Challenges to Evaluating Ecological Risks in Performance Assessments - 18424
Performance assessments (PAs), whether probabilistic or deterministic, have largely focused on evaluating human health effects of radionuclides. In the past, it was asserted that protecting human health would automatically protect the environment. This blanket assertion has been questioned, so tools and methodologies to directly estimate non-human biota dose have been developed and made available since the early 2000's. For example, the Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC) guidance led to the development of the RESRAD-BIOTA (RESRAD stands for Residual Radioactive materials) software to implement this guidance. The BDAC was a US Department of Energy (DOE) led working group with members from academia and consultancies in addition to DOE technical staff. Parallel efforts have been in place in Europe with the development of the ERICA tool (Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management). More recently, interpretation of the requirements of US Department of Energy (DOE) Order O458.1 have led some waste management facilities to include ecological risks in addition to human health effects in their PAs. We have recently developed methodologies to assess ecological risks within probabilistic PAs (PPAs) for two Federal facilities. One of the challenges in applying the non-human biota assessment models to PPAs is that ecological risk assessments following US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or DOE guidance start with protective screening assessments before moving into more site-specific ecological risk assessments. Conservative assumptions bias the screening assessments and greatly overestimate the risks posed by contaminants. However, although the screens are biased they can be useful in ruling out model spatial domain areas or types of biota from requiring further assessment. In some cases, the results of the screen could entirely rule out ecological risks from further assessment. For a more refined and unbiased estimate of dose to non-human biota, one would typically conduct site-specific studies to better define exposure through the food web or adverse effects based on eco-toxicity studies of environmental, and generally weathered, contaminant mixtures. However, for PPAs that consider future site conditions after the loss of institutional control, such site-specific studies are not possible. Rather, site-specific future ecological risk models use probabilistic inputs that result in a distribution of population doses or exposures and calculate the distribution of possible adverse effects to ecological populations. This approach considers both radionuclide and chemical inventory. For both Federal facilities, the model spatial domains include riparian and aquatic environments located downstream of the waste management site. These riparian and aquatic environments represent linear exposure elements for some wildlife populations and require special consideration of exposures to individuals and to populations along such spatial domains. At a minimum, wildlife foraging should be focused along the axis of such water bodies. Another challenge is how to incorporate ecologically relevant spatial scales into models that have contaminant transport as the primary focus. Riparian and aquatic environments also have threatened and endangered (T and E) species, which necessitate greater levels of protection given their rarity. A final challenge for conducting ecological risk assessments is how to evaluate T and E species in the future. This might be addressed by evaluating potential for impacts on individuals of feeding guilds with species that are currently threatened or endangered. We also have to consider how ecological populations might change as a result of climate change. It is a more difficult problem to predict what species might become rare in the future, and how to best assess future populations of threatened or endangered species. (authors)