Depleted uranium risk assessment for Jefferson Proving Ground using data from environmental monitoring and site characterization. Final report

Abstract

ILos Alarnos National Laboratory, an affimwtbe adionlequal opportunity employer, is opeiated by the University of California forthe U.S. Department of Energy under contfact W-7405ENG36. By acceptance of this article, the pWsht3.r recognnes that the US. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to puMish or reproduce the publiihed form of ttuS contribution, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. Los Alamos National Laboratory requests that the Publisher identify this article as work performed under the auspices of the US. Department of Energy. The Los Alamos National LaboratO~Y StfOWIy supportS academic freedom and a researcher's right to publish; as an institution, humver, the Laboratory does not endorse the viawpoint of a publication or guarantee its technical conectness. .

Elk and Deer Study, Material Disposal Area G, Technical Area 54: Source document

“…A steady-state model was used to estimate DU uptake by deer and humans, and a computer code designed for risk assessment, RESRAD, was used to estimate the human health risk. For each of the proving groundq, the model indicated that the uptake of uranium by deer is at concentrations that do not pose a health risk to theanimals either radiologically or toxicologically (Ebinger and Hanson 1996a, 1996b, Ebinger et al 1996. The model also indicated that the dose and risk to humans from consumption of deer that live on the proving grounds were insignificant (Ebinger and Hanson 1996a, 1996b, Ebinger et al 1996.…”

“…It is a well-established Fortran code that has been used and accepted by several government agencies, including the DOE and the Department of Defense. The model is setup in a user-friendly way that is not hard to implement, and it has been used in studies similar to this one by LANL personnel (13bingerand Hanson 1994, 1996a, 1996b, Ebinger et al 1996. The input parameters for RESRAD were largely available from studies that have been done at Area G as part of the Laboratory's environmental monitoring.…”

“…The second drawback in the RESRAD code created the need for a model that I would address the ecological concerns of this study, namely the radionuclidec oncentrations in the elk and deer muscle and the dose to those animals. This problem was solved by adapting the spreadsheet model that Ebinger and Hanson (1994, 1996a, 1996b) used for their&my Proving Grounds studies to the Area G site. The spreadsheetm odel was designed to look at the concentrations of radionuclides in animals usingc ontaminated sites.…”

“…The Residual Radiation (RESRAD) code was used to estimate doses to humans exposed to radionuclides via different ecological pathways . Internal exposure for the elk and deer was estimated using equations from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1984) coded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet where fodder, water, and soil were assumed to be contaminated with radionuclides from the disposal site (Ebinger and Hansen 1994, 1996a, 1996b.…”