NMBU/CERAD 3

EFFEKTER OG MILJØRISIKO KNYTTET TIL INNGREP I OMRÅDER MED SULFIDRIKE MINERALER- Risikovurderinger og anbefalinger ved bygging i alunskifer

Lindis SkipperudCenter for Environmental Radioactivity (CERAD CoE), Department for Environmental Sciences (IMV), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)

Risikovurderinger• ERICA tool

–radiologiske effekter på organismer• EQS – environmental quality standards

–Vurderinger av innholdet av giftige metaller• Cummaltive risk estimation

–Mulige effekter på organismer av kjemisk giftighet av elementer

• Benyttet faktiske tall fra 2015 feltarbeid

Risk assessment of field data – ERICA • ERICA Assessment Tool (tier 2), version 1.2.1, was used to estimate the radiological

effects on the organisms in the aquatic environment at three stations. • Measured activity of 238U, 232Th and 210Po in water, sediments and organisms was

used to estimate the effect (screening value 10 µGy/h). • ERICA assessment tool provides an estimate of the expected dose rate and an

estimate of conservative dose rate for selected organisms.

http://www.erica-tool.com/

Comparing Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for sediments

ElementVigga v/

Jarenvannet(St.6) (mg/kg)

Nordtangen (St. 7)

(mg/kg)

Horgenbekken (St. 9) (mg/kg)

LEL (range)a

(mg/kg)

PECb

(mg/kg)

Cu 17 - 21 37 - 47 36 - 38 16 - 50 149Ni 32 - 76 59 - 68 190 – 210 16 - 30 48As 1,9 – 6,9 13 - 17 14 – 18 6 - 33 33Mo 1,3 – 5,9 11 - 12 11 – 14 5 - 100 -Cd 0,28 – 0,55 0,81 – 0,91 2,4 – 2,5 0.6 - 10 5Pb 3,4 - 14 15 - 19 13 - 17 31 - 100 128

a EQS based on “Screening Values, Lowest effect levels (LEL)” and ECO-SSL (RIVM, 2001; EPA, 2004;MacDonald et al., 2000).

b Predicted Effect Concentrations (PEC) reflecting concensus levels for ecological effects for one ore more groups of organisms (EPA, 2000).

• Consentrations of Ni can be compared to the generic 10 µGy/h for ionising radiation, so we have a case of possiblemultiple stressor scenario.

Cummulative risk estimation of U and metals

• Model to identify theorganisms at risk

• Predicted risk:Algea ˃ Fish ˃ Bentic

• Elements giving possiblerisk of toxisity:

• U – 90% for algea• Ni – 46% for bentic• Al – 95% for fish

Total risk: ˃ 1 predicting risk˃ 10 predicitng high risk

Leaching experiments of different alum shale minerals

• Redox conditionsdoes not have thatmuch effect on U leaching

• pH have huge effects on U leaching

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Uranium 0.45 µm

Ox: A 0.45 µm Ox: B 0.45 µm Ox: C 0.45 µm

Red: A 0.45 µm Red: B 0.45 µm Red: C 0.45 µm

Fish exposure experimentsUptake studies in fish Salomo trutta

• Studied uptake from leachate water from 3 different minerals with different pH

• 0.45 µm filtration of leached water• Brown trout• Controlled pH, temperature• Dark, no unnecessary disturbances

• Uptake experiment: One concentration, sampling fish at 6, 12, 24, 96 and 264 h

• Dose-response experiment: Severalconcentrations, sampling at 196 h

Uptake experiment cont.• Mo, Cd and U present as low molecular mass species – assumed

bioavailableExperiment 1

- 96 hours (alumshale)

Experiment 1- 96 hours

(E18)

Experiment 2 -192 hours (alum

shale)

Vigga(Field data)

pH 7.8 ± 0.1 5.5 ± 0.1 7.3 - 7.4 7.8Temperature (oC) 9.4 ± 0.1 9.4 ± 0.2 9.1 - 9.2Ca (mg/L) 36.4 ± 0.6 1.2 ± 0.1 31 - 32 51 – 70U (µg/L) 171 ± 1 0.5 74 - 1830 0.9 - 2.7BCF U (L/kg gills) 0.6 600 4 - 7 10 – 30

Mo (µg/L) 1326 ± 6 < 2 166 - 4418 0.3 - 5.8BCF Mo (L/kg gills)

0.4 - 0.7 - 0.8 13 - 45*

Cd (µg/L) 1.3 ± 0.3 0.05 ± 0.01 0.1 - 2.0 0.01 - 0.025BCF Cd (L/kg gills)

500 2100 1000 - 2800 1260

Po (Bq/L) 0.0008 -0.065

BCF Po (L/Kg bein)

175 - 1317

Cadmium on fish gills

Uranium on fish gills

Uranium in fish liver

Dose - response experiment fish• RV4- Alum shale : Acute exposure experiment 96 hrs (OECD 1992)• 6 different concentration -7 brown trouts in each

The results indicated: • that exposure to a mixture of metals leaked from alum shale in water with high

pH and a relatively high Ca concentration did not contribute to negative mechanisms giving harmful effects on fish.

• Results from analyzes of gene expression reinforces the results of the physiological responses and the absence of adverse effects in fish.

• Important to remember: high Ca-concentration and high pH!

Ca Cu Zn As Mo Cd U V Mn Ni

mg/l µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/LControl A 37 6 5 0 0 0 0 35 9 1Control B 36 5 3 0 0 0 0 24 10 1A 2,5 37 7 8 0 168 0 75 172 25 11A 8,7 36 6 9 0 586 0 257 389 59 36A 17,5 35 5 18 1 1165 0 430 765 112 71A-35 34 5 27 2 2291 1 799 1471 213 141A-70 34 6 44 3 4492 2 1526 2875 412 280

Dose – response Daphnia magna

• Acute 48 hours and • Cronic 21 days tests• pH 7.5• T = 20°C

• Acute test with D. magna gave leathal effect as a functionof concentration giving:

–NOEC = 3744 μg U/L, –LOEC = 9359 μg U/L –EC50 = 7124 μg U/L

ConclusionsLeaching experiments• The different leaching experiments showed that there is

possibilities for leaching and the contamination of the aquatic environment, especially at lower pH

–Leaching can be a problem for a long time… • But at this specific site, the rock showed large buffer

capacity (probably carbonates), remaining on high pH• The chemical element of calcium and manganese

dissolve easily and fast, but where most other metals, including uranium is more inert at this high pH.

• Remobilization potential is therefore considered to be low as long as the rock buffer capacity is intact.

Conclusions cont.Uptake and effect on organisms• There is an effect on the benthic community in the area –

significantly affected by the construction work.• No effects seen on fish in the field• In the experiments, clear uptake of U and other elements

(Mo and Cd) was shown for gills, kidney and liver.• High pH and high Ca levels are protective of aquatic

organisms such as fish, therefore despite metal deposition was detected in fish organs, any significant negative effects on the fish was not found – confirmed by qPSR/gene expressions

• Lower pH and lower Ca content will give much higher uptake of U – and increase probability of effects.

Conclusions cont.Risk estimates• Radiological risk based on Erica Tool indicates that the

radiological consequences are small, except in one site where level exceeds a dose rate of 10 μGy / h.

• Cumulative risks associated with metals (especially U, Al, Ni) varied widely between the various sites.

• All sites proved to represent a risk for the three groups of species (algae, crustaceans, fish) tested.

• Water from one of the sites proved to represent high predicted risk to algae and crustaceans, and lower risk to fish.

• High predicted risk appears to match the observation of a possible change in species composition – the benthic community.

Anbefalinger• De viktigste anbefalinger etter endt prosjektperiode vil

være:–Rensetiltak av avrenningsvann fra anlegg må

stedstilpasses og optimaliseres etter stedets vannkvalitet.

–Bruk av sorbenter anbefales da sedimentering ikke tar lavmolekylære, mobile metaller fra vannet. Kommersielle sorbenter som DB-12P-HP kan anbefales ved høy pH (pH rundt 7, som på Gran) mens Olivin-Al kan anbefales ved lavere pH (ned til pH 4)

Anbefalinger• Horgenbekken og bekken ved Nordtangen bør vurderes renses. Hvis

mulig bør Horgenbekken gå i rør hele veien og rensing settes inn før avløp til Jarenvannet.

• Det bør gjennomføres etterundersøkelser knyttet til avrenning fra anlegget ca. 5 år etter at anleggsarbeidene er avsluttet. Etterundersøkelsene bør fokusere på

– sedimentkjerner i Jarenvannet da dette vil være en god indikator på avrenning fra de nærliggende områdene inkludert anleggsområdet.

– Bunndyrundersøkelser i elver og bekker som vil vise miljøstatus etter endt anleggsarbeid.

– Prøvetaking av fisk i Vigga og i begge basseng av Jarenvannetda det kan være forskjell i påvirkning av fisken i basseng sør ved utløp Vigga og i basseng nord. Dette kan gjerne gjøres allerede 1 år etter ferdigstilling av anlegget og så repeteres etter 5 år.

• Funding: the Nordic Road Water Project (NORWAT)

• Hedda Vikan, Sondre Meland, Halldis Fjermestad, Malin Torp, Turid Hertel-Aas, Per Hagelia at Norwegian Road Construction Authority

• Frøydis Meen Wærsted, Hans-Christian Teien, Brit Salbu, Lene Sørlie Heier, Marit Nandrup Pettersen, Lene Valle at Center for Environmental Radioactivity (CERAD), Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU),

• Knut Erik Tollefsen, Øyvind Aaberg Garmo, Tore Høgåsen, Maria Hultman, Tânia Gomes og Ailbhe Macken at The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)

• 7 MSc students

• Tusen takk!

Takk til

Erlend Hjortland Sandøy

Presentasjoner av resultatene

• NRC9 – Nuclear and Radiochemistry conference in Helsinki, Finland – invited oral presentation

• NORM VIII – Eight international symposium on Natural Occuring Radioactive Material in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil –oral presentation & poster

• NETS - 6th Norwegian Environmental Toxicology Symposium in Oslo, Norge - ???

• II International conference on radioecologicalconcentration processes in Sevilla, Spania – oral presentation

Takk for meg!