1. Risk assessment of sea- dumped conventional munitions
Øyvind Voie
Espen Mariussen
Aktuell nr 40, 1962

2. A reproducible sampling strategy for decision making
How to sample munition constituents when you want to make a judgement on whether this is a problem for the environment or not in a specific area

4. Content of paper Sampling strategies for risk assessment
Review of fate and transport of dumped munitions constituents in marine systems
Uptake and accumulation in organisms
Toxicity and sediment quality benchmarks
Sampling strategies for risk assessment
(accessed 2016)
(accessed 2016)

5. The issue of representativity
Three Common Sources of Measurement Error:
Activity
Error (% of True Value)
Sampling
1000%
Sample preparation
100 – 300 %
Analytical measurement
2 – 20 %
Where does sampling error come from? There are two primary sources:
The heterogeneity of the composition of the contaminated particle; and
The uneven or heterogeneous distribution of the contaminant over a given area.
Rasemann, 2000

6. Multi-increment sampling

7. What’s your «Decision Unit» (DU)?
The physical boundaries of the locations within the project area of interest that will need to be sampled.
A DU will be used to make a decision that will drive an administrative action to be taken in relation to the project goals for that unit.

8. Sediment quality benchmarks for munitions constituents
G.A. Pascoe et al. / Chemosphere 81 (2010) 807–816

9. Monitoring by passive samplers

10. WP 3.2 Case studies on wrecks filled with chemical munitions
John Tørnes
Berit Gilljam

11. Status
A planning meeting in Sopot and a visit to R/V IMOR was conducted 8-9 June Discussions were carried out on:
Methods for sediment sampling
Methods for biological sampling
Proposed time for cruise in Skagerrak is about 2 weeks (transit from Poland included) in May-July 2017
Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (MIG) will be responsible for the safety onboard R/V IMOR, including safety against chemical warfare agents
A questionnaire has been sent out to all DAIMON partners

12. Prioritised wrecks 1st priority – Wreck no 13 at 580 m depth
Length > 115 m and broken into several parts.
Aerial bombs observed in the hold and around the wreck.
Was investigated in 1989 and 2002.
Water and sediment samples were collected and analysed.
CW and decomposition products were identified in many samples.
2nd priority – Wreck no 5 at 655 m depth
Length m with remnants spread around the wreck
Not investigated before
3rd priority – Wreck no 12 at 550 m depth
Length 110 m and somewhat broken
1st pri: Wreck no 13
2nd pri: Wreck no 5
3rd pri: Wreck no 12