Experiences from testing the

ERICA Integrated Approach

Case study application of the ERICA Tool
and D-ERICA

Objectives
To assess the applicability of draft versions of DERICA and ERICA Tool
To compare predicted and observed activity
concentrations in biota (and water/sediments for
aquatic ecosystems)
Where possible, to compare observed radiation
induced effects with estimated doses and
predicted effects
To make recommendations to the ERICA
consortium

Drigg Coast Sand Dunes UK

(WSC, Uni. Liverpool)

Natura 2000 site receiving contamination

from Sellafield marine discharges
Opportunity to address identified deficits in
FASSET methodology & respond to
stakeholders
ERICA sampling campaign
Full role-play assessment of regulated site

Loire River (EDF)

River receives discharges
from a number of nuclear
power plants
Opportunity to compare
ERICA predictions to those
of model developed
specifically to assess the
Loire

Sellafield Marine (NRPA & WSC)

Anthropogenically contaminated
marine site
Comparatively large database
available (1980 and 2005
assessed)
Opportunity to compare with site
specific model predictions
Full role-play assessment of
regulated site

Komi Republic (NRPA & IOB)

High levels of natural
radionuclides (Th and U
series) range of
historical practices
Comparatively large
database now available
Biological effects studies
in area

Chernobyl (CEH & IRL)

ERICA study to measure
external dose rates to
small mammals at three
sites using attached TLDs
(within 10 km zone)
Large database of wholebody activity
concentrations available
for wide range of biota
(predominantly Cs & Sr,
some actinides)

Exposure to background radiation

Drigg case study Tier 2

conservative RQ > 1 due to
natural background
radionuclides
ERICA is for assessment of
incremental dose rates
Example of poor definition
of ERICA Integrated
Approach in draft
documentation
Now clearly stated and
discussed

Conservatism at Tier 2
Tier 2 conservative dose rate should Tier 3
95th %ile estimate
Sellafield Marine Case Study (using one of two
possible media inputs) Tier 3 - 95th%ile higher
than Tier 2 conservative estimate

Conservatism at Tier 2
Tier 2 conservative dose rate should Tier 3
95th %ile estimate
Sellafield Marine Case Study (using one of two
possible media inputs) Tier 3 - 95th%ile higher
than Tier 2 conservative estimate
Not observed for other case studies (some
reservations re input water concentrations)

Conservatism at Tier 2
Tier 2 conservative dose rate should Tier 3 95th
%ile estimate
Sellafield Marine Case Study (using one of two
possible media inputs) Tier 3 - 95th%ile higher
than Tier 2 conservative estimate
Not observed for other case studies (some
reservations re input water concentrations)
Need to further test Tier 2 uncertainty factor
assumptions
in PROTECT scenarios?

Lichen
Lichen and Bryophyte reference organism is the limiting
organism for a number of radionuclides (mostly natural
isotopes).
for 210Po, the associated EMCL value of 25 Bq kg-1 DW soil

due to high CR
The use of a soil-biota CR may not be applicable
Acute exposure data (for mortality) suggest that lichens
have a low radiosensitivity. Implementation of a predicted
no effects dose rate (as used to define the screening
dose-rate at Tiers 1 and 2) derived to be protective of all
organism types within terrestrial ecosystems may be
overly conservative for lichens and mosses.

Transfer parameters - Chernobyl

Generally good agreement all species Sr,
Pu, Am, Cs

Measured whole-body activity

concentration
(Bq kg-1 FW)

Predicted whole-body
activity concentration
(Bq kg-1 FW)+

Transfer parameters - Chernobyl

Species/
5th
area
n
Mean
Min.
Max.
Mean
percentile
137
Cs
Low
C. glareolus
3
3820
3140
4660
19900
1500
A. flavicollis
18
3130
1270
9750
Medium
th %ile < maximum

95
C. glareolus Tier
393: some
70500 predicted
17000
252000
116000
8310
A. flavicollis observed
10
59700
24100
143000
High
C. glareolus
2
2260000
1350000
3180000
Microtus spp.
11
611000
252000
1140000
268000
21600
A. flavicollis
2
145000
108000
183000

Generally good agreement all species Sr,

Pu, Am, Cs

95th
percentile

69500
411000

952000

90

Sr
Low
C. glareolus
A. flavicollis
Medium
C. glareolus
A. flavicollis
High
C. glareolus
Microtus spp.
A. flavicollis

3
18

7710
7410

3050
1390

10300
21100

3940

39
10

19500
24700

4290
16000

36000
34000

2
11
2

81300
107000
66600

65600
38100
46600

96900
167000
86700

292

13300

33400

1940

121000

102000

6550

357000

Transfer Parameters - Komi

Generally Ra-226, Th-232 & U-238 agree
well or are over predicted (ash weight soil
used):
Ra-226 tree under predicted
U-238 & Th-232 under predicted voles [limited
data available]
Non-linearity (potential but not investigated)?

Transfer parameters - Drigg

Cs-137 consistently over predicted (1-2
orders of magnitude)
Most default data relate to post Chernobyl
studies (likely to be for organic soils)

Am-241 under predicted in higher plants

Site receives aerial deposition (sea-land)

A number of CR values tested were

guidance values gave reasonable
predictions

Transfer parameters - freshwater

No case study tested freshwater CR
values
ERICA participating in EMRAS BWG
freshwater scenario

Test version Kd values criticised as being

old
Updated with EMRAS TRS364rev outputs

Transfer parameters - Marine

For Pu, Am and Cs generally reasonable
agreement
Over predicted fish Pu [but observed data
edible tissues not whole-body]
Cs-137 activity concentrations in seabirds
500x higher than observed data [observed
data all for gull sp. feeding in terrestrial
ecosystems?]

Dosimetry
Chernobyl case study predicted external dose rate
predictions agreed well with measurements from TLDcollars
Komi and Chernobyl reasonable agreement between
gamma air kerma rates and predicted external dose
rates (& TLD results for Chernobyl)
Include ability to input dose rates ?
Include advice that gamma air kerma rates can be
used to verify external dose rate predictions ?

Dosimetry create organism

Restriction on size:
0.0017 to 550 kg on soil
0.0017 to 6.6 kg in soil
0.035 to 2 kg for flying animals

Limits usefulness (e.g. for European bat spp.,

large burrowing animals etc.)
Revised Help documents limitations and provides
advice on approaches to best model user defined
organisms (& limitations)
Limitations more obvious on Tool screen

Effects summaries
Tier 2 effects summaries criticised as not
being very useful (often lots of contradictory
data or no data)
Now improved - summary by dose range

Tier 3 link to FREDERICA

Criticised as being of little aid to decision
maker as expert interpretation would be
required
But this is Tier 3 and it is anticipated that
experts will need to be consulted
FREDERICA is an up to date, freely
accessible database which provides a useful
expert tool (others outside the ERICA
consortium are using it [e.g. Chambers et al.
2006])

ERICA outputs the future

Consortium agreement to manage potential Tool
development and maintain databases
Tool and databases will continue to participate
within IAEA EMRAS BWG scenarios (outputs
available end 2007)
ERICA outputs will be assessed within the
PROTECT project
Special issue of J. Environ. Radioact. in preparation