Contents:

Chapter Highlights

Potential radiological doses to the public from Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) operations were evaluated to determine compliance with pertinent regulations and limits. Two different computer models were used to estimate doses: CAP-88 and the mesoscale diffusion (MDIFF) air dispersion model. CAP-88 is required by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Air Act. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory-Field Research Division developed MDIFF to evaluate dispersion of pollutants in arid environments such as those found at the INEEL. The maximum calculated dose to an individual by either of the methods was well below the applicable radiation protection standard of 10 mrem/yr. The dose to the maximally exposed individual, as determined by the CAP-88 program, was 0.055 mrem (0.55 µSv). The dose calculated using the MDIFF dispersion coefficients was 0.04 mrem (0.4 µSv). The maximum potential population dose to the approximately 268,218 people residing within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of any INEEL facility was 0.93 person-rem, well below that expected from exposure to background radiation.

Using the maximum radionuclide concentrations in collected waterfowl, game animals, and marmots, a maximum potential dose from ingestion was calculated. The maximum potential dose for each was estimated to be 0.004 mrem (0.04 µSv) for waterfowl, 1.34 mrem (13.4 µSv) for game animals, and 0.003 mrem (0.03 µSv) for marmots.

The potential dose to aquatic and terrestrial biota from contaminated soil and water was also evaluated, using a graded approach. Based on this approach there is no evidence that INEEL-related contamination is having an adverse impact on populations of plants and animals.

7. DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA

It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) "to conduct its operations in an environmentally safe and sound manner. Protection of the environment and the public are responsibilities of paramount importance and concern to DOE" (DOE 1993a). DOE Order 5400.5 further states, "It is also a DOE objective that potential exposures to members of the public be as far below the limits as is reasonably achievable..." (DOE 1993b). This chapter describes the dose to members of the public and to the environment based on the 2002 radionuclide concentrations from operations at the INEEL.

Back to top

7.1 General Information

Individual radiological impacts to the public surrounding the INEEL remain too small to be measured by available monitoring techniques. To show compliance with federal regulations established to ensure public safety, the dose from INEEL operations was calculated using the reported amounts of radionuclides released during the year from INEEL facilities (see Chapter 4) and appropriate air dispersion computer codes. During 2002, this was accomplished for the radionuclides summarized in Table 4-2.

The following estimates were calculated:

  • The effective dose equivalent to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual (MEI), as defined by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, using the CAP-88 computer code as required by the regulation (Cahki and Parks 2000);

  • The effective dose equivalent to the MEI residing offsite using dispersion values from the mesoscale diffusion (MDIFF) model (Sagendorf et al. 2001) to comply with DOE Order 5400.1; and
  • The collective effective dose equivalent (population dose) for the population within 80 km (50 mi) of an INEEL facility to comply with DOE Order 5400.1. The estimated population dose was based on the effective dose equivalent calculated from the MDIFF air dispersion model for the MEI.

In this chapter, the term dose refers to effective dose equivalent unless another term is specifically stated. Dose was calculated by summing the effective dose equivalents from each exposure pathway. Effective dose equivalent includes doses received from both external and internal sources and represents the same risk as if an individual's body were uniformly irradiated. DOE dose conversion factors and a 50-yr integration period was used in calculations in combination with the MDIFF air dispersion model for internally deposited radionuclides (Kocher 1988) and for radionuclides deposited on the ground surface (DOE 1988). The CAP-88 computer code uses dose and risk tables developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No allowance is made in the dose calculations using MDIFF for shielding by housing materials, which is estimated to reduce the dose by about 30 percent, or less than year-round occupancy time in the community. The CAP 88 computer code does not include shielding by housing materials, but it does include a factor to allow for shielding by surface soil contours from radioactivity on the ground surface.

Of the potential exposure pathways by which radioactive materials from INEEL operations could be transported offsite (see Figure 3-1, page 3.4), atmospheric transport is the principal potential pathway for exposure to the surrounding population. This is because winds can carry airborne radioactive material rapidly and some distance from its source. The water pathways are not considered major contributors to dose because no surface water flows off the INEEL and no radionuclides from the INEEL have been found in drinking water wells offsite. Because of these factors, the MEI dose is determined through the use of computer codes of atmospheric dispersion of airborne materials.

Back to top

7.2 Maximum Individual Dose - Airborne Emissions Pathway

Summary of Computer Codes

The NESHAP, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 61 (40 CFR Part 61), Subpart H, requires the demonstration that radionuclides other than radon released to air from any DOE nuclear facility do not result in a dose to the public of greater than 10 mrem/yr (40 CFR 61 2001). This includes releases from stacks and diffuse sources. The EPA requires the use of an approved computer code to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR Part 61. The INEEL uses the code CAP-88 as recommended in 40 CFR 61 to demonstrate NESHAP compliance.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory-Field Research Division (NOAA ARL-FRD) developed a mesoscale air dispersion model called MDIFF (formerly known as MESODIF) (Sagendorf et al. 2001). The MDIFF diffusion curves were developed by the NOAA ARL-FRD from tests in desert environments (e.g., the INEEL and the Hanford Site in eastern Washington). The MDIFF curves are more appropriate for estimating dose to the public due to INEEL emissions than those used by the CAP-88 code. The MDIFF code is a dispersion model only and does not account for plume depletion and radioactive decay.

The MDIFF model has been in use for almost 40 years to calculate dispersion coefficients that are then used to calculate the dose to members of the public residing near the INEEL. In previous years, doses calculated using the MDIFF air dispersion coefficients have been somewhat higher than doses calculated using CAP-88. Differences between the two computer codes were discussed in detail in the 1986 annual report (Hoff et al. 1987). The offsite concentrations calculated using both computer codes were compared to actual monitoring results at offsite locations in 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Hoff et al. 1987, Chew and Mitchell 1988, Hoff et al. 1989). Concentrations calculated for several locations using the MDIFF dispersion coefficients showed good agreement with concentrations from actual measurements, with the model calculations generally predicting concentrations higher than those measured.

The primary difference is the atmospheric dispersion portion of the codes. CAP-88 makes its calculations based on the joint frequency of wind conditions from a single wind station located near the source in a straight line from that source and ignores recirculation. MDIFF calculates the trajectories of a puff using wind information from 36 towers in the Upper Snake River Plain. This allows for more accurate and site-specific modeling of the movement of a release using prevailing wind conditions between time of the release and the time that the plume leaves the INEEL region. For this reason, the two computer codes may not agree on the location of the MEI or the magnitude of the maximum dose.

CAP-88 Computer Code

The dose from INEEL airborne releases of radionuclides calculated to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP are published in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants-Calendar Year 2002 INEEL Report for Radionuclides (DOE-ID 2003). For these calculations, 63 potential maximum locations were evaluated. The CAP-88 computer code predicted the highest dose to be at Frenchman's Cabin, located at the southern boundary of the INEEL. This location is only inhabited during portions of the year, but it must be considered as a potential MEI location according to the NESHAP. At Frenchman's Cabin, an effective dose equivalent of 0.055 mrem (0.55 µSv) was calculated. The facilities making the largest contributions to this dose were the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at 87 percent, the Test Reactor Area (TRA) at nine percent, and the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at four percent. The dose of 0.055 mrem (0.55 µSv) is well below the whole body dose limit of 10 mrem (100 µSv) for airborne releases of radionuclides established by 40 CFR 61.

Back to top

MDIFF Model

Using data gathered continuously at meteorological stations on and around the INEEL and the MDIFF model, the NOAA ARL-FRD prepares a mesoscale map (Figure 7-1) showing the calculated 2002 total integrated concentration (TIC). These TICs are based on a unit release rate weighted by percent contribution for each of eight INEEL facilities (Argonne National Laboratory-West [ANL-W], Central Facilities Area [CFA], INTEC, Naval Reactors Facility [NRF], Power Burst Facility [PBF], RWMC, TRA, Test Area North [TAN]). To create the isopleths shown in Figure 7-1, the TIC values are contoured. Average air concentrations (in curies per cubic meter) for a radionuclide released from a facility are estimated from a TIC isopleth (line of equal air concentration) in Figure 7-1. To calculate the average air concentration, the dispersion coefficient is multiplied by the quantity of the radionuclide released (in curies) during the year and divided by the number of hours in a year squared (8760 hr2 or 7.70 x 107). This does not account for plume depletion, radioactive decay, or in-growth or decay of radioactive progeny. In 2000, a revision to the methods and values used for the calculation of the MEI dose from the MDIFF dispersion values was undertaken. Values for the deposition and plant uptake rates of radionuclides, most noticeably radioiodines, were modified to reflect present operations and current values in use. The most notable change, mathematically, is the increase of the iodine-129 129I) deposition velocity from 0.01 m/sec to 0.035 m/sec, as the emitted radionuclides went from predominantly organic in nature to elemental. These changes resulted in a mathematical increase in the amount of radionuclides deposited on the ground and available for plant uptake. This resulted in a net increase in the ingestion dose.

The MDIFF model predicted that the highest TIC for radionuclides in air at a location with a year-round resident during 2002 would have occurred approximately 8.9 km (5.5 mi) west-northwest of Mud Lake, Idaho. The maximum hypothetical dose was calculated for an adult resident at that location from inhalation of air, submersion in air, ingestion of radioactivity on leafy vegetables, and exposure because of deposition of radioactive particles on the ground. The calculation was based on data presented in Table 4-2 and the grid used to produce Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-1.  Average mesoscale isopleths of total integrated concentrations at ground level normalized to unit release rate from all INEEL
facilities (Concentrations are time 10-9 hours squared per meter cubed).

Using the largest calculated TIC for each facility (Table 7-1) at the location inhabited by a full-time resident and allowing for radioactive decay and plume depletion during the transit of the radionuclides from each facility to the location of the MEI, west-northwest of Mud Lake, the potential annual effective dose equivalent from all radionuclides released was calculated to be 0.04 mrem (4.0 x 10-4 mSv) (Table 7-2). This dose is well below the whole body dose limit of 10 mrem set in the 40 CFR 61 for airborne releases of radionuclides.

The ingestion pathway remained the primary route of exposure and accounted for 92 percent of the total dose, followed by inhalation at six percent, and immersion at two percent. For 2002, 129I contributed approximately 72 percent of the total dose, followed by strontium-90 (90Sr) with 13 percent; plutonium-239 (239Pu) at 4 percent; cesium-137 (137Cs) at 3 percent; and plutonium-240 (240Pu), plutonium-241 (241Pu), and argon-41 (41Ar) at 2 percent each. All others contributed less than one percent each (Figure 7-2). The respective contributions to the overall dose by facility is as follows: INTEC (96.5 percent), TRA (3.3 percent), NRF (0.09 percent). (The percent contribution shown for NRF assumes all gross alpha is 239Pu and gross beta is 90Sr.) TAN (0.05 percent), and RWMC (0.03 percent). The Power Burst Facility (PBF), ANL-W, and CFA each contributed approximately 0.01 percent of the 2002 total dose.


Figure 7-2.  Radionuclides contributing to maximum individual dose (as calculated using the MDIFF air dispersion model) (2002).

The calculated maximum dose resulting from INEEL operations is still a small fraction of the average dose received by individuals in southeastern Idaho from cosmic and terrestrial sources of naturally occurring radiation found in the environment. The total annual dose from all natural sources is estimated at approximately 352 mrem (Table 6-11).

Back to top

7.3   80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Population Dose

As with the calculation of the maximum individual dose, the determination of the population dose, also underwent changes in 2000. Using the power of a geographical information system (ArcView), annual population no longer needs to be distributed using growth estimations and a specialized computer code. In addition to this simplification, the population dose is now calculated for the population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of any INEEL facility. This takes into account the changes in facility operations, in that the INTEC is no longer the single largest contributor of radionuclides released.

An estimate was made of the collective effective dose equivalent, or population dose, from inhalation, submersion, ingestion, and deposition resulting from airborne releases of radionuclides from the INEEL. This collective dose included all members of the public within 80 km (50 mi) of an INEEL facility. The population dose was calculated in a spreadsheet program that multiplies the average dispersion coefficient for the county census division (in hours squared per cubic meter) by the population in each census division within that county division and the normalized dose received at the location of the MEI (in rem per year per hour squared per meter cubed). This gives an approximation of the dose received by the entire population in a given county division (Table 7-3).

The dose received per person is obtained by dividing the collective effective dose equivalent by the population in that particular census division. This calculation overestimates dose because the model conservatively does not account for radioactive decay of the isotopes during transport over distances greater than the distance from each facility to the residence of the MEI located near Mud Lake. Idaho Falls, for example, is about 50 km (31 mi) from the nearest facility (ANL-W) and 80 km (50 mi) from the farthest. Neither residence time nor shielding by housing was considered when calculating the MEI dose on which the collective effective dose equivalent is based. The calculation also tends to overestimate the population doses because they are extrapolated from the dose computed for the location of the potential MEI. This individual is potentially exposed through ingestion of contaminated leafy garden vegetables grown at that location.

The 2002 MDIFF dispersion coefficient used for calculation of the population dose within each county division was obtained by averaging the results from appropriate census divisions contained within those county divisions. The total population dose is the sum of the population doses for the various county divisions (Table 7-3). The estimated potential population dose was 0.93 person-rem (0.0093 person-Sv) to a population of approximately 268,218. When compared with an approximate population dose of 94,400 person-rem (944 person-Sv) from natural background radiation, this represents an increase of only about 0.001 percent. The dose of 0.93 person-rem can also be compared to the following estimated population doses for the samesize population: 32,200 person-rem for medical diagnostic procedures, about 940 person-rem from exposure to highway and road construction materials, or 2.7 person-rem from nuclear power generation. The largest collective doses are found in the Idaho Falls and Moreland census divisions. The Idaho Falls census division received the highest population dose because of its largest population. In 2001, the second highest population dose was estimated the the Hamer census division. In 2002, the Moreland census division has the second large estimated population dose due to differences in the dispersion values provided by NOAA (Figure 7-1). In 2001, Monteview, Mud Lake and Terreton (which are within the Hamer census division) were encompassed by the 30 x 10-9 hr2/m3 contour. In 2002, these towns lay within the same 10 x 10-9 hr2/m3 contour that Moreland did. Because Moreland has a higher population than Hamer, the resulting population dose was estimated to be greater for the Moreland census division.

Back to top

7.4 Individual Dose - Game Ingestion Pathway

The potential dose an individual may receive from the occasional ingestion of meat from game animals continues to be investigated at the INEEL. Such studies include the potential dose to individuals who may eat (a) waterfowl that reside briefly at waste disposal ponds at TRA, INTEC, and ANL-W used for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes and (b) game birds and game animals that may reside on or migrate across the INEEL.

Waterfowl

A study was initiated in 1994 to obtain data on the potential doses from waterfowl using INEEL waste disposal ponds. This study focused on the two hypalon-lined evaporation ponds at TRA that replaced the percolation ponds formerly used for disposal of wastes at that facility (Warren et al. 2001).

In the fall of 2002, seven ducks were collected from waste ponds on the INEEL and four were collected from offsite locations (two each from Heise and Mud Lake, Idaho) as controls. Of the waterfowl collected from the INEEL, three were collected from waste ponds containing radionuclides at the TRA and four from the waste pond at TAN. The maximum potential dose from eating 225 g (8 oz) of meat from ducks collected in 2002 is presented in Table 7-4. Radionuclide concentrations driving these doses are reported in Table 6-6. Doses from consuming waterfowl are based on the assumption that ducks are killed and eaten immediately after leaving the ponds.

The maximum potential dose of 0.004 mrem (0.04 µSv) from these waterfowl samples is substantially below the 0.89 mrem (8.9 µSv) committed effective dose equivalent estimated from the most contaminated ducks taken from the evaporation ponds between 1993 and 1998 (Warren et al. 2001).

Mourning Doves

No mourning doves were collected in 2002.

Big Game Animals

A conservative estimate of the potential whole-body dose that could be received from an individual eating the entire muscle and liver mass of an antelope with the highest levels of radioactivity found in these animals was estimated at 2.7 mrem in a study on the INEEL from 1976-1986 (Markham et al. 1982). Game animals collected at the INEEL during the past few years have shown much lower concentrations of radionuclides. Based on the highest concentration of radionuclides found in a game animal during 2002, the potential dose was approximately 1.34 mrem (13.4 µSv).

Yellow-bellied Marmots

During the third quarter of 2002, three marmots were collected from the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) of the RWMC. Two marmots were also collected, as controls, from the Pocatello Zoo. Each marmot was dissected into three samples, the edible portion (muscle tissue), viscera, and the remainder (skin, fur, bones). The potential dose from eating 225 g (8 oz.) of the most contaminated edible portions of the marmots collected in 2002 is 0.003 mrem (0.03 µSv).

Back to top

7.5 Biota Dose Assessment

Introduction

The impact of environmental radioactivity at the INEEL on nonhuman biota was assessed using the graded approach procedure detailed in A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota (DOE 2002) and the associated spreadsheet (RadBCG Calculator). The graded approach evaluates the impacts of a given set of radionuclides on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by comparing available concentration data in soils and water with biota concentration guides (BCGs). A BCG is defined as the environmental concentration of a given radionuclide in soil or water that, under the assumptions of the model, would result in a dose rate less than 1 rad/d to aquatic animals or terrestrial plants or 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) to terrestrial animals. If the sum of the measured environmental concentrations divided by the BCGs (the combined sum of fractions) is less than one, no negative impact to populations of plants or animals is expected. No doses are calculated unless the screening process indicates a more detailed analysis is necessary.

The approach is graded because it begins the evaluation using conservative default assumptions and maximum values for all currently available data. Failure at this general screening step does not necessarily imply harm to organisms. Instead, it is an indication that more realistic model assumptions may be necessary. Several specific steps for adding progressively more realistic model assumptions are recommended. After applying the recommended changes at each step, if the combined sum of fractions is still greater than one, the graded approach recommends evaluating the next step. The steps can be summarized as:

  1. Consider using mean concentrations of radionuclides rather than maxima;
  2. Consider refining the evaluation area;
  3. Consider using site-specific information for lumped parameters, if available;
  4. Consider using a correction factor other than 100 percent for residence time and spatial usage in favor of more realistic assumptions;
  5. Consider developing and applying more site-specific information about food sources, uptake, and intake; and
  6. Conduct a complete site-specific dose analysis. This is may be a large study, measuring or calculating doses to individual organisms, estimating population level impacts, and, if doses in excess of the limits are present, culminating in recommendations for mitigation.

Each step of this graded approach requires appropriate justification before it can be applied. For example, before using the mean concentration, assessors must discuss why the maximum concentration is not representative of the radionuclide concentration to which most members of the plant or animal population are exposed.

Evaluations beyond the initial general screening require assessors to make decisions about assessment areas, organisms of interest, and other things. Much of this work has been completed and is currently in the publication process (Morris 2003). Of particular importance for the terrestrial evaluation portion of the 2002 biota dose assessment is the division of the INEEL into evaluation areas based on potential soil contamination and habitat types (Figure 7-3). Details and justification will be provided in Morris (2003).

The graded approach and the RadBCG Calculator (DOE 2002) are designed to evaluate certain common radionuclides. Thus, this biota dose assessment evaluated potential doses from radionuclides detected in soil or water on the INEEL that are also included in the graded approach (Table 7-5).

Back to top

Aquatic Evaluation

For this analysis, maximum effluent data were used because actual pond water samples were not available. These data are assumed to overestimate actual pond water concentrations because of dilution in the larger volume of the pond. In the absence of measured pond sediment concentrations, the spreadsheet calculates sediment concentrations based on a conservative sediment distribution coefficient. The only available radionuclide specific concentrations were for radium-226 (226Ra) in TRA effluents and 90Sr in TAN effluents (Table 7-6) (see DOE 2002 for a detailed description of the assessment procedure). These data were combined in a Site-wide general screening analysis that failed because of the high concentration of 226Ra in TRA effluents (Table 7-6, First Screening). The 90Sr in the TAN pond was low enough to pass the screen and did not contribute significantly to this failure. Assuming dilution in the pond, the aquatic dose was reevaluated using an average concentration of 226Ra in the TRA effluent rather than a maximum. This value also failed the screen (Table 7-6, Second Screening). The RadBCG Calculator identified the riparian animal as the critical organism. The TRA pond is lined, enclosed with a maintained gravel berm, and a chain-link fence, and is not attractive to riparian organisms. No riparian animals have been documented to use the pond. Therefore, a still-conservative assumption was made that organisms would only have access to, and use, the pond for two weeks out of the year and adjusted the correction factor from a value of one to a value of 0.038 (2 weeks/52 weeks). Using these assumptions, the combined sum of fractions was less than one and passed the screening test (Table 7-6, Third Screening).

Terrestrial Evaluation

For the initial terrestrial evaluation we used maximum concentrations from the management and operating (M&O) contractor 2002 soil sampling (Figure 7-3, Table 7-7) (see DOE 2002 for a detailed description of the assessment procedure). These concentrations failed the initial screen (Table 7-7, First Screening) because of a high 137Cs concentration in a sample from evaluation area 6 (Figures 7-3 and 7-4). For this reason, area 6 was removed from the analysis and the remaining maximum soil concentrations used (Table 7-7, Second Screening). Evaluation of potential harm to nonhuman terrestrial biota from maximum detected soil and water concentrations over the entire INEEL, with the exception of evaluation Area 6, resulted in a combined sum of fractions less than one.

Area 6 was evaluated separately. Because it is a very large area (Figure 7-3) with wide variation in soil concentrations and few samples with high concentrations (Figure 7-4), it was determined that to use the average soil concentrations was appropriate in this assessment rather than maxima. The average soil concentrations resulted in combined sums of fractions less than one (Table 7-8) (see DOE 2002 for a detailed description of the assessment procedure).

Based on the results of the graded approach, there is no evidence that INEEL-related radioactivity in soil or water is harming populations of plants or animals.


Figure 7-4.  Histogram of 137Cs concentration in soils in evaluation area 6 (Figure 7-3).

The histogram bars identify the number of samples with concentrations in specific ranges. For example, bar 1 represents the number of samples with concentrations between 0 and 1 pCi/g and the bar 2 represents the number of samples with concentrations between 1 and 2 pCi/g.

Back to top

7.6 Summary

Table 7-9 summarizes the calculated annual effective dose equivalents for 2002 from INEEL operations using both the CAP-88 and MDIFF air dispersion computer codes. A comparison is shown between these doses and the EPA airborne pathway standard and the estimated dose from natural background. The reasons for the disparity in the MDIFF and CAP-88 dose are a result of the changes made to the calculations in 2000 (see Section 7.3).

The contribution of game animal consumption to the population dose has not been calculated because only a limited percentage of the population hunts game, few of the animals killed have spent time on the INEEL, and most of the animals that do migrate from the INEEL would have reduced concentrations of radionuclides in their tissues by the time they were harvested (Halford et al. 1983). The total population dose contribution from these pathways would, realistically, be less than the sum of the population doses from inhalation of air, submersion in air, ingestion of vegetables, and deposition on soil.

A graded approach was used to evaluate the potential dose to aquatic and terrestrial biota as detailed in DOE (2002). Based on the results of this approach no adverse impact from contaminated soils and water on the INEEL are indicated to these biotic populations.

Back to top

REFERENCES

40 CFR 61, 2001, "National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register.

Cahki, S. and Parks, B., 2000, CAP88-PC, Version 2.1, September.

Chew, E.W. and Mitchell, R.G., 1988, 1987 Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site, DOE/ID-12082(87), May.

DOE, 1988, External Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public, DOE/EH 0070, July.

DOE, 1993a, "General Environmental Protection," DOE Order 5400.1, January.

DOE, 1993b, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment," DOE Order 5400.5, January.

DOE, 2002, A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota, DOE-STD-1153-2002, Available from http://homer.ornl.gov/oepa/ public/bdac/.

DOE-ID (U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office), 2003, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) - Calendar Year 2002 INEEL Report for Radionuclides, DOE/ID 10890(02), June.

Halford, D.K., Markham, O.D., and White, G.C., 1983, "Biological Elimination of Radioisotopes by Mallards Contaminated at a Liquid Radioactive Waste Disposal Area," Health Physics, 45: 745-756, September.

Hoff, D.L., Chew, E.W., and Rope, S.K., 1987, 1986 Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site, DOE/ID-12082(86), May.

Hoff, D.L., Mitchell, R.G., and Moore, R., 1989, 1988 Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site, DOE/ID-12082 (88), June.

Kocher, D.C. and Eckerman, K.F., 1988, Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public, DOE/EH-0071, July.

Markham, O.D., Halford, D.K., Autenrieth, R.E., and Dickson, R.L., 1982, "Radionuclides in Pronghorn Resulting from Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Worldwide Fallout," Journal of Wildlife Management, 46:(1), January.

Morris, R.C., 2003, Biota Dose Assessment Guidance for the INEEL, in preparation.

Sagendorf, J.F., Carter, R.G., Clawson, K.L., 2001, MDIFFF Transport and Diffusion Model, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR ARL 238, February.

Warren, R.W., Majors, S.J., and Morris, R.C., 2001, Waterfowl Uptake of Radionuclides from the TRA Evaporation Ponds and Potential Dose to Humans Consuming Them, Stoller-ESER 0140, October.

Back to top