ML20057A230

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 930902 Visit to Army Aberdeen Proving Ground Re Observation of Location of Monitoring Wells in Impact Area & Generic Environ Characteristics of Site in Connection W/Current & Potential Future DU Contamination
ML20057A230
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/02/1993
From:
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20057A224 List:
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9309130242
Download: ML20057A230 (30)
v • d • e


Text

Enclosure #1 TRIP REPORT OF SDMP SITE VISIT TO ARMY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD September 2, 1993

1. Backcround:

In 1992, LLDR staff was requested (John E. Glenn's memorandum to John Austin on September 21,1992) to provide technical assistance to Region I by reviewing the " Environmental Radiation Monitoring" (ERM) program proposed by the U.S. Army Combat System Test Activity (CSTA), Aberdeen Proving Ground, i

Maryland.

LLDR staff reviewed (November 17, 1992) the groundwater monitoring aspects of the ERM and requested additional information to determine the adequacy of the ERM with respect to groundwater monitoring.

Specifically, LLDR staff requested a map of the groundwater potentiometric surface, specific locations of monitoring wells, and hydrogeologic reports cited in the ERM.

On April 19, 1993, the U.S. Army CSTA responded to Region I by submitting additional technical information as requested by LLDR staff. LLDR staff was requested on June 30,1993 (John E. Glenn memorandum to John Austin on June 30, 1993) to continue providing technical assistance to Region I by reviewing the U.S. Army CSTA's ERM program for the outdoor firing range at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Specifically, LLDR staff was requested to review the licensee's response and determine whether the ERM program is likely to generate sufficient information concerning migration of the depleted uranium (DU) and any resulting environmental impact.

As a follow-up to the earlier review, and in response to the current review needs, LLDR staff and Region I staff coordinated a site visit to the Aberdeen Proving Ground SDMP site.

2. Purpose and Ob.iective:

The purpose of this site visit was to observe the location of monitoring wells in the impact area, and the generic environmental characteristics of the site in connection with current and potential future DU contamination.

3. Itinerary and Attendees:

The itinerary included technical presentations by the U.S. Army CSTA and their contractors or consultants, field visits to the main front barricades and the DU impact area, and reconnaissance view of the monitoring wells area.

An exit brief with CSTA Technical Director was also on the itinerary. A brief summary of the itinerary is provided in enclosure #1.

The attendees included staff from NRC Headquarters (Michael F. Weber, Boby Eid, and Jack Parrott), NRC Region I staff (Betsy Ullrich and Duncan 1

9309230242 93090s 7

PDR WASTE s

WM-3 PDR h

White), the U.S. Army CSTA and their contractors (Los Alamos National Laboratory, and RSO INC). Representative staff from the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), and from the State of Maryland-Radiation Health Office also attended the site visit and the technical presentations. A list of attendees' names, their affiliations, and telephone numbers is provided in enclosure #2.

4. The Site Visit:

The site visit began (by LLDR staff Michael F. Weber, Boby Eid, and Jack Parrott) at 9:00 am, on September 2, 1993.

LLDR staff met at the security gate with Region I staff (Betsy Ullrich and Duncan White).

Larry Davis of CSTA presented opening remarks, introduced attendees, and presented generic description of the site location.

Gurvis Davis (CSTA) presented description of Aberdeen area, the eco-system of the area, and the generic geologic setting of the site (Enclosure #3).

Thereafter, a concise description of the " Environmental Monitoring Program" was presented by Mr. L.

Davis (enclosure #3). Mr. L. Davis presented information on pathway and source term analysis; the sampling program which includes surface water, stream sediments, soils, groundwater, and game animals; the radiochemical analysis specific to DU; the status of the site with respect to DU contamination; and environmental radiological nonitoring of groundwater.

Dr. Mike Ebinger, of Los Alamos National Laboratory (U.S. Army CSTA contractor / consultant) gave a presentation entitled " Update Long Term Fate of DU" (enclosure #4).

It should be pointed out that this presentation included only part of a larger study which covers the "Long Term Fate of DU" at the Aberdeen, Jefferson, and Yuma ranges. Dr. Ebinger described in a pathway diagram the possible pathways of DU migration through the APG ecosystem. The presentation conc? ded that the highest DU concentrations (assuming sufficient J

contamination source term in Chesapeake Bay waters) would be in zooplankton and carnivorous fish.

The Creeks and Bay sediments are considered the highest DU sink. Dr. Ebinger's study also concluded that there would be little or no bicaccumulation of DU in crabs, fish, clams, and amphibians. Actual data from field sampling indicated no detectable DU is present in the following endpoints: fish, insects, molluscs, amphibians and crabs. APG sediment analytical data for samples from locations (within the DU and UX0 impact area) at Mosquito Creek, Delph Creek and DU Road indicated DU concentrations within background levels (1.3 - 2.4 pCi/g), whereas sediment samples collected from the upper sector of Delph Creek showed detectable concentrations above background (3.0 - 8.6 pCi/g).

Dr. Ebinger indicated that these limit's preliminary results are not conclusive at this stage.

The field visit started at the main front barricades. Melvin Jackson (CSTA) described the DU penetrators, the firing range, locations of targets and catch boxes, and safety issues associated with DU penetrators firing and recovery.

NRC staff visited the DU impact areas, the catch box (the DU containment fixture) area, and the monitoring wells area by bus.

NRC staff could not examine the contaminated facility from a close proximity due to the hazards 2

f. '

4 associated with unexploded ordinance as well as other environmental hazards 3.g., deer ticks). NRC staff used binoculars to observe the generic enviro. mental characteristics of the site.

Two monitoring wells were observed remotely by NRC staff. Staff also observed two of the air monitoring stations located near the impact area. NRC staff observed measurements of soil activity levels by the APG representative near the road (a few hundred fe<!t away from the impact area) using a GM meter. The readings on the GM meter showed activity levels in the range 0.02 - 0.03 mR/hr. NRC staff also observed APG activity measurements for deposits on the tires of the bus which was used to transport visitors around the impact area. Only low activity levels (o.02 - 0.03 mR/l.r) were detected on the tires by the Army.

After complation of the field visit, Nr.C staff (with other visitors) made an exit briefing with Mr. Jim Kelton. CSTA Technical Director. The Director indicated CSTA's willingness to cooperate with NRC in order to do whatever is reasonable to remove the Aberdeen site from the SDMP list a soon as possible. Mr. Kelton questioned the basis and criteria used by NRC to include the Aberdeen Proving Ground on the SDMP list; he contemplated that APG has no near future intention of discontinuing firing DU or other ordinance at this range.

The visit to the Army Aberdeen Proving Ground site was completed at 1:30 pm.

5. Conclusions and Recorrendations:

The site visit achieved its essential objective by observing the generic location of the monitoring wells (two wells only) with respect to the impact area. NRC staff, however, were unable to visit all monitoring wells and background wells due to lack of time and safety reasons.

From field observations, NRC staff gained knowledge of the generic environmental characteristics of the SDMP site in connection with DU contamination. The technical presentations by the Army staff and LANL staff were useful in enhancing understanding and knowledge of the current and future potential DU contamination from the Army DU activities.

Enclosures:

1) Visit Itinerary
2) List of Attendees
3) Army Technical Presentation Overhead Projection Slides
4) LANL Technical Presentation Overhead Projection Slides Distribution:

NMSS r/f LLDR r/f JAustin MWeber TCJohnson Boby Eid JParrott LBell PLohaus JGreeves EUllrich DWhite JKinneman L D4 u;5, ("4 WWh,rmr yste,mr Concurrence:

Boby Eid MWeber JParrott This report was prepared in coordination with Region I staff (E. Ullrich and D. White).

3

l Enclosure #21 i

ITINERARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i 2 SEP 93

. {

09:00 NRC ARRIVES BLDG 324 (BADGING AT SECURITY) 09:30 - 10:30 BLDG 359 (LFVD) CONF RM OPENING REMARKS LARRY DAVIS ABERDEEN AREA DESCRIPTION GURVIS DAVIS i

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LARRY DAVIS UPDATE LONG TERM FATE OF DU DR. MIKE EBINGER 10:45 FORD'S FARM FACILITY JESSE MEERDINK l

-r 11:15 PLATE PILE (NEAR BLDG 702)

IARRY DAVIS i

11:45 MAIN FRONT BARRICADES MELVIN JACKSON 12:00 - 12:45 DU IMPACT AREA LARRY DAVIS

~

13:00 RXIT BRIEF WITH MR. JIM KELTON, CSTA TECH DIR l

i I

s 6

o 6

L 1

h Enclosure #3 ' -

i i

. U.S.LEC S IE \\A C i

2 S6PD

'$k*tk Oaw<(+

C, ArWeV.

.A bic (IS. Ary C5YA Wb-t77.9(,/j_ _

q h.6t<rva S Ikvis f

d-S. An>s CSTA 9 fo.-- z 1 1 - 3 t.9 8.

e& _

t.25MRChcm1 e2ts~: 332: coV2

. M cA ?woU-( M M e r_

q 3et-5 of-2s a 5--.

W0

.Dou as /W5te.

.s%10.on0 - fact Heal14 631-3200 L

)te'M Aem.

A me -ita/ u n.

zci-ro 1-3 _

f. Bol s;/

g e.c.

  1. o / t o a.

30/-r y

.7 we,..

e g

SETSY ULuuCH (3 A)fC

/2.Z' 2/f-33 7-SbYo -.

i i CPT SAM WBrraeG cstfe i LM 4 /0- M. ^ %.'0 4 I c og

..., h. N M4-

-fsg Ski)

'//0 - 2 79 -15dl

. (b \\gk 0ARbewio AP&

yto -2 77-roas' da f t~iwfen U S Avsy CsTR

'4l0-2*7'd-l%71

..,,mes

.fiQrr:s Edy'e.

U5. Ariny Lien thy byy 'Ito-67t-3ta2/.3sk,

.. OnayL

.5'ing RSo su c.

'11 0 79 2 7'I't 4 i

.Aye Rksen L.ANL y67gg7 323J fAf6' Sin &TGL.OXS08% ~7ECM 3RR7Y

(%'9.y78-BD1

. : / M 4 A m _..

w' m-m-M Y

L.

. _a. c._/..j<.__ 0.cT~ji. z. Fc/b

_4..to - 2 7 7.. 7_/8. 6

~..

6

...eme,. e e

...p.

.,4meme=

1.,

M.

. }l I

ll lll l

1 l

l

!t Te.8C8 %b j/

d

/

i.

n u

o.

o e

r o,

G u

g n

i v

4 o

rP

+

&J n

\\

e e

d 5,

e r

1 b

7 A

0 e

h 1,

t 3

f w

o s

a n

=

s c un a

3

' ) ?

Mm 7

e p

r i

r m

A f.

I n

e Q%

"x

?6 e

e 1

d r

D N

b A

L A

Y R

A e

N h

T 1

o E

R

[

U G

IF l

!l!llrll l,!l!'

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM

  • Based. on " pathway" and " source term" analyses
  • Expanded sampling to include ground water and game. animals
  • Radiochemical analyses specific to DU
  • Surface: water, stream sediment,. and ground water.

-are. best types of. samples to monitor for : movement.

of. DU away from testing areas L

i i

i f.

-....=..

b RADIOCHEMICAL. ANALYSIS 1

Samples are. analyzed for uranium isotopes by alpha spectrometry -and mass spectrometry Activity ratio of U-234:U-238 can be used to identify DU l

The presence of U-236 can be used to confirm l

DU l

1

..m

.. m..

i.i-m 1

..~.

m.

. m.

.m

.E m-- --

l

. I m ~ - -

m m

-n E r..m.__m.~_--m..---,a m.m_m. - --.'u-_1+ _.....-.,ed.-.-

=.n'.m.- %

-,,,r.,.--e.Im-.___.,w_e4

STATUS Uranium concentrations in background samples are low and are in general agreement with

- published. values-DU penetrator testing areas are slightly e

contaminated with DU No evidence of movement -of DU into Chesapeake Bay or. ground water i

e 9

m...m

--.m m__.m....,__mm

.mm..m m wnum.-uaw ma.

mama.x mmm L,hw1-_+-1&

mu w m.E e,-

=+s.Ae-,,ww.,4p'u-eM +

e w.,.g,um-cwce

%---gm+--

---N~qwq

.w--g4h-M-T-e 9--9 MY*'+MW9 9gw--Ms-

'TW.--

YW7%*9'N' W

p

.~

APG CSTA Environmental Radiological Monitoring Groundwater Well Data steme WeII caeang won weser Weser Weenr Votunw 3 Pwge Time @ Pwge Time @ Purge Time @ Veeume 5 Pwge Time @ Purge Time @ Pwge Time @

Number Diometer Depth level Depett Volume Purgos 2 Umin 3 Undn 4 Umin Pwges 2 Umin 3 Undn 4 Undn (In)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(Heers)

(IIters)

(min.)

(min.)

(min)

(Neors)

(min.)

(min )

(min)

B3 CB-1 2

24 17 7

4.32 12.97 6.48 4.32 324 21.62 10.81 721 5.40 B3CD.2 4

23 11 12 29.64 8893 44.47 29.64 2223 148.22 74.11 49.41 37D6 83-CB,3 '

2 23 13.4 9A 5D3 17.79 8E9 5D3 4.45 29.64 14.82 9.88 7.41-BTD-l 2

24.5 11.4 13.1 8.09 2427 12.14 8D9 6.07 40.45 2023 13.48 10.11 BTD-2 2

19 4.7 143 833 26.49 1325 833 6.62 44.16 22.00 14.72 11.04' BTD,3 4

15 3.6 11.4 28.16 84.48

-42.24 28.16 21.12 140.81 70.40 46.94 3520 BTD-4 2

15 23 125,

7.72 23.16 11.58 7.72 5.79 38.60 19.30 12.87 9.65 ' '

FF 1 2

18 3.1 149 920 27At 13B0 920 6.90 46hl 23.00 15.34 1150 FF-2 2.

17 4.4 12.6 7.78 2334 11.67 7.78 SE4 3831 19.45 12.97 9.73 FF4 4

17 4.4 12A 31.13 9338 46.69 31.13 23.34 155.63 77.81 5fA8 38.91 i'

2 17 42 122 753 22.60 11.30 753 5.65 37E7 18E4 1236 9.42 6

2 24 10.6 13.4 828 24E3 12.41 828 621 41.38 20.69 13.79 1034 PP-1 2

16 48 13.2 8.15 24.46 12.23 8.15 6.11 40.76 20.38 13.59 10.19 PP 2 2

18 6$

11.4 7.04 21.12 1036 7h4 528 3520 17Ao 11.73 8.80 PP-3 2

24 7E 16.4 10.13 3038 15.19 10.13 7AO 50.64 2532 16.88 12A6 PP-4 2

24 7A 16.4

'10.13 3038 15.19 10.13 7.60 50.64 2532 16E8 12.66 TW2 CB-1 2

13 3.1 93 6.11 1834 9.17 "6.11 4.59 3057 1526 10.19 7A4 TW2CB2 4

18-2 16 39.52 11837 5929 3932 29E4 197.62 98A1 65ET 49.41 B3-1 2

22 43 17.1 10.56 31A8 1534 10.56 722 5220 26.40 17.60 13.20 B3-2 2

15 5.4 95 SD3 17.79 BA9 5.93 4.45' 29.64 14E2 938 s.41 B33 2

18 4D 13.1 8.09' 2427 12.14 8.09 6h/

40.45 2023 13.48 10.11 B34 2

16 53 10.1 624 18,71 9.36 624 4A8 31.19 1539 10.40 7A0

[

83-5 2

18 4A 132 8.15 24.46 1223 8.15 6.11 40.76 2038 13.59 10.19

. 83 6 2

14 6A 7.4 4.57 13.71 6A6 437 3.43 22A5 11.43 7E2 5.71

!3 Average 18.94 6.46 12.48 11.72 35.16 1758 11.72 8.79 58.59 29 30 19.53 14.65

?

?

' t?

w,.-------_-_-----.._-----.:_-----

,g 1 -.

e l

i k'

t

'h

. I 1

6

)

9 i

9 1

)

-r

' 7 I

I P

Ii f

f l

l

.I i

+

.i

?

_b

'6

- 6 L

i i

s e 1 s

h

.. {

f i

e f

I i

i 6 4

.,._._.._.____..J_..__......4_.

.L

b-

- z y -- - r-c. w axyp

.c

,c Y~,;ty,.,,

%/{?

@. a j

). a gg MW*)

1

  • a

.:.?

O ':

.~

4.

' k.^

-' 'k-g'Qp < "

t.N Q

\\

i.,.-[

N.

' *]f I

4 f

'i,f',r

.,g-..

, h

' f: g Q f ;l[,[,

y_

[

h.:,. y. ? ^

l Y

Q{rd

_q p

ers#

m+,mp m

w 4

.g n-m 1.

m y:

my 3g

., f

.f;.kfh h

pg y

f & l A

~ $'r?t -

a a ( fm m' :

M

p.,:

y.

s_

n a

.~

WQW '

gr6 f

4..;

i

~

~q

)F ng 4

  • s '.-

WM-98

~

1 %qw? 7% c '

y nw.,:. =.. -

c :.

w.a

.~

.e

a..

. q, Q..w:: eye [r m

e-7..

  1. k[N %...

4

.; k, m' b.[. *N$ nQh %.

e k

l.

'a R:qV +:& p ;..:.::>.. -

~

M 6h w 0 "'\\. 2.

Ag

.,,,s ; x

p c a

. *I-.

~

yp QQ

. M'.,J n n

-Q

< QQ ;

,... g n $m 3.. p;,,.....

f,

s 3msRypyf.f 73

!L hf fk hq y % m ;:Jwhk fNh,.%g# WYff..f[' '

k 1

. ~

E n.nm.:s cy ~m

~- r n

v-W a.

2

- u.:v mm.e

+'qW

- 9 A., msw) %myA*;4f 4WW 8

n' n.; @..o.r:OR,pW9 QN p

, i nn w

w e:

-c.-:

  • w; y :rt e x-n

.y.,. %w.w, y. :.y. a)...;( y j.gi' ;; ~;j:;.!.;(.:K.?rg;i t$Q c

f tr

' m oRVp =g [9 ' %y;;,g:

e

.n~

.n.

' W: > y p n

--m 1-W. :.,p-4 yg pq r

3

.y..

QQi Ak.

~ z u

.. f ' ~

q.__

m_. _

.y u

N

' 'r &}

Jfy (ggW d33f.% Y r f

r*.

3: 1;L"R4.,.. L.;.

., M. hiaACm%&aw d&.m

'r e.&p k

e

  • }f(Nf**#mm %'.; )ag >

~

m.m~ m.,~

~

--w nn emm*n ~ ~ lP 4,.) &}

n ~ s swn:t +:"sw -

p, rem w

A?$ b.Iy-0? ?

Ng b

[

f(s D)

,k[,, My%.8

[

T a

h'

&gg g
_.3: g Q.

3 p%f, 3;g~

[

hMf W5)/Qf

~*

g n

a W V11

- 1 r 4 m%,O q e %s y# a E

%m.

MM xc s

s

.+

gng.

m

a

,nwy ;m.,x..

+..

. wy& f f g:yh g[n m y a; g y :q

.n wy y;

(

. 4;. :.

n q QQg Q.

7

. _ ;,y MW

%)

fq;j~r M syye u.t. 2 L :

.. m:g

. wJ. e b.,d; w%g 4 a p A.:

e h-e a m e: n : n n.

n

-.c..

1 l l h. g? h $i'r ?:l5 @\\g x p o( g $

w&s, 2

~-

h g

l mll - b[..s..l;

[

'l j

i -

~

cr a% *c f r

'.g as n

m e

k[ghy.:hfc W

' ; J;p 34:

A y.

M y

4 : +9e s,v M[e@k [Mp # [y[ 1 p e

. ;T flN M,

th

. l#mik.l' I

d

~

njgsm 4

wan 4

,. c wn ~n s ww-

. a n;l Lg 36 ' ?.n' % j. fwg-mae u

'm:q, ;y-byw8 $f,2,l \\

. ',;.- /...r

.:n n..x m

f. '

' { } );s c:

iq ~

-h L VN i.

, ?.$t)

. ik.3 }

' ? ;"

21 s,

j#

t' ?

2 m

j c[fj s

-A J

l y

hl

. i, 3

r6 y

haan.w.aum ecuer ge..f

, yg

g. 2ews, % %

r

wrz u m +

oun

-N t 4

me:W M#m u

=-

.r Enclosuro #5 <

4 Why Do a Risk Assessment?

Does DU Transport Out of impact Areas?

Does DU Migrate to Chesapeake Bay?

Are there Appreciable Risks to.

Ecosystems?

Are there Appreciable Risks to Humans?

Environmental Science -

Los Alamos Group

~

Risk Assessment--Human 1

Radiological or Toxicological Problem?

4 Health Effects due to DU Testing 1

If Risk Unacceptable, what do We Do?

J Possible Alteration of DU Testing Management

' Environmental--

Science Los Alamos Group

.J Risk Assessment--Ecological 4

What is Ecological Risk?

  • Radiological vs. Toxicological?

-Complex--New Area Developing the Tools Undefined Criteria for " Risks" Tied to Future Claims t

Environmental' Science Los Alamos ~

t Group

=---.

u

,y,

^

Pathway Diagram Carnivorous

. Water Fish Arrows Indicate Possible DU V

Migration Through APG Ecosystem Humans 5

Environmental L s Alamos G

up

j

[

e.

A g

,3 w

1 MJ APG CONCEPTUAL MODEL CARNIVOROUS PHYTOPLANKTON Sugpgygjoy

>g %

F EDING (g

y,

,')

. p...

W,#

n?~

\\

BENTHIC

- sk k

SUSPENSION FEEDERS

)

[

~',. -

~

l BENTHIC DIATOMS fg C

(

3:)y,

.[

-3,.::--

SEDIMENT BENTHIC DETRITUS DEPOSIT i

SEDIMENT FEEDERS

.....w.

n

. n

'e UINPUTFROM APh

~[ #

WATER (Co)

CARNIVOROUS r

FISH (0 )

-> E 9

-> SD h

1r PHYTOPLANKTON (C )

(

SUSPENSION 1

FEEDING y

y P E FISH (C )

8 r sD COMBINED y

A I

> ZOOPLANKTON (C )

3 r

V T WATER-COLUMN es DETRITUS (C )

l WE 2

m A

~

r BENTHIC BENTHIC if "I"

DEPOSIT 8

SEDIMENT FEEDERS BENTHIC

- (C )

h

-* W DETRITUS (Ca)

DIATOMS (C )

7 4

>g 7

y i-II A

W SD 7

SEDIMENT (C o) 1 WATER (Co)

V DEEP SEDIMENT SINK (Q12)

E->

EXPORT (011)

=

hma. mmu--v-e

.r

-er eev-i-ee.

4iw-*m-a

+-e.eew-eu w en

-s, e

'-2e'ee-e av.w--n ats-<

a e--r-

--o-.=

e--

w-,

e-g w

e

--,=

i m-1e,

<iet-=,r-g==e

==--e-,wr e-.e n

e v-u-

y y

5 04

. c s.

x

- 1 2

L WATER-(Co)

BENTHIC-SUSPENSION

^

DEPOSIT i:

FEEDING FEEDERS A,9 1,0 FISH-(C )-

0 9

8 (C )

7 A,8 A,7 9

v 9

e CARNIVOROUS A,9 FISH (0 )

3 A11,9 9

U U

A9'6 DETRITUS (C )

EXPORT'(Q11).

3 BENTHIC

. SUSPENSION:

FEEDERS (C )

6 1

e re ce m-.,.m, m,umw..$mes--i.s

,w.wa.:-,,

..m,...A

...s.a,,,

  • .*w ww--.mv

.m

.~..m..<---en.

ewe.

,,w,,

,w-ew,,-,-+imwe

,w - o

,>>,,-e,ww,..

,,,s.,a.r,

- n -- w w iw.w,

.-e.

.,, -w-e.-

a

+

+

t w

I)

A CAR N VOROUS r S-30 25 n

y N20 N k o

15 e

w v

l 10

[y a

\\

5

T q

~

m& N m,.,,GR) h$i CYo r i m m -~

,x /

9 9

0+

dM8 8e +Moy 9

.e8 N h 0* OI*D 0 0

4 4e fg/a* 4 @*g, +*

4&

(O g s

/ Y

=

-/

,. 'e 4

-/~

~

Y 4

t[i'j 7>

/w I

N R\\

S O

I T

,m

~

A

/g@

N T

E M

R

-/8 T

E RA C

P

-/[

N M

O U

C 2

1l,

'"l /*

L L

g%g.5t E

ED

=/ vf D

O M

O d

2 M

_/9'ffg G

-/4 P

f A

,n / ~&

T 50505o3 3322 1

l g ;2 $ $ M.

q a

~

,t ci j;.:

j APG MODEL UNCERTAINTY 35 30

  • 25 Z

$ 20 euJ 15 o

z 10 og 5

E

'5

.0 O

d N

09 xO bg O

  • 'tA p*,#ef 9N g# d'**g#

b gb S'

b q0 QL A

i SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY l

=

UINPUT FROM APh CARNIVOROUS [#

WATER (Co) p l

FISH (0 )

->- E 9

+ SD h

U PHYTOPLANKTON (C )

{

SUSPENSION 1

)

U FEEDING P-E FISH (C )

~

8 COMBINED "W

ZOOPLANKTON (C )

3 r,r WATER-COLUMN WE DETRITUS (C )

2 h

BENMC BENTHIC 1T DEPOSIT SEDIMENT FEEDERS DETRITUS (C )

BENTHIC (C )

J L-y

+W 7

3 DIATOMS (C )

4

_,_ g 7

h w

so h

SEDIMENT (C o) i WATER (Co)

Y DEEP. SEDIMENT SINK (Q12)

E -* EXPORT (Q11)

'.. ^

Predicted DU Concentrations Highest U in Zooplankton, Carnivorous Fish Sediment Sink Had Highest DU Little or No Bioaccumulation Uncertainty: Largest Factor is Water L

Concentration Low DU in Crabs, Fish, Clams, Amphibians-

~

Environmental Science Los Alamos =

Group a-.:.--..,.-

(

Data from Field Sampling L

Endpoints Sampled:

No DU detected in the following 4

endpoints:

Fish Insects Molluscs Amphibians Crabs Sediments were different...

r Environmental Science

' Los Alamos Group

APG Sediment Data (NAA)

With DU (o. Ci/a)

W/O DU (o. Ci/a.).

Upper Delph Cr. (3.01 Mosquito Cr. (2.4?

Upper Delph Cr. (8.6?

Mosquito Cr. (1.5?

.DU Road (1.8)

Delph Cr. (1.3?

Delph Cr. (2.1) 4 Environmental

. Science

.Los Alamos

. Group

--.. -.-.-.-.-.-..--....--......-..-.....--...---........r..-.....

( _:

e, e

9 I

.,-.4 e

4

( '.

5 f

ltfi.lN,j;

\\"'

~.

s..

li

$ee ge l e,.

5:::
[

- :jl::' ' '

. :s::

f

,1

'::j i

4Ut46 :Ont%R43%%qqd ifi)" ' '

O

5:

- [f 5.2 : -

~

Z e

m w w.H 4

,.1

< e, en W 4,

~

6 y

Conclusions U Moves in Different Environments There are Sinks for DU Other Than Food Web 1:

DU Recovery is important if Safely Done i

We Have an improved idea of Where and What to Sample-Need Longer-Term Field Data P

Environmental b ""

Los Alamos -

up

=

m

~

Conclusions U Moves in Different Environments There are Sinks for DU Other Than Food Web DU Recovery is important if Safely Done We Have an improved idea of Where and.

What to Sample

'Need Longer-Term Field Data Environmental Science Los Alamos Group.

lL.

1 Applications

~

I t

Risk Estimates

  • Human Health Environmental Environm' ental Monitoring

~

Endpoints:(Not Entire Ecosystem)

  • Locations for Monitoring i

i Environmental.

l

- Science Los Alamos l

Group l

....-.~..-...

.n.. -..

Applications Remediation Options

  • What Makes Sense (Risk Based)
  • Field Data to Support Decisions Management Options / Decisions Long-Term Movement of DU Monitoring Data with Time l

Risks:in the Future i

Environmental Science

.Los Alamos Group -

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20057A230&oldid=4480390"