skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Post-Chelyabinsk Risk Assessment.

Abstract

Abstract not provided.

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
OSTI Identifier:
1240838
Report Number(s):
SAND2015-1449C
567289
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting held December 15-19, 2014 in San Francisco, CA.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Boslough, Mark B., Harris, Alan, and Brown, Peter. Post-Chelyabinsk Risk Assessment.. United States: N. p., 2015. Web.
Boslough, Mark B., Harris, Alan, & Brown, Peter. Post-Chelyabinsk Risk Assessment.. United States.
Boslough, Mark B., Harris, Alan, and Brown, Peter. Sun . "Post-Chelyabinsk Risk Assessment.". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1240838.
@article{osti_1240838,
title = {Post-Chelyabinsk Risk Assessment.},
author = {Boslough, Mark B. and Harris, Alan and Brown, Peter},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2015},
month = {Sun Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2015}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • Post-remediation monitoring, habitat restoration, and baseline ecological risk assessment are being integrated at an environmentally contaminated Navy installation in San Francisco Bay. Remedial and restoration actions were performed in some areas following a record of decision, but adjacent areas were not evaluated for potential ecological risks. Because the contaminated area included critical habitat of endangered species, only a portion of the area was excavated; the remediated and non-remediated areas are the subject of a long term monitoring program to track potential migration of contaminants across the site and to validate the effectiveness of the remediation. The monitoring program combines chemical,more » toxicological, and tissue residue sampling. Data from the monitoring efforts form the foundation for the baseline assessment by highlighting contaminants, ecological receptors, and exposure pathways of potential concern for remediated, restored, and monitoring areas. Areas not yet assessed for ecological risk are being evaluated by focused chemical sampling, toxicity testing, and tissue residue analysis, Chemical concentrations in tissues of clams, rodents, and plants collected during monitoring efforts will be supplemented by tissue residue analysis of benthic invertebrates and used in the baseline assessment to model potential exposure and effects and to evaluate potential risks to high trophic level receptors. Finally, the monitoring protocol will be reevaluated based on the results of the baseline assessment to ensure that the monitoring strategy adequately targets areas of greatest ecological concern, The concurrence of the monitoring, habitat restoration, and baseline assessment efforts provides a unique opportunity to validate risk management decisions concerning remediation and restoration of a critical wetlands habitat.« less
  • The process of ecological risk assessment is intended to produce a scientifically defensible position which will be the starting point for risk management decisions on the protection of the environment. Several sites, where ecological risk assessments were conducted, will be evaluated from a scientific perspective and how those assessments were taken into account for the risk management decision. A smelter and an electroplating facility will be used as illustrations of innovative interpretations of ecological risk assessments and the innovative derivation of model assumptions. For these sites, the risk assessments were approached with a combination of toxicity tests, benthic macroinvertebrate collectionmore » and evaluations and chemistry. At one site. No Observed Adverse Effect Levels were derived based on solid phase toxicity tests for five chemicals of potential concern. Chromium, cadmium, zinc, nickel, and cyanide were identified as the contaminants of concern by conducting a screening risk assessment and a study to derive a dose-response relationship among the chemicals. The resulting acute and chronic toxicity test results derived chemical specific goals for each of the chemicals. After the completion of the risk assessment, the negotiation of the remedial cleanup goals for the Record of Decision (ROD) is discussed. Some chemicals of concern were ignored others took on a new meaning and other policy considerations were taken into effect. The resultant management decision as noted in the ROD is the integration of all these inputs. For the other site, two chemicals of concern were noted and a triad approach was employed where benthic macroinvertebrate community structure was evaluated, solid phase toxicity tests were employed and chemistry was conducted.« less
  • Many organizations today are faced with cleaning a site or facility, selecting appropriate remedial alternatives, or explaining the potential effects on human health and the environment caused by the releases of toxic compounds into the air, soil, and water, The use of risk assessment (RA) as a management tool is increasing because it offers an integrated approach to the analysis of toxicological, geological, physio-chemical, meteorological, statistical, and biological parameters that must be evaluated in the assessment of potential impacts to human health. The regulatory atmosphere in the 1990s is leaning toward the adoption of further laws requiring the completion ofmore » the RA process. Any industry involved in submitting permit applications to Air Quality Management Districts or complying with California's Proposition 65 and AB 2588 will be required to prepare RAs. Several guidance documents are available that support the RA process including the California Site Mitigation Decision Tree Manual published by the State Department of Health Services (DHS), which bases its approach on developing cleanup objectives (Applied Action Levels) on RA. This presentation focuses on the applications RA can have to the petroleum industry and the kinds of data that each case should develop to make maximum use of the RA process.« less
  • Models are used to derive action levels for site screening, or to estimate potential ecological or human health risks posed by potentially hazardous sites. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), which is RCRA-regulated, the human-health screening action levels are based on hazardous constituents described in RCRA Subpart S and RESRAD-derived soil guidelines (based on 10 mRem/year) for radiological constituents. Also, an ecological risk screening model was developed for a former firing site, where the primary constituents include depleted uranium, beryllium and lead. Sites that fail the screening models are evaluated with site-specific human risk assessment (using RESRAD and othermore » approaches) and a detailed ecological effect model (ECOTRAN). ECOTRAN is based on pharmacokinetics transport modeling within a multitrophic-level biological-growth dynamics model. ECOTRAN provides detailed temporal records of contaminant concentrations in biota, and annual averages of these body burdens are compared to equivalent site-specific runs of the RESRAD model. The results show that thoughtful interpretation of the results of these models must be applied before they can be used for evaluation of current risk posed by sites and the benefits of various remedial options. This presentation compares the concentrations of biological media in the RESRAD screening runs to the concentrations in ecological endpoints predicted by the ecological screening model. The assumptions and limitations of these screening models and the decision process where these are screening models are applied are discussed.« less
  • There are major differences between the safety principles for nuclear weapons and for nuclear reactors. For example, a principal concern for nuclear weapons is to prevent electrical energy from reaching the nuclear package during accidents produced by crashes, fires, and other hazards, whereas the foremost concern for nuclear reactors is to maintain coolant around the core in the event of certain system failures. Not surprisingly, new methods have had to be developed to assess the risk from nuclear weapons. These include fault tree transformations that accommodate time dependencies, thermal and structural analysis techniques that are fast and unconditionally stable, andmore » Monte-Carlo-based sampling methods that incorporate intelligent searching. This paper provides an overview of the new methods for nuclear weapons, compares them with existing methods for nuclear reactors, identifies some of their dual-use characteristics, and discusses ongoing developmental activities.« less