EPA/540/2-90/001
January 1990
Assessment of Technologies for the
Remediation of Radioactively
Contaminated Superfund Sites
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
Executive Summary
This report is a screening evaluation of information needs for the development of
generic treatability studies for the remediation of Superfund Radiation Sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL). It presents a categorization of the 25 radiation sites
currently proposed or listed on the NPL, and provides a rating system for evaluating
technologies that may be used to remediate these sites. It also identifies gaps in site
assessment and technology data and provides information about and recommendations for
technology development. The approach used in this evaluation was to:
Divide the 25 radiation sites into 9 categories based on combinations of 3
matrix groups (i.e., soils, water, and structures) and 3 contaminant groups
(i.e., radium (Ra), thorium (Th), and/or uranium (U); other radionuclides;
and mixed chemical and radioactive waste).
Develop criteria to rate technologies numerically on their performance; i.e.,
potential to remediate the contaminant/matrix problems at the NPL radiation
sites, and on their stage of development.
Identify information gaps, summarize findings, and state
recommendations.
The major findings in this report are:
As of December 1988 a total of 25 radiation sites have either been listed
(16) on the NPL or proposed for listing (9). Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) are underway at 15 of the 25
sites; however, no site has been completely remediated.
The majority (23/25) of the radiation sites fall into the contaminant/matrix
category, "Soils Contaminated with Radium, Thorium, and/or Uranium." The
second largest category is "Water Contaminated with Radium, Thorium,
and/or Uranium."
111
-------
Additional radiological site assessment data would make it possible to perform
a more comprehensive evaluation of potential remediation technologies.
Radioactive contaminants are neither altered nor destroyed by any of the
technologies evaluated.
Every site remediation plan involving radioactive materials must select a
final, environmentally safe disposal method and site for the radioactive waste.
Technologies were rated numerically using "Performance" and "Development"
criteria. Performance criteria were developed based on the mandates and
preferences in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA). These criteria were "long term effectiveness" of
remediation and the reduction of "toxicity, mobility, or volume" of the
radioactive waste. Development criteria were selected to indicate the degree
of information available on each technology and the stage of its development.
Due to the short time frame allotted for this project, it was not possible to
develop extensive criteria for technology assessment.
Of the 29 technologies evaluated, 10 technologies (not currently in use for
site remediation) show high scores for remediation performance and low
scores for development. These technologies are:
Soil Washing with Water
Chemical Extraction with Salts
Chemical Extraction with Acids
Chemical Extraction with Complexing Agents
Physical Screening
Classification
Gravity Concentration
Flotation
Vitrification
Solidification
IV
-------
Four additional technologies have a high potential for success and are already
in use at several nonradiation NPL sites. These are ion exchange, carbon
treatment (including precipitation and flocculation), and land encapsulation.
Definitions of the contaminants and matrices found at the 25 NPL radiation sites
are provided in Table S-1. The number of sites in each contaminant/matrix group, and
the number of promising technologies are shown in Tables S-2 and S-3, respectively.
The major recommendations in this report are:
Soils:
Continue work on soil washing and chemical extraction studies, including
treatabiWy studies on soils from other sites with Ra, Th, and U
contamination and on soils from sites contaminated with mixed waste.
Review information and begin field testing of physical separation, chemical
extraction, vitrification, land encapsulation, solidification, and mine
disposal-
Continue to encourage development and demonstration of remediation
techniques.
Water:
Conductfeasibility and treatability studies for removal of Ra, Th, and U and
for removal of mixed waste.
For nixed waste, conduct bench- and pilot-scale tests of carbon
treafet, chemical treatment, membrane separation, and ion exchange.
Structures:
Design and conduct treatability studies of chemical extraction and
decontamination.
Desffl and conduct bench-scale tests of shredding.
Additional Information:
More My characterize the current 25 radiation sites.
Two \ecnologies that are currently in practice that are not included in this
reportfe incineration and melting. Incineration is especially promising
-------
for the treatment of mixed waste (i.e., incineration of radioactive and
organic waste in soil). Follow up studies of this type should include
analyses of these two technologies.
• Technology Transfer:
Support collection and transfer of information on remediation technologies.
• Protocols:
Develop protocols for treatability studies.
• Input From Regions:
Regions are encouraged to identify their needs for treatability studies at
radiation sites.
VI
-------
Table S-1 Definitions of Contaminants and Matrices
Found at the 25 NPL Radiation Sites.
SITES
DEFINITIONS
Ra, Th, U
Other
Radionuclides
Mixed Waste.
Soil.
Water
Structures.
.. Sites that contain radium (Ra), thorium (Th),
uranium (U) - either individually or in
combination. No other radioactive materials are
present, although nonradioactive metals may be
present.
... Sites that contain other radioactive materials
(e.g., plutonium). Ra, Th, and/or U and
nonradioactive metals may also be present.
.. Radioactive waste (e.g., Ra, Th, U) that also
contains RCRA* hazardous chemical waste.
Nonradioactive metals may be present.
.. May contain soil tailings, silt, sand, gravel,
sludges, sediments, clay, fill, or ash.
. Any body of fluid at a site, including ground
water and surface water (i.e., lakes, streams,
ponds, lagoons, rivers, and pools).
Physical structures on a site, such as buildings
of any kind, equipment, and any constructed
devices or building materials.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste listed in 40 CFR Part 261.
VII
-------
Table S- 2 Number of Sites in Each
Contaminant / Matrix Group
(Total NPL Sites = 25)
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other
Radio-
nuclides
Mixed
Waste
SOILS
..'
©
1 t
WATER
i@"
.
,.
STRUCTURES
.'
.
,
Table S-3 Number of Promising* Technologies
High
Knowledge
of Performance
Low
Knowledge
of Performance
High Certainty
Of Rating
Low Certainty
Of Rating
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
* Promising = Performance Score of 7-10 (See Tables 6, 7 and 8).
VIII
-------
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary '''
List of Figures x'
List of Tables x'
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Superfund Needs for Remedial Evaluation 1
1.3 EPA Responsibility for Radiation Sites 2
1.4 Approach 4
2. Categorization of Superfund Sites (Task 1) 8
2.1 Purpose 8
2.2 Methods 8
2.3 Results 1 0
3. Evaluation of Remediation Technologies {Task 2) 1 3
3.1 Purpose 1 3
3.2 Methods 1 3
3.3 Results 1 6
4. Identification of Information Gaps (Task 3) 1 7
4.1 Purpose 1 7
4.2 Availability of Information 17
4.3 Remediation Technologies 1 7
IX
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
5. Findings and Conclusions 21
5.1 Site Characterization 21
5.2 Technology Assessment and Information Gaps, 2 3
6.
Recommendations 26
Appendix A: Technology Task Group Members.... A-1
Appendix B: Radioactive Waste Superfund Site Description B -1
Appendix C: Radioactive Soil Remediation Technologies C-1
Appendix D: Radioactive Water Remediation Technologies D -1
Appendix E: Radioactive Structure Remediation Technologies E-1
-------
List of Figures
PAGE
1. Locations of the 25 Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 3
2. Methodology Used to Assess Technologies for the Remediation of
Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 5
List of Tables
S-1 Definitions of Contaminants and Matrices Found at the 25 NPL
Radiation Sites v''
S-2 Number of Sites in Each Contaminant/Matrix Group viii
S - 3 Number of Promising Technologies v'''
1. Summary of Data On Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 9
2. Number of Sites in Each Contaminant/Matrix Group 1 1
3. Mutually Exclusive Categories of The 25 NPL Radiation Sites 1 1
4. Performance Criteria 13
5. Development Criteria 1 4
6. Potential For Use of Treatment Technologies At NPL
Radiation Sites For Contaminated Soils 1 7
7. Potential For Use of Treatment Technologies At NPL
Radiation Sites For Contaminated Water 1 8
8. Potential For Use of Treatment Technologies At NPL
Radiation Sites For Contaminated Structures 2 0
9. Number of Sites in Each Contaminant/Matrix Group , 22
10. Number of Promising Technologies 25
C-1. Description of Radioactive Soil Remediation Technologies C-2
C-2. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Soils -U, Th, Ra C-4
C-3. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Soils -Other Rad C-6
XI
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
PAGE
C-4. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Soils -Mixed Waste c - 8
C-5. Considerations for the Use of Soil Remediation Technologies C-1 0
References: Remediation Technology For Soils c-12
D-1. Description of Radioactive Water Remediation Technologies
D-2. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Water -U, Th, Ra
D-3. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Water -Other Rad
D-4. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Water -Mixed Waste
D-5. Considerations for the Use of Water Remediation Technologies
References: Remediation Technologies for Water
E-1. Description of Radioactive Structure Remediation Technologies
E-2. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Struct. -U, Th, Ra
E-3. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Struct. -Other Rad
E-4. Assessment of Remediation Technology For Struct. -Mixed Waste
E-5. Considerations for the Use of Structure Remediation Technologies ....
References: Remediation Technology for Structures
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
XII
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) task group was formed at the request
of the Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response to assess the need for
development of technologies for cleanup of radioactively contaminated Superfund sites.
This assessment was necessary to ensure an adequate range of alternatives from which to
select a remedy for these sites. This report provides an overview of existing reme-
diation technologies as a starting point for further discussions on the need for developing
these and other technologies. Inter- and intra-agency discussions will ensure that
demonstration and research efforts will be coordinated and efficient.
1.2 SUPERFUND NEEDS FOR REMEDIAL EVALUATION
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), remedial action at Superfund sites must protect human health and the
environment and meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as
established by Federal and State standards. CERCLA also requires the selection of cost-
effective remedies that use permanent solutions and treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Preference is given for the
selection of remedies that use treatment methods which permanently and significantly
reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of hazardous substances.
EPA has developed an approach for selecting remedies at Superfund sites that is
based on the balancing of specific criteria. Protective alternatives that achieve ARARs
are evaluated on their relative long-and short-term effectiveness; implementability;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants; and cost. In implementing
this approach, EPA encourages a bias for initiating response actions necessary or ap-
propriate to eliminate, reduce, or control hazards posed by a site as early as possible.
Unfortunately, many remediation alternatives may be rejected, either because of the
high implementation cost or because of the lack of development. There is, therefore, an
increasing need to develop efficient data collection strategies and a broader range of
technological alternatives.
1
-------
1.3 EPA RESPONSIBILITY FOR RADIATION SITES
EPA has the authority to require cleanup of most releases of radioactive materi-
als from private and federal sites. However, several categories of sites with radioactive
releases are excluded by statute or as a matter of policy from cleanup under CERCLA:
Sites designated under the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), and sites
subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
financial protection requirements where there has
been a "nuclear incident" are excluded from the
National Priorities List (NPL) by statute.
* As a matter of policy, EPA has chosen not to list on the
NPL releases from any facility with a current license
issued by the NRC. However, this policy does not apply
to formerly licensed NRC facilities or facilities with a
license issued by a State pursuant to a delegation of
authority from the NRC.
In some cases, the Federal agencies responsible for remediation of these sites
may choose to follow certain parts of the CERCLA process, even though they are not re-
quired to do so.
There are 25 sites with radioactive substances currently listed or proposed for
listing on the NPL (Figure 1 and Appendix B). Additional radiation sites may be
proposed in future updates. As of December 1988, remedial investigations and
feasibility studies (RI/FS) are underway at approximately 15 of the 25 sites. However,
none of these sites has been completely remediated. In general, the majority of NPL
radiation sites contain only low-level radioactive wastes (LLW), consisting primarily
of soils contaminated with uranium (U), thorium (Th), and/or radium (Ra). However, a
few sites (e.g., Hanford 100, 200, and 300-Areas) are known to contain high-level
radioactive wastes (HLW). Twelve of the 25 NPL sites also contain mixed wastes~i.e.,
radioactive wastes commingled with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous chemical wastes.
-------
Figure 1. Locations of the 25 radioactively contaminated Superfund sites
23, 24, 25
Site Name
Site Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Schpack Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
U.S. Radium Corporation
W.R. Grace & Co. Inc. (USDOE)
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Lodi Municipal Well
Montclair Radium Site
Lansdowne Radiation Site
Maxey Flats Nuclear Dispos.
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek)
Kerr-McGee (Reed Keppler)
Kerr-McGee (Residential)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage)
Homestake Mining Company
United Nuclear Corporation
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDQE)
Denver Radium Site
Lincoln Park
Uravan Uranium
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Monticello Rad. Con. Props.
Teledyne Wah Chang
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Norton/Attleboro
Maywood/Roch. Pk
Orange
Wayne Township
Glen Ridge
Lodi
Montclair/W. Orge.
Lansdowne
Hillsboro
DuPage County
West Chicago
W. Chicago/DuPage
West Chicago
Milan
Church Rock
St. Charl. Co.
Denver
Canon City
Uravan
Golden
Monticello
Albany
Benton Co.
Benton Co.
Benton Co.
MA
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ*
NJ
PA
KY
IL*
IL*
IL*
IL*
NM
NM
MO
CO
CO
CO
CO*
UT
OR
WA*
WA*
WA*
Proposed: not final as of June 1988
-------
1.4 APPROACH
Three tasks were developed in order to assess technology needs: (1) categorize
the Superfund radiation sites; (2) match and evaluate technologies; and (3) identify
technology gaps. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the basic methodology established to
complete these objectives. Specific considerations are addressed in the following
subgroups.
1.4.1
Study Objectives and Data Quality
This study was undertaken to compile and assess readily available information
that could aid the cleanup of contamination at Superfund sites and the prioritization of
potential technological projects in support of the Superfund program.
The mutually agreed upon objective was a timely report reflecting general
consensus within the Agency on available technologies and prioritization of technology
needs rather than a comprehensive and detailed analysis that would require a lengthy
production time. This report has been designed as a first step. It is a screening study that
will be used to determine the degree and direction of additional analyses designed to guide
and support the prioritization of technological needs.
Technologies were evaluated for capability in treating the identified site problems
based on criteria developed for this project. The prioritization employed performance and
development criteria intended as general screening factors. The performance of
technologies was evaluated by a scoring system using criteria developed for reliability and
effectiveness. The development of technologies was evaluated by a scoring system based on
stage of development and available information.
Following the publication of an "Interim Final Draft" of this report in December
1988, a search was conducted of relevant reference material from EPA program offices
and support contractors including the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP), Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF), and
-------
Figure 2. Methodology used to assess technologies for the remediation of
radioactively contaminated Sup'erfund sites. I
Collect Available Data and
Information Sources For
Radioactiveiy Contaminated
Superfund Sites.
(Appendix B)
Collect Available Data and
Information Sources For
Radiation Waste
Treatment Technologies.
(Appendixes C, D,& E)
TASK1: SITE CATEGOR'lZAT'ioisl
(1) Summarize Data - (Table 1)
(2) Categorize Sites By Matricies
And Contaminants (Tables 2 & 3)
(3) Identify Information Gaps
I
Identify Technologies That
Remediate Radioactively
Contaminated:
(A) Soil - (Appendix C)
(B) Water - (Appendix D)
(C) Structures - (Appendix E)
And Identify Information Gaps
TASK 2: MATCHING AND EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
(1) Match Technologies With Site Categories in Task 1.
(2) Develop Criteria For Evaluating The Performance
And Development of Technologies - (Tables 4 & 5).
(3) Numerically Rate Technologies Based On These
Criteria -(Appendixes C, D,& E).
(4) Summarize Rating Data In "Consumer's Report" Style
Tables - (Tables 6, 7 & 8).
(1) Findings and Conclusions
(Section 5).
(2) State Recommendations -
(Section 6).
-------
Office of Research and Development (ORD). In addition, reference material was obtained
from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the EPA Library,
and from various technical data searches.
The references that were found are included in this final draft of the report. Based
on these references, each technology, as applied to each contaminant/matrix combination,
was re-scored. Re-scoring was based on criteria shown in Tables 4 and 5, using
engineering judgement. Few. scores changed even one point from the scores in the interim
final draft. The highest rating in each category was used for the results presented in this
final draft.
The scoring process developed and used in this project serves well its intended
use as a screening device, identifying gaps in information necessary for full evaluation
and resulting in recommendations for research, development, and treatability studies.
1.4.2
Use of Treatment Trains for Soil Remediation
It has become apparent during the remediation of most Superfund sites that
more than one treatment or technology is needed to achieve the cleanup goals. This is
also true for radiation sites, whether dealing with contaminated soils, water, or
structures. For example, in the case of soil remediation, the technologies are quite
varied; some concentrate the contaminants, others isolate them, and still others di-
lute or immobilize them. Technologies that clean some fraction of a contaminated
soil, and in the process concentrate contaminants within the remaining fraction, can
be used in series with other technologies to produce a large amount of cleaned soil
and an immobilized small fraction of contaminated soil.
Chemical extraction, physical separation, and soil washing may require
treatment of effluent streams to fully address the contamination. The other
technologies can be used as a sole remediation approach.
-------
Chemical extraction, physical separation, and soil washing can all be used as
the primary or secondary technologies. Other technologies can be used as secondary
technologies if only two stages of treatment are employed - or as tertiary
technologies, if three stages of treatment are employed.
An example of a tertiary treatment concept is:
Primary Technology ... Physical Separation
Secondary Technology ... Chemical Extraction
Tertiary Technology ... Vitrification.
Radon control is generally a single-stage technology, and not part of a treatment train.
-------
2. CATEGORIZATION OF SUPERFUND
RADIATION SITES (TASK 1)
2.1 PURPOSE
Categorization of the 25 radiation sites was accomplished as the first task in
order to identify common factors, which might assist in the subsequent evaluation
and matching of remediation technologies in Task 2.
2.2 METHODS
Information obtained from the site-specific data in Appendix B and
summarized in Table 1 was used to categorize the sites. Several parameters and
methodologies were considered in order to place sites into groups. The parameters
selected for site categorization were:
• Contaminants detected at the site.
Matrices in which the contaminants are found.
Each of the two broad categories were divided individually into three
categories based on information about the radiation sites. Contaminants were divided
into the categories: (1) Radium, Thorium, and Uranium; (2) Other Radionuciides;
and (3) Mixed Wastes. The matrices were divided into; (1) Soil; (2) Water; and
(3) Structures. Air was not selected because it is very rarely a problem at
radiation sites. Even though Radon is not a category, radon control technologies are
evaluated in the soil and structures categories.
Other parameters that were considered and rejected included the
concentrations, exposure pathways, and quantities of radioactive wastes. These were
rejected because they did • not directly affect the feasibility of using a particular
treatment method.
-------
TABLE 1 Summary of data on radioactively contaminated Superfund sites
(Refer to site data sheets in appendix B)
I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7
S I T E N U M B E R *
8 | 9 Il0|llh2|l3h4h5|l6h7ll8h9|20|2l|22|23|24l25
Total
No.
Percent of
Total Sites
CD
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other Rad.
Heavy Metal
Chemical Waste
Soil
Water
Structures
High > 100 pCi/g
Low < 100 pCi/q
Surface Water
Ground Water
Air - Radon
External Gamma
Large >10A5 cu.yd.
Small <10A5 cu.yd.
NPL Final
NPL Proposed
Pre-RI/FS
RI/FS
RD/RA
Enforcement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site Name Location St
Schpack Landfill Norlon/Attleboro MA
Maywood Chemical Co. Maywood/Roch. Pk NJ
U.S. Radium Corporation Orange NJ
W.R. Grace & Co. Inc. (USDOE) Wayne Township NJ
Glen Ridge Radium Site Glen Ridge NJ
Lodi Municipal Well Lodi NJ
Montclair Radium Site Montclair/W. Orge. NJ
Lansdowne Radiation Site Lansdowne PA
Maxey Flats Nuclear Dispos. Hillsboro KY
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek) DuPage County IL
Kerr-McGee (Reed Keppler) West Chicago IL
Kerr-McGee (Residential) W. Chicago/DuPage IL
Kerr-McGee (Sewage) West Chicago IL
X
X
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site Name
Homestake Mining Company
United Nuclear Corporation
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE)
Denver Radium Site
Lincoln Park
Uravan Uranium
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Monticello Rad. Con. Props.
Teledyne Wan Chang
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2 1
1 9
21
6
1 7
1 2
24
2 1
8
1 7
2
1 6
2 1
1 7
1 4
1 7
7
1 6
9
6
1 5
4
1 1
84
76
84
24
68
48
96
84
32
68
8
64
84
68
56
68
28
64
36
24
60
1 6
44
Location St
Milan NM
Church Rock NM
St. Charl. Co. MO
Denver CO
Canon City CO
Uravan CO
Golden CO
Monticello UT
Albany OR
Benton Co. WA
Benton Co. WA
Benton Co. WA
-------
2.3 RESULTS
The data presented in Table 1 were used to create the categorization schemes
In Tables 2 and 3. In Table 2, sites are shown categorized by the matrices; i.e.,
soil, water, and structures, in which the radiation is associated. The sites are also
broadly classified as to whether or not radioactive wastes are commingled with RCRA
hazardous chemical waste (i.e., mixed waste). Waste categories may contain
nonradioactive metals. Mutually exclusive categories of sites are presented in Table
3. These categories may change as additional site information is obtained or as
additional sites are added to the NPL.
1 0
-------
Table 2. Number of Sites in Each Contaminant / Matrix Group
(Total NPL Sites = 25)
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other
Rad.
Mixed
Waste
SOILS
: "s,\S«e"#s~
1,2,3,4,5,7,
8,9,10,11,12,
13,14,15,16,
17,18,19,21,
22,23,24,25
8,9,20,23,
24,25
1,2,9,15,
16,19,20,
22,23,24,
2 5
No.
2 3
6
1 1
VWATER ^
site #s „
1,2,3,4,6,9,
10,11,12,
13,14,15,16,
17,18,19, 22
23,24,25
9,20,23,
24,25
1,2,6,9,15,16
19,20,22,23,
24,25
•.-.•.•,
NO,
20
5
1 2
STRUCTURES
Site #3-
3,4,8,9,15,
16,17,21
8,9
9,15,16
NO.
8
2
3
DEFINITIONS
Ra, Th, U Sites
Other Rad. Sites
Mixed Waste
Soil
Water
Structures
Sites that contain Ra, Th, U - either individually
or in combination. No other radioactive metals
are present, although nonradioactive metals
may be present.
Sites that contain other radioactive waste
(e.g., plutonium). Ra, Th, and/or U may be
present. Nonradioactive metals may be
present.
Radioactive waste (e.g., Ra, Th, U) that also
contains RCRA* hazardous chemical waste.
Nonradioactive metals may be present.
May contain soil tailings, silt, sand, gravel,
sludges, sediments, clay, fill or ash.
Any body of fluid at a site, including lakes,
streams, ponds, lagoons, rivers, and pools.
Physical structures on a site, such as buildings
of any kind, equipment, and any constructed
devices or building materials
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste listed in 40 CFR Part 261.
1 1
-------
TABLE 3, Mutuality exclusive categories ol the 25 NPL radiation *ttes
ro
Site
Categories
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Definitions
Sites with Radium (Ra), Thorium (Th),
Uranium (U) Soil Contamination Only
Sites with Ra, Th, U Soil and
Water Contamination Only
Sites with Ra, Th, U Soil and
Structure Contamination Only
Sites with Ra, Th, U Soil,
Water, and Structure Contamination
Mixed Waste with Ra, Th, U
Water Contamination Only
Mixed Waste with Ra, Th, U Soil
and Water Contamination Only
Mixed Waste with Ra, Th, U Soil
Water, and Structure Contamination Only
Mixed Waste with Other Rad. Waste
Soil + Water Contamination Only
Mixed Waste With Ra, Th, U + Other Rad.
Soil, Water, and Structure Contamination
Matrix
1
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
Struct.
X
X
X
X
Contaminant
1
Ra, Th, U
X
X
X
X
2
Other Rad
X
X
3
Mixed
X
X
X
X
X
Site
Numbers
5, 7
10, 11, 12,
13, 14,18
8, 21
3, 4, 17
6
1, 2, 19, 22
15, 16
20, 23, 24,
25
9
Total
Total
No.
2
6
2
3
1
4
2
4
1
25
IDefinitionsI
1. Mixed waste....
Radiological waste that also contains organic contaminants. Non-
radiological metals also may be present.
2. Ra, Th, U Sites ... Sites that contain Ra, Th, U -- either individually or in combin-
ation. No other radiological metals are present. Nonradiological
metals may be present.
3. Other Rad. Sites... Sites that contain other radiological waste (e.g. plutonium). Ra,
Th, and/or U may be present. Nonradiological metals also may be
present.
4. Soil... May contain soil tailings,silt,sand,fill
gravel, sludges, sediments, clay, or ash.
5. Water... Any body of fluid at a site-including
lakes, streams, ponds, lagoons, rivers,
and pools.
6. Struct... Physical structures on a site, such as
buildings of any kind, equipment, and any
constructed devices or building materials.
-------
3. EVALUATION OF REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES (Task 2)
3.1 PURPOSE
A primary objective of this project was to identify information and develop-
ment needs for technologies, which might be used at the radiation sites categorized in
Task 1. To accomplish this objective, the Task Group assembled three lists of
current potential remediation technologies - one each for soil, water, and
structures - and evaluated them based on performance and development rating
criteria.
3.2 METHODS
Remediation technologies were evaluated numerically using two performance
(Table 4) and two development (Table 5) criteria. These criteria were selected in
order to be consistent with the mandates and preferences established under CERCLA.
Two parameters define the performance rating: reliability and effectiveness.
Reliability, defined in terms of the degree of certainty associated with the
permanence of the remedy, is closely associated with the CERCLA requirement for
permanent solutions. The proposed National Contingency Plan (NCP) breaks out
effectiveness into long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness. Long-term
effectiveness, reliability over time, and permanence are closely related.
Effectiveness, for the purpose of this effort, focuses on the effectiveness of the
technology to reduce the mobility, toxicity of the waste, and has been defined in
terms of the degree to which the technology achieves this goal.
Rating numbers from one to five were assigned to each criterion, where one
represented the lowest and five the highest rating. Technologies listed in Tables C-
5, D-5, and E-5 were scored based on the criteria in Tables 4 and 5. All four
criteria were weighted equally.
13
-------
TABLE 4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
(1) Reliability
Reliability of the treatment process over the long term was evaluated. A rating
of 5 was considered to reflect high reliability for permanence of the remedy. The
specific criteria are as follows:
Rating
Criteria
5
4
3
2
1
Highly certain to be reliable for > 1000 years.
Highly certain to be reliable for 100 - 1000 years.
Highly certain to be reliable for 30-100 years.
Highly certain to be reliable for approx. 30 years.
Likely to be reliable for < 30 years.
(2) Effectiveness
How well the technology reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste. A
rating of 5 indicates the technology fully achieves its design objectives. The
criteria are as follows:
Rating
Criteria
5
4
3
2
1
Essentially eliminates toxicity, mobility or volume.
Significantly reduces toxicity, mobility or volume.
Moderately reduces toxicity, mobility or volume.
Minimum reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume.
No reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume.
1 4
-------
L
TABLE 5 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
(1) Stage of Research and Development (R&D): Defines the status of the tech-
nology by the degree of testing. Technologies that have been used at a Superfund site
for cleanup were given the highest ranking (5). The specific criteria are as follows.
Rating Criteria • '
5 Remediation of one or more radioactively contaminated waste sites have
been documented.
4
3
2
One or more demonstrations with radiation waste have been documented.
One or more pilot plant tests with radiation waste have been documented.
One or more bench-scale tests with radiation waste have been
documented.
The technology has not been tested on radioactively contaminated waste.
(2) Available Information: Defines the degree of information that is available.
If well-documented information is available, the technology was rated 5.
Rating
Criteria
Information based on a well-coordinated research program.
Peer-reviewed field demonstration reports.
Peer-reviewed research reports containing quantitative performance data.
Investigation of radioactively contaminated waste.
No coordinated research program in place.
Peer-reviewed field demonstration reports.
Peer-reviewed research reports containing quantitative performance data.
Investigation of radioactively contaminated waste.
No coordinated research program in place.
No peer-reviewed field demonstration reports.
Peer-reviewed reports.
Investigation of radioactively contaminated waste.
No coordinated research program in place.
No field demonstration reports.
No peer-reviewed reports.
Investigation of radioactively contaminated waste.
No coordinated research program in place.
No field demonstration reports.
No peer-reviewed research reports.
Investigation of nonradioactively contaminated waste.
15
-------
3.3 RESULTS
Totaled numerical rating data on performance and development along with
references for all the applicable technology options are shown in Tables C-2 to C-4
(Appendix C) for contaminated soils, in Tables D-2 to D-4 (Appendix D) for
contaminated water, and in Tables E-2 to E-4 (Appendix E) for contaminated
structures.
1 6
-------
4. IDENTIFICATION OF
INFORMATION GAPS (Task 3)
4.1 PURPOSE
The third phase of this project was to identify information gaps and needs for
the assessment of technologies that may be evaluated as feasible alternatives for
Superfund radiation site remediation.
4.2 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
The primary source of site information was pre-remedial investigation
studies undertaken to determine NPL qualification. Site information is therefore
incomplete, and characterizations derived from it are not sufficiently detailed for
making site-specific decisions on the applicability of the technologies discussed in
this report.
The sources of technology information varied greatly by matrix category.
EPA reports and other published documents provided information on soil, water, and
structural remediation technologies. The references are listed at the end of
Appendixes C, D, and E, and serve as a basis for rating technologies applicable to
soil, water, and structures, respectively.
4 . 3 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
The nine sets of scoring data (Tables C-2, C-3, C-4, D-2, D-3, D-4, E-2,
E-3, E-4) were used to construct the summary data in Tables 6 to 8. A high score
on Performance indicates a high potential for use in remediation, and a high score
for Development indicates that a technology has been well tested and documented on
radiation applications. Conversely, low scores for Performance and Development
indicate that a technology is either not applicable for remediation or that further
information based on testing is necessary before a final decision on its applicability
can be made.
1 7
-------
81.
O I
©
c-
c
£»
S 8
ca m1
.
rr O
X
DEVELOPMENT DATA
: O
i •
O
; °
e
o
€
o
©
o
i o
:; 0
;e
; o
; O
o
o
c
e
•
o
©
c
€
€
(D
0)
e
e
©
€
€
€
C
€
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
c
€)
•
€
C
C
€
O
«
€
©
€
C
€
€
€
€
€
PERFORMANCE DATA
s*""
X*
; £
; 1
l§
III
' xy-. .>.-••: ": '.
€
: e
\ €>
:• o
e
: €
! €
: c
€
«>
C
: ^
i C
; «
! €
: C
C
C
€
©
O
O
€
€
€
C
(D
c
€
•
C
•
O
c
c
o
©
C)
o
c
€
€
C
€
€
•
C
•
•
•
0 '
o
c ,
*•
f
V.
X-
•V
'
S"
'
*?
"i
4
'<
X
--
^
^-•;
1
•'••i
""*'•*
1"
^
I 3*
"I 1^
M ~
P
S
w c
IS i
II *
is?
r
w u>
si i
3 s? °
i i
S **•
1
| |
i! I
* !„
II
i §
5 fn
If s1
I
Physical Sep
G
Classification C<
jl 1
3
<
'
..
5!
CD
m
CD
S
o
o
m
o
o
I
o
IT
0_
0)
r^
tJ
Q.
(S
CO
-------
TABLE 7. Potential for use of treatment technologies at NPL radiation sites
for
|~ CONTAMINATED WATER |
\
o
IRMANCE
bu-
ffi
ou
Q
3PMENT
UJ
£
a
•• ',
Contaminant
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other
Radionudldes
Mixed Waste
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other
Radlonuclides
Mixed Waste
:-
-
'f f
i
AERATION
W
',..
»
®
(^)
£\
.©
O
$
••
%/ ^
^
=
;.
'
, >
^
'
/> '"^>
FILTRATION
»
•
e
e
«
o
/
••
"•
j
;
.
f
CtFKXi
TREATMENT
'
W
•
/~\
/~\
^^
O
••'_
••
-
••
ION EXCHANGE
•"
•
•
^\
^^
•
O
% '•.'•
,
- ,
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
•
•
»
«
*
O
-
;
;,
MEMBRANE
SEPARATION
•
•
©
•
e
©
_,
'
(O
(See Text for an explanation of the Scoring Procedure)
(Also See Appendix D: Tables D-2, D-3, D-4)
Lowest -4-
-*• Highest
O ©
1-2 3-4
S • 6 7-8
9-10
UNKNOWN
NOT APPLICABLE
(a) Applicable only for radon remediation
-------
TABLE 8 . Potential for use of technologies at NPL radiation sites
for
I CONTAMINATED STRUCTURES |
ro
o
(See Text for an explanation of the Scoring Procedure)
(Also See Appendix E: Tables E-2, E-3, E-4)
O © i
1-2 3-4 5 -
t 9
6 7-8 9
best
^
- 10
* UNKNOWN
* NOT APPLICABLE
1 — 1
£
<
Q
111
U
i
o
IL
cc
111
0.
<
H
Q
£
111
E
Q.
g
Ul
5
Q
^™*. ,
« 1
.;; Other
: : RsdfonucHdw
•r
-.:
1 Mixed Waste
; Radium
Si Thorium
Uranium
Other
Raotonudides
Mixed Waste
~
>
;^C>
^
:: %
•f** '1
-\c i
"* •>•% •! '
%'v %«.""•" :
:- ;
^
! "
••
-»
-
DEMOLITION
&
SHREOONG-
- ,«f- ^.
9
^^
^^
^k
^B
^^
*
^v
s^
\
^
"" %
'o
"" 5
'
%
-i
v
DECONTAMNATON
S
v- ^ „,,- ^ -, , X
9
9
*
^^
w
^B
^^
0
v«
s ,
"
s f
^'
->
, il
^
"•
- |
rr
SUFFACESEAUN8
^' .' , "> -
Q
^^
^>
%
*
^ft
^^
O
-*'•/
i/;
1«
' %- i
% \ •> '
-,
-" :
!:">" %
^
^
RACCN
OCNIBOL
•• «*> y ?'
Q
(NM)
Q
^
*
*
-
4
H
';?r ••
' -
,.••
4
_, ^
f
-;
%
< -.:
'•
•• %
v
'"'••
CHEMICAL
EXTRACTION
V.U1 " -
^
9
^>
^
*
^\
"
-Z'
>'V
') '
^^
1 N
f
-
i
'-
-
%
-------
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The major findings and conclusions of this report are as follows:
5.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
• There are currently 25 sites with radioactive contamination
listed (16) on the NPL or proposed for listing (9).
• 15 of the 25 NPL sites have RI/FS studies underway; to date,
no site has been remediated completely (Tables 1, 2 and 9).
• There is a lack of contaminant/matrix information on the 25
NPL radiation sites. This is probably due to the early stage of
remedial development for these sites; i.e. either no remedial
actions have been started or RI/FS studies have not been com-
pleted.
• In evaluating technology development needs, it was necessary
to assess technologies based on their use on individual site
problems. These problems were characterized as contaminant/
matrix categories. The category with the largest number of
NPL sites is "Soil Contaminated with Radium, Thorium, and
Uranium."
• In the time frame allotted for this project it was not possible
to develop criteria that reflect all possible considerations
necessary for assessing technology for site remediation.
21
-------
Table 9 Number of Sites in Each
Contaminant / Matrix Group
(Total NPL Sites = 25)
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Other
Rad.
Mixed
Waste
SOILS
6
1 1
WATER
t©
€'"
STRUCTURES
9
,
.,-
DEFINITIONS
Ra, Th, U Sites
Other Rad. Sites
Mixed Waste
Soil
Water
Structures
Sites that contain Ra, Th, U - either individually
or in combination. No other radioactive metals
are present, although nonradioactive metals
may be present.
Sites that contain other radioactive waste
(e.g., plutonium). Ra, Th, and/or U may be
present. Nonradioactive metals may be
present.
Radioactive waste (e.g., Ra, Th, U) that also
contains RCRA* hazardous chemical waste.
Nonradioactive metals may be present.
May contain soil tailings, silt, sand, gravel,
sludges, sediments, clay, fill or ash.
Any body of fluid at a site, including lakes,
streams, ponds, lagoons, rivers, and pools.
Physical structures on a site, such as buildings
of any kind, equipment, and any constructed
devices or building materials
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste listed in 40 CFR Part 261.
22
-------
5 . 2 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND INFORMATION GAPS
• In order to assess technologies for use at NPL radiation sites,
it was necessary to develop concise, reproducible performance
criteria. Several criteria were considered. Those which re-
flected CERCLA requirements; i.e., (1) "long term effective-
ness", and (2) the capability to reduce or eliminate, as nearly
as possible, the "toxicity, mobility, or volume" of waste, were
chosen.
• Twenty-nine technologies were evaluated (Tables 6, 7, 8, and
10* ). Ten technologies have not been used thus far, nor
developed in spite of their potential for success in reducing
site problems. Those technologies are vitrification, soil
washing, salt extraction, acid extraction, complexation,
physical screening, classification, gravity concentration,
solidification, and flotation.
• Four technologies have high performance scores and are al-
ready in use at nonradiation NPL sites. Those technologies are
ion exchange, carbon treatment, chemical treatment (includes
precipitation and flocculation) and land encapsulation.
• Several technologies were found to have high performance
scores and low development scores. Soil washing, chemical
extraction (with inorganic salts, mineral acids, and
* Table 10 summarizes the data developed in this report on rating the performance
remediation technologies. Promissing technologies are defined as those which scored 7 to
10 on the performance criteria (Tables 4, 6, 7 and 8). The arrow on the left indicates
the relative amount of knowledge about the performance of a technology: As indicated,
there is little knowledge about the performance of technologies which address mixed
wastes, and the most amount of knowledge concerning the performance of technologies
which treat Ra, Th, and U. The arrow at the top indicates the level of certainty about the
ratings (based on the collective judgement of the Task Group): The least amount of
certainty is associated with the ratings for contaminated structure remediation
technologies, and the highest certainty is associated with the ratings for technologies
which cleanup radioactively contaminated soils.
23
-------
complexing agents), physical separation (including screening,
classification, gravity concentration, flotation), solidification
and vitrification all fell into this category. Also included was
shredding, as a pretreatment technology.
• Some technologies had low or medium performance scores and
high development scores. An example is capping of U, Th, and
Ra contaminated soils.
• There are few technologies available for evaluation or as-
sessment for use on mixed waste sites.
24
-------
Table 10 Number of Promising* Technologies
High
Knowledge
of Performance
Low
Knowledge
of Performance
High Certainty
Of Rating
Low Certainty
Of Rating
Radium
Thorium
Uranium
Promising = Performance Score of 7-10 (See Tables 6, 7 and 8).
DEFINITIONS
Ra, Th, U Sites
Other Rad. Sites
Mixed Waste
Soil
Water
Structures
Sites that contain Ra, Th, U - either individually
or in combination. No other radioactive metals
are present, although nonradioactive metals
may be present.
Sites that contain other radioactive waste
(e.g., plutonium). Ra, Th, and/or U may be
present. Nonradioactive metals may be
present.
Radioactive waste (e.g., Ra, Th, U) that also
contains RCRA* hazardous chemical waste.
Nonradioactive metals may be present.
May contain soil tailings, silt, sand, gravel,
sludges, sediments, clay, fill or ash.
Any body of fluid at a site, including lakes,
streams, ponds, lagoons, rivers, and pools.
Physical structures on a site, such as buildings
of any kind, equipment, and any constructed
devices or building materials
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste listed in 40 CFR Part 261.
25
-------
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions in this report, the following research, de-
velopment, and treatability activities are recommended.
Soils: Because of the prevalence of contaminated soils and the lack of
technologies suitable for their cleanup, the following approach is recommended:
1. Since current soil washing and chemical extraction studies are providing data
that indicate a strong potential for field implementation, work on these tech-
niques should continue. High priority should be given to:
a. Design and performance of treatability studies on soils from other sites
that have Ra, Th, and U contamination. This is the most common type of
contamination and several sites can readily be selected.
b. Design and performance of treatability studies on mixed waste. There
are substantial quantities of mixed waste soils that will require treat-
ment, however the information base to support such work is limited.
2. Following a review of the literature and other valuable information sources
(e.g., DOE, private sector, and international), begin treatability/field testing
(pilot and, when appropriate, demonstration) of the following technologies:
a physical separation
b. chemical extraction
c. vitrification
d. land encapsulation
e. solidification
f. mine disposal
3. Continue to encourage the development and offering of technologies for demon-
stration in remediation of these sites.
26
-------
Water: Development of water treatment technologies is important because more
than 80 per cent (See Tables 1 and 9) of the current NPL radioactive sites have water
contamination, and because promising technologies (i.e., soil washing, physical
separation, and chemical extraction) for remediation of contaminated soils will have
treatment trains containing contaminated water. The following recommended tasks are
listed in order of priority:
1. Conduct technology feasibility and treatability work on removing Ra, Th, and
U from water. This work should include:
a. Field testing of high performance technologies for remediation of Ra
and U from contaminated water sites.
b. Treatability studies at a site that has thorium contaminated water,
since information on thorium is limited.
2. Conduct treatability studies on water contaminated with mixed waste. This is
one of the most difficult and least studied problem areas. The following technolo-
gies are expected to require both bench and pilot scale testing:
a carbon treatment
b. chemical treatment
c. membrane separation
d. ion exchange
Structures: Very little information is available on the remediation of struc-
tures contaminated with low-level radioactive wastes. The following technical
approaches are promising:
1. Design and conduct treatability studies on chemical extraction and
decontamination.
2. Design and conduct bench-scale tests of shredding.
Utility of additional information: Technology application is dependent
upon the ability to characterize the technology and document its performance. Additional
27
-------
information from literature evaluation, discussions with other agencies and other
sources would increase our confidence in the technologies described in this report.
Additional information should also include more detailed radiological assessments of the
existing 25 radiation sites. Given that much of the work represented in this report is
based on professional judgement and currently available data, adjustments in the
prioritization may be appropriate as new information becomes available.
Technology transfer: Many of the information requirements of parties facing
low-level radioactive waste cleanup actions are expected to be generic. Therefore, it is
recommended that the appropriation and transfer of information on technologies used for
the cleanup of low-level radioactive wastes be supported among different groups.
Protocols: Given that treatability studies are essential steps for developing and
testing technologies for remediation of soil, water, and structures, protocols for their
conduct should be developed. These protocols will aid in comparing results across dif-
ferent studies and constructing more efficient approaches to testing methods.
Input from regions: Regions are encouraged to identify their needs for treata-
bility studies at radioactive sites.
28
-------
Appendix A
Members of the
OSWER, ORP AND ORD
Technology Task Group
NAME
EPA OFFICE
FTS
Walter Kovalick, Jr. - Chair
Larry Zaragoza
Jennifer Haley
Robert Dyer
Paul Shapiro
Gary B. Snodgrass
Frank Freestone
Suzanne Wells
CONTRACTORS
OERR
OSWER/OPMT
OERR/HSCD/SPGB
ORP/ASD/ESSB
ORD/OEETD
ORP / ASD/ESSB
ORD/ RREL/ Edison, NJ
OSWER/ HSED/ HRLB
382-2180
245-3529
475-6705
475-9630
382-5747
475-9630
340-6632
475-9701
Ramjee Raghavan
Lowell G. Ralston
FW Enviresponse, Inc. 340-6611
S. Cohen & Associates, Inc. 475-9630
A-1
-------
-------
SITE
APPENDIX B
RADIOACTIVE WASTE SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTIONS*
NAME
1 Schpack Landfill B-2
2 Maywood Chemical Co B-3
3 U.S. Radium Corporation B-4
4. W.R. Grace & Co. Inc. (U.S. DOE) B-5
5 Glen Ridge Radium Site B-7
6. Lodi Municipal Well B-8
7. Montclair Radium Site B-9
8 Lansdowne Radiation Site B-1 0
9 Maxey Flats Nuclear Dispos B-11
1 0 Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek) B-1 3
1 1 Kerr-McGee (Reed Keppler) B-1 4
12 Kerr-Mcgee (Residential) B-1 5
1 3 Kerr-McGee (Sewage) B-1 6
1 4 Homestake Mining Company B-1 7
1 5 United Nuclear Corporation • B-1 8
1 6 Weldon Spring Quarry (U.S. DOE) B-20
1 7 Denver Radium Site B-22
1 8 Lincoln Park B-23
19 Uravan Uranium B-24
20 Rocky Flats Plant (U.S. DOE) B-25
21 Monticello Rad. Con. Props B-26
2 2 Teledyne Wah Chang B - 2 7
23 Hanford 200-Area (U.S. DOE) B-28
24 Hanford 300-Area (U.S. DOE) B-29
25 Hanford 100-Area (U.S. DOE) B-30
Number of sites and information are current as of December 1988.
Source of information definitions:
Fact Sheet - Prepared by region
EPA NPL Site Status Sheet - Issued by Superfund office based on region fact sheet
Site Status Report From EPA Region - Radioactive Superfund site questionnaire sent to regions
B-1
-------
B - 1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Shpack Landfill
Norton/Attleboro, Massachusetts
EPA Contact Region I:
David Lederer, FTS 573-9662
Summary of Site Use
Private landfill since 1940s shows radium and
uranium as well as other contaminants.
Other Manufacturing/Industrial; Landfill,
Chemical Process/Manuf.; Landfill Municipal
Status:
INPL Rank Score Lead
Status
[IFinal 672 29.45 Fund Pre-RI/FS I
Final site response assessment report,
11/21/85, prepared by NUS Corp. for per-
formance of remedial activities. Monitoring
program included water samples from 10 ob-
servation wells and soil samples analyzed for
priority pollutants and gross alpha, beta, and
gamma radioactivity.
No Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) available yet.
Radiation Data:
Ra-226, U-238, U-238, U-234 above natu-
ral background levels but uneven distribution
in surface and subsurface soil. K-40, Th-
228, Th-230 present.
Rn-222 240 pCi/L ground water.
Measured values in soil (pCi/g):
Ra-226 1,571
U-238 16,460
U-235 200
U-234 4,200
Matrix Characteristics:
Wetland or swamp area; sand, gravel, silt, and
clay, organic deposits. Nonradioactive con-
taminants: 1,2-dichloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
chromium, cadmium, nickel.
Source:
Unknown, possibly manufacture of luminescent
dials and former operation of nuclear
submarine contractor.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Shpack about 8 acres; Attleboro about 2.5
acres; 100 tons.
Environmental Impact:
About 35 private wells within 3-mile radius
of the site serve approximately 130 people.
The nearest well, located 150 feet away, is
shallow. EPA is currently conducting additional
monitoring on- and off-site to further
characterize the site. ORNL 1982 survey
revealed no migration of radionuclides into
ground water; no hydraulic gradient (vertical
or horizontal) in underlying aquifers.
However, U.S. DOE survey found radium and
uranium in soil (1984) with radioactive and
organic contaminants extending to ground
water in many cases. Rn-222 at 328 pCi/L in
ground water in 1980 study by private
consultant considered suspect. Airborne
radionuclide contamination no apparent threat
to public. Based on existing data as of 11/85,
no indication of immediate public health threat.
Source of Information:
Final Site Response Assessment Report D583-
1-5-22, Revision 2; prepared by NUS Corp.,
11/21/85
B-2
-------
B -2 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Maywood Chemical Company
(Sears Property)
Maywood, Rochelle Park, New Jersey
EPA Contact Region II:
Pat Evangelista, FTS 264-6311
Summary of Site Use
Thorium wastes from production of mantles for
gas lamps in the 1920s in 3 fill areas in resi-
dential/ commercial area.
Other Manufacturing/ Industrial Surface Im-
poundment Landfill, Comm./lndus.
Status:
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
I Final 157 51.19 Enforcement RI/FS
Site was identified under FUSRAP, and DOE was
designated to perform remedial action related
to radioactive residues. Residential properties
in Maywood, Rochelle Park, and parts of Lodi,
NJ were remediated. Soil from old disposal ar-
eas was removed. Temporary storage facility
called the Maywood Interim Storage Site
(MISS) developed. DOE conducting continuous
monitoring at MISS and detailed characteriza-
tions of properties related to the Maywood site.
Radiation Data:
Elevated gamma radiation;
Ground water:
gross alpha 18.4 pCi/L.
Rn-222 0.9-300 pCi/L
Surface soil:
Th-232 70 pCi/g
Ra-226 10 pCi/g
U-238 77 pCi/g
Subsurface soil
Th-232 180 pCi/g
Ra-226 37 pCi/g
U-238 <232 pCi/g
Stream sediment
Th-232 93 pCi/g
Ra-226 9 pCi/g
U-238 <57 pCi/g
Matrix Characteristics:
Tailings, soil, clay-like tailings; used as fill
material in several residential and commercial
properties; stream sediment; water; air. Non-
radioactive contaminants in soil and tailings:
arsenic, chromium, nickel, lead, cadmium,
beryllium, pesticides, methyl chloride, xy-
lene, toluene, ethyl benzene, acetone, MEK.
Source:
Maywood Chemical Works; extraction of tho-
rium.
Approximate Area and Volume:
42 acres (entire location), area of con-
tamination not known; 270,000 cu yd.
Environmental Impact:
36,000 residents within 4-mi radius. Radon
gas found by NRC at levels higher than back-
ground in one residence. Elevated gamma radi-
ation levels on adjacent properties.
Source of Information:
"Characterization Report for Sears Property,
Maywood, New Jersey," DOE/OR/20722.140,
oak Ridge National Laboratory, 5/87.
"Engineering Evaluation of Disposal Alterna-
tives for Radioactive Waste from Remedial Ac-
tions in and around Maywood, New Jersey,
DOE/OR/20722-79, Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory, 3/86.
EPA NPL Site Status Sheet
B-3
-------
B - 3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
U.S. Radium Corporation
Orange, New Jersey
EPA Contact Region II:
Raimo Liias, FTS 264-8099
Summary of Site Use:
Radium ore was processed from 1915 to 1926
and wastes were disposed of on site.
Ore Process/Refining/Smelter, Waste Piles
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
Final 423 37.79 Fund
RI/FS
Limited site characterization done at U.S. Ra-
dium and satellite properties by EPA and
NJDEP. Final work plan for RI/FS prepared in
7/87. RI/FS to begin in Fall 1989.
Radiation Data:
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) has found radon and decay
products in air in elevated concentrations and
gamma radiation levels around property sig-
nificantly above background levels. U-238, U-
234, Th-230 and Ra-226 present in soil and
concrete and Rn-222 in air.
Surface Soil:
Ra-226 3.2-670 pCi/g: U-238 minor
Subsurface Soil (2-4.5 ft):
Ra -226 2,090-3,290 pCi/g
U - 238 90-12000 pCi/g
Matrix Characteristics:
Building materials, grounds, soil, surface, and
ground water.
Source:
Former radium ore processing plant, lab and
manufacturing facility, and radium cottage in-
dustry.
Approximate Area and Volume:
One acre; estimated 10,000 cu yd (-1,600
tons of processed ore waste was dumped on
site).
Environmental Impact:
32,000 residents within 1/2-mi radius.
NJDEP has found radon and decay products in
air in excessive concentrations; gamma radia-
tion levels around property greater than nor-
mal. Satellite properties where radium dial
painting and lab work done may also be con-
taminated.
Source of Information:
EPA NPL Site status sheet. EPA Office of Radia-
tion Programs. "Final Work Plan for Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study, U.S. Ra-
dium Corporation-site, City of Orange, Essex
County, New Jersey," Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc., for U.S. EPA April 1987.
B-4
-------
B - 4 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
W. R. Grace/Wayne Interim (U.S. DOE)
Storage Site (WISS)
Wayne, New Jersey
EPA Contact Region II:
Kay Stone, FTS 264-4595
Summary of Site Use:
Extracted thorium and rare earth elements
from 1948 to 1971. Released for unrestricted
use by the NRC in 1975. Now runoff of con-
taminated soil is the concern.
Ore Process/Refining/Smelter, Landfill,
ComVlndus.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
[Final 214 47.14 Fund Pre-RI/FS ||
Site was partially remediated in 1986 by
DOE/FUSRAP. Various vicinity properties, in-
cluding Sheffield Brook, have been remediated
since 1986, with radioactively contaminated
soils removed from the properties and placed
in a secured storage pile at the WISS. Tempo-
rary storage of thorium tailings, the source of
the contamination, will be at the WISS, await-
ing a permanent disposal site in New Jersey.
RI/FS scheduled to begin in FY 1990.
Radiation Data:
Gamma Exposure Levels: 45 mR/hr (max)
above background: Background Avg=61 mR/yr.
Soil Concentrations:
Total U
Th-232
Ra-226
Ra-228
2.7 pCi/g
3.8 pCi/g
5.1 pCi/g
6.9 pCi/g
Ground-water Concentrations:
(Highest Annual Avg. for 1987)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Total U
Th-232
0.4 pCi/L
3.3 pCi/L
4.6 pCi/L
0.3 pCi/L
Surface water Concentrations:
(Highest Annual Avg. for 1987)
Ra-226 0.2 pCi/L
Ra-228 2.0 pCi/L
Total U 3.4 pCi/L
Th-232 <0.2 pCi/L
Sediment Concentrations:
(Highest Annual Avg. for 1987)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Total U
Th-232
0.8 pCi/g
3.2 pCi/g
1.5 pCi/g
0.9 pCi/g
Radon Concentrations:
(Highest Annual Avg. for 1987)
Ra-222
Ra-220
1.3 pCi/L
0.7 pCi/L
Matrix Characteristics:
Sand and gravel; tailings from processing
monazite ores; tailings buried on site; surface
and ground water; air. Storage pile is covered
and secured. Consists of thorium tailings and
demolished radioactively contaminated build-
ings remediated from vicinity properties. Un-
derlying ground is known to be contaminated by
processing wastes.
Source:
Thorium ore (monazite) extraction plant on
site.
Approximate Area and Volume:
6.5 acres; 49,000 cubic yards in storage pile;
70,000 cubic yards buried on site.
B-5
-------
Environmental Impact:
51,000 residents within 3-mi radius. Sur-
rounded by commercial properties to the
southeast and southwest: residences to north
and northeast. Large truck garden farm about
300 feet northwest of site. Railroad siding in
Pequannock Township contains about 400 cubic
yards of contaminated soil. This is awaiting es-
tablishment of a permanent disposal site. The
potential for further contamination by runoff
has been abated somewhat by work done to date
at site.
Source of Information:
"Wayne Interim Storage Site Annual Site En-
vironmental Report, Calendar Year 1985,"
DOE/OR/20722-103, Oak Ridge Operations
Office. 8/86.
"Wayne Interim Storage Site Annual Site En-
vironmental Report, Calendar Year 1987,"
published 4/88.
Site Status Report from EPA Region II; 10/88.
B-6
-------
B - 5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Essex County, New Jersey
(Also see Montclair/West Orange
Radium Site #7)
EPA Contact Region II:
Raimo Liias, FTS 264-8099
Summary of Site Use:
Radium processing wastes from the 1920s was
used for fill in residential areas.
Landfill, Comm./lndus.
Status:
JNPL Rank Score Lead
Status
[Final 178 49.14 Fund
RI/FS
EPA released a draft Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report in 9/85.
Supplemental FS of interim and final
alternatives was released 4/89. Record of
decision (ROD) signed for portion of the site
June 30, 1989. Supplemental ROD will be
issued for the remainder of the site at a later
date. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) began remediation of nine
residential properties by excavating
contaminated soil 6/85. EPA RI/FS report
considered remedial cleanup and disposal
alternatives. Due to the extent of radium
contamination, EPA has been conducting
additional field studies.
Radiation Data:
Rn-222 gas in homes, 0.5-440 pCi/L before
remediation; radium in soil above background
40% of properties; Ra-226, U-234 present)
Gamma radiation levels: 1,000 u,R/hr (max).
Ra 4,545 pCi/g (max)
Th 4,545 pCi/g (max)
U 310 pCi/g (max)
Matrix Characteristics:
Ash and cinders in discrete pockets; also ap-
parently mixed with soil (silt, sand, and
gravel, or used alone as fill).
Source:
Alleged to be former radium-processing facil-
ity nearby.
Approximate Area and Volume:
127 acres; 350,000 cu yd total in 3 separate
areas; over 750 properties involved.
Environmental Impact:
Approximately 750 properties in 3 areas.
76,000 residents within 3-mi radius. EPA,
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) have determined the long-term im-
pact on health of residents.
Source of Information:
"Radon Contamination in Montclair and Glen
Ridge New Jersey Investigation and Emergency
Response," by J.V. Czapor and K. Gigliello, and
J. Eng.
"Feasibility study for Montclair/West Orange,
Glen Ridge, New Jersey Radium Sites," Draft
Final Report, U.S. EPA, 1985.
Site Status Report from EPA Region II; 10/88.
Soil Concentrations:
B-7
-------
B - 6 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Lodi Municipal Well
Lodi, New Jersey
EPA Contact Region II:
Ron Rusin, FTS 264-1873
Summary of Site Use:
Municipal well near a thorium processing fa-
cility is contaminated with U-238 decay series
elements.
Ground-water Plume.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead Status
iProoosed - - - 33.39 Fund RI/FS
Well closed 12/83.
Draft Rl report completed 7/89 and under
review. RI/FS will determine whether the
source of contamination may be attributed to
either a man-made contaminant or a naturally
occurring source.
Radiation Data:
One well out of nine contaminated with gross
alpha radiation from U-238 decay.
Matrix Characteristics:
Ground water; VOCs present in most of nine
wells.
Source:
Possibly nearby thorium processing facility,
or may be a natural source.
Approximate Area and Volume:
One well radioactively contaminated; 2.35 sq
mi.
Environmental Impact:
One well closed due to radioactive contam-
ination. Other eight are shut down due to
volatile organic contamination. Lodi using al-
ternate water supply.
Source of Information:
EPA NPL site status sheet.
B-8
-------
B - 7 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
Essex County, New Jersey
(Also see Glen Ridge Radium Site#5)
EPA Contact Region II:
Raimo Liias, FTS 264-8099
Summary of Site Use:
Radium processing wastes from the 1920s was
used for fill in residential areas.
Landfarm, Treatment, Spreading.
Status:
[INPL Rank Score Lead Status
[Final 178 49.14 Fund RI/FS
EPA released a draft Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report in 9/85.
Supplemental FS of interim and final
alternatives was released 4/89. Record of
decision was signed for a portion of the site on
June 30, 1989. Supplemental ROD will be
issued for the remainder of the site at a later
date. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) began remediation of nine
residential properties by excavating
contaminated soil 6/85. EPA RI/FS report
considered remedial cleanup and disposal
alternatives. Due to the extent of radium
contamination, EPA has been conducting
additional field studies. As of 3/87, EPA has
been unable to solve the soil disposal problem
and is developing a supplemental RI/FS to focus
continuing protective action while final
remedy developed.
Radiation Data:
Rn-222 gas in homes, 0.5-440 pCi/L before
remediation; radium in soil above background
40% of properties; Ra-226, U-234 present)
Gamma radiation levels as high as 1300
u.R/hr.
Subsurface concentration:
Ra 1-5386 pCi/g (max)
Th 1 - 4620 pCi/g (max)
U 1-248 pCi/g (max)
Matrix Characteristics:
Ash and cinders in discrete pockets; also ap-
parently mixed with soil (silt, sand, and
gravel, or used alone as fill).
Source:
Alleged to be former radium-processing facil-
ity nearby.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Montclair/West Orange: approx. 50,000 cu yd
of contaminated material throughout the
neighborhood of approx. 1 square mile. Total
contaminated soil is approx. 300,000 cu yd in
3 separate areas; over 750 properties in-
volved.
Environmental Impact:
Approximately 750 properties in 3 areas.
76,000 residents within 3-mi radius. EPA,
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) have determined the long-term im-
pact on health of residents.
Source of Information:
EPA NPL site status sheet 5/86; update 11/86
and 3/87.
"Radon Contamination in Montclair and Glen
Ridge New Jersey Investigation and Emergency
Response," by J.V. Czapor and K. Gigliello, and
J. Eng.
"Feasibility study for Montclair/West Orange,
Glen Ridge, New Jersey Radium Sites," Draft
Final Report, U.S. EPA, 1985.
Site Status Report from EPA Region II; 10/88.
B-9
-------
B-8 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Lansdowne Radiation Site
105-107 E. Stratford Av.
Lansdowne, Pennsylvania
EPA Contact Region III:
Vic Janosik, FTS 597-8996
Summary of Site Use:
Basement laboratory (1924-1944) left res-
idence contaminated with radium. Made radium
sources for therapy.
Other Manufacturing/Industrial, Waste Piles.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
Final 703 20.32 Fund
RA
Site is undergoing Remedial Action (RA),
which began 8/88 and will continue for 8 mos.
to 1 year. Based on a radiological assessment of
the property and a remedial action plan pre-
pared by Argonne National Laboratory in
1985, EPA has decided to dismantle the duplex
residence and dispose of contaminated
materials at a licensed burial site (Utah).
Radiation Data:
Beta-gamma levels = 900,000 dpm/sq cm
Alpha levels = 200,000 dpm/sq cm.
Soil Concentration (max.):
Ra-226 2,800± 300 pCi/g
Th-230 1,310 ±100 pCi/g
Ac-227 32 ± 3 pCi/g
Radon Concentrations:
Rn-222 31 pCi/L
Rn-220 37 pCi/L
Soil, sewer lines, building materials contami-
nated with- Ra-226, Th-230, Ac-227, and
Pa-231. Rn at 0.021 - 0.309 working level
(WL).
Matrix Characteristics:
Soil, concrete, other building materials, sewer
line waste.
Source:
Basement operation for radium purification
and packaging by former occupant.
Approximate Area and Volume:
52,000 sq ft of land; 30,000 cu ft of contam-
inated articles/structures; 800-2,000 cu yd
of contaminated soil, extending to 8 ft depth.
Environmental Impact:
Severe contamination of building and sur-
rounding grounds. ATSDR issued (3/85) health
advisory warning that radiation levels in the
structure were unsafe. Heavily populated res-
idential area with neighboring properties con-
taminated with radium. However, none of the
surrounding homes have greater than back-
ground contamination.
Source of Information:
"Radiological Assessment Report For The
Lansdowne Property" (ANL, Sept. 1985) and
the Remedial Action Plan prepared by Argonne
National Laboratory.
Site Status Report from EPA Region III;
10/88.
B-10
-------
B - 9 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal Site
Hillsboro, Kentucky
EPA Contact Region IV:
Harold Taylor, FTS 257-7791
Summary of Site Use:
Radioactive wastes deposited at privately op-
erated burial facility on state-owned land.
State licensed.
Landfill, Comm./lndus.
Status:
INPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
[Final 612 31.71 Enforcement RI/FS
RI/FS work plan completed 6/30/86 with fo-
cus on risk assessment and evaluation of al-
ternative remediation, based on containment of
waste. Consent order entered into 3/87 by EPA
and site steering committee to perform RI/FS
per work plan. Rl was finalized 6/1/89 and FS
is due 9/1/89. Goal is to issue ROD at end of
1st quarter of FY 1990.
Radiation Data:
Transuranic nuclides in the environment; ele-
vated concentrations of tritium, cobalt, and
strontium. Site contains approx. 4.75 million
cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste
equaling approx. 2.4 million Ci of by-product
material, about 533,000 pounds of source
material, about 950 pounds of special nuclear
material, and more than 140 pounds of pluto-
nium.
Gamma radiation 10-32 mR/hr; 30,000
pCi/cubic meter activity level.
Soil Concentrations:
Ra 9 pCi/g
U 14 pCi/g
(max)
(max)
Th 2 pCi/g (max)
H-3 560,000 pCi/g (max)
Cs-137 1 pCi/g
Co-60 <1 pCi/g
(plus organic contaminants)
Gound-water Concentrations:
Ra-226
U
H-3
Sr-90
Pu-239
300 pCi/L (max)
105 pCi/L (max)
2,000,000 pCi/mL (max)
13,000 pCi/L (max)
2 pCi/L (max)
(plus organic contaminants)
Surface water Concentrations:
Ra-226
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
H-3
290 pCi/L (max)
2 pCi/L (max)
1 pCi/L (max)
68,800 pCi/L (max)
(plus organic contaminants)
Sediment Concentrations:
Ra-226
Sr-90
Pu-239
Cs-137
H-3
4 pCi/g (max)
5 pCi/g (max)
1 pCi/g (max)
<1 pCi/g (max)
70 pCi/g (max)
(plus organic contaminants)
Air Concentrations:
H-3 3,000 pCi/cu meter (max)
Matrix Characteristics:
Low-level radioactive waste burial facility;
leachate, soil, air; flora, fauna. Nonradioactive
contaminants: benzene, naphthalene, d-n-
oxylphthalate, 1,4-dioxane, dichlorodi-
fluoromethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, pentanol,
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid,2-methyl-
propionic acid, 2-methylbutanoic acid, 3-
methylbutanoic acid, valeric acid, isobutyric
acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, 3-methylbutyric
acid, pentanoic acid, 2-methylpentanoic acid,
3-methylpentanoic acid, Ca-branched acids,
phenol, hexanoic acid, 2-methylhexanoic acid,
B-11
-------
cresol (isomers), 2-ethylhexanoic acid, Ce-
branched acid, benzoic acid, octanoic acid,
phenylacetic acid, phenylpropionic acid,
phenylhexanoic acid, toluic acid, p-dioxane,
methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, xylene
(isomers), cyclohexanol, dibutyl ketone, fen-
chone, triethyl phosphate, naphthalejie,
tributyl phosphate, a-terpineol.
Source:
Disposal site for various low-level radioactive
waste sources. Liquid storage buildings
(200,000 gallons of leachate stored above
ground) and a building enclosing the old evapo-
rator. Residuals on building. Tritium in
leachate.
Approximate Area and Volume:
280 acres (total site), 25 acres
(contaminated), 178,000 cu yd., 200,000
gallons; 10 steel tanks, evaporator, soil in
buildings.
Environmental Impact:
152 residents live within 1-mi radius.
Leachate escaping through bedrock fractures
into underlying sandstone and trenches.
Leachate from a number of trenches contains
soluble plutonium. Evidence of migration of
tritium from trench water to wells has been
established but not in high enough levels to
pose a public health hazard. Local residents are
on public water supply system, however.
Source of Information:
RI/FS Work Plan (6/86).
Draft Rl sent to OWPE (10/88)
Site Status Report from EPA Region IV; 10/88.
B-12
-------
B - 1 0 . RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek)
and the West Branch of the DuPage River
West Chicago, Illinois
EPA Contact Region V:
Mary Logan, FTS 886-9288.
Summary of Site Use:
Thorium processing wastes discharged to creek
from 1931 to 1973.
Ore Process/Refining/Smelter, Surface Im-
poundment, Outfall, Surface water.
Status:
NPL
Rank Score Lead Status
I Proposed - - - 39.05 Fund RI/FS
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
issued an order to Kerr-McGee to prepare a
cleanup plan for Kress Creek and affected por-
tions of the West Branch of the DuPage River.
The NRC's Atomic Safety Licensing Board up-
held Kerr-McGee's challenge. The NRC staff has
appealed this decision. Should the appeal fail,
EPA must consider using Superfund to remedy
the creek and river contamination.
Radiation Data:
About 1.5 mi of creek and river are con-
taminated in the streams and along the banks.
Peak total thorium concentrations are 555
pCi/g at a depth of 60 cm (2 ft). Thorium has
been identified as deep as 170 cm (6 ft). Peak
gamma levels are 250 u.R/hr along the bank.
Matrix Characteristics:
Sediment, soil, tailings.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Undetermined but substantial. Affected area is
about .1.5 miles of creek and river bed and the
adjacent banks.
Source:
The Rare Earths Facility, an ore processing
facility that had been used to process thorium
and rare earth ores containing radioactive
thorium, uranium, and radium.
Environmental Impact:
There are several routes for potential risks to
the environment and public health, including
direct external radiation exposure; inhalation
exposure and ingestion of contaminated soils,
ground water, and surface water. The contam-
inated media at the site consists of wastes from
the Rare Earths Facility. The primary ra-
dionuclide present is Th-232.
Source of Information:
Comprehensive Radiological Survey of Kress
Creek, West Chicago Area, Illinois, 2/84, Oak
Ridge Associated Universities.
Site Status Report from EPA Region V; 10/88.
B-13
-------
B -1 1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Kerr-McGee (Reed Keppler)
Reed-Keppler Park,
West Chicago, Illinois
EPA Contact Region V:
Mary Logan, FTS 886-9288
Summary of Site Use:
Thorium processing wastes landfilled in gravel
quarry next to public park.
Waste Piles, Landfill, Comm./lndus.
Status:
NPL
Rank Score Lead Status
Proposed 29.45 Fund RI/FS
The Remedial Investigation Report has been
completed. Samples were analyzed for 23 met-
als, Th-232, U-238, Ra-228, and Ra-226 in
the soil; and gross alpha, Th-232, and Ra-226
in the ground water.
Radiation Data:
Gamma exposure levels up to 16,000 u,R/hr.
Ground-water concentration:
Th-232 23 pCi/L
Ra-226 8 pCi/L
Soil concentration (max)
Th-232 11,000 pCi/g.
Matrix Characteristics:
Till, gravel, ground water, and air.
Approximate Area and Volume:
It is estimated that 20,000 cu yd of thorium
contaminated material is located within the
Park in a 11,000-sq yd area.
Source:
The Rare Earths Facility, an ore processing
facility that had been used to process thorium
and rare earth ores containing radioactive
thorium, uranium, and radium.
Environmental Impact:
There are several routes of potential risks to
the environment and public health including
direct external radiation exposure; inhalation
exposure; and ingestion of contaminated soils,
ground water, and surface water. The contam-
inated media at the site are wastes from the
Rare Earths Facility. The primary radionuclide
present is thorium-232
Source of Information:
Remedial Investigation Report, Kerr-McGee
Radiation-sites, West Chicago, 9/86, CH2M
Hill.
Site Status Report from EPA Region V; 10/88.
B-14
-------
B - 1 2 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SUPERFUND
SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Kerr-McGee (Residential)
Off-Site Properties
West Chicago, Illinois
EPA Contact Region V:
Mary Logan, FTS 886-9288
Summary of Site Use:
Thorium processing wastes used as fill in at
least 87 areas within the city.
Waste Piles.
Status:
Environmental Impact:
There are several routes of potential risks to
the environment and public health including
direct external radiation exposure; inhalation
exposure; and ingestion of contaminated soils,
ground water, and surface water. The contam-
inated media at the site consists of wastes from
the Rare Earths Facility. The primary ra-
dionuclide present is thorium-232.
Source of Information:
Remedial Investigation Report, Kerr-McGee
Radiation-sites, West Chicago, Illinois, 9/86,
CH2M Hill.
Site Status Report from EPA Region V; 10/88.
NPL
Rank Score Lead Status
Proposed 29.45 Fund RI/FS
The Remedial Investigation Report has been
completed. Mitigation procedures were carried
out at 116 locations.
Radiation Data:
Contamination in excess of 2,000-3,000
u.R/hr was noted prior to the mitigative mea-
sures. Th-232 up to 16,000 pCi/g in soil was
measured.
Matrix Characteristics:
Till, gravel, fill, tailings.
Approximate Area and Volume:
The area consists of 117 residential lots of
various sizes. Approximately 61,000 cu yd.
Source:
The Rare Earths Facility, an ore-processing
facility that had been used to process thorium
and rare earth ores containing radioactive
thorium, uranium, and radium.
B-15
-------
B -1 3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Plant)
West Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant
West Chicago, Illinois
EPA Contact Region V:
Mary Logan, FTS 886-9288
Summary of Site Use:
Thorium processing wastes used as fill at the
sewage treatment plant.
Landfill,Comm./lndus., Waste Piles, Tank, be-
low ground.
Status:
NPL
Rank Score Lead
Status
Proposed 29.45 Fund
RI/FS
Source:
The Rare Earths Facility, an ore processing
facility that had been used to process thorium
and rare earth ores containing radioactive
thorium, uranium, and radium.
Environmental Impact:
There are several routes of potential risks to
the environment and public health, including
direct external radiation exposure; inhalation
exposure; and ingestion of contaminated soils,
ground water, and surface water. The contam-
inated media at the site are wastes from the
Rare Earths Facility. The primary radionuclide
present is thorium-232.
Source of Information:
Remedial Investigation Report, Kerr-McGee
Radiation-sites, West Chicago, Illinois, 9/86,
CH2M Hill.
Site Status Report from EPA Region V; 10/88.
The Remedial Investigation Report has been
completed. Samples were analyzed for metals,
radon, thoron and thorium. Values were pre-
sented for As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Pb, Hg, and Se.
Radiation Data:
Gamma radiation = 2,000-3,000 u.R/hr.
Soil Concentration (nominal)
Th-232 4,900 pCi/g
Groundwater Concentration
Th-232 30 fCi/L
Th-230 <1 pCi/L
Ra-226 <1 pCi/L
Matrix Characteristics:
Soil; till; gravel; ground water; monazite ore.
Approximate Area and Volume:
25 acres (includes plant site and Reed-
Keppler Park and not just contaminated area):
40,000 cu yd.
B-16
-------
B-14 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
The Homestake Mining Company
Uranium Mill
Cibola County, New Mexico
(about 5.5 miles north of Man)
EPA Contact Region VI:
William Rowe, FTS 255-6730
Summary of Site Use:
Uranium mill since 1958 with heavy metal
contamination from two large tailings ponds.
Surface Impoundment, Mining site, Surface.
Status:
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
Final 528 34.21 Enforcement RI/FS
Homestake and EPA signed an Administrative
Order in 6/87 for implementation of a
workplan for a radon RI/FS developed by New
Mexico's contractor, Geomet. A 15-month Rl
testing program was completed, and the ROD is
expected to be signed in 9/89. Naturally
occurring dispersed tailings, ground-water
contamination, and tailings piles may be
considered as to how they act as sources.
Radiation Data:
Rn-222 in the air, 0.03 WL; radium in the
mill tailings, 60-100 pCi/g; uranium in the
water, 720 ppb. One-year monitoring study of
indoor and outdoor radon concentrations. Out-
door radon concentrations ranged from 0.05
pCi/L (background) to 2.6 pCi/L.
Matrix Characteristics:
Soil, tailings, ground water, and air.
Approximate Area and Volume:
245 acres at 6,600-foot elevation;
16,500,000 cu yd.
Source:
Potential sources are:
Homestake Mining Company uranium mill
tailings, Anaconda mill tailings, Ambrosia Lake
mining area, and areas of near-surface ura-
nium mineralization.
Environmental Impact:
About 200 people depend upon the shallow
aquifer as a water supply. An alternate water
supply is in place, and aquifer restoration by
Homestake has been somewhat successful.
Radon levels indoors and outdoors in several
subdivisions near the mill may be above
background.
Source of Information:
Geomet Report Number 18-1739, 3/87.
"WORK PLAN FOR HOMESTAKE MINING
COMPANY STUDY AREA NEAR MILAN, NEW
MEXICO," RI/FS for EAI.D., R.P.B., State of
New Mexico.
B-17
-------
B -1 5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
United Nuclear Corporation
Church Rock, New Mexico
(17 miles northeast of Gallup)
EPA Contact Region VI:
William Rowe, FTS 255-6730
Summary of Site Use:
Uranium mill since 1977. Tailings impound-
ment failed in 1979 to the Rio Puerco River.
Surface impoundment, Mining site, Surface.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
Final 651 30.36 Fund
RI/FS
EPA completed an RI/FS ground-water
operable unit FS in August 1988, and signed a
ROD in September 1988. EPA and the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) signed
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in
8/88 to coordinate and ensure full site reme-
diation. UNC has submitted a Reclamation Plan
under conditions of its source materials li-
cense. NRC, with EPA's review, gave partial
approval to the Reclamation Plan. Mill complex
will be decommissioned and associated areas
will be decontaminated/surveyed under NRC
license conditions/directives.
Radiation Data:
Gamma Exposure: some areas > 150 u.R/hr.
Soil: EPA did not sample soils during RI/FS. On
the basis of the MOU, NRC is responsible for
comprehensive surveying of soils affected by
windblown tailings. The primary contaminant
is radium.
Groundwater Concentrations:
Ra-226 47 mg/L
Ra-228 36 mg/L
Th-230 3,760 mg/L (max)
Gross alpha 350 pCi/L (max: not Rn)
Gross beta 77 pCi/L (max)
(plus ammonia, nitrates, As, Cd, Co, Ni, Se)
Surface water Concentrations:
Ra-226/8 24 pCi/L (max: w/Rn)
Th-230 277,733 pCi/L (max)
U Not Analyzed
(plus ammonia, nitrates, sulfates, Al, Mn, Se)
Radioactive Tailings
Contaminants Pile (pCi/g) Pond (pCi/L)
U-238 29 3,900
Th-230 290 93,000
Ra-226 290 130
R n - 2 2 2 no data no data
Matrix Characteristics:
Tailings, ground-water. Mill complex: includes
mill, office buildings, foundation and concrete
structures, storage tanks. Also, mine shafts
and work areas. Includes retention-sediment
ponds, evaporation pads. Mill effluent: stored
solids and spilled or windblown materials.
Mainly tailings and extracted product. Nonra-
dioactive contaminants:
Pond
arsenic
barium
cadmium
lead
mercury
molybdenum
selenium
vanadium
zinc
(mg/L)
22
29
11
56
0.0005
2.30
0.53
46.94
7.22
Approximate Area and Volume:
The mill tailings pond covers 170 acres and is
15-20 ft thick; 4,700,000 cu yd.
B-18
-------
Source:
The source of the radiation is a uranium mill
site, largely from the tailings ponds.
Environmental Impact:
Several people use the shallow alluvial
aquifers in the area. A break in the tailings
dam in 1979 sent 93 million gallons of
tailings fluid into the Rio Puerco. The upper
Gallup aquifer is contaminated in the vicinity
of the tailings pond. The alluvial aquifer is also
contaminated.
Source of Information:
Site Status Summary, 5/87 and Technical
Memorandum, Phase I Field Study, RI/FS,
United Nuclear, Church Rock, N. Mexico, Oc-
tober 4, 1985, CH2M Hill.
PRP Reports, State of New Mexico Site Inspec-
tions, UNC and EPA Sampling Data.
Site Status Report from EPA Region VI; 10/88.
B-19
-------
B -1 6 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Weldon Spring Quarry and
Chemical/Raffinate Plant (USDOE/Army)
St. Charles City, Missouri
EPA Contact Region VII:
Dan Wail, FTS 757-2856
Summary of Site Use:
Quarry used by Army for disposal of TNT
wastes and by AEC/NRC for disposal of thorium
residues and radium-contaminated equipment.
Sand and gravel pit; Surface impoundment;
Chemical Process/Manuf.; Milit. Ord.
Prod./Stor./Disp.; Ore Process/Refining/
Smelter.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
Final 672 55.60 Fund Pre-RI/FS
Quarry: Under an agreement with EPA (4/87),
DOE is developing an operable unit RI/FS. A
ROD is expected by the third quarter of 1990.
Chemical Plant: A ROD is expected by 4/91.
Radiation Data:
According to results of monitoring by DOE and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), radioactive
materials have been released to surface water,
ground water, and air. Thorium, uranium, and
radium residues have been placed in quarry.
Quarry:
Gamma Exposure Rates: 1.5 - 625 ^R/hr.
Soil Concentrations:
Pa 1,200 pCi/g
U 2,400 pCi/g
Th 6,800 pCi/g
(plus, nitroaromatics, PCBs, and PAHs)
Groundwater Concentrations:
U 8,800 pCi/L on-site
4,692 pCi/L off-site
(plus, 2,4,6 TNT)
Surface Water Concentrations:
U 2,100 pCi/L on-site
116 pCi/L off-site
Radon Concentrations:
Rn 3 pCi/L perimeter (avg)
1 8 pCi/L on-site (max)
Chemical Plant/Raffinate Pits (4):
Gamma Exposure Rates: 9 - 807 u.R/hr.
Soil Concentrations:
Ra 22 pCi/g (max)
U 50,000 pCi/g
Th 25 pCi/g
(plus, organics and heavy metals: Pb;Ba;Zn)
Sediment Concentrations:
Ra-226/8 850 pCi/g (dry:max)
U-238 710 pCi/g
U-234 810 pCi/g
U-235 40 pCi/g
Th-230 2,400 pCi/g
Th-232 120 pCi/g
(plus, organics and heavy metals: Pb;Ba;Zn)
Ground-water Concentrations:
U 58 pCi/L
(plus, organics, nitrate, sulfates, and heavy
metals: Li;Sr)
, Surface water Concentrations:
U 2,380 pCi/L
Ra 290 pCi/L
(plus, Pb, Sr, and Li)
Storm Water: U = 3,500 pCi/L
B-20
-------
Radon Concentrations:
Rn 1 pCi/L
Structural Contamination: Uranium is the
principal contaminant in 43 buildings, the
interior of 8 of these process buildings are
heavily contaminated.
Matrix Characteristics:
Drums, process equipment, building rubble,
debris, raffinate sludges and soils which range
from gravely to clay-like and organically rich.
Soils and sludges are variably contaminated
with TNT, DNT, and other organics.
Source:
Uranium and thorium ore processing. Pre-
viously US Army Ordnance works.
Approximate Area and Volume:
220 acre complex; quarry is 9 acres; 95,000
cu yd radioactive material; Pits contain
550,000 cu yd radioactive residues along with
other wastes.
Environmental Impact:
Potential contamination of alluvial aquifer 0.5
mi from quarry, serving 58,000 'people.
Uranium and radium have been detected in off-
site monitoring wells, with radium
concentrations exceeding drinking water
standards.
Source of Information:
Draft EIS (2/87)
Radiologic Characterization Report (2/87)
Annual Environ. Monitoring Report (8/87)
Site status report from EPA Region VII
(10/88)
B-21
-------
B -1 7 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Denver Radium Superfund Sites
Denver, Colorado
EPA Contact Region VIII:
Sonya Pennock, FTS 564-7505
Summary of Site Use:
31 properties in Denver where radium was
processed, refined or fabricated before 1915.
Ore Process/Refining/Smelter.
Status:
NPL Rank Score Lead
Status
Final 269 44.11 Fund
RD/RA
Feasibility Studies have been completed for 10
fund-lead operable units and for 4 fund-lead
operable unit. ROD'S are pending. Remedial
Design is underway at four operable units.
Negotiations with Potentially Responsible
Parties are underway at the enforcement-lead
operable unit.
Radiation Data:
U-234, -238, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222
present.
Gamma radiation concentrations:
57-2,547 u,R/hr (max)
Soil concentrations
Ra 79 - 5093 pCi/g (max)
Rn/progeny 0.30 WL (grab)
Matrix Characteristics:
Asphalt, soil, pond bottom sediment, building
debris and contents, ground water, and air-
borne particulates
Source:
Former Denver National Radium Institute and
other processors involved in radium process-
ing through World War I and early 1920s,
generating large quantities of radioactive
residues.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Approximate volume 106,000 cu yd, covering
a total of about 40 acres in 44 locations within
a 4-mi radius of downtown Denver.
Environmental Impact:
Potential risk to human health, including di-
rect exposure, inhalation of radon, ingestion of
radionuclides and contaminated media.
Source of Information:
Final Feasibility Study, Denver Radium site,
Operable Unit X, 6/87; Final Feasibility Study
& Responsiveness, Denver Radium Site, Oper-
able Units IVN, Vols. I and II, 9/86; Remedial
Alternative Selection and Community Relations
Responsiveness Summary, Operable Unit VII,
3/86. Remedial Investigation Report 4/86.
B-22
-------
B - 1 8 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Lincoln Park
Canon City, Colorado
EPA Contact Region VIII:
Gene Taylor, FTS 564-1640
Summary of Site Use:
Drinking water wells probably affected by
wastes from Cotter Corp. uranium mill.
Mining site, Subsurface.
Status:
Environmental Impact:
386 residents within 3-mi radius. Con-
taminated ground water in the vicinity and
down gradient. No permitted drinking water
wells in the area. Company's monitoring data
indicate a plume of contaminants, including
molybdenum, uranium, and selenium extending
from mill and affecting private wells that were
serving 200 people.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet. "Ground-water Flow and
Quality Near Canon City, Colorado." US Geo-
logical Survey, WRI Report 87-4014, 1987.
EPA Office of Radiation Programs.
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
Final 621 31.31 Enforcement RD/RA
RI/FS submitted to EPA by the State for review
3/86. Memorandum of Agreement between
State and EPA 4/86. The State of Colorado has
lead responsibility for negotiations, develop-
ment, and implementation of remedy.
Radiation Data:
Ground-water quality studies per 1987 USGS
report included Ra-226 between 0.05 and 1.6
pCi/L, and U-234 and -238 between 0.4 and
5, 700 u,g/L
Matrix Characteristics:
Contaminated ground water derived from un-
lined tailings ponds. Nonradioactive con-
taminants: molybdenum and selenium.
Source:
Uranium mill (Cotter Corporation).
Approximate Area and Volume:
900 acres; 1,900,000 tons.
B-23
-------
B - 1 9 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Uravan Uranium Project
Montrose City, Uravan, Colorado.
EPA Contact Region VIII:
Gene Taylor, FTS 564-1640
Summary of Site Use:
Mill began in 1915 for radium recovery, then
vanadium and most recently, uranium
Surface impoundment; Waste Piles; Mining
Site, Surface.
Status:
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
Final 275 43.53 Enforcement RD/RA
Source:
Uranium and vanadium recovery plant; milling
operations; little activity at present; owned
and operated by Union Carbide Corporation.
Approximate Area and Volume:
900 acres; 2,000,000 tons removed:
10,000,000 tons stabilized.
Environmental Impact:
Town in remote area. 125 residents within 3-
mi radius. All residents moved 12/86; no
permanent residents. Ground water and air
contaminated with process waste, including
uranium. Discharge and disposal of large
volume of process wastes releasing radiation.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet
Department of Energy Remediation Programs
State of Colorado negotiating remedy with re-
sponsible parties. EPA and State have entered
Into MOA 4/86, designating State to pursue ef-
fective remedy. The State of Colorado has nego-
tiated an agreement with Responsible Parties,
and the agreement has been approved by U.S.
District Court. EPA submitted comments to
State on remedial action plan 12/86.
Radiation Data:
Radionuclides and Rn-222, U-234, U-238;
Th-230; Ra-226.
Th 16,000 - 165,000 pCi/L
U 1,500 -16, 000 pCi/L
Ra 66 - 676 pCi/L.
Matrix Characteristics:
Ground-water and air, raffinate, tailings, sur-
face water. Selenium, nickel, ammonia, sul-
fates.
B-24
-------
B - 2 0 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SUPERFUND
SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Golden, Colorado
EPA Contact Region VIII:
Nat Miullo, FTS 564-1668
Summary of Site Use:
DOE GOCO with releases to ground-water and
surface water that may or may not be above
federally permitted levels.
Surface Impoundment; Milit. Ord. Prod.
/Stor./Dlsp. Spill
Status:
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
Proposed 64.32 Enforcement RI/FS
Approximate Area and Volume:
6,550 acres total area; 91 sites; over 1,000
waste streams.
Environmental Impact:
Plutonium and tritium have contaminated soils
and sediments in surface water. Ground water
has been contaminated with nitrate. Approxi-
mately 80,000 people live within 3 mi of the
facility.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet
7/85 NPL Fact Sheet.
Compliance agreement entered into by DOE,
EPA, and Colorado Dept. of Health 7/86, defin-
ing respective roles and responsibilities. DOE
is responsible for remedial actions. RI/FS
work plans completed 2/87; As a result of EPA
review and negotiation, DOE submitted a
technical proposal for interim response action
for high priority areas in 3/89. CERCLA
interagency agreement was entered into by
DOE, EPA and Colorado Department of Health
5/85.. DOE has done some remedial work such
as capping and removing plutonium
contaminated soil.
Radiation Data:
Plutonium and tritium releases.
Matrix Characteristics:
Soil and sediment; wastewater impoundments.
Source:
Production of nuclear weapons triggers; plu-
tonium recovery; americium research.
B-25
-------
B - 2 1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Monticello Radioactivity Contaminated
Properties
Monticello, Utah
EPA Contact Region VIII:
Lam Nguyen, FTS 564-1793
Summary of Site Use:
Tailings from vanadium and uranium ore used
for fill and aggregate for mortar and concrete.
Waste Piles; Ore Process/Refining/Smelter
Status:
NPL Rank Score
Lead
Status
Final 502 35.03 Enforcement RI/FS
DOE has assumed responsibility for most of the
remedial action. EPA is negotiating Memoran-
dum of Agreement (MOA) with DOE to better
define respective roles in cleanup activities.
DOE has authorized cleanup of 15 properties
and is studying several more for inclusion in
program. EPA conducted planned removal ac-
tion of two of the most contaminated structures
in Monticello during 1983-1984.
Radiation Data:
Widely dispersed radioactive tailings; U-238,
234, -226, Th-230, Rn-222, Ra-226.
Concentrations:
Ra-226
U-238
U
23,000 pCi/g
24,000 pCi/g
18,000 pCi/g
Matrix Characteristics:
Tailings from vanadium and uranium ore pro-
cessing; radioactive tailings widely dispersed
throughout town as fill material and as aggre-
gate for mortar and concrete. Vanadium 1-
16,532 ppm.
Source:
Uranium and Vanadium ore processing in Mon-
ticello plant from 1942 to 1960. Some
tailings may have been brought in from an-
other mill in Dry Valley.
Approximate Area and Volume:
152 potentially contaminated properties;
182,000 cu yd.
Environmental Impact:
1500 residents within 1/2-mi radius. 152
potentially contaminated properties. Widely
dispersed contamination, apparently mostly in
near-surface soils.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet. EPA Office of Radiation Pro-
grams
B-26
-------
B - 2 2 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Teledyne Wan Chang
Albany, Oregon
EPA Contact Region X:
Neil Thompson, FTS 399-7177
Summary of Site Use:
Wastes from production of zirconium and rare
earth elements, with heavy metals and low
levels of radioactive materials.
Ore Process/Refining/Smelter; Surface Im-
poundment.
Status:
INPLRank Score
Lead
Status
I Final 54.27 Enforcement RI/FS
EPA recently completed a remedial plan out-
lining the investigations needed to determine
the full extent of cleanup required at the site.
Wah Chang had requested permission from the
State to cover the old storage ponds to minimize
percolation that could contribute to possible
leachate into the Williamette. In 1/83, the
State drafted a permit indicating its preference
for moving the sludges to another location on
company property farther from the river. This
action has been appealed. RI/FS started in
10/88 and is continuing. Work plan negotiated
for full RI/FS.
Radiation Data:
Wastes from production of zirconium and rare
earths, with heavy metals (Ba, Cd) and U, Ra,
and Th wastes from ore pro-
cess/refining/smelter operations. Radiation
off site is generally below established limits.
Contaminated radioactive waste has been re-
moved from the site to a low-level radioactive
waste repository (Hanford).
Sludge Concentrations (stored on site):
Ra-226 120 pCi/g (max)
Th 619 pCi/g (max)
Total U 10,000 mg/kg (max)
(plus zirconium, halfnium, titanium, and
other rare earth metals)
Groundwater Concentrations:
Ra-228 1 1 pCi/L
(plus SO4, NaCI, and CaCI2)
Surface water: Not measured.
Sediment: Not measured.
Air: Measured, but data not available.
Gross alpha: Measured, but data not available.
No contaminated articles/structures.
Matrix Characteristics:
On-site process wastes consisting of a large
volume of solids containing Ra, U, Th, heavy
metals (Ba, Cd, Cr, and Pb), and chlorinated
solvents contaminating ground-water, surface
water and air.
Source:
Zirconium and rare earth ore processing in
Teledyne plant beginning in 1957.
Approximate Area and Volume:
10,000 cubic yards; 4 acres (Sludge)
Environmental Impact:
Industrial area with 3 houses nearby. Contam-
inated radioactive waste has been taken off site.
Storage facility for sludges on site with radia-
tion emission controls. Secondary alternative
is to move sludge disposal area from flood plain
and build a new facility.
Source of Information:
NPL Fact Sheet
Data collected in 1982 included in a Report by
CH2M Hill (1988).
Status report from EPA Region X (10/88).
B-27
-------
B - 2 3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
Benton County, Washington
EPA Contact Region X:
Paul Day, FTS 444-6623
Summary of Site Use:
DOE GOCO with releases to ground-water that
include organics as well as radioactive
substances.
Landfill, Comm./lndus.; Open Burning; Surface
Impoundment; Milit. Ord. Prod. /Stor./Disp.
Status:
NPL
| Proposed
Rank Score
- - - 69
.05
Lead
Enforce
Status
Pre-RI/FS
Source:
USDOE nuclear activities, primarily produc-
tion of nuclear materials for national defense,
at Hanford since 1943.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Approximately one billion cubic yards of mixed
radioactive and chemical wastes in trenches,
ditches, and landfills at 230 disposal locations
in the middle of the 570-square-mile Hanford
Site.
Environmental Impact:
Surface water within 3 miles of the 200-Area
provides drinking water to 70,000 people and
irrigates over 1,000 acres. Surface and
ground waters form site are contaminated with
significant levels of U, Pu, 1-129 and tritium,
and hazardous chemicals.
Source of Information:
NPL Fact Sheet.
EPA, USDOE, and Washington Department of
Ecology are jointly developing an action plan
that will include the work needed to address
this area under the Superfund program, as
well as other work needed to meet permitting,
corrective action, and compliance
requirements of Subtitle C of CERCLA.
Radiation Data:
U, Pu-239/40, Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-60, I-
129, and tritium. Hazardous solvents, organ-
ics, mineral acids, and inorganic salts.
Matrix Characteristics:
Solid and dilute liquid wastes comprised of ra-
dioactive, mixed and hazardous constituents in
trenches, ditches, and landfills. Tritium, I-
129, U, cyanide, and carbon tetrachloride have
been detected at levels significantly above
background in ground-water beneath the area.
Plumes of contaminated ground-water cover
approx. 215 square miles. Tritium has been
detected in Richland's surface water intakes
(20 miles South) at levels above background.
B-28
-------
B - 2 4 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Hanford 300-Area
Benton County, Washington
EPA Contact Region X:
Paul Day, FTS 444-6623
Summary of Site Use:
DOE GOCO with releases of uranium to ground
water that include organics as well as radioac-
tive materials.
Containers/Drums; Landfill, Comm./lndus.;
Surface impoundment; Other Manufactur-
ing/lndust.
Status:
NPL
Rank Score Lead
Status
Proposed--- 65.23 Enforce
Pre-RI/FS
EPA, USDOE, and Washington Department of
Ecology are jointly developing an action plan
that will include the work needed to address
this area under the Superfund program, as
well as other work needed to meet permitting,
corrective action, and compliance
requirements of Subtitle C of CERCLA.
Radiation Data:
U, Pu-238, 239/40, Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-
60, and Pr-147. Hazardous solvents,
organics, mineral acids, inorganic salts, Hg,
Cr,Pb,Ni, Zn, Co, and Be
Matrix Characteristics:
Solid and dilute liquid wastes comprised of ra-
dioactive, mixed and hazardous constituents in
trenches, ditches, and landfills. Uranium de-
tected at levels significantly above background
in area springs, wells, and the Columbia River.
Disposal locations and plumes of contaminated
groundwater cover approx. 5 square miles.
Source:
USDOE nuclear activities, primarily produc-
tion of nuclear materials for national defense,
at Hanford since 1943. Fabrication of nuclear
fuels.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Approximately 27 million cubic yards of
mixed radioactive and chemical wastes in
trenches, ponds, and landfills at 14 disposal
locations in the southern section of the 570-
square-mile-Hanford Site. Disposal locations
and plumes of contaminated ground-water
cover approx. 5 square miles.
Environmental Impact:
Surface water within 3 miles of the 300-Area
provides drinking water to 70,000 people.
Surface and ground waters from site are con-
taminated with significant levels of U, Pu, Cr,
Hg and hazardous chemicals.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet. EPA Office of Radiation Pro-
grams
B-29
-------
B - 2 5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE
SUPERFUND SITE DESCRIPTION
Name and Location:
Hanford 100-Area
Benton County, Washington
EPA Contact Region X:
Paul Day, FTS 444-6623
Summary of Site Use:
DOE GOCO with releases of chromium and stro-
nium-90 to ground water and Sr-90 to
surface water. Organics are released as well as
radioactive materials.
Landfill, Comm./lndus.; Open Burning; Surface
Impoundment; Milit. Ord. Prod. / Stor. Dispos.
Status:
NPL
Rank Score Lead
Status
Proposed— 46.38 Enforce
Pre-RI/FS
EPA, U.S. DOE, and Washington Department of
Ecology are jointly developing an action plan
that will include the work needed to address
this area under the Superfund program, as
well as other work needed to meet permitting,
corrective action, and compliance
requirements of Subtitle C of CERCLA.
Radiation Data:
U, Pu-238, 239/40, Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-
60, Ni-63, Eu-152/4/5, and tritium. Haz-
ardous solvents, organics, mineral acids, in-
organic salts, Hg, Cr,Pb,Ni,Co.
Matrix Characteristics:
Solid and dilute liquid wastes comprised of ra-
dioactive, mixed and hazardous constituents in
trenches, ditches, and landfills. Chromium and
Sr-90 detected at levels significantly above
background in ground-water and the Columbia
River. Disposal locations and plumes of con-
taminated groundwater cover approx. 11
square miles.
Source:
U.S. DOE nuclear activities, primarily produc-
tion of nuclear materials for national defense,
at Hanford since 1943. Location of nine
nuclear reactors: eight were in use during the
1940s and 1950s; the ninth, the N-Reactor,
has been used since the early 1960s to produce
Plutonium and electricity.
Approximate Area and Volume:
Approximately 4.3 billion cubic yards of
mixed radioactive and chemical wastes in
cribs, trenches, and burial grounds at 110
disposal locations in the northern section of the
570-square-mile-Hanford Site. Disposal
locations and plumes of contaminated ground-
water cover approx. 11 square miles.
Environmental Impact:
Surface water within 3 miles of the 100-Area
provides drinking water to 3,000 workers in
the 100- and 200-Areas. Surface and ground
waters from site are contaminated with signif-
icant levels of U, Pu, Sr-90, Cr, Hg and haz-
ardous chemicals.
Source of Information:
4/87 Fact Sheet. EPA Office of Radiation Programs
B-30
-------
APPENDIX C
RADIOACTIVE SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
C-1
-------
TABLE C-1
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOACTIVE SOIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Capping .... involves covering the contaminated site with a barrier
sufficiently thick and impermeable to minimize the diffusion of radon gas and
attenuate the gamma radiation associated with the radionuclides.
Vertical Barriers .... are walls installed around the contaminated zone to
help confine the material and any contaminated ground-water that might
otherwise flow from the site.
Land Encapsulation .... addresses excavated contaminated soil which is
redeposited at a site that has been provided with complete barrier protection
(plastic liners and impermeable materials).
Land Spreading .... involves low-level contaminated waste that is excavated,
transported to a suitable site, and spread on unused land, ensuring that ra-
dioactivity levels approach the natural background level.
Underground Mine Disposal .... uses underground mines to provide secure
and remote containment for contaminated wastes.
Ocean Disposal .... is an alternative to land-based disposal options for
low levels of contaminated soil. The contaminated soil is disposed of in selected
locations in the ocean. Any migration of contaminants should be slow, well dis-
persed, and diluted.
Stabilization/Solidification .... immobilizes radionuclides (and could
attenuate radon emanation) by trapping them in an impervious matrix. The
solidification agent (Portland cement, silica grout, etc.) is injected in situ or
mixed with excavated soil.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-1 (Continued)
Vitrification .... is a process that can immobilize radioactive contaminants by
heating the contaminated material to its melting temperature and then cooling to
a solid glassy mass.
Radon Control .... involves ventilation of buildings and areas to dilute the
radon gas to acceptable levels.
Soil Washing .... involves water (with or without additives) to wash
contaminated waste. Some contaminants are soluble in water while others are
washed free of the soil particles. Physical separation techniques are then used
to separate the soil into clean and contaminated fractions.
Chemical Extraction .... removes contaminants by mixing soil with
chemicals. The product is separated into cleaned and contaminated soil fractions
and a liquid extract containing radionuclides. The soluble radionuclides are
separated from the extractant by ion exchange, co-precipitation, or membrane
filtration.
Physical Separation .... uses screening, classification, flotation, and
gravity concentration to separate fine soil particles which may contain
radioactive contaminants. Screening is mechanical separation based on particle
size differences. Classification involves the separation of particles based on
their settling rate in fluids, normally water.
C-3
-------
TABLE C-2. Assessment of remediation technology for soils - U, Th, Ra.
I Remediation Technologies
On Site Disposal Capping
Vertical Barriers
Off Site Disposal Land Encapsulation
Land Spreading
Underground Mine
Ocean Disposal
On Site Treatment Solidification
Vitrification
Radon Control Homes
Areal
ISoll Washing Water
Chemical Extraction Inorganic Salts
Mineral Acids
Complexing Agents
Physical Separation Screening
Classification
Gravity Concentration
Flotation
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability
Effectiveness
Total
3
2
2
2
5
4
4
1
3
3
4
1
4
2
8
2
7
5
4
4
2
3
6
7
2
2
4
4
6
6
Development
Stage of R&D I Info. Available I Total
4
3
4
2
8
5
5
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
9
6
7
7
3
3
3
3
6
6
5
3
5
2
1 0
5
5
4
9
2
2
4
5
5
5
3
5
4
8
1 0
9
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
4
3
6
7
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
C-4
-------
References for Table C-2 (Soils - U, Th, Ra) (a)
ON SITE DISPOSAL
CAPPING:
VERTICAL BARRIERS:
.5,21 #,44, 69, 86,88,89,90#,1 043,111,11 3,138
.1 ,18,38,85#,104#
OFF SITE DISPOSAL:
LAND ENCAPSULATION:
LAND SPREADING:
UNDERGROUND MINE:
OCEAN DISPOSAL:
.5,20,21,87,104#
.22,104#
.22,24,27,28,104*,138
.5,21#,29,50
ON SITE TREATMENT:
SOLIDIFICATION:
VITRIFICATION:
".11,32,76,93,94,98,99#,104#,119,133,138
.33,41,42,81,84#,104#,105
RADON CONTROL:
HOMES:
AREAL:
.2,7,8,9,10,35#,36#,70,83,103,104#,107,109,112#,138,139,141,
.142,143,144,145,146
.37,39,40,43,45,104,113,138,139
SOIL WASHING:
WATER:
.6,25,26,48,71,73,75,8 2#,100,101,10 4#, 118,130
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION:
INORGANIC SALTS:
MINERAL ACIDS:
COMPLEXING AGENTS:
.3,1 4,30,31,49,51,57,63,67,72,73,82,1 00,104#, 106,11 5,11 6,
.120,122,123,124,126,1300,140'
.3,1 4,16,23,30,31,45,51,52,54,55,56,57,63,67,71,72,74,1 00,
. 1 01,1 02,104#, 106,108,11 0,114,11 6,120,121,122,123,124,
.125,126,127,128,130#, 131,138,140
.3,14,45,46,53,57,63,67,72,104#,1 06,11 6,11 7,120,1 21 #,122,
.126,130*,138,140
PHYSICAL SEPARATION:
SCREENING: .1 9,59,60,62,64,65,67,68,79,82,1 04#,1 30#,1 35
CLASSIFICATION: .19*,58#,59,60,61,62,65,67,68,72,73,96,104*,129*
GRAVITY CONCENTRATION: .19,58,59,60,62,65,66,96,104#
FLOTATION: . 1 9#,59,60,62#,65,67,72,79,95,1 04#,1 29*,1 35*
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-3.
Assessment of remediation technology for soils - other radionuclides.
Remediation Technologies
On-Site Disposal Capping
Vertical Barriers
Off Site Disposal Land Encapsulation
Land Spreading
Underground Mine
Ocean Disposal
On Site Treatment Solidification
Vitrification
Radon Control Homes
Areal
ISoil Washinq Water
Chemical Extraction Inorganic Salts
Mineral Acids
Complexinq Agents
Physical Separation Screening
Classification
Gravity Concentration
Flotation
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability
Effectiveness
Total
3
2
2
2
5
4
4
1
3
3
4
1
3
2
8
2
6
5
4
4
2
4
6
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
4
8
3
5
3
3
4
4
6
9
7
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
8
8
8
Development
Stage of R&D
Info. Available
Total
4
4
3
2
7
6
5
1
2
4
4
1
2
3
9
2
4
7
3
3
3
3
6
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
4
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
C-6
-------
Reference for Table C-3 (Soils-Other Radionuclldes) (a)
ON SITE DISPOSAL
CAPPING:
VERTICAL BARRIERS:
21#,69,89,90#,104#,111
1,18,38,85#,104*
OFF SITE DISPOSAL:
LAND ENCAPSULATION:
LAND SPREADING:
UNDERGROUND MINE:
OCEAN DISPOSAL:
20,21,87#,104#
22,104*
22,24,27,28,104*
21#,29,47,50
ON-SITE TREATMENT:
SOLIDIFICATION:
VITRIFICATION:
76,93,94,98,99#,104#
33,81 ,84#,104#
RADON CONTROL:
HOMES:
AREAL:
NOT APPLICABLE
NOT APPLICABLE
SOIL WASHING:
WATER:
71,73,75,104#,132
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION:
INORGANIC SALTS:
MINERAL ACIDS:
COMPLEXING AGENTS:
30,67,72,73,120
16,30,45,67,71,72,120
45,67,72,120
PHYSICAL SEPARATION:
SCREENING: 59,60,62,64,65,67,1 04#, 1 32
CLASSIFICATION: 58#,59,60,62,65,66,67,72,73,96,1 04#, 1 32,1 36#,1 37#
GRAVITY CONCENTRATION: 58,59,60,62,65,66,96,1 04#
FLOTATION: 59,60,62#,65,72,95,1 04#
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the Reference list at the end of this Appendix.
# This reference Is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
C-7
-------
TABLE C-4.
Assessment of remediation technology for soils - mixed waste.
I Remediation Technologies
On Site Disposal Capping
Vertical Barriers
Off Sito Disposal Land Encapsulation
Land Spreading
Underground Mine
Ocean Disposal
On Site Treatment Solidification
Vitrification
Radon Control Homes
Areal
i&oii wasmna Water
Chemical Extraction Inorganic Salts
Mineral Acids
Complexinq Aqents
Physical Separation Screening
Classification
Gravity Concentration
Flotation
1 1
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability I Effectiveness) Total
3
1
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
1
3
2
2
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
3
8
2
6
5
6
7
6
6
7
5
8
8
5
8
8
8
[Development
Stage of R&D I Info. Available) Total
M-
5
1
1
4
I 3
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
-H
PH
?—]
-H
Pd
6 |
_2 1
4 fl
_2 |
2 1
-n
2 ||
~~^~1
~~M
2 II
C-8
-------
References for Table C-4 (Soils-Mixed Waste) (a)
ON SITE DISPOSAL:
CAPPING:
VERTICAL BARRIERS:
12,13,15,17,21#,69,85,89,90#,104#
18,38,85#,104#
OFF SITE DISPOSAL:
LAND ENCAPSULATION:
LAND SPREADING:
UNDERGROUND MINE:
OCEAN DISPOSAL:
20,21,88,91,92#,104#
22,104#
22,24,27,28,104*
21#,29
ON SITE TREATMENT:
SOLIDIFICATION:
VITRIFICATION:
34,93,97,104#,134
33,81
RADON CONTROL:
HOMES:
AREAL:
1 04
37,39,40,43,104*
SOIL WASHING:
WATER:
71,73,75,77,78,80,104#
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION:
INORGANIC SALTS: 67,72,73
MINERAL ACIDS: 67,71,72
COMPLEXING AGENTS: 67,72,80
PHYSICAL SEPARATION:
SCREENING: 59,64,65,67
CLASSIFICATION: 59,60,65,66,67,72,73,96,104#
GRAVITY CONCENTRATION: 58#,59,60,65,66,96,1 04#
FLOTATION: 59,60,65,67,72,95,1 04#
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference listat the end of this appendix.
# This reference is more comprehensive for the subject technology.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-5.
Considerations for the use of soil remediation technologies.
Technology
Capping
Vertical
Barriers
Land
Encapsulation
Land
Spreading
Underground
Mine Disposal
Ocean Disposal
CON S 1
'!"<;•• •••,-, •• - ss^
,<,s\ J^?*. ?k\
Protects surface water.
Does not control horizontal
ground-water migration.
Degree of radiation attenu-
ation is unknown.
Does not remove source of
radiation.
Controls horizontal ground-
water migration.
Does not control vertical
migration.
May not attenuate radiation.
Does not remove source of
radiation.
Effective control of all
migration.
Must find suitable site.
Applicable to low-level,
dry, granular, soil-like
material not mixed with
other contaminants.
Must find suitable site.
Not applicable to bulk
storage.
For low levels of waste.
Must find a suitable site.
Covered by stringent
regulations.
Long-term effects
unknown.
DERATIONS
.. ..
Other RadJonucfides
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Mixed Waste
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Should not be
applicable to
most mixed
waste.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
(Continued)
C-10
-------
TABLE C-5
(Continued)
Technology
Stabilization/
Solidification
Vitrification
Radon
Control
Soil
Washing
Chemical
Extraction
Physical
Separation
CONSIDERATIONS
. R*; T&, u
Degree of radiation attenu-
ation is unknown.
Long-term effects
unknown.
Type of waste may interfere
with process.
f
Degree of radiation attenua-
tion unknown.
Must address volatilization
of contaminants.
Disperses gas, does not
remediate the source of
contamination or reduce
radiation.
Soil cleaned with water,
with or without additives.
Normally includes physical
separation techniques to
isolate clean soil fraction.
May not clean soils that
contain large quantities
of refractory minerals.
Not applicable if contamin-
ants are distributed
throughout all the soil
fractions.
Other RadiOfiuciidea
Reports not
available
(See Note)
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Not Applicable
Similar to
Ra,Th,U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Mixed Waste „
Reports not
available
(See Note)
Chemicals may
react with
waste.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Need
development
and testing
Need
development
and testing
Need
development
and testing
NOTE: When there was no specific information on the use of a particular technology on a category of contaminant,
ratings were developed based on engineering judgement and extrapolation from other applications.
C-1 1
-------
REFERENCES
Remediation Technologies for Soils
1. Spence, R., T. Godsey, E. McDaniel. In Situ Grouting of a Low-level Radioactive Waste
Trench. ORNL/TM-10462, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
November 1987.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reference Manual. EPA 520/1-87-20.
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC September 1987.
3. Beard, H. R., I. L. Nichols, and D. C. Seidel. Absorption of Radium and Thorium from
Wyoming and Utah Uranium Mill Tailings Solutions. U. S. Bureau of Mines, Salt Lake
City Research Center. 1979
4. Beard, H. R., H. B. Salisbury, and M. B. Shirts. Absorption of Radium and Thorium from
New Mexico Uranium Mill Tailing Solutions. Bureau of Mines, Salt Lake City Research
Center, Salt Lake City, UT. 1980.
5. Camp, Dresser & McKee et al. Draft Final Feasibility Study for the Montclair/West
Orange and Glen Ridge, New Jersy Radium Sites, Volume 1. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-
6939. 1985.
6. Nathwani, J., and C. Phillips. II Kinetic Study. In: Rate Controlling Processes in the
Release of Radium-226 from Uranium Mill Tailings. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution II.
D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston, MA. 1979.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Measurements in Schools: An Interim Report.
EPA 520/1-89-010. Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. March 1989.
8. Henschel, D. B. and A. Scott. Testing of Indoor Radon Reduction Techniques in Eastern
Pennsylvania. USEPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. Research
Triangle Park, NC. 1987.
9. Henschel, D.B., A. Scott, W., Findlay, and A. Robertson. Testing of Indoor Radon
Reduction Methods in 16 Houses around Dayton, Ohio. USEPA Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. 1988.
10 Scott, A. Installation and Testing of Indoor Radon Reduction Techniques in 40 Eastern
Pennsylvania Houses. EPA-600/58-88-002. USEPA Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1988.
11. Lakshmanan, V., L. Luckevich, G. Ritcey, and J. Skeaff. Evaluation of Tailings
Stabilization Methods as Applied to Uranium Tailings. Hydrometallurgy, 12. Elsevier
Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1984.
C-1 2
-------
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Lutton, R. J. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Cover Systems for Hazardous
Waste: An Engineering Guidance Document. EPA-600/2-87-039. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1987.
McAneny, C. C., P. G. Tucker, J. M. Morgan, C. R. Lee, M. F. Kelley, and R. C. Horz
Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-540/2-85-002. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. 1985.
Seeley, F. Problems in the Separation of Radium from Uranium Ore Tailings
Hydrometallurgy 2. Elsevier Scientific Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1976.
Lutton, R. J., G. L Regan, and L W. Jones. Design and Construction of Covers for Solid
Waste Landfills. EPA-600/2-79-165. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH. 1979. "
Ryon, A., W. Bond, F. Hurst, F. Scheitlin, and F. Seeley. Investigation of Nitric Acid for
Removal of Noxious Radionuclides from Uranium Ore or Mill Tailings. Oak Ridqe
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 1982.
Lutton, R. J. Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste. SW-867,
U.S. EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1980.'
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution
Migration Control. EPA 540/2-84-001. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1984.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "Uranium Extraction
Technology," OECD, Paris. 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Resource Documents on Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal. SW860 and SW870 Series. Office of Solid Waste Washington
DC. 1979-1987. '
U.S. Department of Energy, Long Term Management of the Existing Radioactive Wastes
and Residues at the Niagara Falls Storage Site. DOE/EIS-0109D. Washington, DC.
I i? O *r .
Gilbert, T. L, J. M. Peterson, R. W. Vocke, and J. K. Alexander. Alternatives for
Management of Wastes Generated by the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program. ANL/EIS-20. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL. 1983.
Demopoulos, G.P. Acid Pressure Leaching of a Sulphidic Uranium Ore with Emphasis on
Radium Extraction. Hydrometallurgy, 15 (2). December 1985.
Stone, R. B., P. L. Aamodt, M. R. Engler, and P. Madden. Evaluation of Hazardous Waste
Emplacement in Mine Opening. EPA-600/2-75-040. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1975.
C-13
-------
25 Nathwani, J., and C. Phillips. I. Leaching Study. In: Rate Controlling Processes in the
Release of Radium-226 from Uranium Mill Tailings. Water, Air, and Soil Polution II.
D. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston, MA. 1978.
26. Landa, E.R. Leaching of Radionuclides from Uranium Ore and Mill Tailings. U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 1982.
27. Stone, R. B., K. A. Covell, T. R. Moran, L. W. Weyand, and C. U. Sparkman. Using Mined
Space for Long-Term Retention of Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste. EPA-600/2-85-
021. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1985.
28. Esposito, M. P., W. E. Thompson, and J. S. Greber. Using Mined Space for Long-Term
Placement of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils. EPA Contract 68-02-3693. 1985.
29. Council on Environmental Quality, Ocean Dumping - A National Policy. A Report to the
President. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1970.
30. Torma, A., and S. Yen. Uranium Ore Leaching with Brine Solutions Containing
Hydrochloric Acid. Dept. of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, New Maxico
Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM. 1984.
31. Torma, A., N. Pendleton, and W. Fleming. Sodium Carbonate-Bicarbonate Leaching
of a New Mexico Uranium Ore and Removal of Long Half-Life Radionuclides from the
Leach Residue. Uranium, 2. pp. 17-36. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. 1985.
32. Tamura, T., and W. J. Boegly, Jr. In Situ Grouting of Uranium Mill Tailings Piles: An
Assessment. ORNLTM-8539. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 1983.
33. Fitzpatrick, V.F., J. L. Buelt, K. H. Oma, and C. L. Timmerman. In Situ Vitrification - A
Potential Remedial Action Technique for Hazardous Wastes. Proceedings of the Fifth
National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, DC. 1984.
34. Cullinane, M.J., LW. Jones, and P.G. Malone. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification
of Hazardous Waste. EPA/540/2-86/001. U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1986.
35 U S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached
Houses - Technical Guidance. Second Edition. EPA-625/5-87-019. Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC. 1987.
36. Nichols, F. D., J. M. Brink, and P. C. Nyberg. Cleanup of Radiation Mill Tailings from
Properties in Monticello, Utah. Presented at the Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute Superfund Conference. November 1984.
37. Shafer, R. A., A. Renta-Babb, J. T. Bandy, E. D. Smith, and P. Malone. Landfill Gas
Control at Military Installations. Technical Report N-173. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. 1984.
38. May, J., H.R.J. Larson, P.G. Malone, and B.A. Boa, Jr. Evaluation of Chemical Grout
Injection Techniques for Hazardous Waste Containment. In: Eleventh Annual Research
Symposium on Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. EPA 600/9-85-013. 1985.
C-14
-------
39. A. D. Little, Inc. Advanced Techniques for Radon Gas Removal. Bureau of Mines
Publication PB-243898. 1975.
40. Crow, W. L, E. P. Anderson, and E. Minugh. Subsurface Venting of Hydrocarbon Vapors
from an Underground Aquifer. API Publication 4410, pp. 3-10. Washington, DC.
1984.
41. Dreesen, D., E. Cokal, E. Thode, and J. Williams. III. Summary of Uranium Mill Tailings
Conditioning Research and Implications Regarding Remedial Actions. In: Research on
the Characterization and Conditioning of Uranium Mill Tailings. LA-9660-UMT, Vol.lll.
DOE/UMT-0265. Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM. June 1983.
42. Dreesen, D., E. Cokal, E. Thode, L Wangen, and J. Williams. II. Thermal Stabilization of
Uranium Mill Tailings: Technical and Economic Evaluation. In: Research on the
Characterization of Conditioning of Uranium Mill Tailings. LA-9660-UMT, Vol. II
DOE/UMT-0264. Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM. June 1983.
43. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Task II, In Situ Air Stripping of Soils Pilot Study. Final Report,
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency. October 1985.
44. Peil, K. Remedial Action at the Salt Lake City Uranium Mill Tailings Site. Roy F.
Weston, Inc., Albuquerque, NM.
45. Ryon, A., F. Hurst, F. Seeley. Nitric Acid Leaching of Radium and Other Significant
Radionuclides from Uranium Ores and Tailings. ORNL/TM-5944. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August 1977.
46. Nirdosh, I., S. V. Muthuswami, and M. H. I. Baird. Radium in Uranium Mill Tailings -
Some Observations on Retention and Removal. Hydrometallurgy, 12:151-176. 1984.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Analysis and Evaluation of a Radioactive Waste
Package Retrieved from the Atlantic 2800 Meter Disposal Site. EPA 520/1-82-009.
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. May 1982.
48. Havlik B., J. Grafova, and B. Nycova. Radium 226 Liberation from Uranium Ore
Processing Mill Waste Solids and Uranium Rocks into Surface Streams. Health Physics.
14:417-422. 1968.
49. Cooper, M.B. et al. An Investigation of the Speciation of Radionuclides in Sediments and
Soils. Australian Radiation Laboratory, Yailambie, Vic 3085 1981.
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Package Performance Criteria for Deep
Sea Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. EPA 520/1-88-009. Office of
Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. 1988.
51. Landa, E. R. A Historical Review of the Radium-Extraction Industry in the United States
(1906-1926) - Its Processes and Waste products. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management, pp. 3-332. Fort Collins. CO.
1981.
52. Seeley, F. G. Removal of Radium and Other Radionuclides from Vitro Tailings. Memo to
A. D. Ryon, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, TN. 1976.
C-15
-------
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Nirdoush, I., S. V. Muthuswami, M. H. I. Baird, C. R. Johnson, and W. Trembley. The
Reducing Complex Treatment for the Leaching of Radium from Uranium Mill Tailings.
Hydrometallurgy, 15:77-92. 1985.
Ambe, S. and K. H. Liefer. Coprecipitation of Thorium with Barium Sulfate,
Radiochemica Acta, 25:93-98. 1978.
Sebesta, F., J. John, and V. Jirasek. Extraction of Radium and Barium
Phosphomolybdates into Nitrobenzene in the Presence of Polyethyleneglycol.
Radiochem. Radioanal. Letters, 30:357-364.
Sebesta, F., E. Bilkova, and J. Sedlacek. Extraction of Radium and Barium into
Nitrobenzene in the Presence of Polyhedral Borate Anions. Radiochem. Radioanal.
Letters, 40:135-144. 1979.
Logsdail, D. H. Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, John
Wiley & Sons, New York. 1985.
O'Burt, Gravity Concentration Technology. Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1984.
Roberts, E. J., P. Stavenger, et. al. Solid/Solid Separation. Chemical Engineering
Desk Book Issue. February 15, 1971.
Kelly, E. G., and D. J. Spottiswood. Introduction to Mineral Processing. John Wiley, New
York. 1982.
Clark, D. A. State of the Art: Uranium Mining, Milling, and Refining Industry. EPA-
660-2-74-038. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, OR. 1974.
Wills, B. A. Mineral Procesing Technology. Pergamon Press, New York. 1985.
Phillips, C.R. and Y.C. Poon. Status and Future Possibilities for the Recovery of
Uranium, Thorium, and Rare Earths from Canadian Ores, with Emphasis on the Problem
of Radium. Minerals Science Engineering, 12(2). April 1980.
Mathews, C. W. Screening. Chemical Engineering Desk Book Issue. February 15,
1971.
Perry, R., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineer's Handbook. McGraw Hill, New York.
1973.
Svarovsky, L. Advances in Solid-Liquid Separation.
Chemical Engineering. July 1979.
Filtration and Allied Operations.
Assink, S.W. Extraction Method for Soil Decontamination: A General Survey and Review
of Operational Treatment Installation. In: Proceedings of the 1984 International TNO
Conference on Contaminated Soil. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, MA. 1985.
Kosarek, L. J. Uranium Extraction and In Situ Site Restoration via Membrane Technology.
1979 Mining Yearbook. 1979.
C-1 6
-------
69. Rishel, H.L, T.M. Boston, and C.J. Schmidt. Costs of Remedial Response Actions at
Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA 600 2-82-035. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 1981.
70. Bruno, R.C. Sources of Indoor Radon in Houses: A Review. Air Pollution Control
Association, 33(2). 1983.
71. Scholz, R. and J. Milanowski. Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous
Materials from Excavated Soils. In: Hazardous Materials Spill Conference, Milwaukee,
Wl. 1982.
72. Rulkens, W. H., J. W. Assink, et. al. Extraction as a Method for Cleaning Contaminated
Soil: Possibilities, Problems and Research. In: Conference on Management of Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, DC. 1984.
73. Rulkens, W. H., J. W. Assink, et. al. Development of an Installation for On-Site
Treatment of Soil Contaminated with Organic Bromine Compounds. In: Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, D.C., 1982.
74. Hawley, J.E. Use of Phosphate Compounds to Extract Thorium-230 and Radium-226
from Uranium Ore and Tailings. Hazen Research, Inc., National Science Foundation,
Washington, DC. May 1980.
75. Traver, R. D., In Situ Flushing and Soil Washing Technologies for Superfund Sites.
RCRA/Superfund Engineering, Technology Transfer Symposium, 1986.
76. Kalb, P., and P. Colombo. Modified Sulfur Cement Solidification of Low-Level Wastes.
Nuclear Waste Research Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island,
NY. October 1985.
77. Coles, E. T. et al. Soil Washing - Removal of Semivolatile Organics via Aqueous
Surfactant Solutions. EPA, 15th Annual Research Symposium, Remedial Action
Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Cincinnati, OH. April 1989.
78. Gutterman, C. et al. Review of Soil Washing Technologies in Soils Contaminated with
Heavy Metals. EPA 15th Annual Research Symposium, Remedial Action Treatment and
Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Cincinnati, OH. April 1989.
79. Neiheisel, J. Characterization of Radium Contaminated Soil at Montclair/Glen Ridge, NJ
for Remedial Planning. EPA In-house Report. Office of Radiation Programs, Washington,
DC. 1987.
80. Raghavan, R., D. Dietz, E. Coles. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents. Foster
Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc., Livingston, NJ. Under EPA Contract 68-03-3255.
Edison, NJ. January 1989.
81. Fitzpatrick, V., C. Timmerman, J. Buelt. In Situ Vitrification - A New Process for
Waste Remediation. Pacific Northwest Laboratory PNL-SA-14066. Richland,
Washington. July 1987.
82. Richardson, W. S., et al. An Interim Report for VORCE. Particle Size Distribution,
Radiochemical Distribution, and Chemical Work Studies on the Contaminated Soils from
Montclair and Glen Ridge, NJ. Auburn University at Montgomery. Under EPA Contract
No. 68-02-4375. ORP, Washington, DC. December 1988.
C-17
-------
83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. A Citizen's Guide to Radon - What It Is and What to Do About It. OPA-86-
004. U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and DHHS Centers for Disease Control,
Washington, DC. August 1986.
84. Buelt, J. L et al. In Situ Vitrification: Test Results for a Contaminated Soil Melting
Process. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, MSP7-44, Richland, WA 99352.
85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook - Remedial Action at Waste Disposal
Sites. EPA/625/6-85/006. Hazardous Waste Engineering Reseach Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. 1988.
86. U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental Assessment of Remedial Actions at the
Shiprock Uranium Mill Tailing Site. Shiprock, New Mexico. DOEJEA 0232. U.S.
Department of Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque, NM. May 1984.
87. U.S. Department of Energy. Remedial Action Plan for Stabilization of the Inactive
Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Canonsburg, PA. UMTRA-DOE/AL. U.S. Department of
Energy, Albuquerque Operation Office, Albuquerque, NM. 1983.
88. U.S. Department of Energy. Remedial Action at the Former Vitro Chemical Company
Site, South Salt Lake, Utah. DOE/EIS-0099-F. U.S. Department of Energy. July 1984.
89. Nyhan. J., and F. Barnes. Development of a Prototype Plan for the Effective Close of a
Waste Disposal Site in Los Alamos, New Mexico, LA-11282-MC. Los Alamos National
Laboratory. 1989.
90. Nyhan, J. et al. Field Evaluation of Two Shallow Land Burial Trench Cap Design for Long
Term Stabilization and Closure of Waste Repository at Los Alamos, New Mexico, LA-
11281-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1989.
91. Combined NRC-EPA Siting Guidelines for Disposal of Commercial Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes. 1987. (Note: This report is available in Reference
No. 104).
92. Joint NRC-EPA Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for Commercial Mixed Low-
Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities. 1987. (Note: This report is
available in Reference No. 104).
93. DuPont, A. Lime Treatment of Liquid Waste Containing Heavy Metals, Radionuclides and
Organics. National Lime Association, Arlington, VA.
94. Kalb, P., and P. Colombo. Polyethylene Solidification of Low-Level Wastes. Nuclear
Waste Research Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, NY.
October 1985.
95. Svarovsky, L. Advances in Solid-Liquid Separation-ll Sedimentation, Centrifugation and
Flotation. Chemical Engineering. July 1979
96. Svarovsky, L. Solid-Liquid Separation. Butterworth, Boston, MA. 1977.
C-18
-------
97. Franz, E. Immobilization of Sodium Nitrate Waste with Polymers. Nuclear Waste
Research Group, Fuel Cycle Analysis Division. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
Long Island, NY. April 1987. '
98. Neilson, R. Jr., and P. Colombo. Annual Progress Report. National Low-Level Waste
Program. U.S. DOE Nuclear Waste Research Group. Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, Long Island, NY. September 1982.
99. Dougherty, D., R. Pietrzak, M. Fuhrman, and P. Colombo. An Experimental Survey of the
Factors that Affect Leaching from Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forms. Nuclear Waste
Research Group, Radiological Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
Long Island, NY. September 1988.
100. Levins, D., R. Ryan, and K. Strong. Leaching of Radium from Uranium Tailings.
Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, NSW,
Australia. 1978.
101. Landa, E. Geochemical and Radiological Characterization of Soils from Former Radium
Processing Sites. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Division, Reston, VA.
January 1983.
102. Eligwe, C., A. Torma, and F. DeVries. Leaching of Uranium Ores with the H2O2-Na2SO4
System. Hydrometallurgy, 9, pp. 83-95. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1982.
103. Scott, A. and A. Robertson. Follow-up Alpha-Track Monitoring in 40 Eastern
Pennsylvania Houses with Indoor Radon Reduction Systems (winter 1987-88)
EPA/600/58-88/098. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.
Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1989.
104. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of
Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites. EPA/540/2-88/002. February 1988.
1 05. Dreesen, D., E. Cokal, L. Wangen, J. Williams, and E. Thode. Thermal Stabilization of
Uranium Mill Tailings. Environmental Science and Technology, 18 (9), American
Chemical Society. September 1984.
106. Haque, K. Radium (226) Removal From a Contaminated Soil. CANMET, Energy Mines and
Resources Canada, 555 Booth St., Ottawa, Canada. November 1988.
107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reduction Methods - A Homeowner's Guide.
OPA-87-010, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September 1987.
108. Demopoulos, G. Acid Pressure Leaching of a Sulphidic Uranium Ore with Emphasis on
Radium Extraction. Hydrometallurgy 15, pp. 219-242. Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1985.
109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product
Measurement Protocols. EPA 520/1-86-04, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, DC. April 1986.
C-1 9
-------
110. Eligwe, C., A. Torma, and F. DeVries. Kinetics of Uranium Extraction from a New Mexico
Ore by Sulfuric Acid-Hydrogen Peroxide. Sonderdruck aus Heft 2 (35). Metall-Veriag
GmBH, 1000 Berlin 33, Hubertusalle 18, West Germany. 1982.
111. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lining of Waste Containment and Other
Impoundment Facilities. EPA/600/2-88/052, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. September 1988.
112. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Pollution and
Radon Under Title IV, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Washington, DC. April 1987.
113. McDonald, D.J., et al. Canonsburg Case Study - - Lessons Learned. Presented at Low-
Level Nuclear Waste Cleanup Conference, Arlington, VA. April 17, 1984.
114. Haque, K.E. et al. Batch and Counter-Current Acid Leaching of Uranium Ore.
Hydrometallurgy, 17. 1987.
115. Shearer, S.D. et al. Leachability of Radium-226 from Uranium Mill Solids and River
Sediments. Health Physics. Pergamon Press, NY. 1964.
116. Yagnik, S.K. et al. An Investigation of Radium Extraction from Uranium Mill Tailings.
Hydrometallurgy, 7. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. 1981.
117. Nixon A., D. Keller, K. Fritze, A. Pidruczny, and A. Corsini. Radium Removal from Elliot
Lake Uranium-Mill Solids by EDTA Leaching. Hydrometallurgy 10. Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1983.
118. Nathwani, J. and C. Phillips. Rates of Leaching of Radium from Contaminated Soils: An
Experimental Investigation of Radium Bearing Soils from Port Hope, Ontario. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution 9. Boston, MA. 1978.
119. Nathwani, J. and C. Phillips. Leachability of Ra-226 from Uranium Mill Tailings
Consolidated with Naturally Occurring Materials and/or Cement. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 14. Boston, MA. 1980.
120. Ames, L.L. and D. Rai. Radionuclide Interactions with Rock and Soil Media, Vol. I.
EPA/6-78-0073. August 1978.
121. Scheitlin, P.M., et al. Removal of Hazardous Radionuclides from Uranium Ore and/or
Mill Tailings. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-7065. Oak Ridge, TN.
January 1980.
122. Nirdosh, I. et al. Adsorption-Desorption Studies on the Radium-Silica System. School
of Engineering , Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. P7B5E1.
123. Nirdosh, I. A Review of Recent Developments in the Removal of Radium-226 and
Thprium-230 from Uranium Ores and Mill Tailings. School of Engineering, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. P7B5E1.
124. Torma, A.E. A New Approach to Uranium Mill Tailings Management. New Mexico
Envergy Research and Development Institute. NMERDI 2-69-1308.
C-20
-------
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
Dreesen, D.R et al. I. Characterization and Leaching Behavior of Uranium Mill
Taii ings. In: Research on the Characterization and Conditioning of Uranium Mill
Tailings. LA-9660-VMT, Vol. 1. DOE/UMT-0263. June 1983.
Shoesmith D.W The Behavior of Radium in Soil and in Uranium Mine-Tailings. Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-7818. Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment
Pmewa, Manitoba, Canada. ROE1LO. September 1984. auiwmiBm,
Haque, KB. Lucas, and G. Ritcey. Hydrochloric Acid Leaching of an Elliot Lake Uranium
Ore. Ore Processing Laboratory. CANMET Energy, Mines and Resouces Canada. Ottawa,
L/anada. 1980.
Williams, J.,- E Cokal, and D. Dreesen. Removal of Radioactivity and Mineral Values
/nT- 'Um " Tailm9s- Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
1981.
Borrowrnan, S. and P. Brooks. Radium Removal from Uranium Ores and Mill Tailings.
bait Lake City Metallurgy Research Center, Salt Lake City, UT. 1975.
Richardson W., G. Snodgrass, and J. Neiheisel. Review of Extraction and Volume
Reduction of Radionuclides from Contaminated Tailings and Soils for Remedial Action.
U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility, Montgomery, AL. July 1987.
'- E;e-Lai: ,SeParation of 23°th (Ionium) from Uranium Ores in Sulfuric Acid and
Garnett, J., D Mitchell, and P. Faccini. Initial Testing of Pilot Scale Equipment for Soil
Decontamination. RFP-3022. Rockwell International, Rocky Flats Plant, P O Box 464
Golden, CO. October 1980. '
Brown, R. Soil Grout Small Scale Testing Program. Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. EG&G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID. 1986.
Boehmer, A. and M. Larsen. Hazardous and Mixed Waste Solidification Development
Conducted at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. EGG-WM-7225. Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. April 1986.
Raicevic, D. Decontamination of Elliot Lake Uranium Tailings. Ore Processing
Laboratories. CANMET Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 1979.
Sunderland, N. Removal of Transuranics from Johnston Island Soil by Fractional
Classification. TRUclean project. AWC, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. 1985.
Sunderland N The Removal of Plutonium Contaminants from Rocky Flats Plant Soil
TRUclean II-VORRP. AWC, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. May 1987.
Landa E. Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides from the
Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives. Geological Survey Circular 814 US
Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA. 1980. • • •
C-21
-------
139.
140.
141.
U S Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reduction. Engineering Research Program
Description and Plans. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
1986.
Rvan R. and D. Levins. Extraction of Radium from Uranium Tailings. Australian
Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, N.S.W., Australia.
1980.
Michaels L Development and Demonstration of Indoor Radon Reduction Measures for 10
Homes in Clinton, New Jersey. EPA/600/58-87/027. U.S. EPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. September
1987.
142. Carvitti, J. Clinton, New Jersey, Radon Mitigation Follow-up and Long-term
Monitoring. EPA/600/57-88/005. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1988.
143 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proceedings of the Radon Diagnostics Workshop
April 13-14, 1987. EPA-600/9-89-057. Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory,'Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1989.
144. Turk, B., J. Harrison, R. Prill, and R. Sextro. Preliminary Diagnostic Procedures for
Radon Control. EPA-600/8-88-084. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1988.
145. Osborne, M. Radon-Resistant Residential New Construction. EPA-600-8-88-/087.
U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
July 1988.
146 Mosley, R. and D. B. Henschel. Application of Radon Reduction Methods. EPA/625/5-
88/024. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC. August 1988.
C-22
-------
APPENDIX D
RADIOACTIVE WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
D-1
-------
TABLE D-1
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOACTIVE WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Aeration .... strips volatile gases (e.g. radon) from liquids. Aeration can be
accomplished with forced air through a packed tower, water spray in air, or
bubbling air through a water chamber.
Filtration .... removes suspended solids (which may be agglomerated by
coagulants) by passing the fluid through a filtering medium (not granular
activated carbon) on which the solids build up.
Carbon Treatment .... uses granular activated carbon (GAC) to adsorb many
dissolved solids and gases. Very effective for radon removal.
Ion Exchange .... uses synthetic resins or natural zeolites to exchange
radionuclide ions in the feedwater with ions on the resin/zeolite material.
Chemical Treatment .... includes precipitation and co-precipitation of
radionuclides by the addition of chemical additives. The precipitates are re-
moved by filtration.
Membrane Separation .... involves reverse osmosis, technology that uses a
specially prepared membrane that permits water to flow through the membrane
while selectively restricting some contaminants, such as radium and uranium,
or electrolysis.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-2. Assessment of remediation technology for water - U, Th, Ra.
I Remediation Technologies"
[Aeration
[Filtration
[Carbon Treatment
I Ion Exchange
[Chemical Treatment
[Membrane Separation
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability (Effectiveness)
5
3
5
3
1
1
Total
8
8
5
3
5
5
5
4
1
1
1
8
1 0
9
5
4
1
9
Development
Stage of R&D I Info.
3 I
Available
Total
2
5
3 I
2
5
3 I
2
5
5 I
3
8
5 I
3
8
4 I
3
7
REFERENCES: (a)
Aeration: (b) 5#,1 6,33,34,35,41,43#,49
Filtration: 1,3,4,5#,7,9,1 3#,33,35
Carbon Treatment: 1,3,5#,1 6,1 7#,33,35,40,41,43,48,51
Ion Exchanqe: ' .3>4,5#,6,8#,9,1 0,11,12,18,33,35,37,39,42,44,45,46,48,49,50
Chemical Treatment: 1,3,4,5#,6,7, 9,1 0,1 5,33,35,38,39,42,45,46,48,50
Membrane Separation 1,2,3,4, 5#,9,1 4,1 7#, 33,35,36,44,47
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
(b) Applicable only for radon remediation.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-3.
Assessment of remediation technology for water - other radionuclides.
| Remediation Technologies
jAeration
(Filtration
I Carbon Treatment
[Ion Exchange
I Chemical Treatment
[Membrane Separation
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability (Effectiveness! Total
N/A
5
5
5
5
5
1 N/A
1 3
1 3
1 5
1 4
1 4
Development
I Staae of R&D I Info. Availablel I otal
| N/A
I I N/A I
1 8
i r 3 i
1 8
r^ 3 i
1 1 °
I 5 I
I 9
I 5 I
I 9
I 4 I
N/A
2
2
3
3
3
I N/A
I 5
I 5
I 8
I 8
I 7
References; (a)
Aeration:
Filtration:
Not Applicable
3,5#, 19,20,24,26,27,29,30,31,32
Carbon Treatment; 21,24,27,29
Ion Exchange: 3,5#,1 9,21,22,24,26,27,28#,29,30,31,32
Chomlcal Treatment: 3,5#,19,20,21#,23,24,26,27,29,30,31,32,38
Membrane Separation: 3,5#,25,26,32
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-4. Assessment of remediation technology for water - mixed waste.
I Remediation Technologies I
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability
[Aeration |
2
(Filtration I
3
(Carbon Treatment I
3
lion Exchange I
3
(Chemical Treatment I
5
I Membrane Separation I
UNK.
(Effectiveness)
1 2 |
1 2 1
1 3 I
1 2 |
1 41
I UNK. I
Total
4
5
6
5
9
UNK.
Development
Stage of R&D I Info
1
1
1
1
1
UNK.
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Available!
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 (
1 I
UNK. |
Total
2
2
2
2
2
UNK.
References: (a)
Aeration: (b)
Filtration:
(b)
Carbon Treatment: (b)
Ion Exchange: (b)
Only applicable to volatile organics and radon remediation
Does not attenuate radiation
_ Not available '
_ Not available
_ Not available
Chemical Treatment: (b) Not available
Membrane Separation:
Unknown
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
(b) When there was no specific information on the use of a particular
technology on a category of contaminant, ratings were developed based on
engineering judgment and extrapolation from other applications.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-5.
Considerations for the use of water remediation technologies..
Technology
Aeration
Filtration
Carbon
Treatment
Ion
Exchange
Chemical
Treatment
Membrane
Separation
CONSIDERATIONS
:V fte, tVtf
O^'-'' ss
Not applicable except when
radon is present.
Disperses radon in the
atmosphere, which can be
a problem.
Coagulation/filtration removes
only particulates (turbidity).
Land encapsulation is
required for final disposal of
cone, waste.
Not applicable to
dissolved nuclides.
Applicable to dissolved
solids and gases (radon).
Requires another technology
for final disposition of
cone, wastes.
Applicable to dissolved
contaminants.
Generally requires filtration as
pretreatment.
Requires another technology for
final disposition of cone.
waste.
Some applicability for
precipitation of Ra, Th, U, with
lime; Ra with barium sulfate.
Requires final disposition of waste.
Applicable for radium and uranium
separation from ground water.
Pretreatment is required to
remove material that
would foul the membrane.
other Radionuclidfes
Not
applicable.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Mixed Waste
Reports not
available.(See Note)
Only applicable to
volatile organics
and radon.
Does not attenuate
radiation.
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Only applicable to
particulates.
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Only applicable to
dissolved solids/gases
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Only
applicable to
dissolved ionic
contaminants.
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
NOTE: When there was no specific information on the use of a particular technology on a category of contaminant,
ratings were developed based on engineering judgement and extrapolation from other applications.
D-6
-------
REFERENCES
Remediation Technologies for Water
1. Sorg, T.J. Methods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water. American
Water Works Association. July 1988.
2. Sorg, T.J. et al. Removal of Radium-226 from Sarasota County, Florida,
Drinking Water by Reverse Osmosis. American Water Works Association, 72
(4), p. 230. April 1980.
3. Sorg, T.J. et al. Treatment Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Inorganics: Part 5. American Water Works Association,
72 (7). July 1980.
4. Hahn, N.A. Jr. Disposal of Radium Removed from Drinking Water. American
Water Works Association. July 1988.
5. Lowry, J.D. and S.B. Lowry. Radionuclides in Drinking Water. American Water
Works Association, 80 (7) p. 50. July 1988. *
6. Bennett, D.L. The Efficiency of Water Treatment Processes in Radium Removal,
American Water Works Association, 70 (12). December 1978.
7. Valentine, R.L et al. A Study of Possible Economical Ways of Removing Radium
from Drinking Water. EPA/600/S2-88/009. April 1988.
8. Snoeyink, V.L. et al. Barium and Radium Removal by Ion Exchange. Municipal
Cooperative Agreement CR-808912. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, OH.
9. Brink, W.L et al. Radium Removal Efficiencies in Water Treatment Processes.
American Water Works Association, 70 (1). January 1978.
10. Snoeyink, V.L et al. Barium and Radium in Water Treatment Plant Wastes.
EPA/600/S2-85-006. Cooperative Agreement CR-808912. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. March 1985.
11. Snoeyink, V.L. et al. Strong-Acid Ion Exchange for Removing Barium, Radium,
and Hardness. American Water Works Association. August 1987.
12. Snyder, D.W., V.L. Snoeyink, and J.L. Pfeffer. Weak Acid Ion Exchange for
Removing Barium, Radium, and Hardness. American Water Works Association,
78 (9), p. 98. September 1986.
13. Valentine, R.L. et al. Radium Removal Using Sorption to Filter Sand. American
Water Works Association, 79 (4) p. 170. April 1987.
14. Kosarek, L.J. Uranium Extraction and In Situ Site Restoration via Membrane
Technology. Colorado Mining Association, Mining Yearbook. 1979.
D-7
-------
15. Moffett, D. et a!. Radium-226 Removal from a Uranium Mill Effluent--
Physical/Chemical Treatment Process Development Studies. CIM Bulletin,
Hydrometallurgy. Environment Canada, Wastewater Technology Center.
16. Rozelle, R.E. et al. A New Potable Water Radium/Radon Removal System. Dow
Chemical, U.S.A., Midland, Ml. *
17. Clifford, D., et al. Evaluating Various Adsorbents and Membranes for Removing
Radium from Groundwater. American Water Works Association. July 1988. *
18. Myers, A..G., V.L. Snoeyink, and D.W. Snyder. Removing Barium and Radium
Through Calcium Cation Exchange. American Water Works Association, 77 (5)
p. 60, May 1985.
19. Lacy, W.J. et al. Purification of Water Contaminated with Radioactive Material,
"WAHOO." U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA December 24, 1952.
20. Lacy, W.J. Removal of Radioactive Materials from Water by the Water
Purification Unit, Hand-operated, Knapsack-Pack, Filter-Pad-Type, 1/4-GPM,
and by a Field Expedient (Salty Dog III). Sanitary Engineering Branch, Engineer
Research and Development Laboratories, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Fort
Belvoir, VA. May 19, 1955.
21. Lacy, W.J., et al. The Removal of Radioactive Material from Water by Serial
Coagulation, by Ion Exchange, and by Charcoal Adsorption (Salty Dog VII).
Sanitary Engineering Branch, Engineer Research and Development Laboratories,
Corps of Engineers, U.S Army, Fort Belvoir, VA. June 22, 1956.
22. Lacy, W.J., et al. Removal of Radioactive Substances from Water by Ion Exchange
(Salty Dog I). Sanitary Engineering Branch, Engineer Research and Development
Laboratories, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA. June 11, 1954.
23. Lacy, W. J., D.C. Lindsten, and H.N. Lowe. Removal of Radioactivity from
Water by Thermocompression Distillation, "WAHOO II." ERDL Report 1313,
NTIS No. PB 136038. Sanitary Engineering Branch, Engineer Research and
Development Laboratories, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA.
August 28, 1953.
24. Lacy, W.J. et al. Removal of Radiological Warfare Agents from Water (Salty Dog V).
U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA. April 22.
25. Lindsten, D.C. et al. Decontamination of Water Containing Chemical and
Radiological Warfare Agents by Reverse Osmosis. U.S. Army Mobility Equipment
Research and Development Command, Fort Belvoir, VA. June 1977.
26. Lindsten, D.C. et al. Decontamination of Water Containing Radiological Warfare
Agents. U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, Fort
Belvoir, VA. March 1975.
27. Lindsten, D.C. et al. Field Expedients for Decontaminating Water Containing
Nuclear Bomb Debris. U.S. Army Research and Development Laboratories, Fort
Belvoir, VA. July 1967.
D-8
-------
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Lindsten, D.C., et al. Ion Exchange for the Removal of Radionuclides from Water
(Salty Dog IX). Sanitary Engineering Branch, Engineer Research and
Development Laboratories, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir VA
August 7, 1957.
Lindsten, D.C. et al. Removal of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Contaminants
from Water with the Corps of Engineers Field Water Supply Equipment. U S Army
Fort Belvoir, VA. December 12, 1961.
Lindsten, D.C. et al. Removal of Radioactive Contaminants from Water with the
Corps of Engineers Mobile Water Purification Unit (Salty Dog IV) U S Army
Fort Belvoir, VA. May 27, 1955.
Lowe, H.N. Jr. et al. Solubility Characteristics of Radioactive Bomb Debris of
Selected Decontamination Procedures. U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA.
February 12, 1959.
Pressman, M. et al. Removal of Nuclear Bomb Debris, Strontium 90 - Yttrium
90, and Cesium 137 - Barium 137 from Water with Corps of Engineers Mobile
Water-Treating Equipment. U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA. May 23, 1961.
Lassovszky, P. Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Naturally Occurring
Radionuclides Generated by Drinking Water Treatment Plants (Draft) U S EPA
Washington, DC. June 1987.
Kinner, N.E. et al. Low-Cost/Low Technology Aeration Techniques for Removing
Radon from Drinking Water. EPA/600/M-87/031. USEPA. September 1987.
Aieta, E.M. et al. Radionuclides in Drinking Water: An Overview. American
Water Works Association, 79 (4), p. 144. April 1987. *
Fox, K.R. and T.J. Sorg. Controlling Arsenic, Fluoride, and Uranium by Point-
of-Use Treatment. American Water Works Association, 79 (10), p. 81. October
I y o / •
Jelinek, R.T. and T.J. Sorg. Operating a Small Full-Scale Ion Exchange System
for Uranium Removal. American Water Works Association, 80 (7), p. 79. July
1988.
Junkins, R.L. Removal of Radionuclides from the Pasco Supply by Conventional
Treatment. American Water Works Association, 52 (7), p. 834. July 1960.
Lee, S.Y. and E.A. Bondietti. Removing Uranium from Drinking Water by Metal
Hydroxides and Anion Exchange Resin. American Water Works Association 75
(10), p. 536. October 1983.
Lowry, J.D. and S.B. Lowry. Modeling Point-of-Entry Radon Removal by GAG.
American Water Works Association, 79 (10), p. 85. October 1987. *
Lowry, J.D. et al. Point-of-Entry Removal of Radon from Drinking Water.
American Water Works Association, 79 (4), p. 162. April 1987. *
D-9
-------
42. White, S.K. and E.A. Bondietti. Removing Uranium by Current Municipal Water
Treatment Processes. American Water Works Association, 75 (7), p. 374. July
1983.
43. Lowry, J.D. and J.E. Brandow. Removal of Radon from Water Supplies.
Environmental Engineering Division -- American Society of Chemical Engineers,
111 (4). August 1985. *
44. Dement'yev, V.S. et al. Mode of Occurrence of Thorium Isotopes in Ground
Waters. Academy of Sciences, Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, USSR. Trans, from
Geoklhimiya, 2. 1965.
45. Bennett, D.L., C.R. Bell, and L.M. Markwood. Determination of Radium Removal
Efficiencies in Illinois Water Supply Treatment Processes. EPA ORP/TAD-76-
2. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 1976.
46 Hansen, S.W. et al. Removal of Uranium from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange
and Chemical Clarification. EPA/600/S2-87/076. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
December 1987.
47. Huxstep, M.R. and T.J. Sorg. Removal of Inorganic Contaminants by Reverse
Osmosis Pilot Plants. EPA/600/S2-87/109. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. March
1988.
48. Lee, S.Y., S.K. Hall, and E.A. Bondietti. II. Present Municipal Water Treatment
and Potential Removal Methods. In: Methods of Removing Uranium from
Drinking Water. EPA 570/9-82-003. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
December 1982.
49. Mangelson, K.A. Evaluation of Radium Removal and Radium Disposal for a Small
Community Water Supply System. In: Proceedings of U.S. EPA Conference on
Current Research in Drinking Water Treatment. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
March 1987.
50 Schliekelman, R.J. Determination of Radium Removal Efficiencies in Iowa Water
Supply Treatment Processes. EPA ORP/TAD-76-1. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
1976.
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Removal of Radon from Household Water.
OPA-87-011. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September
1987*
* Applicable only for radon remediation
D-10
-------
APPENDIX E
RADIOACTIVE STRUCTURE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
E-1
-------
TABLE E-1
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOACTIVE STRUCTURE REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES
Demolition/Shredding .... involves blasting, wrecking, sawing, drilling,
and crushing of buildings, structures, or equipment. This produces a sized
material that can be treated by other remediation technologies.
Decontamination/Washing .... uses a high pressure water jet to remove
contaminated debris from surfaces. The debris and water are then collected and
physically or chemically decontaminated.
Surface Sealing .... involves the application of a material that penetrates a
porous surface and immobilizes contaminants in place.
Radon Control .... involves ventilation of buildings and areas to dilute the
radon gas to acceptable levels or prevent its entry.
Chemical Extraction .... chemical solvents are circulated across the surface
of a structure to solubilize the contaminants. The debris and chemicals are then
collected and decontaminated.
E-2
-------
TABLE E-2. Assessment of remediation technology for structures - U, Th, Ra.
1 Remediation Technologies |
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability
1 Demolition/Shredding Treatment |
[Decontamination/Water Washing 1
(Surface Sealing |
3
4
2
I Radon Control ( b ) |
2
I Chemical Extraction |
4
I Effectiveness!
1 4 1
1 4 I
1 3 |
1 41
1 4 1
Total
7
8
5
6
8
|
Development
Stage of R&D 1 Info.
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
I
1
i
Available!
4
4
4
5
4
|
|
1
1
1
Total
9
9
9
1 0
9
References: (a)
Demolition/Shredding Treatment:
Decontamination/Water Washing:
Surface Sealing:
Radon Control:
Chemical Extraction:
1,3#,4,6, 8, 9,10,11,14,18,25,26,27,30,31 #,32,37,40,41
1,3#, 4, 6,9,10,14,18,25,26, 27,31 #,32,35,37,40,41
1,3#, 9,10,14,27,31 #,40,41
7,1 3,1 4,1 5,1 6,19,20,21,22,23,24#,28, 29,33,34,42,43,
44,45,46
1,3#,9,10,12,14,17,18,27,31 #,39, 40,41
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
(b) Radon remediation techniques have been used with success at Superfund sites.
However, they are not intended as permanent measures.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
E-3
-------
TABLE E-3. Assessment of remediation technology for structures • other radionuclides.
[Remediation Technologies I
I Demolition/Shredding I
iDecontam./Water Washing I
[Surface Sealing
[Radon Control
[Gnomical Extraction
J
Evaluation of Technology
Performance
Reliability
3
4
2
N/A
4
(Effectiveness!
I 4 1
1 4 I
1 3 1
1 N/A 1
1 4 1
Total
7
8
5
N/A
8
Development
Slaqe of R&D | Info.
5
1
Available)
4 1
Total
9
5
4 |
9
5
4 I
9
N/A
5
1
1
N/A |
4 I
N/A
9
(U = UNKNOWN)
(N/A = Not Applicable)
Roferoncos: (a)
Demolition/Shredding Treatment: 1,3#, 4,5,6,8,10,11,14,18,25,26,30,31#, 32,36,37,38
Decontamination/Water Washing: 1,3#,4,5,6,8,1 0,11,1 4,1 8,25,26,30,31 #,32,36,37,38
Surface Sealing: 1,3#,1 0,1 4,31#,36,38
Radon Control: Not Applicable
Chemical Extraction: 1,2,3#,1 0,1 2,1 4,1 7,1 8,31 #,38,39
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
E-4
-------
TABLE E-4.
Assessment of remediation technology for structures - mixed waste.
Evaluation of Technology
[Remediation Technologies
J
Performance
Reliability |Effectiveness| Total
[Demolition/Shredding Treatment | \_
I Decontamination/Water Washing I
[Surface Sealing
I Radon Control
I Chemical Extraction
J L
i
Development
Stage of R&D | Info. Available | Total
_] L
References: (a)
Demolition/Shredding Treatment:
Decontamination/Water Washing:
Surface Sealing:
Radon Control: (c)
Chemical Extraction:
3#,9,14,27,40,41
3#,9,14,27,40,41
3#,9,14,27,40,41
Not Available
3#,9,14,17,27,40,41
(a) For list of references corresponding to reference numbers, see
the reference list at the end of this appendix.
(b) Radon remediation techniques have been used with success at superfund sites
However, they are not intended as permanent measures.
(c) When there was no specific information on the use of a particular technology
on a category of contaminant, ratings were developed based on engineering judgment.
# This reference is more comprehensive on the subject technology.
E-5
_
-------
TABLE E-5.
Considerations for the use of structure remediation technologies
CONSIDERATIONS
Technology
** - - s
^ Ha, Th, U
Other Radjortuclidea
Mixed Waist?
Demolition/
Shredding/
Treatment
Demolition & shredding produces
a sized material that can be treated
by soil remediation
technologies.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Must address
volatilization
of contaminants.
Decontamination
Water Washing
Washing with water can remove
contaminants.
Requires water remediation
technology for final
disposition of waste.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Surface
Sealing
Reduces mobility.
Does not remediate source
of contamination or
reduce radiation.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
Radon
Control
Disperses gas; does not
remediate source of contamination
or reduce radiation.
Not Applicable
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Chemical
Extraction
Washing with acids can remove
contaminants.
Requires remediation
technology for final
disposition of waste.
Similar
to Ra, Th, U
Reports not
available.
(See Note)
NOTE When there was no specific information on the use of a particular technology on a category of contaminant,
ratings were developed based on engineering judgement and extrapolation from other applications.
E-6
-------
REFERENCES
Remediation Technologies for Structures
1. Bridenbaker, W. and L Clemens. Decontamination of the Scrap Removal Room at
the West Valley Demonstration Plant. DOE/NE/44139-33. West Valley Nuclear
Services Company, Inc., West Valley, NY. February 1987.
2. Charlott, L, R. Allen, H. Arrowsmith, and J. Hooper. Processing of Waste
Solutions from Electrochemical Decontamination. PHL-2786. Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. September 1979.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide for Decontaminating Buildings,
Structures, and Equipment at Superfund Sites. EPA/600/2-85/028. U.S. EPA
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. March
1985.
4. Ayres, J. Equipment Decontamination with Special Attention to Solid Waste
Treatment: Survey Report. BNWL-B-90. Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, WA. June 1971.
5. Fountain, G., M. LeBouel, J. Majar, J. O'Hara, R. Ondek, and W. Towle. Scoping
and Cost Estimates for the Decontamination and Disposal of Separations
Processing Research Unit Facilities. REO-M-422. General Electric Co., Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, NY. March 1972.
6. Holladay, D., C. Bopp, A. Farmer, J. Johnson, C. Miller, B. Powers, and E.
Collins. Placement of the Radiochemical Processing Plant at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory into a Safe Standby Condition. CONF-860203. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Tennesse. In: Proceedings of the Health Physics Society 19th
Midyear Topical Symposium, Knoxville, TN. February 2-6, 1986.
7. Interim Protocols for Diagnostic Measurements for Use in Radon Problem
Assessments and in the Selection of Appropriate and Cost Effective Mitigation.
AEERL and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. March 1987.
8. Johnson, J. Decontamination Experience at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.
CONF-7911104. GEND-002. General Public Utilities, Parsippany, New
Jersey; Electric Power Research, Palo Alto, California; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. In:
Proceedings of Facility Decontamination Technology Workshop, Hershey,
PA. November 27-29, 1979.
9. Rockwell International. Final report for the Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/
Cleanup Program. DRXTH-FE-CR-800. December 1980.
10. Daugherty, H. and R. Keel. Decontamination and Decomissioning of the West
Valley Reprocessing Plant. DOE/NE/44139-30. West Valley Nuclear Services
Company, Inc., West Valley, NY. November 1986.
E-7
-------
11. Held, J. Decommissioning of a Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Support Facility.
CONF-8000359. Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington.
Decommissioning Requirements in the Design of Nuclear Facilities. In:
Proceedings of a Nuclear Energy Agency Specialist Meeting, Paris, France.
March 17-19, 1980.
12. Loiselle, V., K. Conroy, and R. Gerdingh. Chemical Decontamination Waste
Processing Methods. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 82:52-53.
Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 1986 Annual Meeting, Reno,
NV. June 15, 1986.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. A Citizen's Guide to Radon - What it is and What to do about it. OPA-
86--004. U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and DHHS Centers for Disease
Control, Washington DC. August 1986.
14. Marion, W., and T. LaGuardia. Decommissioning Handbook. DOE/EV/10128-1.
U.S. Dept. of Energy. 1980.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reduction, Engineering Research
Program Description and Plans. Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
December 1986.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Reference Manual. EPA 520/1-
87-20. Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. September 1987.
17. Means, J. and D. Crerar. Migration of Radioactive Wastes: Radionuclide
Mobilization by Complexing Agents. Department of Geological and Geophysical
Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. March 1978.
18. State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division. Luminous Superfund Project Report: Remedial Action for the Removal
of Ra-226 Contamination at the Luminous Process, Inc. Site in Clarke County,
GA. August 1982.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radon Measurements in Schools. EPA
520/1-89-010. Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC. March 1989.
20. Henschel, D.B. and A. Scott, Testing of Indoor Radon Reduction Techniques in
Eastern Pennsylvania. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1987.
21. Henschel, D.B., A. Scott, W. Findlay, and A. Robertson. Testing of Indoor Radon
Reduction Methods in 16 Houses around Dayton, Ohio. U.S. EPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1988.
22. Scott, A. Installation and Testing of Indoor Radon Reduction Techniques in 40
Eastern Pennsylvania Houses. EPA/600/58-88/002. USEPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
February 1988.
E-8
-------
23. Scott, A. and A. Robertson. Follow-up Alpha-Track Monitoring in 40 Eastern
Pennsylvania Houses with Indoor Radon Reduction Systems (winter, 1987-88).
EPA/600/58-88/098. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1989.
24. U.S. EPA. Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached Houses - Technical Guidance.
Second Edition EPA 625/5-87-019. Office of Research & Development,
Washington, DC. January 1988.
25. Detilleux, E. Decontamination of a Reprocessing Facility and Handling of the
Resulting Wastes. CONF-7909192. In: Proceedings of the Uranium Institute
Fourth International Symposium, London, United Kingdom. September 10-12,
1979.
26. Schneider, K., C. Jenkins, R. Rhoads, P. Pelto, and R. Smith. Technology Safety,
and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, Vols.
1 and 2. Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington; U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Engineering Standards, Washington,
DC. October 1977.
27. Haines, R. and W. Kelley. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation
Cleanup and Demolition of the 400 Area. N505 Tl 000054. Rockwell
International November 1980.
28. Michaels, L. Development and Demonstration of Indoor Radon Reduction Measures
for 10 Homes in Clinton, New Jersey. EPA/600/58-87/027. USEPA Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1987.
29. U.S. EPA. Radon Reduction Methods: A Homeowner's Guide. OPA-87-010
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September 1987.
30. Speer, D. Decontamination and Decommissioning of a Fuel Reprocessing Pilot
Plant, A Progress Report. RHO-WM-SA-81; CONF-871018. Rockwell Hanford
Operations, Richland, Washington. In: Proceedings of the 1987 International
Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA. October 4-8, 1987.
31. Meigs, R. Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Chemical Process Cell
(CPC), January 1985-March 1987. DOE/NE/44139-41. West Valley Nuclear
Services Company, Inc., West Valley, NY. July 1987.
32. Broothaerts, J., E. Detilleux, L. Geens, W. Hild, R. Reynolds, J. Baumann, O.
Berners, H. Modreker, W. Bretag, W. Pfeifer, and R. Strohmenger. Industrial
Experience Gained in the Decontamination of Process Cells, the Dismantling of
Process Equipment and the Conditioning of Special Solid Wastes in a Shut-Down
Reprocessing Plant. European Company for the Chemical Processing of Irradiated
Fuels, Mol, Belgium; Kraftanlagen AC Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany,
Transnuklear GmbH, Hanau, Federal Republic of Germany. January 1979.
E-9
-------
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Samfield, M. Radon Infiltration Into Structures and Mitigation Techniques: A
Literature Review. AEERL HATB 86-3 (Revised). October 1986.
U.S. EPA. Radon Reduction in New Construction. OPA-87-009. U.S. EPA Offices
of Air and Radiation and Research and Development, Washington, DC.
August 1987.
Vath, J. U.S. Department of Energy Activities in Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Treatment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. IAEA-TECDOC-
276; IAEA-SR-57/42; Conf-811056. 1981.
Moore, P. Decontamination of a Highly Radioactive Chemical Processing Facility.
Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. DPSPU-74-30-10; WASH-
1332(74); CONF-740406. In: Proceedings of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission Second Environmental Protection Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
April 16-19, 1974.
Zwickler, S. Decommissioning of a Spent Fuel Processing Facility - Low Level
Waste Management. CONF-810217. Burns & Roe Industrial Services
Corporation, Paramus, New Jersey. Waste Management '81, The State of Waste
Isolation in the U.S. and Elsewhere. Advocacy Programs, and Public
Communications, R.G. Post, Ed. In: Proceedings of an American Nuclear Society
Topical Meeting, Tucson, AZ. February 23-26, 1981.
Foster, C., and M. Szulinski. Decontamination of Obsolete Processing Facilities at
Hanford. ARH-SA-183. Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company, Richland, WA.
June 1974.
Murray, A. Chemical Decontamination, Decommissioning, and Waste Treatment
Processes for Nuclear Facilities. CONF-86095. Westinghouse Research and
Development Center, Chemical and Process Engineering Department, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of an American Nuclear Society International
Topical Meeting, Niagara Falls, NY. September 14-18, 1986.
Tuttle, R. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation - Cleanness
Criteria for Release for Unrestricted Use. N5505 SRR 000002. Rockwell
International. October 1980.
Tuttle, R. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation - Radiological
Inspection for Release for Unrestricted Use. N505 SRR 000004. Rockwell
International. December 1980.
Carvitti, J. Clinton, New Jersey, Radon Mitigation Follow-up and Long-term
Monitoring. EPA/600/57-88/005. USEPA Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proceedings of the Radon Diagnostics
Workshop April 13-14, 1987. EPA-600/9-89-057. Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1989.
E-1 0
-------
44. Turk, B., J. Harrison, R. Prill, and R. Sextro. Preliminary Diagnostic Procedures
for Radon Control. EPA-600/8-88-084. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1988.
45. Osborne, M. Radon-Resistant Residential New Construction. EPA/600/8-88/087.
U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
NC. July 1988.
46. Mosley, R. and D.B. Henschel. Application of Radon Reduction Methods. EPA/625/5-
88/024. U.S. EPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. Research Tri-
angle Park, NC. August 1988.
.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OF F 1 C E I 1 9 9 0-7 4 8-1 5 9/003 9 4
E-1 1
-------
------- |