding water exceeds the radius of the
eggs, then the -dose rate to the eggs from the water -is
-
-
-
Du5.76xl0~UunuC,,
~tGyh’
(12)
where
- -
U0
is the average energy of the U-particle (MeV)
n0
is the proportion of transitions producing a U-particle of energy ~(MeV)
(dimensionless)
C,,
is the concentration of the radionuclide in water (Bq L’)
-
9
Equation (12) can be used to estimate the U-dose rate from water in instances where
the range of the U-particle is less than the radius of the egg but the dose rate will be over
estimated. As mentioned above, if the estimated dose rate indicates harmful effects
might occur, then a more accurate estimate of the dose rate should be obtained.
-
Fish eggs can also receive U-radiation from contact with surfaces such as sediment or
vegetation. The dose rate will depend upon the thickness and density of the material as
well as the energy of the U-radiation. The following equation can be used to estimate to
dose to eggs that are in contact with sediment although in most situations it will over
estimate the dose rate.
-
Do”2.88x10~UonuC,R
~iGyh’.
(13)
-
where
-
-
C,
is the concentration of the radionuclide in sediment (Bq kg-’ wet weight). A
generic value of 0.75 can be used for converting sediment from dry weight to
wet weight
R
is the fraction of time that the organism spends at the sediment-water
interface.
U-radiation
to Fish
Eggs
Assuming that all the radiation from internal U-emitters remains within the egg and
that all external U-radiation is stopped by the chorion, a reasonable estimate of the dose
rate from U -emitters is given by
Do=5.76x104EonuC0
-
jiGyh’
(14)
where
E0
is the energy of the U-particle (MeV)
-
n0
is the proportion of transitions producing an U-particle of energy E~(MeV)
-
(dimensionless)
-
-
C0
is the concentration of the radionuclide in the organism-(Bq kg-’ wet weight)
6. DOSE CALCULATIONS AN) EFFECTS
The previously listed equations can be used to calculate adose rate to aquatic biota
for most situations. Bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish for selected
radioisotopes are included in Tables A. 1 and A~2.These factors can be used to estimate
the concentration- of a radioisotope in freshwater fish from the concentration in the
surrounding water. Information on the decay schemes of additional radioisotopes can be
obtained from ICRP 38 (ICRP 1983), Kocher (1981), and the Health Physics and
Radiological Health Handbook (Shleien et al. 1984). Equations for calculating dose rates
for other biota, such as fish eggs, phytoplankton, and zooplankton, can be found in IAEA
Technical Reports Series No. 172 (1976) and Series No. 190 (1979). After determining
-
10
-
the dose rate to an organism from each individual radioisotope in the environment, the
total dose rate to the organism is determined by summing the dose rates (in dose
equivalents) from all radioisotopes. The total dose rate can then be compared to
literature values for radiation effects on the same or closely related organisms. The most
appropriate values for comparison are those from chronic exposure studies conducted
over the life cycle of an organism; however, it is often necessary to extrapolate the results
of acute exposures to chronic exposures.
A number of reviews on the effects of radiation on aquatic organisms have been
published over the last three decades (Polikarpov 1966, Templeton et al. 1971, Chipman
1972, IAEA 1976, Blaylock and Trabalka- 1978, IAEA 1979, Egami 1980, NRCC 1983,
Woodhead
1984, Anderson and Harrison 1986, NCRP 1991, and IAEA 1992). These
reviews considered data from field and laboratory studies from both marine and
freshwater environments. More data have been collected on marine than on freshwater
species; however, where reasonable comparisons can be made, there is no evidence that
significance differences in radiosensitivity exists betweenmarine and freshwater
organisms. NCRP Report No. 109 (NCRP 1991) contains summary tables ofthe effects
-
of chronic irradiation on fish and invertebrates. Tables A.3 through A.6 are
modifications ofthe NCRP tables. For information on specific organisms not contained
in these tables, individual reviews can be consulted, for example, Woodhead (1984).
Methods for dose calculations for phytoplankton and zooplankton are not included in
this
document because these organisms are relatively resistant to irradiation exposure
(Table A.5) (Marshall 1962, 1966). From reviews of the literature (IAEA 1976;
Blaylock and Trabalka 1978; Woodhead 1984), detrimental effects on organisms of
higher trophic levels should be detected before populations of phytoplankton and
zooplankton are affected by exposure to radiation. Therefore, dose calculations for
organisms of higher trophic levels are emphasized in this report. The methodology for
calculating dose rates for phytoplankton and zooplankton is available in the IAEA
Technical Report 172(1976).
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) guideline for radiation dose rates from
environmental sources,- which recommends limiting the radiation dose to aquatic biota to
0.4 mGy h-’ (1 rad day’), is based on results- ofpreviously cited reviews summarized in
NCRP Report No. 109 (NCRP 1991). The conclusion from these reviews is that at 0.4
mGy h-’, there is no evidence that deleterious effects have been expressed at the
population level for aquatic biota. Tables A.3 through A.5 contain summaries from the
literature reviewed in NCRP Report No. 109 on reproductive effects in fish exposed to
-
chronic irradiation. In these chronic irradiation studies, effects were not detected unless
the
dose rates were much greater than 0.4 mGy h-’. However, populations may be at risk
from other factors, such as over exploitation or other environmental stresses, which
might in combination with radiation have an undesirable impact. Therefore, it is
desirable to conduct a comprehensive ecological evaluation ofthe radiation exposure
regime in combination with other environmental factors in order -to assess the potential
for radiation contributing to effects at the population level. It is recommended (NCRP
1991)
that where the results ofradiological models or dosimetric measurements indicate
11
a dose rate of 0.1 mGy h-’ or more to aquatic biota, a more detailed evaluation of the
ecological consequences to the endemic biota should be conducted.
According to the radiation effects literature, the most radiosensitive aquatic
organisms are the developing eggs and young ofsome species ofteleost fish. With few
exceptions, the developmental period for freshwater fish eggs is relatively short but it can
range from 3 days for the common carp
Cyprinous carpio
to more than 70 days for some
salmonidae species. For this reason, the accumulated radiation dose to fish eggs from
-
-
chronic enviromnental radiation should be relatively small. It is highly unlikely that dose
rates in natural aquatic ecosystems that receive routine releases of radioactive effluents
would produce effects on developing eggs and young of fish that would influence the
success of the population. Exceptions to this premise could occur as a result of
accidental releases of unacceptable levels of radioactive effluents -or in man-made waste
disposal ponds where high concentrations of radionucides maybe present.
In NCRP Report No. 109 (NCRP 1991), dose rates to aquatic organisms were
calculated for three DOE-operated sites and one site in Canada: Gable Mountain Pond,
Hanford Plant, Washington; White Oak Lake, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Tennessee; Savannah River Plant, South Carolina; and Beaverlodge Uranium Mining
Area, Saskatchewan, Canada. The estimated whole-body doses received by aquatic
organisms at these sites were more than two orders ofmagnitude below the proposed
standard of0.4 mGy h’. However, a few dose rates approached 0.1 mGy h’, which
might in combination with environmental stresses have an undesirable impact. The
highest dose rates occurred in man-made ponds associated with waste management
activities and these ponds have no direct connection with natural bodies of water.
Remedial actions have been implemented atthese sites. Therefore, it is highly unlikely
that environmental situations will be encountered where-the-risk from radiation exposure
from releases of radioactive waste to the environment would produce detrimental effects
on aquatic organisms at the-population level.
-
The methodology for calculating conservative (upper-limit) radiation dose rates
provided in this document can be used to estimate dose rates to biota inhabiting aquatic
environments contaminated with radionuclides. If the dose rate to aquatic organisms is
less than the DOE’s recommended level of 0.4 mGy h-’ (1 rad day’), there should be no
detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the population level, i.e., there should be
no quantifiable risk to the biota. If estimated dose rates exceed 0.1 mGy h-’, then studies
should be implemented to determine whether effects can be detected at the individual
and/or population level forbiota inhabiting the environment.
Exhibit
5
~OIS
ENDANGERED AND TH~ATENEDSPECIES
Exhibit 6
Species
Profile: River Otter—
Page 1
River Otter
Lontra canadensis
(formerly
Lutra
canadensis)
DESCRIPTION
The river otter is a large, aquatically-adapted
member of the weasel family. This shy and
secretive animal is a strong and graceful swimmer,
with an ability to dive to depths of about 60 ft.
Like other members of its family,- the river otter
has a long body, short legs, and a long neck. The
head is broad and flattened and its muscular,
tapering tail typically equals about one third of its
total body length. The pelage is dark brown above
-
and lighter below. The lips cheeks, chin, and
throat also are a lighter brown (Whitaker and
Hamilton 1998).
BODY
SIZE
-
River otters display sexual dimorphism in body
size, with adult males reported to be about 17
heavier and significantly longer than adult
females. Average measurements of four
-
adult
males from Idaho (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998)
were: total length 117.7 cm (range
=
115.0
—
120.1, SE 1.05); tail 46.3 cm (range
=
44.5
—
47.9,
SE 0.77); and hind foot 13.3 cm (range
=
12.8
—
13.7, SE 0.19). Six adult females from the same
study
area
had
the
following
average
measurements: total length 111.1 cm (range
=
107
—
113.2, SE 0.91); tail length 43.7 cm (range
=
42.4— 45.2, SE 0.37); and hind foot 12.7 cm (11.9
—
13.4, SE .26)..
The adult males in the Idaho study area had an
average body weight of9.2 kg (range
=
8.0
—
11.0,
SE
=
0.6), while the body weight of adult females
averaged 7.9 kg (range
=
7.5
—
8.0, SE
=
0.2).
These measurements fall within the ranges ofriver
otters from the eastern U.S. as reported by
Whitaker and Hamilton (1998). Interestingly, the
weight of adult females may decrease after they
reach four years of age (Stephenson 1977 as cited
in Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
DISTRIBUTION
The current range of the river otter in North
America is shown in Figure 1 (from Whitaker and
Figure
1.
Range of the river otter in North America
Hamilton
1998). Historically, the river otter
occurred throughout much ofthe U.S. and Canada
excluding the drier Southwestern states and the
northern tundra of Alaska and Canada (Meiquist
and Hornocker 1983).
Beginning in the l~’
century or earlier, river otter numbers and
distribution declined significantly (Organ 1989). A
1976 study suggested that river otter were believed
to be present in 44 states and 11 Canadian
provinces and territories (Deems and Pursley 1978,
as
-
cited in Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
Whitaker and Hamilton (1998), however, indicate
that habitat loss, over-harvesting, and pollution
-
Species Profile: River Otter
Page 2
have reduced the otter’s range to a third of its
original distribution and caused its extirpation
from portions of the mid-Atlantic and central U.S.
Recent protection and re-introduction efforts in
Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania have
allowed the species to make a comeback in those
areas. In 1977, the river otter was included
it
Appendix II of the
Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
(CITES), which limited trade of otter pelts.
Some states have prohibited harvesting ofthe river
otter to provide additional protection for this
species (Melquist and Homocker 1983).
MIGRATION
-
The river otter is non-migratory, but will travel
between different foraging locations throughout
the course of the year. In Idaho, conservative
estimates of average daily distance traveled by
offers (including family groups) rangedfrom 0.4 to
3.1 miles (Melquist and Hornocker 1983). During
dispersal and exploration of their home ranges,
river otters will travel much greater distances in a
single day (i.e., up to 26 miles).
HABITAT
River otters use both freshwater and brackish
habitats. They occur in lacustrine (i.e., lake) and
riverine waterbodies,.as well as their associated
wetland habitats (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).
Prey availability appears to be the primary factor
affecting habitat selection
(Melquist
and
Homocker 1983).
Also of importance is the
presence of adequate shelter and limited human
activity. Habitat use varies during the course of
the year based on accessibility and food
availability.
For example, mudflats and open
marshes in Idaho were often used during the
summer, but rarely during the winter when snow
and ice limited accessibility. In Florida, -river otter
will move from temporarily flooded marshes to
cypress swamps that include permanent ponds.
These swamps represent the little remaining
aquatic habitat for both the otter and fish, which
are the otter’s primary prey, during the driest part
ofthe year (Humphrey andZinn 1982).
select riverine and lacustrine systems, but will also
use estuaries, salt marshes, and most palustrine
wetlands. They may also be present in a variety of
forest cover types provided a waterbody is nearby
(DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). In coastal Maine,
river ottehi select habitat associated with beaver
flowages, which provided abundant food, stable
water levels, escape cover, and resting and dens
sites. These areas also are relatively free from
human disturbance. Habitat use by river otter in
Maine is positively correlated with the length ofthe
stream and the average shoreline diversity (e.g., the
amount of shallow habitat available for foraging).
River otters in coastal Maine avoid watersheds
within mixed hardwood-softwood communities,
which are typically less productive, headwater
streams (Dubuc
et a!.
1990).
In Massachusetts, river otters use a variety of
palustrine, riverine and lacustrine wetland systems
with no particular preference for any one
community type (Newman and Griffin 1994). In
Idaho, river otters use a variety of habitats
throughout the course of the year, including
mudflats, open marshes, forest streams, swamps
and backwater sloughs, large lakes and reservoirs,
and smaller ponds. Idaho river otters preferred
stream-associated habitats to lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds (Melquist andHornocker 1983).
-
Within any given habitat, river otters select
locations referred to as latrines, where they leave
the water to defecate, urinate, scent mark, and
groom (Newman and (Jriffm 1994).
Habitat
characteristics specifically associated with otter
latrines itclude the presence of rock formations,
backwater sloughs, fallen logs, vertical banks, large
conifers, points of land, beaver bank dens and
lodges, isthmuses, and the mouths of permanent
streams (Newman and Griffin 1994, Swimley
et a!.
1998).
River otters also have numerous den and resting
sites within their home range that they use over the
course of a year. These sites provide river otters
with protection as well as isolation (Melquist and
Homocker 1983). Den and resting sites may be
located in logjams, riparian vegetation, snow or ice
In New England, river otters will preferentially
cavities, rip-rap, talus rock, boulders, brush and log
Species Profile: River Otter
Page 3
piles, undercut banks, boat docks, abandoned dam
spillways, and dens constructed by other animals
(e.g., beaver, muskrat, woodchuck, fox, or coyote)
(Liers 1951, Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
Melquist and Hornocker (1983) found that river
otters used active and abandoned beaver bank dens
and
-
lodges more often- than any other den or
resting site, probably because they provide shelter
as well as underwater egress.
In the Primary Study Area:
-
River otter signs were
observed at only three locations in the primary
study area during the 1998, 1999, and 2000 field
surveys. Each of these observations was adjacent
to the main stem ofthe Housatonic River. One in
the northern portion of the study area was an
apparent latrine site at a section of the river bank
with a possible den site offering water access.
That site was located at the edge of a floodplain
forest. The second observation was in the central
portion of the study area, consisting of a scat
found at one of the study’s scent post stations
within a wet meadow at the river edge. The third
observation was also a scat, located in an open
shrub swamp near the river (refer to Figure 2
below). Table I contains a summary of the
literature review andobservational data on the use
by river otters of the natural community types
found within the primary study area.
HIBERNATION
River offers do not hibernate. They remain active
throughout the year and actually show an hcrease
in activity level during the
-
winter.
Although
activity levels generally increase during the winter,
travel may be restricted by snow and ice cover.
During much of the yeai river otters are primarily
nocturnal, with peak activity occurring around mid-
night and just before dawn. During the winter,
-however, river otters appear to be more diurnal
(Meiquist and Homocker 1983).
-
HOME
RANGE
AND TERRITORIALITY
Home range forthe river otter is often expressed in
linear measurements because they typically occur
along rivers and lake shores.
Melquist and
Hornocker (1983) reported home ranges from
5
—
50 linear miles for a population in Idaho. Area
home ranges have been estimated from 448
—
14,080 acres (0.7
—
22 sq. mi) (Melquist and
Dronkert 1987, as cited in DeGraaf and Yamasaki
2001). Male river otters typically occupy larger
home ranges than females (DeGraaf and Yamasaki
Wetland Habitats
Terrestrial Habitâf’
ROW
ROW&
SHO
PFO
PSS
PEM
WM VP
SW
MW
HW
OF AGR RES
.8
2
C
°~
E
o
~0
a)
~
--~-
~
E
~9
~
~
-s
C
ç~
~
...1
o
4~&
-
-~
~
.2
8
~
~
0
~-
•~
2
a)
~
~
-
~
~
i~
.~
~
-
?:
~-
~
~
a
~
E
-,
~
C~
-
-)~
~
ca~
~
~
5~
~
~
-~
~
~
~
(~
-~
mc~~
-~
.~
.~
i~
~
~
5-
~
a)
c
~8
~
I—
C
~-~—
~
-~
-8
~
~
a)
~
,
-~
0)
I
-
c~-
~
“
o
~
2
(1)
-w~
k
E
a)
~—
a)
~
~
a)
a)
0
-
~.
~i
E
u
~~
~)
~
a
~
~
Cl)
—
~
0
t
E
~
~.
a)
~
~---r~
~
8
~2-
~
-~
-o
5
00
~
t~
8
-~
~2
2
~
c
•L
~
~.)
2
-.-.
~
~
a)
(1)0
~
,
~
-°
~
o~
0
H
~...
-~
~
.c
~
~
0
-—
Z0
8
~
2
-!
~
~
c
.9
~
~.
3
~C
o
a)
cOo
~
~E
~
.8
~
a
~
~
Cf
i~
0
~.
cC
(C)
a)
~o
~
()
~5
~
.c
-9
Q~
-
~‘
~
(C)
i5
a
~2
~
0
.
5
~
C
~
~
.3
0)
2
.~
~
~
~
5
-~
a)
~
Table
1.
Habitat use by river otter in the primary study area
Habitat Codes and Natural Community Classifications
ROW = Riverine
Open Water
SHO = Shorelines
PFO = Palustrine Forested
PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
PEM = Palustrine Emergent
WM
=
Wet Meadow
PAB
= Palustrine
Aquatic Bed
VP = Vernal Pool
SW =
Softwood
Forests
MW = Mixed Forests
HW = Hardwood Forests
OF = Open Fields
AGR = Agricultural Croplands
RES = Residential
Season of Use
B
= Breeding
M = Migration
W = Wintering
Y = Year-round
Shading = observed in study area
SpeciesProfile: River Otter
Page 4
2001).
River offer display a high degree of
individual and seasonal variation in home range
size. Home range size in Idaho was somewhat
influenced by the age, sex, and social status (i.e.,
solitary versus family group), although no clear
association was evident. Adult female.s with pups
are generally restricted to the area around the natal
dens in the spring while pups are young.
Home ranges include activity centers, where a
river otter spends at least 10 of its time during a
given season. Activity centers are located in areas
with both an abundant prey base and sufficient
shelter (Melquist and Homocker 1983). Activity
centers vary during the course of the year with
changing prey availability, which may affect
seasonal home range size. For example, Melquist
and Hornocker (1983) found that individual home
range lengths typically increased during the winter
in their Idaho study area.
Other than family groups, otters are generally
solitary. They will, however, form temporary
associations that may consist of related or
unrelated individuals. Home ranges in this species
have been shown to overlap extensively, with
some offers sharing essentially the same home
range. Separation appears to occur at the activity
centers, with individuals or family groups using
different activity centers within the home range or
using the same activity centers, but at different
times throughout the day (Melquistand Hornocker
1983).
When a food source. is abundant and
concentrated, such as during a spawning run of
fish, river otters may use the same activity center
at the same time. River otters do not appear to
defend a defined area within their home range that
would represent a territory, but rather will defend
an area surrounding their immediate physical
location (Melquist and Hornocker 1983). Animals
using overlapping home ranges or activity centers
prevent confrontation through mutual avoidance.
BREEDING
River otters are polygamous; males mate with
more than one female during a breeding season.
River otters mate shortly -after the young are born.
Breeding in the northern part of the range occurs
between March and April with estrus beginning
soon after parturition and lasting 42 to 46 days
(Hamilton and. Eadie 1964, Melquist and
Hornocker 1983, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).
Implantation in this
-
species is delayed for
approximately 8 to
9.5
months. Implantation ofthe
embryo occurs approximately in February in New
York, earlier in the south (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). Gestation has been estimated to range from
11 to 12 months, with actual embryonic
development lasting 61 to 63 days
-
(Hamilton and
Eadie 1964; Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
Typically the young are born between February and
April, although the timing of birth varies with
geographic locatiort (range: November through
May). Litter sizes range from 1
—
6 pups, with an
average of 2 —3 pups (mean
=
2.6 based on embryo
counts) (Hamilton and Eadie 1964, Chilelli
et al.
1996).
Studies in Georgia and Alabama have
shown a
50
pregnancy rate in some areas,
suggesting that females may breed only every other
year there (Whitaker andHamilton 1998).
GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT
Pups weigh about 275 g at birth. They are fully
furred, but their eyes are closed and they are
toothless. Their eyes open when the pups are about
35
days old and pups are weaned at about five
months of age (Liers
1951,
Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). They forage with the nDther at about 10 to
11 weeks. Pups may remain with their motheruntil
they disperse at 12 to 13 months of age, usually in
the fall or winter. Juveniles do not reach adult
length until they are three to four years of age even
though they may breed at two years (Melquist and
Homocker 1983, Whitaker andHamilton 1998).
FOOD HABITS AND DIET
The river otter is a carnivorous and piscivorous
feeder that occupies an upper trophic level. Fish
typically represent the primary prey item in the
diet, with crayfish, amphibians, insects, birds,
reptiles, andmammals also consumed (Sheldon and
Toll 1964, Knudsen and Hale 1968, Toweill 1974,
Meiquist andHornocker 1983). In two studies, fish
remains were found in 92
—
100 of the analyzed
scat (Sheldon and Toil 1964, Meiquist and
Homocker 1983).
One study in Massachusetts
Species Profile: River
Otter
Page 5
found that offers also consume blueberries when
-
they are available (Sheldon andToll 1964).
The diet of the river otter varies during the course
of the year with changing prey availability. For
example, in areas where spawning runs of fish
occur, river otters will shift their hunting efforts to
these coticentrated prey items when they are
available (Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
Because prey availability also varies with
geographic location, the diet ofthe river otter does
differ throughout its range. Crayfish form an
important part of the river otter’s diet in much of
its range, but because crayfish do not occur in the
upper Payeffe River drainage in Idaho, they were
not present in the diet there (Melquist and
Homocker 1983). Analyses of stomach contents
indicate that some insects present in stomach were
the result of direct consumption by river otter,
whereas other insects were most likely the result
of secondary ingestion (i.e., insects initially
consumed by fish) (Toweill 1974, Melquist and
Hornocker 1983).
River otters consume a wide range of fish
including: Cyprinidae (minnows, carp, northern
squawfish), Centrarchidae (smallmouth bass and
sunfish), Percidae (yellow perch, darters),
Cyperinodontidae (killifish), Catostomidae (e.g.,
white sucker, largescale sucker), Ictaluridae
(bullheads, catfish), Salmonidae (salmon, trout,
whitefish, Arctic graying), Petromyzontidae
(lampreys), Gadidae (burbot), Cottidae (sculpins),
Gasterosteidae
(sticklebacks),
Umbridae
(mudminnows), and Esocidae (northern pike and
pickerel) (Hamilton 1961, Sheldon and Toll 1964,
Knudsen and Hale 1968, Toweill 1974, Gilbert
and Nancekivell 1982, Melquist
-
and Homockér
1983).
-
Prey selection by river offers seems to be
dependent upon the species most vulnerable to
predation, a
-
function of the
-
prey
-
species’
abundance, size,
-
and swimming
ability
(Melquist
and Hornocker 1983). In general, river offers
preferentially
-
prey upon slower-moving and
schooling species of fish, whih are easier to
catch, and focus their effort upon the more
prevalent and less agile species (Ryder 1955 as
cited in Toweill 1974, Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). Sheldon and Toll (1964) also reported that
habitat selection, time of day, fish spawning
periods, and environmental conditions such as ice
cover and water temperature may affect prey
selection by river otter. River otters consume fish
ranging in size from 2.0
—
50.0
cm. The length of
the three predominant prey species in an Idaho
study being greater than 30 cm long (Hamilton
1961, Melquist and Homocker 1983).
Other components of the river otter’s diet include:
crustaceans (crayfish, crabs, shrimp, pillbugs),
mollusks (clams, periwinldes, freshwater mussels),
amphibians (adult and larval frogs, salamanders,
-
newts),
reptiles
(turtles,
snakes),
insects
(Coleoptera, Plecoptera, Diptera, Neuroptera,
Tricoptera, Odonata), mammals
(Sorex fumeus,
Microtus pennsylvanicus, Clethrionomys gapperi,
-
Peromyscus maniculatis, Thoñonys talpoides,
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, Ondatra zibethicus,
Castor canadensis, Synaptomys borealis, Lepus
americanus, Odocoileus
sp.,
Zapus
sp.,
Mustela
vison),
and birds (Gaviformes, Anseriformes,
Ciconiformes, Gruiformes, Passeriformes, and
Charadiformes) (Liers
1951,
Hamilton 196-I,
Gilbert and Nancekivell
1982,
Melquist and
Hornocker 1983).
ENERGETICS
AND METABOLISM
Sample and Suter (1999) report the estimated food
ingestion rate for river otters to be 0.9 kg!d (fresh
weight of fish or aquatic prey) and the water
ingestion rate to be 0.64
L/d.
POPULATIONS AND DEMOGRAPHY
Population Densities: Population densities
have
been
reported from 1 offer
per
2.3 miles of
waterway
to 1-otter per 6
—
11 miles of waterway
(Melquist and Homocker 1983, Melquist and
Dronkert 1987 as cited in DeGraaf and Yamasaki
2001).
Age at Maturity and Life Span: Both males and
females reach
sexual
maturity by
two
years
of
age
although
males may not successfully breed until
they are much older (Liers 1951,. Meiquist and
Hornocker 1983).
Some studies indicate that
females actually may breed during their first year
Species Profile: River Otter
Page 6
based on the presence of corpora lutea within the
ovaries. Once reaching sexual maturity, females
are capable of producing one litter per year and
litter size may increase significantly with the age
ofthe female (Docktor
et al.
1987). The literature
provides little information on the life expectancy
of river otter in the wild, although Melquist and
Hornocker (1983) did report one female that was
10 years old.
Mortality: Trapping has historically been one of
the primary causes of mortality for the river otter.
Direct trapping of river otters still occurs in some
states, and some may be incidentally caught in
beaver traps (Melquist and Homocker 1983,
Chilelli
et al.
1996). In addition, -river otters may
be killed by hunters and in collisions with vehicles
and
watercrafl (Melquist and Hornocker 1983).
Because of their upper position in the food chain
- -
and their aquatic habits, river otter are susceptible
to environmental contaminants, including dioxin,
mercury, and polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
that are present in the lakes and rivers (Foley
eta!.
1988, Sloan and Brown 1988, Organ 1989, Sample
and Suter 1999). Though relatively little is known
about the specific effects of PCB contamination on
river
otter, PCBs have been found to impair
reproduction and cause death in the closely-related
mink (Platonow and Karstad 1973).
-
-
Organ
-
(1989) compared PCB and mercury
residues in river otters from 20 different
Massachusetts watersheds. While variability was
-
high in all watersheds, individuals from the
Housatonic River watershed had the highest mean
PCB residues.
He also found a correlation
between mercury residues in river otters and those
in whole-body fish from the same watershed, and
suggested that river otters could be used to assess
the general background levels on a watershed
basis. Mercury levels in adults were higher than
those in juveniles, implying bioaccumuiation over
the animal’s lifetime.
Studies in Europe also
report high levels of PCBs in river otters and
suggest that population declines there are due to
PCB accumulations in this species (Leonards
etal.
1991, Trans
et a!.
2001). One study of Eurasian
otters (Kruuk and Conroy 1996), however, found
no evidence that PCBs accumulated in otters with
age.
Enemies: Humans are probably the most important
enemy of the river otter, affecting this species
through direct (i.e., trapping) and indirect (habitat
• alteration, pollution) means. There appears to be
-
very little publishedinformation on natural enemies
of the river otter, although there are reports of
predation by coyotes
(Canis latrans)
and domestic
dogs (Melquist and Homocker 1983).
-
STATUS
-
General: In- New England, the river otter is
considered to be uncommon based on sightings and
trapping data, but may be more common than this
information suggests (DeGraaf and Yamasaki
2001). In some parts of Massachusetts, river otter
populations have increased to nuisance levels
(Whitaker andHamilton 1998).
-
-
In The Primary Study Area: Despite thousands of
person-hours of
field
surveys
in
the
study
area
in
all seasons from 1998 to 2000, river otter signs
(i.e., scat and tracks) were seen on only four
occasions in three locations within the study area
(Figure 2).
-
Interestingly, offer signs and a few
individuals were observed in nearbyreference areas
on many occasions, often with very little effort.
Reasons for the river otter’s conspicuous absence
from the primary study area are unknown.
REFERENCES
-
Chilelli, M., B. Griffith, and D.J. Harrison. 1996.
-
-
Interstate comparisons of river otter harvest data.
Wildife Society Bulletin 24(2):238-246.
Deems, E.F.J., and D. Pursley.- 1978. North American
furbearers: their management, research, and harvest
status in 1976. International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, College Park, MD, USA.
-
DeGraaf, R.M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England
Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution.
University Press ofNew England, Hanover, NH.
Docktor, C.M., R.T. Bowyer, and A.G. Clark. 1987.
Number of corpora lutea as related to age and
distribution of river otter in Maine. Journal of
Mammalogy
68(l):182-185.
Species Profile: River Otter
Page
7
Dubuc, L.J., W.B. Krohn, and R.B. Owen. 1990.
Predicting occurrence of river otters by habitat on
Mount Desert Island, Maine. Journal of Wildlife
Management
54:594-599.
Foley, R.E., S.J. Jackling, R.J. Sloan, and M.K. Brown.
1988. Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild
mink
-
and otter: a comparison with
fish.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 7:363-
374.
-
Gilbert, F.F., and E.G. Nancekiveil. 1982. Food habits of
mink
(Mustela vison)
and otter
(Lutra canadensis)
in
northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology
60:1282-1288.
Hamilton, W.J.J. 1961. Late fall, winter, and early spring
foods of 141 otters from New York. New York Fish
and Game Journal 8(2):106-109.
Hamilton, W.J.J., and W.R. Eadie. 1964. Reproduction
in the otter,
Lutra canadensis.
Journal of
Manunalogy
45(2):242-252.
Humphrey, S.R., and T.L. Zinn. 1982. Seasonal habitat
use by river otters and everglades mink in Florida.
Journal ofWildlife Management
46:375-381.
Knudsen, G.J., andJ.B. Hale. 1968. Food habits of otters
in the Great Lakes region. Journal of Wildlife
Management 32(2):89-93.
Kruuk, H., and J.W.H. Conroy. 1996. Concentrations of
some
organochlorines in otters
(Lutra lutra
L.) in
Scotland:
implications
for
populations.
Environmental Pollution 92(2):l65-171.
Leonards, PEG., Y. Zierikzee, U.A.T. Brinkman, W.P.
Cofino, N.M. van Straalen, and B.V. van Hattum.
1997. The selective dietary accumulation of planar
polychiorinated biphenyls in the otter
(Lutra lutra).
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
16(9):1807-1815.
Liers, E.E. 1951. Notes on the river otter
(Lutra
canadensis).
Journal ofMammalogy 32:1-9.
I
Figure
2. River otter sightings in the primary study area
Species Profile: River Otter
Page 8
Melquist, W.E., and A.E. Dronkert. 1987. River Otter. p.
626-641.
In
M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and
B. Malloch (ed.) Wild Furbearer Management and
Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of
Natural
Resources
and
Ontario
Trappers
Association, Toronto, Canada.
Melquist, W.E., and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of
river otters in west central Idaho. Wildlife
Monograph 83:1-60.
Newman,
D.G., and C.R.
Griffm. 1994. Wetland use by
river otters in central Massachusetts. Journal of
Wildlife Management
5
8(1): 18-23.
Organ, J. 1989. Mercury and PCB residues in
Massachusetts river otters: comparisons on a
watershed basis. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Platonow, N.S., and
L.H.
Karstad. 1973. Dietary effects
of polychlorinated biphenyls on mink. Canadian
Journal of Comparative Medicine 37:391-400.
Ryder, R.A.
1955.
Fish predation by the otter in
Michigan. Journal of
-
Wildlife Management
l9(4):497-498.
Sample, B.E., and G.W. Suter II. 1998. Ecological risk
assessment in a large river-reservoir: 4. Picivorous
wildlife. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
l8(4):6l 0-620.
Sheldon, W.G., and W.G. Toll. 1964. Feeding habits of
the river otter in a reservoir in central Massachusetts.
Journal of Mammalogy 45 :449-454.
Sloan, R.J., and M.K. Brown. 1988. Organochiorine and
mercury residues in wild mink and otter: comparison
with fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
7:363-374.
-
Stephenson, A.B. 1977. Age determination and
morphological variation of Ontario otters. Canadian
Journal ofZoology
55:1577-1583.
Swimley, T.J., T.L. Serfass, R.P. Brooks, and W.M.
Tzilkowski. 1998. Predicting river otter latrine sites
in Pennsylvania. Wildife Society Bulletin 26(4):836-
Toweill, D.E. 1974. Winter food habits of river otters in
western Oregon. Wildife Society Bulletin 26(4):836-
845.
Traas, T.P., R. Luttik, 0. Kleeper, J.E.M. Beurskens,
M.D. Smit, P.E.G. Leonards, A.G.M. van Hattum,
and T. Aldenberg. 2001. Congener-specific model for
polychlorinated biphenyl effects on otter
(Luira lutra)
and
associated
sediment
quality
criteria.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(1):205-
212.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr., andW.J. Hamilton Jr. 1998. Mammals
of the Eastern United States. 3rd ed. Cornell
-
UniversityPress, Ithica, NY.
845.
Exhibit
7
-
River Otter Species Account
Page 1 of3
River
Otter
-
-
Scientific name
Lutra canadensis
Description
At
35-53
inches from tip to tip, the river
-
-
otter is Illinois’ largest member ofthe
weasel family. A stout tail makes up
about 30-40 ofits total body length. An
otters uses its tail like a rudder while
swimming. Adults weigh 10-25 pounds;
males are about one third larger than
-
females. Otters have abroad, slightly
flattened head, large nosepad, stiff, bristly
whiskers, small black eyes, and ~mall
rounded ears. Their bodies are muscu’ar
and torpedo-shaped, allowing them to
move easily through water. The legs are
short and have five fully-webbed toes on
each foot. The fur is dark brown or
reddish brown on the back and light
-
brown, tan, or silver on the throat and
-
-
belly.
Distribution & Abundance
-
River otters were common and found throughout Illinois during early European settlement.
Unregulated harvest and habitat loss caused their numbers to declineduring the mid-l800s,
and sightings were rare by the early I 900s. The trapping season was closed beginning in 1929,
but this didn’t help much. Pollution was a major problem until the l970s, when many laws
were enacted to improve water quality in our streams and rivers.
River otters were listed as a state threatened species in 1977. Their status was downgraded to
state endangered in 1989. It’s likely that fewer than 100 otters existed in Illinois at this time.
The largest concentration lived along the Mississippi River and its backwaters in northwestern
Illinois. A smaller population occurred along the Cache River in the southern tip of the state.
The Department of Natural Resources started working on a recovery plan in the early 1990s.
The chances of success seemed pretty high because habitat and water-quality were suitable in
many parts of the state. Also, the state’s beaver population was at near-record numbers (beaver
-
dams create excellent otter habitat) and the state was engaging in some major efforts to
conserve wetlands and wooded areas along streams and rivers. From 1994 through 1997, 346
--
offers were captured in Louisiana using small leghold traps and released in
southeastern-and
central Illinois.
-
Today, otters can be found nearly anywhere in Illinois. Their numbers are still fairly low in
many places, but they’ve increased enough that the state has upgraded their status from state
endangered to state threatened. Like all endangered and threatened species, otters are
protected by closed hunting and trapping seasons.
Habitat
Rivers, streams and lakes are key habitats. Those with wooded
shorelines and nearby wetlands are best. Water quality isn’t a
major concern unless it’s so bad that fish are scarce. Some types
http ://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/dnr/fur/species/otter.html
12/7/2004
River Otter Species Account
Page 3 of 3
Newborns are helpless but develop quickly. Their eyes open at about-35 days of age. Brief
trips outside the den begin at 10-12 weeks. Females do most of the work when it comes to
raising the pups, but males help occasionally once the pups leave the nest. The young otters
are coaxed into the water for the first time at about 14 weeks of age. They’re weaned by 4
months ofage, but often remain with their mother until the following spring. Young females
can breed at one year of age, but many wait until they’re two.
Conservation
-
Conserving wetlands and wooded areas along streams and rivers are top priorities. Reducing
soil erosion and preventing fertilizers and pesticides from washing into streams are important
measures, even where offers aren’t likely to visit. For example, soil particles washed into a
stream can settle when they reach slow-moving water, covering the rock, sand, or gravel that
some fish need to lay their eggs and raise young. Fewerfish means less food for otters.
Otters like to use dens and wetlands created by beavers. Protecting the long-term health of the
beaver population is an investment in the river otter’s future. Trapping is highly regulated in
Illinois. Licensed trappers can harvest beavers only at certain times of the year and using only
those methods allowed by law. This keeps beavers from becoming scarce while helping to
control some of damage they can cause:
--
---
~
T f’-.
~
Tracks &
Sign ~
References ~ Main Menu
~
&O~a1Y
J
-
~----
~
k-~~-~
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/dnr/fur/species/otter.html
12/7/2004
Exhibit -8
Animal Bytes:
Otter
Page 1 of3
Quick Facts
Class:
Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genus: 6 genera
Species: 13 species
Length: largest—giant otter
Pteronura brasiliensis,
up to
7.8
feet (2.4 meters);
smallest—Asian small-
clawed otter
Amblonyx
cinereus,
up to 3 feet (0.9
meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter
Enhydra lutris,
males up to
95
pounds (43 kilograms);
smallest—Asian small-
clawed otter, up to 11 pounds
(5
kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for
smaller species to 5 months
for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1
to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces
(128 grams) for smaller
species to 5 pounds (2.3
kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Co tiseryation
stat~js.;.four
species,
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North, Central, and Souti
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and alor
coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and rr
Champion Swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family.
They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are
made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for
diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly
flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through
the waterwhile their back feet act like rudders to steer.
Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed
than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as
they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about
five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use
less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s
surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more
buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its c
sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems
dry?
That’s beca’
have
two
layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, V
guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a I
grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can dam
ability to hunt for food and stay warm.
Party Animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say
to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they ar
busy hunting, investigating, or playing with somethint
to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase
They also play games of “tag” and chase each other,
the
water and on the ground. River otters seem to lik
down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also n
of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and co
activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and
pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.
Life
as-a Pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother
of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some specie
may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called
their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at tw
and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when I
off on their own.
SAN
D~EGO2XX1ørg
OTTER
ri Photo Bytes
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-otter.html
12/7/2004
Animal Bytes:
Otter
Page 3 of 3
Male and
fern
Asian
s~naWclawed
ntfers-rnatafbriiIe:and
sharethe
esponsibitity
of
raisIng
pups.
-
-althoucih the fEmale is
she calls
the
shotst
saiidiegozoo.orgliome
San .DiegoZoo ISa .Die.go.Zo.os’~,i.ildAnim.aLPariclconservation &..Research (CRES).
Animal
Bytes I
Kid Territory
I
Calendar
I
Press
Iiifo I Shopzno I
Buy Tickets/Book Hotels Online
Terms of Use I Erhla Policy
©
2004 Zoological Society of San Diego
Contact us I
About
Us
http ://www.sandiegozoo.org!animalbytes/t-offer.html
12/7/2004
—
I
-~
-
-
I
-
Site Description:
E
Water~’Leve!sSetto Pass General Scr?een
-
-
AquAtic SWtem Sa Enfrst ~‘
BCG4Worksheet
-
Return to Table ofContents
Cicer Site bàthj
Limits for Water and Sediments in Std Units
-
Nuclidesingle media
data from
or-
Water
Limit
Stte
Partial
Sediment
Limit
tite
Partial
Sediment
Water &
Sum
-
O~niam
for titelir
Nuclide
co.!opated s~am*s?
pCl!L
-
Data
-- -
Fraction
- p0l!g -
Data
-
FiactiRn
of Fractions
- Water
Am’241 F Water
Sediment • Cloth
4,E+02
S.E+03
-
AquaticAnimal
Ce-144 t~Water
Sediment ~Eat
2.C+03
3.E+03
Aquatic Animal
Cs435
~
-. Sediment ~Both
5.5+02
4.5+04
Riparian Animal
Cs-137 - Water
- Sediment ••~th
4,5+01
3,5+03
Riparian Animal
Co-GO
M,ter
- Sediment ‘~
4,5+03
1,5+03
Aquatic Animal
Eu 154
Water
Sediment
Both
2
5404
3 5+03
quatlc Animai
~ Water - - Sediment -.‘ Both
3.5+05
3.5+04
quatic Animai
H-S
£‘ Water -~ Sediment ;. Bout
3.5+08
4.5+05
Riparian Animal
i-129
- Water -- - Sediment -‘Bot
4.5+04
3.5+04
Riparian Animal
(‘Water VSedimentWBot
1.5+04
5,5403
Riparian Animal
Pu.239 - Water ‘ Seciiment ~‘ Beth
2.5+02
6,5+03
-
quatic Animal
Ra-226 ~ Water I Sediment
U
Both --
4.5+00
2.OOE+C-0
4,95-01
1,5+02
140E-01
1355-03
4.925-01
RiparianAnimai
Ra-228 -‘ Water ‘‘aediiaent~’Both
3.5+00
1.715+00
5,15-01
9.5+01
1205.01
1.375-03
5.075-01
Riparian Animal
Sb-128
‘ Water ~‘ Sediment
Both
4.5+05
-
7.5+03
Aquatic Animal
Sr 90
Water
Sediment
Both
3 5+02
6 5+02
Riparlan Animal
Tc-99
C’ Water ~‘ Sediment 6’ Both
7.5+08
4.5+04
Riparian Animai
Th-232 ‘ Water’’ Sediment
3.5+02
1.5+03
Aquatic Animal
U.233 ~‘ Water ‘ Sediment ‘ Both
2.5+02
5.5+03
quatic Animal
U.234
‘ ~er~SedlnienttBoth
2.5+02
5.5+03
quatic Animal
Water
Sedin~ent(~Bet
2.5+02
4.5+03
quatic Animal
U-236
- Water
t
Sediment
Both
2.5+02
2 5+03
quetic Animal
Zn-SB
‘
Water “Sediment
I’
Both
1.5+01
1.5+03
Riparian Animal
Zr-SB
‘ Water ‘‘ Sediment ‘ Both
-
- Jj235+03
~Ijp~-
Aquatic Animal
H
___________
r)L
—~
9.95E’9~
.
-
IZtfl
at
- ~-
tn-
meat
—~/
4j~J5EO3
~
_______________
-t
I
r~1r~t~
-
You have passed the site screen
Set Print Area for Report -~
responsible
ailing Dose
Source ofCalculation
Sediment
Source ofCalculation
11A
()af~eiltDiV
Riparian Animal
P4-lumped,
Default
11A
Dof-ailt DIV
Riparian Animal
PA.l.wii1ted, Do-tee/f
R4-.Lamped, Default
Riparian Animal
FM-Lumped, Default
lM.Lump2d, Default
Rlparlan Animal
PA-Lumped, Default
114 Default El/V
Riparian Animal
R4.Lumped~Default
44
Default DIV
Riper-ian Animal
M-Ltimped Default
44-Default
DIV
Ripâriafl Anirnel
PA-Lumpedk Default
PA-Lumped, Default
Riparian Animal
lM-Lumpe~.Default
PA-Lumped, Default
Riper-tan Animal
R.4-Lurapèd,.Dafault
PA-Lwuped. Default
Riparian Animal
PA-Lumped, Default
44
Default DIV
Riparian Animal
-RA~Lumped,Default
PA-Lumped, Default
Riparian Animal
P4-Lumped, Default
PA-Lumped, ~efault.
Riper-ian Animal
RA~Lurnpad,Default
1111
Default DiV
Rlpàrian~Anlmei-
PA-Lumped, Default
PA-l.rimped,
Default
Rl~arianAnimal
PA-Lumped, Default
P4-Lumped, DCfeult
Ripaiian Animal
PA-Lumped, Default
44
DefaultDiV
Riper-ian Animal
P.4-Lumped, Default
All Default DIV
Riper-lan Animal
RA-I,L’mped, Default
All Default DIV
Riper-lan Animal
RA-Luhiped, DefaUlt
All Default 13/V
Rlparlan Animal
RA,Lumped, Default
1111 Default DIV
Riper-lan Animal
RA4umped, Default
PA-Lumped, Default
Riper-lan Animal
PA-Lumped, Default
1111 Default DIV
Riparlan Animal
RA-Lumpad, Default
if you do not pass this screening evaluation,
you may examine which organisms are limiting
for these pathways~and the perameter values
used in their derivation. If ya’u~havesite
specific data, you may adjustinpüt parameters
following the instructIons In the DOE -Technical
Water Love/s
Sot
to Pass General Screening
-
Aquatic System Data Entrj /B~GWorksheet
Water, pCilL
Sediment, pCilg
Source
Source
Partial
of
Partial
-
of
Nuclide
Fraction
calculation
-
Fraction
Calculation
Am-241
-
-/
Ce-144
Cs-135
Cs-I
37
Co-60
Eu-154
Eu-155
H-3
1-129
1-131
Pu-239
Ra-226
4.9E-0I
RA-Lumped, Default
I.38E~3 RA-Lumped. Default
Ra-228
5.15-01 RA-Lumped, Default
I.37E-03
RA-Lumpcd, Default
Sb-I 25
Sr-90
Tc-99
Th-232
U-233
U-234
U-235
U-238
Zn-S5
Zr-95
Partial fractions 1.OE+OO
2.755-03
Total sum of fractions (water and sedimenU:
9.995-01
Result:
You have passed the site screen
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Albert F. Ettinger, certify that on December 8, 2004, I filed the attached POST-HEARING
COMMENTS OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
CENTER. An original and
9
copies was filed, on recycled paper, with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL
60601,
and copies were served via United States Mail to those individuals on the included
service list.
DATED: December 8, 2004
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35
East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
312-795-3707
Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No. 3125045)
Counsel for Environmental
Law & Policy
Center
and
Sierra Club
SERVICE LIST
Deborah J. Williams
Stefanie N. Diers
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
P0 Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
Roy M. Harsch
Sasha M. Engle
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
8000 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
John McMahon
Wilkie & McMahon
1 East Main Street, #214
Champaign, IL 61820
Joel J. Sternstein
Office of the Attorney General Petitioner
188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Matthew J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office of the Attorney General Petitioner
188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Amy
Antoniolli, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes
111 N. Sixth St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Stanley Yonkauski, Acting General Counsel
Illinois DNR
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702
-
Lisa Frede
CICI
2250 E. Devon Ave., Suite 239
Des Plaines, IL 60018
William Seith
Total Environmental Solutions
631 F. Butterfield Rd, Suite 315
Lombard, IL 60148
Abdul Kahlique
Metropolitan Reclamation District
-
6001 W. Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Reclamation District
6001 W. Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60804
Dennis Duffield
Director ofPublic Works and Utilities
City of Joliet
921 F. Washington
Street
Joliet, IL 60431
