EPA542-R-98-017
September 1998
Case Studies:
Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies,
and Other Miscellaneous Technologies
Volume 13
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Remediation Case Studies:
Debris and Surface Cleaning
Technologies, and Other
Miscellaneous Technologies
Volume 13
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
September 1998
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency
thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of six case studies of debris and surface cleaning technologies, and other,
miscellaneous technologies, prepared by federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of
the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons
learned from technology applications. They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance
which should lead to greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider
cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable member
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S.
Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These
agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized
from greater coordination.
The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology in a multi-volume set listed below.
Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-6, and Abstracts, Volumes 1 and 2, were published previously, and
contain 54 case studies. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, and Abstracts, Volume 3, were
published in September 1998. Volumes 7-13 cover a wide variety of technologies, including debris and
surface cleaning technologies, and other, miscellaneous technologies (Volume 13). The 6 case studies in
this report include completed full-scale remediations and large-scale field demonstrations. In the future, the
set will grow as agencies prepare additional case studies.
199S Series
Volume 1: Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995; PB95-182911
Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995; PB95-182929
Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995; PB95-182937
Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005;
March 1995; PB95-182945
1997 Series
Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA-542-R-97-008; My 1997; PB97-177554
Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies, EPA-542-R-97-009;
July 1997; PB97-177562
1998 Series
Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,
Thermal Desorption), EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998
Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes),
EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998
m
-------
1998 Series (continued!
Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA-542-R-98-013;
September 1998
Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants), EPA-542-R-98-014;
September 1998
Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-015;
September 1998
Volume 12: On-Site Incineration, EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998
Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous
Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998
Abstracts
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711
Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570
Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Accessing Case Studies
The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site provides links to
individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete
a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick lists for media treated,
contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search function provides users
with basic information about the case studies, and allows them to view or download abstracts and case
studies that meet their requirements.
Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site. Some of the
case studies are also available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.
In addition, a limited number of hard copies are available free of charge by mail from NCEPI (allow 4-6
weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION 1
DEBRIS AND SURFACE CLEANING TECHNOLOGIES, AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGIES CASE STUDIES . . 7
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant Site, Alpine, Alabama 9
Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 39
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 81
Roto Peen Sealer witii VAC-PACฎ System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor,
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 119
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 155
Cap at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU 175
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of fuH-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. Previously, the Roundtable published a six-volume series of case study reports.
At this time, the Roundtable is publishing seven additional volumes of case study reports, primarily focused
on soil and groundwater cleanup.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The case studies were
prepared based on recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures
are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998). (The October 1998 guide supersedes the
original Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects, published in March 1995.)
The case studies present available cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts and
several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and
contain information on site background and setting, contaminants and media treated, technology, cost and
performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The studies contain varying levels of
detail, reflecting the differences in the availability of data and information. Because full-scale cleanup
efforts are not conducted primarily for the purpose of technology evaluation, data on technology cost and
performance may be limited.
The case studies in this volume describe six applications of debris and surface cleaning technologies, and
other, miscellaneous technologies. These include a process used to decontaminate piping and debris
contaminated with explosives; three technologies used to treat concrete floor covered with radioactive-
contaminated paint; an encapsulation process used to treat radioactive-contaminated lead bricks; and a
multilayer cap on a landfill. The capping project is a full-scale application; all others were conducted as
field demonstrations.
-------
Table 1 provides a summary including information on technology used, contaminants and media treated,
and project duration for the six debris and surface cleaning technologies, and other, miscellaneous
technologies in this volume. This table also provides highlights about each application. Table 2
summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media treated. In addition, Table 2 shows a
calculated unit cost for some projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. (The
column showing the calculated unit costs for treatment provides a dollar value per unit of groundwater
treated or contaminant removed.) Cost data are shown as reported in the case studies and have not been
adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to be dollars for the time
period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project duration).
While a summary of project costs is useful, it may be difficult to compare costs for different projects
because of unique site-specific factors. However, by including a recommended reporting format, the
Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of costs to make data comparable across projects. In
addition, the Roundtable is working to capture information in case study reports that identify and describe
the primary factors that affect cost and performance of a given technology. Key factors that potentially
affect project costs for the remediation projects in this volume include economies of scale, concentration
levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules, matrix characteristics, and
other site conditions.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other
Miscellaneous Technologies
1 1 f 'f
' f ' s '
'' V s '
5 'Site N%RU*k Sfefte (Tfcctoofogy) %
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, AL
(Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne
National Laboratory, IL ,,
(Centrifugal Shot Blast)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne
National Laboratory, IL
(Rotary Peening with Captive Shot)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research Reactor, Argonne
National Laboratory, IL
(Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACR System)
Envirocare of Utah, UT
(Polyethylene Macroencapsulation)
Principal CoHtartukaat**
1
!-
1
j
\
1
I
J
*
^ 4%
,' 5
^ (QH8ป1% JfoVttf&fy
Explosives:
contaminated piping
and debris
Concrete floor
covered with
radioactive -
contaminated paint
(800 ft2)
Concrete floor
covered with
radioactive -
contaminated paint
(425ft2)
Concrete floor
covered with
radioactive -
contaminated paint
(650ft2)
lead bricks:
radioactive -
contaminated
(500,000 Ib)
\
12/4/95 -
3/15/96
1/28/97-2/4/97
1/28/97-2/4/97
12/9/96 -
12/12/96
Fiscal Year
1996
% , ''' \
ff j^{nฃlw3raui$
Demonstration and validation testing to
determine effectiveness of treating
explosives-contaminated materials
using the Hot-Gas Decontamination
System
Demonstrate a modified centrifugal
shot blast unit compared to mechanical
scabbing
Demonstrate Roto Peening with
captive shot compared to mechanical
scabbing . . . ,.
Demonstrate Roto Peen Sealer with
VAC-PACR System compared to
mechanical scabbing; hand held unit
Determine production-scale feasibility
of this technology for mixed lead waste
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other
Miscellaneous Technologies (continued)
Principal Contamlttaati*
I
'
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Site 300 - Pit 6 Landfill OU, CA (Cap)
2.4 acre multilayer
cap over a landfill
Installed
Summer 1997
Multilayer capping of a landfill
* Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
\ ; !-%%? "'
SiteNa:me,Sfeife|i:*ehsblo8y)
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant,
AL
(Transportable Hot-Gas
Decontamination)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National
Laboratory, IL
(Centrifugal Shot Blast)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National
Laboratory, IL
(Rotary Peening with Captive Shot)
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor, Argonne National
Laboratory, IL >
(Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACR
System)
Envirocare of Utah, TJT , .
(Polyethylene Macroencapsulation)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6
Landfill OU.CA (Cap)
,j ' f t
'' ' '' , ' \
C: $689,500
O: $3,337
Total: $23,000
Total: $4,500
Total: $6,500
Not provided
Construction:
$1,500,000
"''' ' \
'\ ' '' ,
Quantity Ireatdf
Not provided
800ft2
425 ft2
650ft2
Not provided
2.4 acres
'": %BJB%ปf
;" Cifflfeinaiattt:
i SewoWdl 1 ,
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not applicable
'"" * ,, -
'' &yte&8ฃiJS$for^
', Ij&fctfaMSH*** %
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Total: $90-100/ft3
O: $800/55-gal drum
(average)
Not applicable
t i ,/ r , ,\ "I
^m^ts^^n^M&ptitogt !
^ ' ' Tedawto^go*^** ", $ :
Cost for full-scale application at other
sites will vary based on labor costs,
equipment transportation costs, and
selected operating conditions
The centrifugal shot blast has a lower
incremental operating cost than
mechanical scabbing resulting in
savings for areas greater than 1,900 ft2
Cost for this technology was lower
than mechanical scabbing; no
temporary structure needed to contain
airborne contaminants
Cost for this technology was lower
than mechanical scabbing; no
temporary structure needed to contain
airborne contaminants
Costs for full-scale application
depends on ability to use virgin or
recycled polymer, affects the melt
index needed to provide adequate
flow characteristics
Substituting geosynthetic materials
for natural materials in portions of the
cap saved over $500,000
Technology Cost*
C = Capital costs
O = Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment* *
Calculated based on sum of capital and O&M costs, divided by quantity treated or
removed. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of costs or
quantity treated or removed was not available. Unit costs calculated based on both
quantity of media treated and quantity of contaminant removed, as appropriate.
*** For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual technology costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would
affect costs for a future application using this technology.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous Technologies
Case Studies
-------
-------
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site,
Alpine, Alabama
-------
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site,
Alpine, Alabama
Site Name:
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
Location:
Alpine, Alabama
Contaminants: Chlorinated
Explosives contaminated materials
and debris, including TNT-, RDX-,
and Tetryl-contaminated materials
Period of Operation:
12/4/95 - 3/15/96
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration and validation tests
Vendor:
L&L Special Furnace Co., Inc.
Aston, PA
Prime Contractor:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
W. Chester, PA 19380
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Environmental Technology
Division
Edgewood Area
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010-5401
Technology:
Transportable Hot-Gas
Decontamination (HGD) furnace
- Natural gas or propane-fired,
box-type furnace with integrated
ceramic-fiber lining
- Manually loaded and unloaded
batch process
- Furnace components are skid
mounted, approximately 16 ft by
8ft
- Heated by 1 million Btu per
hour, high velocity nozzle-mix
Eclipse Burner equipped with
UV sensor and Industrial Risk
Insurers (IRI) class gas safety
system
- Combustion air to burner set at a
fixed rate that maintains excess
air capacity to promote lower
furnace chamber temperatures
between 300 and 600ฐ F
- Capacity to treat 3,000 Ib of
contaminated materials
- Gases directed into thermal
oxidizer combustion chamber
Cleanup Authority:
Validation test conducted under
guidelines for treatability studies.
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source:
Contamination of process-related
equipment, sewers, piping, and
structures resulting from
manufacture, storage, testing, and
disposal of explosives
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Explosives-contaminated piping and debris
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Demonstration and validation
testing to determine effectiveness
of treating explosives-contaminated
materials using the Hot-Gas
Decontamination System
10
-------
Transportable Hot-Gas Decontamination System at
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site,
Alpine, Alabama (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
No permitted limits for system emissions or operating conditions for this demonstration.
Results:
- Verified effectiveness of HGD system equipment in decontaminating explosives.
- Defined optimum processing times and temperatures for TNT-, RDX-, and Tetryl-contaminated materials.
- Collected air emissions data to support future system permitting efforts.
- Achieved complete removal of TNT, RDX, Tetryl, and their breakdown constituents to levels below method
detection levels (250ฐF/hour ramp to 600ฐF treatment temperature with a 1-hour goal).
Cost:
- Total capital equipment cost of the HGD system was $689,500.
- Total operating costs were $3,337.
- Total estimated validation costs are approximately $90,000.
Description:
The United States Army Environmental Center (USAEC) has been conducting laboratory investigation and
pilot-scale studies of the hot-gas decontamination (HGD) process since 1978. The results from these
investigations and studies verified the effectiveness of the HGD technology for treating chemical agents and
explosives, however, post-test recommendations indicated that equipment designed specifically for the HGD
concept would improve system efficiencies and process optimization goals. As a result, USAEC contracted the
design and procurement of system equipment specifically for the treatment of explosives-contaminated materials
by the HGD process. The resultant equipment design was delivered to USAEC's test site at the Alabama Army
Ammunition Plant (ALAAP) located in Alpine, Alabama for demonstration and validation testing.
The demonstration and validation testing was conducted between December 4, 1995, and March 15, 1996.
System trials proved the HGD Equipment to be fully functional and capable of maintaining anticipated
treatment temperatures. The HGD Equipment system was optimized to enable the complete destruction of
explosives contamination at a furnace ramp rate of 250ฐF/hr, treatment temperature of 600ฐF, and a treatment
time of 1 hour. In general, the HGD system is designed to meet all applicable regulatory performance standards
contained in following sections of 40 CFR:
- RCRA incinerator standards (40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart 0)
- Miscellaneous Unit Standards (40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart X)
- Boiler and Industrial Furnaces Standards (40 CFR, Part 266, Subpart H)
- TSCA incinerator standards (40 CFR, Part 761.70 (b))
11
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
For many years, the United States Army has engaged in a wide variety of
operations involving the handling and disposal of explosives materials at various
military installations. Past operations at these installations have included the
manufacture, storage, testing, and disposal of explosives that have resulted in the
contamination of process-related equipment, sewers, piping, and structures. As a
result of these activities, the Army currently owns a large inventory of materials
that are contaminated with explosives.
Demilitarization of explosives-contaminated process equipment and structures
has proven to be difficult and expensive for the Army. Currently acceptable
methods for decontamination of explosives-contaminated materials include 3X
treatment methods such as steam cleaning and power washing, and 5X treatment
methods that involve heating contaminated materials to a minimum temperature
of 1,000 ฐF for 15 minutes. Although steam cleaning effectively decontaminates
the surfaces of contaminated materials to a 3X condition, contaminants may still
be present in the surface voids or equipment internals. At present, there is no
analytical method available that accurately determines the contaminant
concentration remaining in the pores of treated materials. In order for the
materials to be released from government control (i.e., landfilled, scrapped, or
reused), the materials must meet 5X treatment criteria.
In some instances, the 5X treatment process is controlled by flashing
contaminated materials within an enclosed oven, but more commonly the process
is uncontrolled and accomplished by open air burning and/or open detonation
(OB/OD). Because environmental regulations are becoming more rigorous every
year, it is likely that the practice of OB/OD for decontamination of explosives-
contaminated materials will be severely limited or disallowed because OB/OD
results in nonregulated air emissions. Although flash ovens allow for control of
process off-gases, the process is essentially an incineration process that currently
carries negative perceptions by both the public community and regulatory
agencies. Materials decontaminated using either OB/OD or flashing methods are
usually not suitable for reuse and must be scrapped or landfilled.
In summary, these currently accepted decontamination methods have proven a
need for a technology that is easy to use, capable of destroying undesirable
emissions, and does not result in complete destruction and loss of equipment
and/or structures. The HGD technology discussed in this report meets these
requirements. Subsection 1.2 presents the history of the HGD technology and
subsequent sections present the transportable HGD system equipment listed at
the Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (ALAAP). Specific details regarding site
layout, utilities, operating costs, and system performance will be provided.
12
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
1,2 HISTORY
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC, formerly United States Army
Toxic and Materials Agency or USATHAMA) began conducting laboratory
investigations and pilot-scale studies in 1978 to evaluate the effectiveness of the
HGD technology on explosives- and agent-contaminated materials and
structures.
Based on promising laboratory work with chemical warfare agents, a pilot-scale
study using agent-spiked samples was conducted at Dugway Proving Ground,
Utah1 from February 1986 to October 1987. This controlled pilot-scale study
successfully demonstrated the ability of the hot-gas process to decontaminate
agent from a concrete and steel structure.
To further evaluate the HGD process on agent, USAEC selected a mustard thaw
pit at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1994 for a field demonstration of the HGD
process.2 Three tanks (two 2,600-gallon tanks and one 250-gallon tank) were
also left in the mustard pit during the field demonstration to test the effectiveness
of the hot-gas process in decontaminating process equipment. This field
demonstration once again proved the effectiveness of the HGD process. Mustard
agent was successfully decontaminated from the concrete pit, contaminated steel
tanks, and process off-gases.
Based on the successful pilot-study results at Dugway (February 1986 to October
1987), USAEC determined to investigate the effectiveness of the HGD process
on explosives-contaminated materials. Pilot-scale tests using the HGD process to
treat explosives contamination were conducted at the Cornhusker Army
Ammunition Plant.3 Results from the Cornhusker tests indicated that the HGD
process seemed to be effective at treating explosives-contaminated materials. To
verify this finding, USAEC contracted for additional hot-gas studies to be
conducted at the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant4'5 using an existing flash
Pilot Plant Testing of Hot-Gas Building Decontamination Process; Task Order 1.
Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-87130. Prepared by Battelle Columbus Division. 30
October 1987.
Final Technical Report, Field Demonstration of the Hot-Gas Decontamination System.
Report No. SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-95011. Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., and Battelle Columbus Operations.
February 1995.
Pilot Plant Testing of Caustic Spray Hot-Gas Building Decontamination Process; Task
Order 5. Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-87112. Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. August
1987.
Task Order 2; Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP) Hawthorne, Nevada.
Report No. CETHA-TE-CR-90036. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. July 1990.
Demonstration Results of Hot Gas Decontamination for Explosives at Hawthorne Army
Depot. Report No. SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-95031. Prepared by The Tennessee Valley
Authority Environmental Research Center. September 1995.
13
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
INTRODUCTION
chamber modified for the hot-gas process. Explosives-contaminated machinery
and piping and metal debris, such as shell casings, were treated in one study in
1989 by WESTON. Explosives contained within munitions, such as ship mines,
depth bombs, and 106-mm 5-inch projectiles, were treated in a second series of
tests in 1994 by the Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Research Center
(TVA). The results from these studies verified the effectiveness of the HGD
process in treating explosives-contaminated materials, but indicated that
equipment enhancements would be required to optimize the process.
Based on engineering data gathered during the Hawthorne pilot studies,
WESTON, under contract to USAEC, was requested to design and supply an
HGD system that would be transportable and easily procured through
commercial sources. This equipment was delivered to ALAAP located near
Childersburg, Alabama, to conduct demonstration tests using clean,
noncontaminated debris, and validation testing using explosives-contaminated
piping and debris.
Demonstration and validation tests conducted between December 1995 and
March 1996 by WESTON at ALAAP optimized treatment conditions for
explosives-contaminated materials and debris, and modified the transportable
HGD system equipment to enhance heat distribution in the furnace and general
system operability.
The transportable HGD system equipment that was demonstrated and validated
at ALAAP is the subject of this Cost and Performance Report. This Cost and
Performance Report will provide an equipment and system description,
installation and utility requirements, operating cost, and system performance for
various treatment waste quantities and feed rates.
14
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
2.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
The Hot-Gas Decontamination system consists of the following major
components:
HGD furnace.
Interconnection Duct.
- Induced Draft (ID.) Fan.
Thermal Oxidizer.
24-Foot Stack with an 8-Foot Extension.
" Data Logging and Monitoring System.
Remote Control System.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) System.
This equipment, whose general arrangement and process flow are depicted in
Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively, was used to conduct successful
equipment demonstration and validation testing at ALAAP between December
1995 and March 1996. System modifications performed during this period are
incorporated in the equipment descriptions provided in this section.
2.1 HGD FURNACE
The HGD furnace was supplied and manufactured by L&L Special Furnace Co.,
Inc., of Aston, Pennsylvania. The furnace is a natural gas or propane gas-fired,
box-type furnace with integrated ceramic-fiber lining. The HGD furnace system
includes:
Furnace Chamber.
Burner and Gas Train.
Burner Control System.
Burner Combustion Air Blower.
Local Control Panel.
Remote Control Panel.
All of the furnace components, except for the remote control panel, are skid-
mounted for easy transportability. The furnace skid is approximately 16 feet long
by 8 feet wide. The remote control panel is shipped separately and requires
mounting in a remote control area.
The furnace is heated by a 1 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour, high-
velocity nozzle-mix Eclipse Burner equipped with an ultraviolet (UV) sensor and
an Industrial Risk Insurers (IRQ class gas safety system. The pilot and burner
flames are monitored by a pilot and flame scanner system. Once all system
interlocks are confirmed and the pilot flame is established, the main
15
-------
o\
96P-2935-1
CEM Trailer
"8
Q)
U.
-------
Explosives or Agent-
Contaminated Materials
Decontamination
Furnace
Treated Materials
96P-2957-1 9/18/96
ID Fan
Combustion
Air
Combustion
Air
Vent to
Atmosphere
High-Temperature
Thermal Oxidizer
FIGURE 2-2 HGD SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW
-------
HQD System Cost & Performance Report
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
fiiel valves automatically open and the main flame is lit. The burner flame is
acknowledged through the flame scanner. Failure to detect a flame signal once
operations begin results in an automatic shutdown of gas flow to the furnace.
Gas flow to the furnace is controlled automatically based on the furnace chamber
temperature. Combustion air to the burner is set at a fixed rate that maintains
excess air capacity to promote lower furnace chamber temperatures between 300
and 700 ฐF.
A local control panel, located on the furnace skid, allows a few operating tasks
to be performed locally. For example, an emergency stop pushbutton is located
on this panel. However, despite the local panel, all furnace monitoring and
control is accomplished through the remote control panel during
decontamination operations.
The HGD process is a batch process. Each batch run involves:
Loading the furnace.
Starting the I.D. fan.
Starting and heating the thermal oxidizer to 1,800 ฐF.
" Selecting and programming a furnace treatment temperature and soak time.
Starting and heating the furnace to the selected treatment temperature.
Treating contaminated materials at the selected treatment temperature.
Decreasing the furnace temperature to shutoff.
Cooldown of the furnace load.
Shutting down the thermal oxidizer.
Shutting down the I.D. fan.
Unloading treated materials from the furnace.
All contaminated materials treated by the transportable HGD system must be
manually loaded and unloaded. Loading materials into the furnace involves
placing the contaminated materials onto racks and then loading the racks into the
furnace using a forklift. A full furnace load consists of a total of 3,000 Ib of
contaminated materials. This load limitation is based on the strength of the
refractory floor and the required thermal input to heat the load. The 3,000 Ib
includes the weight of the materials plus the weight of the racks used to hold the
contaminated materials in the furnace during treatment.
A total explosive limit of no more than 1 Ib total explosives contamination per
3,000 Ib of contaminated material (one furnace load) was imposed by permitting
limitations established by the State of Alabama. The standard design and
construction of the furnace exceeds this limitation; however, it is strongly
suggested that proper explosion rating calculations be performed by qualified
personnel before increasing the explosives load limitation of the furnace beyond
lib.
Because the furnace is manually loaded, the furnace has been equipped with a
number of safety features:
18
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
A protective cage mounted at the burner outlet.
A kick-out door.
- Door switch (ZSO-208).
The protective cage is located inside the furnace, at the top of the furnace
chamber. Its location prevents the placement or stacking of contaminated
materials directly in front of the burner flame. The kick-out door, which is
located within the main furnace door, is provided to allow a means of escape
from the furnace chamber should personnel accidentally become locked inside
the furnace. Door switch ZSO-208 is associated with the main furnace door and
supports a control interlock condition that prevents system startup unless the
main furnace door is closed.
Temperature of the furnace exit-gas is monitored by three separate temperature
transmitters connected to a temperature controller. The controller maintains the
desired furnace temperature by automatically adjusting fuel flow to the burner.
An independent high-temperature switch provides over-temperature protection
for the furnace. The furnace chamber temperature is documented on a real-time
basis, by a circular chart recorder located on the furnace remote control panel.
The temperature of the treated material is measured by five thermocouples,
which are connected to their respective temperature transmitters through a jack
panel located on the furnace. The jack panel has room for up to 12 load
thermocouples; however, only five transmitters were used to support treatment
operations. Seven additional transmitters can be installed, if required. The five
transmitters are connected to the data logging and monitoring system, where the
transmitter signals are recorded for archiving and future use, and trended by a
real-time graphics display, located in the control area.
2.2 I.D. FAN, THERMAL OXIDIZER, AND STACK
The thermal oxidizer system was furnished by Arrtech Environmental Systems,
Inc., of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The thermal oxidizer system consists of the following
elements:
ป I.D. Fan.
Thermal Oxidizer Combustion Chamber.
Burner and Gas Train.
Air Pre-Mix System.
ป 24-Foot Exhaust Stack with an 8-Foot Extension.
Local Control Panel.
Remote Control Panel.
The thermal oxidizer has a horizontal combustion chamber equipped with a 2.75-
million-Btu-per-hour burner. The system, with the exception of the remote
control panel and stack, is skid-mounted for transportability. The equipment skid
is approximately 29 feet long by 7.5 feet wide. The oxidizer is nominally
designed to thermally treat approximately 3,400 Ib/hr of contaminated off-gases
from the furnace at a treatment temperature of 1,800 ฐF for a minimum residence
19
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
time of 2 seconds. The maximum capacity of the thermal oxidizer is equivalent
to the maximum capacity of the ID. fan, which is rated for 4,758 Ib/hr at 70 ฐF.
The thermal oxidizer combustion chamber is constructed of carbon steel and
lined with a ceramic-fiber refractory. A turbulator, located halfway down the
combustion chamber length, provides maximum combustion efficiency by
creating turbulent flow conditions within the combustion chamber.
The burner assembly consists of a Maxon Air Flow Model LV5 gas manifold
burner with an HG-4 mixer. The pilot and burner flames are monitored by a pilot
and flame UV scanner system. Once all system interlocks are confirmed and a
pilot flame is established, the main fuel valves automatically open and the main
burner ignites. The burner flame is acknowledged through a flame scanner.
Failure to detect a flame signal once the main flame has lit results in an
automatic shutdown of fuel flow to the thermal oxidizer.
The Maxon burner is designed to use oxygen from the furnace exit-gas stream
for combustion; however, a combustion air fan has been supplied with the burner
system to provide pre-mix air to the burner in order to maintain excess oxygen
levels in the combustion zone of the thermal oxidizer at all times. A temperature
transmitter connected to a temperature controller monitors and controls the
combustion chamber exit-gas temperature by modulating the fuel gas control
valve.
Furnace exit-gases are directed into the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber
through the I.D. fan. The I.D. fan is a centrifugal-type fan manufactured by
Chicago Blower and is rated for 2,250 cubic feet per minute (cfm) at 650 ฐF. The
I.D. fan has been sized to maintain a negative 0.5 inches water column (in. w.c.)
of pressure in the furnace to prevent fugitive emissions and force the furnace
exit-gas stream through the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber and out of the
exhaust stack. The ID. fan inlet is connected to the furnace chamber through an
interconnection duct.
The stack, which is located at the discharge end of the thermal oxidizer system,
is approximately 24 feet high with a 29-inch inside diameter (i.d.). The stack is
shipped on its side, separate from the thermal oxidizer skid. The stack is outfitted
with four test ports for periodic emissions sampling and one CEM port for
continuous emissions monitoring of the system exit-gases. An 8-foot stack
extension, containing four additional sampling ports, has been provided to
support the ability to conduct a full suite of emissions tests during permit-related
activities. The stack extension is not necessary for operations unless otherwise
required by local permit.
2.3 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING (CEM) SYSTEM
The site-specific application of a CEM system will depend heavily on regulatory
and facility operating requirements. The CEM system, which was used to
support the transportable HGD system test programs at ALAAP, was a leased
unit; therefore, the information provided below is for information only. This
20
-------
HGD'System Cosi& Performance Report
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
information can be used as a guide to procuring or leasing similar CEM system
equipment to support future HGD projects.
The leased CEM unit was an extractive-type sampling system that had two fully
operational sample systems with redundant analyzers and its own data acquisition
and control system. The redundant analyzers were used as on-line backups to
replace the primary analyzers in the event of calibration or analyzer failure. The
CEM system was located in a self-contained, heated and air-conditioned trailer on
the equipment pad near the HGD furnace. Refer to Figure 2-1.
The function of the CEM system is to sample, monitor, and log the gaseous
emissions leaving the stack, and to sample, monitor, and log the exit-gases
leaving the furnace during process operations. This sampling is accomplished by
using one sample probe located at the stack and a second sample probe located at
the interconnection duct. The combustion products that were continuously
monitored at the stack by the CEM system during the test programs at ALAAP
were CO, CO2, O2, NOX, THC, and SO2. The combustion products that were
continuously monitored at the interconnection duct, between the furnace exit and
thermal oxidizer inlet, were THC and NOX.
A summary of the analyzers supplied with the leased CEM system and the
manufacturer's performance specifications is presented in Table 2-1. A summary
of the sample extraction and conditioning equipment that was provided with the
leased CEM system is presented in Table 2-2.
2.4 REMOTE CONTROL AND SYSTEM INTERLOCKS
The HGD process is relatively simple to control. Furnace chamber temperature,
thermal oxidizer temperature, and system draft are the process parameters that
are critical to HGD system operations. To ensure operator safety while treating
explosives-contaminated materials, all HGD system operations are controlled by
the operator from the equipment-specific remote control panels located in the
remote control area. No personnel are permitted on the equipment pad during
system operations.
Each of the HGD system remote control panels were designed to be self-
contained and able to operate independently of the other equipment panel.
However, control interlock conditions have been installed to prevent system
operations from starting or continuing when operating conditions pose an
equipment-, treatment-, or safety-related problem. The interlocks create an
interdependency between the furnace and thermal oxidizer systems that would
not exist without the interlocks.
Critical operating parameters associated with the HGD process, including
emissions data from the CEM, are monitored from the remote control area using
the HGD data logging and monitoring system. Specifics regarding the data logging
and monitoring system are provided in Subsection 2.5. Figure 2-3 illustrates the
interconnection cabling, which allows both remote control operation and data
logging and monitoring of the HGD system operating parameters.
21
-------
Table 2-1
Summary of Continuous Emission Monitoring (GEM) Equipment
CEM
Specifications
Number of CEMs
Manufacturer Model
Number
Principle of operation
Range
Accuracy
Analyzer stability over
24 hours (percent
span)3
02
2
Servomex
1400
Paramagnetic
0-25%
ฑ0.5%
2.0%
CO2
2
Infrared
IR-730
Nondispersive
infrared
absorption
0-20%
ฑ0.2%
1.0%
Parameter
CO
2
Thermo Electron
48
Gas correlation filter
infrared absorption
0-500 ppm
ฑ 2.5 ppm
1.0%
NOX
2
Thermo Electron
10 AR
Chemiluminescence
0-250 ppm
ฑ 2.5 ppm
1.0%
THC
2
J.U.M. Engineers
VE7
Flame ionization
detector
0-100 ppm
+ 1.0 ppm
1.0%
SO2
lb
Bovar
721
Nondispersive
ultraviolet
"Since the system is calibrated daily and the ambient temperature is maintained on-line at all times, this drift will be negligible.
bEach analyzer is dedicated to a sample point, no spare analyzer is provided.
22
-------
Table 2-2
Sample Extraction and Conditioning Equipment
Item
Sample probe and cooling
section
Sample box
Sample line
Main thermal oxidizer
exhaust sample (for CO,
C02, NOX, S02, and O2)
conditioning system and
auxiliary furnace exhaust
sample (NOX only)
THC sample conditioning
system, thermal oxidizer
exhaust
Description
Inconel tubing with 316 stainless-steel
fittings.
Carbon steel box with ceramic insulation
and fitting connections for calibration gas
introduction.
Heated Teflon TFA tubing.
Heated filter, pump, mechanical
refrigeration chiller, condensate trap,
coalescing filter, pressure regulator, and
flow meters. Teflon and stainless-steel
construction.
Heated fine filter.
Performance
Parameters
Reduce gas temperature < 400 ฐF.
Maintains sample temperature at >
300 ฐF.
Maintain sample temperature at > 300 ฐF.
Exit dew point at > 38 ฐF; removal of
paniculate > 0.3 micron.
Removal of paniculate > 0.3 micron.
Locations
Sample port in thermal oxidizer exhaust
stack (CO, CO2, O2) and NOX, SO2, THC).
Sample port in furnace exhaust to duct
(N0xonly).
Insulated closure adjacent to the sample
port at the thermal oxidizer exhaust stack.
Between sample location and CEM trailer,
as required.
In CEM trailer; draws wet sample directly
from heated sample line; delivers cool, dry
conditioned sample directly to CO, CO2,
NOX, S02, and O2 analyzers.
Internal to THC analyzer; draws sample
directly from heated sample line.
23
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
2.5 DATA LOGGING AND MONITORING SYSTEM
To allow for data acquisition and monitoring capabilities during process
operations, data highway cabling must be installed, which interconnects the local
furnace and thermal oxidizer system control panels, the remote furnace and
thermal oxidizer control panels, the CEM monitoring system, and the remote
control area-based personal computer (PC). The data highway cable daisy-chains
between communication interface cards in the remote control area PC, and
modules located at the CEM and at each of the local and remote control panels.
The RS-485 I/O cards provide the interface necessary to transfer process
instrument data (4-20 mA signals) from the field instrument to the remote
control area PC. Data received at the remote control area PC are then used by the
data logging and monitoring program to provide system archiving, real-time
trending, and up-to-the minute process operating values. This scheme is
illustrated by the Data Logging and Monitoring System illustration in Figure 2-4.
The data acquisition and monitoring system (data logger) used to support data
logging and monitoring is a Windows-based program operated from a Pentium
platform. The program allows the operator to:
View and monitor real-time operational data on a graphical display
illustrating the system equipment.
Track historical operating data (trends) for selected process parameters.
Archive operational data from each test run for later reduction and analysis.
The data logging and monitoring system uses the GENIE software package,
which was written and supplied by American Advantech Corp. of Sunnyvale,
California. GENIE software must be programmed by the user, and was
programmed by WESTON to support the data acquisition needs of the HGD
system equipment. Although the software capability exists, GENIE was not
programmed for interactive control of the HGD equipment because interactive,
remote system control is accomplished through the use of the equipment-specific
remote control panels located in the remote control area.
24
-------
Main Power
480/3P
Transformer
480V to 120V
i i i i it i i i i light Poles/Receptacles
LEGEND
4-20 mA, Discrete I/O'*
480V Power for Motors
480V Supplied Powซr
l l l l l l I'M l 120V Power
8S232/485
120V Power lor Control
F1GUHE2-3 INTERCONNECTION WIRING DIAGRAM
25
-------
Furnace
Local
Control
Panel
Thermal Oxidizer & ID Fan
Local Control Panel
Thermal Oxidizer & ID Fan
Remote
Control Panel
CEM
System
Furnace
Remote Control Panel
Data
Highway
t f/7i *-*** ILF j i fA y t
Pentium-Based
Processor for
Data Monitoring
and Logging
Data Logger
96P-31S1
FIGURE 2-4 HGD SYSTEM DATA LOGGING AND MONITORING SYSTEM
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
3.
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
3.1 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the overall physical dimensions of the HGD system
are relatively small and require minimal real estate (60 feet by 75 feet).
However, in selecting the proper installation, environmental and safety
requirements directly associated with the contaminant to be treated must be
considered. For example, the installation must meet quantity-distance
requirements associated with storage and use of explosives, as well as static
electricity control and grounding requirements as defined by AMC-R-385-100
and AR 385-64. In the case of chemical contamination, quantity-distance
requirements are not an issue; however, the installation must address applicable
chemical hazards standards and recommendations. In all cases, National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) requirements must be met. Stormwater runoff
and management must be addressed, as required by local regulation.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the site layout used for the demonstration and validation
testing of the HGD system equipment installed at ALAAP. Li accordance with
AMC-R-385-100 and AR 385-64, the HGD equipment was located a minimum
of 670 feet away from any manned location (i.e., remote control area buildings,
etc.) and a minimum of 350 feet from a railroad or active roadway. The propane
fuel storage tank was located 100 feet from the HGD equipment in accordance
with NFPA requirements. All stormwater runoff from the equipment pad was
collected and directed to an existing water treatment plant associated with an
unrelated ongoing remediation effort at ALAAP.
3.2 REGULATORY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The HGD process is classified as a thermal treatment system. Regulatory
performance standards for processing hazardous and toxic wastes using a
thermal treatment system are outlined in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR).
The transportable HGD system is designed to meet all applicable regulatory
performance standards contained in the following sections of 40 CFR:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incinerator standards
specified in 40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart O.
Miscellaneous Unit standards specified in 40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart X.
ป Boiler and Industrial Furnace standards specified in 40 CFR, Part 266,
Subpart H.
27
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator standards specified in 40
CFR, Part 761.70(b).
3.3 REGULATORY APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Federal and state regulatory agency approval must be obtained prior to the start
of any operations using the transportable HGD system equipment. Requirements
for approval will primarily depend on:
Classification of the site with regard to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The type of contaminants to be treated (RCRA, TSCA, or nonhazardous).
" The levels of contaminants (higher concentrations of contaminants may
trigger air emissions limitations, which vary throughout the country).
Permit/approval requirements* for an HGD treatment system are expected to be
as follows:
Type of Waste
RCRA
TSCA
Nonhazardous
CERCLA Site
Part B Permit
State Air Permit
TSCA Permit
State Air Permit
State Air Permit
Non-CERCLA Site
Part B Substantive Technical
Information Requirements
State Air Permit Substantive
Technical Information Requirements
TSCA Permit Substantive Technical
Information Requirements
State Air Permit Substantive
Technical Information Requirements
State Air Permit Substantive
Technical Information Requirements
3.4 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
At a minimum, the HGD system equipment requires both electricity and fuel in
accordance with the requirements noted below:
Electrical: 90-amp service, at 480 VAC, 3 phase, 60 hertz
Fuel: Natural gas or propane, 3.75 million Btu/hour
(37.5 therms/hour) at 20 psig
Federal and state regulatory agencies must be contacted to verify permit/approval
requirements.
28
-------
to
o
i a
Si
r 1
i
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
Other utilities, such as telephone service or water, are not necessary for the
operation of the HGD system, but may be required to meet site-specific health
and safety requirements. The daily operating schedule may require site lighting
for night-time operations. Water should be considered for periodic equipment
washdowns and cleanup.
3.5 PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULE
A generic project schedule to procure and install a transportable HGD system is
illustrated in Figure 3-2. This schedule is based on the actual project schedule to
procure and install the transportable HGD system at ALAAP. Please note
schedule task durations may vary depending on project or site-specific
requirements.
30
-------
8 9 10 11 12
Task Description
Notice to Proceed.
Equipment Procurement
Site Preparation and Mobilization
System Installation
System Startup/Shakedown
96P-3208 9/2W96
FIGURE 3-2 HGD SYSTEM PROJECT SCHEDULE
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
4.
HGD SYSTEM COST
The total costs associated with the transportable HGD system can be broken
down into the following cost items, and are further detailed in Subsections 4.1
through 4.4.
" Capital equipment costs.
Installation and startup costs.
Operating costs.
Validation testing costs.
4.1 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
All capital equipment costs provided in this subsection are based on the skid-
mounted, transportable HGD system that was procured for USAEC in fiscal
1995. All instrumentation and electrical systems supplied with the transportable
HGD equipment were capable of remote and local operations, and qualified to
operate in National Electrical Code (NEC) and NFPA Class 1, Division 2, Group
D environments.
Furnace
Includes furnace, 1 million Btu/hr gas-fired burner, burner
controls, combustion air blower, and local and remote
control panels.
Thermal Oxidizer
Includes 2.75 million Btu/hr gas-fired thermal oxidizer,
stack, air pre-mix system, and local and remote control
panels.
Interconnection Duct
Includes materials and fabrication costs.
I.D. Fan
$156,000
$180,000
$5,500
$9,000
Centrifugal-type rated for 2,250 cfm at 650 ฐF (700 ฐF
maximum operating temperature) remote controlled variable frequency drive.
Miscellaneous Equipment
Power and instrument cables, computers, software,
treatment racks, uninterruptable power supply.
$35,000
32
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
HGD SYSTEM COST
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (Optional)
$286,000
Extractive-type, redundant system for monitoring Oa, CO,
CO2, THC, SO2, and NOX. System meets 40 CFR 60, Appendix
A and B requirements.
Control Trailer (OptionalV
8 feet by 40 feet with office space and restroom.
$18,000
4.2 INSTALLATION AND STARTUP COSTS
Installation costs will vary from site to site and from job to job because of local
conditions, labor costs, and equipment transportation costs. Items that should be
considered in estimating installation costs are identified in Subsections 4.2.1
through 4.2.3.
4.2.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation costs can be expected to vary, depending on the location and
condition of the site to be used. Site preparation items can also have a significant
impact on installation costs, especially if a selected site is undeveloped. Site
preparation items that may be required prior to mobilization of the HGD
equipment to the selected site include the following:
Site clearing and grubbing.
Site grading.
Installation, static control, lightning protection grid, and grounding grid.
Equipment pad installation.
Installation of site lighting.
" Installation of an electrical service.
Installation of telephone service.
Installation of a fuel source.
Installation of water service.
Installation of sanitary sewer system.
" Installation of fire protection.
4.2.2 Transportation and Mobilization to Site
The transportable HGD system is mobilized using three low-boy-style trailers
(one each for the furnace, the thermal oxidizer, and the stack and miscellaneous
equipment). A low-boy style trailer would be required for either the CEM or the
control trailer should either item be required to support operations. The skid-
mounted equipment can be removed from the trailers, by a crane or heavy
forklift, and placed on an equipment pad, as required for operations. A 1-day
crane or heavy forklift rental is adequate to support this operation.
33
Rev'1
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
HGD SYSTEM COST
4.2.3 System Shakedown and Startup
System shakedown to verify electrical connections, instrument calibrations, and
general system operating integrity should be performed prior to actual treatment
of contaminated materials by the HGD system equipment. Approximately four
persons, for 3 weeks, are required to perform shakedown. Shakedown operations
include:
ป Installation of interconnecting instrument and control cabling.
ป Instrument calibration and checkouts.
ป System functionality testing.
4.3 OPERATING COSTS
The pricing listed below is based on one transportable HGD system operated at
ALAAP between December 1995 and March 1996. Costs are expected to vary
from site to site depending on the costs of labor and utilities and selected
operating conditions.
Electricity:
Propane:
Propane delivery system equipment
( 15,000 GWC storage tank):
CEM calibration gases:
Incidentals and miscellaneous parts:
Labor
(assume 3 workers: 1 control area operator
and 2 laborers/mechanics):
$100/day per unit
$725/day per unit
$40/day per unit
$60/day per system
$60/day per unit
$2,352Vday
All costs per day noted above assume a 24-hour day and a minimum processing
rate of 4 batch runs per 24-hour day.
4.4 VALIDATION TESTING COSTS
Depending upon site-specific regulatory and facility requirements, validation
testing including stack emissions testing may be required. Based upon stack
emissions testing conducted at ALAAP, the estimated cost for validation testing
is approximately $90,000 and can be expected to last approximately 7 days.
This cost assumes standard laboratory turnaround times.
1 Labor costs per 24-hour day assumes all labor is employed directly by the user at the following
rates: $26.00/hr for control area operators; $15.00/hr for laborers; and a 1.75 multiplier for taxes
and fringes.
34
Rev 2
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
5.1 DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION TEST PROGRAMS
A successful demonstration test program, using the transportable HGD system
equipment and clean, noncontaminated materials, was conducted between 4 and
8 December 1995 at ALAAP. The demonstration test was conducted to verify:
ป General system performance.
Ease of operation.
System repeatability.
As a result of demonstration test operations, system modifications were made
with the following results:
" Minimization of furnace cold spots.
Improvement of the overall heat distribution profile within the furnace.
" Reduction of furnace heat-up times to < 2.5 hours.
ป Maximization of system operating efficiencies.
After completing the demonstration tests and modifications, a validation test
program was conducted from 4 January to 15 March 1996 at ALAAP. The
validation test program was conducted under the federal guidelines regulating a
treatability study; therefore, no permitted limits for system emissions or
operating conditions were specified. The objectives of the validation test
program were as follows:
To verify the effectiveness of the HGD system equipment in
decontaminating explosives (TNT, RDX, and Tetryl).
To define optimum processing times and temperatures for TNT-, RDX-, and
Tetryl-contaminated materials.
To collect air emissions data to support future system permitting efforts.
Eighteen test runs were conducted at treatment temperatures ranging from 300 ฐF
to 600 ฐF. A full furnace load was composed of 3,000 Ib of TNT-, RDX-, and
Tetryl-contaminated metal piping, clay piping, and concrete block, as well as
explosives-contaminated debris from another remediation project at ALAAP. No
more than 1 Ib total explosives was processed in any test run.
5.2 RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION TEST PROGRAM
The validation test of the transportable HGD system equipment was a success.
Results of the tests are highlighted below.
35
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The optimum operating conditions for achieving complete removal of TNT,
RDX, Tetryl, and their breakdown constituents to levels below method
detection levels is:
250 ฐF/hour ramp to 600 ฐF treatment temperature with a 1-hour soak.
NOX monitoring at the furnace exit indicates that the bulk of explosives
decontamination occurs during the furnace ramp (250 ฐF to 600 ฐF) period.
Post-treatment analytical testing consistently indicated removal efficiencies
for TNT, RDX, and Tetryl of 99.9999%, based on an initial quantity of 1 Ib
total explosives.
The HGD process effectively processed explosives-contaminated debris to
microgram quantities while achieving at least 99.99% destruction and
removal efficiency.
ป The transportable HGD system is a fully instrumented and monitored
process which together with the control system ensures repeatability test
after test.
5.3 EMISSIONS RESULTS
Stack emissions data were collected during the first three validation test runs and
CEM data were collected during all test runs. Results indicate the following:
No detectable explosives contamination was observed in the stack emissions
from the HGD system equipment.
Volatile and semivolatile sampling was conducted to evaluate for products
of incomplete combustion and breakdown compounds. Results indicated:
Only acetone, which was used to make the spike mixtures, was found in
any significant quantities.
Only nontarget semivolatile compounds were identified. Semivolatile
samples were analyzed for target compound list compounds.
A summary of the HGD system emissions results is located in Table 5-1.
36
-------
HGD System Cost & Performance Report
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Table 5-1
Transportable HGD System Equipment Emissions Results
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Total hydrocarbons (ppmv)
Carbon monoxide (ppmv)
Paniculate (gr/dscf at 7% O2)
Hexavalent chromium (ug/dscm)
Low-volatility metals (ug/dscm)
(antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium)
Semivolatile metals (ug/dscm)
(lead and cadmium)
Total chlorine (ppmv)
(HC1 and C12)
Mercury (ug/dscm)
Dioxins/furans (ng TEQ/dscm)
Existing Standard
(as of June 1996)
12
100
<0.08
NA
210 (currently)
60 (proposed)
270 (currently)
62 (proposed)
280
50
0.2
^Tje'sl|un%>;
{'ฃ Average* ;
),; ""-.m >ซ:'*-
. - "- > - airsaf ^ -i
, 0.flซM ""
, Aft-. . is-
^ lJ>*sV ^
jv;m^,
ป ^-,'
^ -^-^ ~*
9 **" ,.^rev
- ^ ^.. -
J ^ <* -i *
jg* ks
^x v Vซ"!X
Os: .h^aป'*;-*
"? ~" ^"" ^
1 < j. ^"^/'i
0ป04
' ,S x ^v " v *ป
^ ^'* 'ซ&" ^
s^^-' - iS^si
5.4 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING RESULTS
Total hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX), carbon
monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions measured by the CEM
system were significantly below the limits usually associated with permitting.
NOX levels monitored in the furnace exit-gas duct indicated increased NOX
activity during ramp-up periods and a return to baseline NOX levels after the
furnace chamber temperature reached approximately 400 ฐF. Future studies with
HGD hope to use NOX levels in the furnace exit-gas as an indicator of a
completed decontamination batch run.
37
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
38
-------
Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
39
-------
Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
Site Name:
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory
Location:
Argonne, Illinois
Contaminants:
Radioactive-contaminated paint
Period of Operation:
1/28/97 to 2/4/97
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
Mike Connacher
Concrete Cleaning, Inc
(509)226-0315
Additional Contacts:
Susan C. Madaris
Test Engineer
Florida International University
(305) 348-3727
Richard Baker
DOE
(630) 252-2647
Technology:
Centrifugal Shot Blast:
- Shot blast unit manufactured by
George Fisher (GOFFฎ). Unit
operated with two 1/4 horsepower,
variable speed drives, and has a 13-
inch cutting width. The vendor
advertised production rate is 200-
250 ft2/hr.
- HEPA-filter dust collection
system manufactured by George
Fisher (GOFFฎ). Six primary
roughing filter cartridges, one
secondary HEPA filter unit; vendor
rated vacuum flow of 850 cubic
ft/min
Cleanup Authority:
Project performed as part of DOE's
Large-Scale Demonstration Project,
Office of Science and Technology,
Deactivation and Decommissioning
Focus Area
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Contaminated paint
coating on concrete floor
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate a
modified centrifugal shot blast unit
and compare results with those for
mechanical scabbing
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 800 ft2 of concrete flooring
covered with contaminated paint
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of the modified centrifugal shot blast system
to remove contaminated paint coating from SOD ft2 of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this
technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.
Results:
- Use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the
blasting process and has the potential to lead to the use of less respiratory protection and PPE requirements; the
unit is self-propelled and has the potential to reduce operator fatigue; the unit can be adjusted to remove the
coating layer only, specific layers of coating, or coating and up to Vz inch of concrete; the end-point condition of
the surface in the demonstration was smooth, bare concrete.
- Reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from pre-demonstration levels as high as
5,300 dpm/100 cm2 to below background levels (1,500 dpm/100 cm2).
- Problems were encountered with the dust collection system assembly and disassembly and with steel shot
escaping the unit. According to DOE, additional improvements are needed to make the unit safer and more
efficient for use at a DOE facility.
- The main advantage of the modified centrifugal shot blast system over the baseline technology is the ability to
simultaneously collect dust and debris using a dust collection system attached to the shot blast unit.
40
-------
Centrifugal Shot Blast System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)
Cost:
- The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.
- Cost analysis results show the total cost for centrifugal shot blast was higher than mechanical scabbing (about
$23,000 versus about $13,000) and had higher costs for mobilization/demobilization and decontamination for the
800 ft2 demonstration. However, because the incremental cost for centrifugal shot blast is lower, this technology
was projected to be less expensive than the baseline for areas greater than 1,900 ft2.
Description:
Concrete Cleaning, Inc. demonstrated a modified centrifugal shot blast system for removing radioactive
contaminated paint from concrete flooring. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5) Large-
Scale Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination
and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uranium-
fueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut
down in 1979.
For this demonstration, Concrete Cleaning modified a standard centrifugal shot blast machine (manufactured by
George Fisher) to increase efficiency and speed of substrate removal. Concrete Cleaning considers the
modifications to be proprietary and has applied for a patent. The shot blast machine was equipped with a HEPA
filter dust collection system that had been modified to replace the refuse pan provided by the manufacturer. The
system was modified with a funnel-drum lid system that directed the waste directly into a standard waste drum.
This modification reduced the potential for airborne releases by eliminating the need to transfer waste from the
pan into the drum for disposal. As the unit was moved across the floor, the shot and substrate debris were
vacuumed through the shot blast unit, and passed through an abrasive recycling system. The heavier shot was
returned to the unit while the spent shot (too small in size to reuse) was sent to the dust collection system. The
demonstration showed that the main advantage of the Concrete Cleaning centrifugal shot blast technology
compared to mechanical scabbing was the simultaneous collection of dust and debris. The report includes a
detailed comparison of the two technologies. In addition, the results of radiological surveys performed before
and after the demonstration showed that blasting had reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from
pre-demonstration levels as high as 5,300 dpm/100 cm2 to below background levels (1,500 dpm/100 cm2).
Several problems were encountered during the demonstration. Steel shot escaping from the unit presented a
potential projectile hazard, the magnetic roller was not effective in collecting steel shot left on the floor, and
there were problems with the dust collection system assembly and disassembly. According to DOE, additional
improvements are needed to make the unit safer and more efficient for use at a DOE facility. The report includes
results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the centrifugal shot blast technology with mechanical scabbing.
While the baseline technology was less expensive for the scope and conditions of the demonstration, for areas
larger than about 1,900 ft2, the centrifugal shot blast technology was projected to be less expensive because of
lower incremental costs.
41
-------
SECTION 1
Technology Description
This report describes a demonstration of Concrete Cleaning, Inc., modified centrifugal shot blast
technology to remove the paint coating from concrete flooring. This demonstration is part of the Chicago
Pile-5 (CP-5) Large-Scale Demonstration Project (LSDP) sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Office of Science and Technology (OST), Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area (DDFA).
The objective of the LSDP is to select and demonstrate potentially beneficial technologies at the Argonne
National Laboratory-East (ANL) CP-5 Research Reactor. The purpose of the LSDP is to demonstrate that
using innovative and improved decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) technologies from various
sources can result in significant benefits, such as decreased cost and increased health and safety, as
compared with baseline D&D technologies.
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., is a commercial service provider that uses modified centrifugal shot blast
machines to remove concrete and concrete coatings. The shot blast unit, shown in Figure 1, propels
hardened steel shot at a high rate of speed to abrade the surface of the concrete. The depth of removal is
determined by the rate of speed at which the machine is traveling and the volume and size of shot fired
into the blast chamber. The steel shot is recycled and reused until it is too small to be useable.
Figure 1. Centrifugal shot blast unit.
U. S. Department of Energy
42
-------
The centrifugal shot blast unit can be used with a variety of dust collection systems. Concrete Cleaning,
Inc., modified a commercially available dust collection system with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter (Figure 2) for this demonstration. The vacuum, which has a capacity of 850 cubic feet per minute
(ft3/min), was mounted on expandable legs and modified to permit the attachment of a 55-gal waste
collection drum underneath.
Figure 2. Dust collection system.
The ANL baseline technology, mechanical scabbling, uses a manually driven floor/deck sealer suitable for
thick coating removal and the surface preparation of large areas of concrete floors. This unit is equipped
with eleven 1-in-diameter pistons that impact the floor at a rate of 2,300 blows/min/piston. An aluminum
shroud surrounds the pistons capturing large pieces of debris; however, an attached dust
collection/vacuum system is not being used. Instead, a containment system (i.e., a plastic tent) is erected
over the area to be decontaminated to minimize the potential release of airborne dust and contamination.
The main advantage of Concrete Cleaning, Inc.'s centrifugal shot blast technology over the baseline
mechanical scabbling technology is the simultaneous collection of dust and debris by the dust collection
system, which is connected to the shot blast unit. The dust collection system significantly reduces the
amount of airborne dust generated during the D&D process, thus reducing personnel exposure, and may
lead to a significant reduction in respiratory protection and personnel protective equipment (PPE)
requirements, especially in highly contaminated facilities. The shot blast technology has a higher
production rate than the baseline technology, which can result in the job's being completed earlier, thus
reducing personnel exposure and costs. The unit is also self-propelled, thereby significantly reducing
operator fatigue and increasing worker health and safety. The model of shot blast unit demonstrated at
CP-5 also offers versatility as it can be adjusted to remove the entire layer of coating, specific layers of the
coating, or the coating and up to one-half inch of concrete (total practical limit for unit).
U. S. Department of Energy
43
-------
Technology Status
The Concrete Cleaning, Inc., modified centrifugal shot blast system was evaluated as part of the LSDP in
the removal of paint coatings from 800 fl? of concrete flooring on the service floor of the CP-5 Research
Reactor. The evaluation period (January 28 to February 4,1997) included the mobilization, demonstration,
and demobilization of this technology. Radiological surveys were performed both before and immediately
after the demonstration. The purpose of these surveys was to determine the level of decontamination
achieved through the removal of the floor coatings by the modified shot blast system. The vendor was not
required to remove additional concrete from the floor area if the final radiological levels were found to be
elevated at the end of the demonstration.
CP-5 is a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uranium-fueled thermal reactor designed to
supply neutrons for research. The reactor, which had a thermal-power rating of 5 megawatts, was
operated continuously for 25 year until its final shutdown in 1979. These 25 year of operation produced
activation and contamination characteristics representative of other nuclear facilities within the DOE
complex and private sector nuclear facilities. CP-5 possesses many of the essential features of other DOE
and commercial nuclear facilities and can be used safely as a demonstration facility for the evaluation of
innovative technologies for the future D&D of much larger, more highly contaminated facilities.
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., personnel operated the centrifugal shot blast system for the demonstration. ANL
personnel from the CP-5 Project and the Environment, Safety, and Health (ESH) Division provided
support in the areas of health physics (HP), industrial hygiene (IH), waste management operations
(WMO), and safety engineering. Florida International University - Hemispheric Center for Environmental
Technology (FIU-HCET) performed the data collection, including benchmarking and cost information. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) performed the analysis of the cost data and ICF Kaiser,
International performed the analysis of the benchmarking information.
Potential markets exist for the innovative centrifugal shot blast system at the following sites: Fernald
Environmental Management Project, Los Alamos, Nevada, Oak Ridge Y-12 and K-25, Paducah,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site, and the Savannah River Site. This information is based on a revision
to the OST Linkage Tables dated August 4,1997.
Key Results:
The key results of the demonstration are as follows.
The Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast technology removed the paint coating from the 800
ft2 of concrete flooring in the demonstration area at a rate of 310 ft2/h.
The centrifugal shot blast technology was able to remove coatings from within 2 to 5 in from the union
of the floor and the wall and around obstructions.
The shot blast unit is self-propelled which significantly reduces operator fatigue and has the potential
to reduce exposure in highly contaminated areas.
Removal of the coatings from the concrete floor was sufficient to reduce the contamination from levels
up to 5,300 dpm/100 cm2 fixed total beta/gamma to levels measuring at or below background levels of
no greater than 1,500 dpm/100 cm2.
Concrete Cleaning, Inc.'s dust collection system, which is connected to the centrifugal shot blast unit,
has the potential to significantly reduce the amount of airborne radioactivity during D&D activities,
thereby potentially reducing PPE requirements, especially respiratory protection. This capacity is
beneficial in contrast to the mechanical scabbling technology, which requires that a plastic tent
containment system be erected around the area to be decontaminated.
Modifications made by Concrete Cleaning, Inc., to the dust collection system are not adequately
designed. Thus, improvements are required to increase the operational effectiveness of the system.
The leg extensions that were added did not adequately support the dust collector, causing the unit to
be unstable. The funnel and drum lid system was not flexible enough to allow the waste drum to be
easily removed from under the vacuum. Concrete Cleaning, Inc., has initiated corrective actions to
eliminate these problems.
U. S. Department of Energy
44
-------
Contacts
Technical
Mike Connacher, Owner, Concrete Cleaning, Inc., (509) 226-0315, conclsrs@aol.com
Demonstration
Susan C. Madaris, Test Engineer, Florida International University-Hemispheric Center for Environmental
Technology, (305) 348-3727, madariss@eng.fiu.edu
CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project or Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration
Richard C. Baker, U.S. Department of Energy, Chicago Operations Office, (630) 252-2647,
richard.baker@ch.doe.gov
Steve Bossart, Federal Energy Technology Center, (304) 285-4643, sbossa@fetc.doe.gov
Terry Bradley, Strategic Alliance Administrator, Duke Engineering and Services, (704) 382-2766,
tlbradle@duke-energy.com
Web Site
The CP-5 LSDP Internet address is http://www.strategic-alliance.org.
Other
All published Innovative Technology Summary Reports are available online at http://em-50.em.doe.gov.
The Technology Management System, also available through the EM50 Web site, provides information
about OST programs, technologies, and problems. The OST Reference # for the centrifugal shot blast
system is 1851.
U. S. Department of Energy
45
-------
SECTION 2
Technology Schematic
Centrifugal shot blasting is an abrasive blasting .technology that propels hardened steel shot against
contaminated surfaces at a high velocity to remove contaminants and substrate. Figure 3 is a schematic
of the centrifugal shot blast system. The amount of substrate removed can be adjusted by varying the size
and the amount of shot expelled from the blast chamber or the speed at which the blast unit travels over
the substrate. The steel shot is collected by vacuum and recycled until it is spent (i.e., too small for reuse).
The centrifugal shot blast unit is connected to a remote dust collection system using a 50-ft-long, 6-in-
diameter vacuum hose. The debris generated and the spent shot are continually vacuumed into this HEPA
filtered dust collection system and then deposited into a 55-gal drum. Compared to the baseline
technology, the dust collector significantly reduces the potential for airborne dust and the release of
radioactivity.
HEPA Filter
Atr flow.
Heavy
debris
1 Recycled
shot
Shot collection
Figure 3. Schematic of the centrifugal shot blast system.
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., made modifications to a standard centrifugal shot blast machine (Figure 1) to
increase the efficiency and speed of substrate removal. Concrete Cleaning, Inc., considers these
modifications proprietary and has applied for a patent.
Operational parameters for the centrifugal shot blast unit (not including the dust collection system) are as
follows:
Manufacturer George Fischer (+GF+, GOFFฎ)
Dimensions (L x W x H) 50 in x 16.5 in x 43 in
Weight 650 Ib
U. S. Department of Energy
46
-------
Speed
Cutting width:
Vendor advertised production rate
Two, %-hp, fully variable speed drives
13 in
200-250 ft^h
The objective of the demonstration at the ANL CP-5 Research Reactor facility was to remove the
contaminated paint coating from 800 ft2 of concrete flooring on the service floor. The centrifugal shot blast
unit that Concrete Cleaning, Inc., utilized effectively demonstrated its ability to remove just the coating
layer. This size of shot blast unit is also capable of removing up to Vz in of concrete. Larger units can
remove 1 in or more of concrete from large, flat areas. Other shot blast units are capable of removing
coatings or concrete from walls or small spaces. The larger unit was demonstrated at FIU in May 1996 as
part of a project for the Fernald Environmental Management Project. A brief description of this
demonstration is included in Appendix C.
Attached to the shot blast unit is the remote HEPA filtered dust collection system (Figure 2). In addition to
the proprietary modifications to the shot blast unit, Concrete Cleaning, Inc., modified the dust collection
system to allow the waste to be collected directly into a waste drum instead of into the refuse pan provided
by the manufacturer. The roller casters on the dust collector were removed, and adjustable legs were
bolted to the unit's frame in their place. A butterfly valve funnel and waste drum lid system was installed at
the bottom of the unit where the refuse pan normally resides. These modifications permit a standard
waste drum to be placed directly under the dust collector and then attached to the funnel-drum lid system.
This modification reduces the potential for a release of airborne contaminants by collecting the waste
directly in the proper disposal container instead of having to transfer the waste from the refuse pan into
the waste drum.
The parameters for the dust collection system include the following:
Manufacturer GOFFฎ
Dimensions (L x W x H)
60 in x 27 in x 113.25 in
(The expandable legs are 50.25 in high.)
Weight
Vendor rated vacuum flow
Primary roughing filter cartridges
Secondary HEPA filter
Standard waste drum
700 Ib
850 ft3/min
Six @ 8 in diameter x 16 in length
One unit
(99.97 percent efficient at 0.1 micron paniculate size)
23 or 55 U.S. gal
Once the dust collection system is connected to the external utility source, the shot blast unit is connected
to the electrical panel mounted on the side of the dust collector. The utilities required for the operation of
the centrifugal shot blast technology at the CP-5 LSDP included a 480-V, 3-phase, 60-A electrical current
source.
U. S. Department of Energy
47
-------
System Operation
The centrifugal shot blast machine is self-propelled, requiring only one operator to work behind the
unit.
The floor to be decontaminated must be dry to prevent the removed substrate from clogging the
hoses and screens within the shot blast unit.
A control panel attached to the rear of the shot blast unit includes the toggle switches used to steer
the unit either left, right, forward, or in reverse. Dials control tracking and the speed at which the shot
blast unit moves over the floor. The amount of shot released into the blast unit is controlled by a
switch on the panel. Gauges measure both the amps generated by the unit and the number of hours
the unit has been in operation. The control panel also features an emergency stop button.
The amount of substrate removed in a single pass is controlled by the size and amount of shot
released by the unit as well as the speed at which the unit moves over the floor.
One hundred pounds of shot can be added to the shot blast unit at one time.
Simultaneous with the decontamination of the floor, the shot and substrate debris are vacuumed
through the shot blast unit. The mixture passes through an abrasive recycling system in which the
larger/heavier pieces of shot are recycled back into the holding area. The smaller/lighter spent shot
and substrate debris are lifted into the vacuum hose, then the dust collection system, and eventually
the waste drum.
Shot that escapes from under the shot blast unit or is not collected by the vacuuming unit is collected
by the operator using a magnetic broom or roller. This shot is then recycled into the shot blast unit. For
this demonstration, a total of 100 Ib of shot was used and at the end of the demonstration over 70 Ib of
shot was still considered to be reusable.
Decontamination of the centrifugal shot blast equipment includes removing filters from the dust
collection system and wiping or vacuuming the inside and outside of both the shot blast unit and the
dust collector. All locations of the dust collection system are easily accessible for decontamination;
however, a few locations within the shot blast unit could not easily be reached. Concrete Cleaning,
Inc., has discussed modifying the shot blast unit to make these areas more accessible.
The main waste stream from this operation is a powdery mixture of paint chips, concrete, and spent
shot. Secondary waste includes the roughing and HEPA filters in the dust collector, any shot used by
the shot blast unit that was not spent but that cannot be free released because of radiological
concerns, the 50-ft vacuum hose, PPE, and any material used during equipment decontamination
(e.g., damp rags, plastic matting, or brushes).
U. S. Department of Energy
48
-------
SECTIONS
Demonstration Plan
The demonstration of the centrifugal shot blast technology from Concrete Cleaning, Inc., was conducted
according to the approved test plan, CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project: Test Plan for the
Demonstration of Centrifugal Shot Blast Technology at CP-5 (Strategic Alliance for Environmental
Restoration, 1996). The objective of the demonstration was to remove the contaminated paint coating
from 800 ft2 of concrete flooring on the service floor of the ANL CP-5 Research Reactor facility. The
concrete is approximately 40 years old and is covered with multiple layers of paint. The paint has worn
through in many locations, exposing the subcoatings. Because the depth of the contamination in the
concrete floors at CP-5 was unknown, the decision to perform coating removal was based on the potential
future need to reuse the floor space where demonstrations were held. Coating removal technologies tend
to yield a smooth surface that can be easily repainted or covered, whereas concrete removal technologies
have the potential to leave an uneven, rough surface that could be difficult to reuse.
Radiological surveys for both fixed and removable radioactivity were conducted both before and
immediately after the demonstration. The purpose of these surveys was to determine the level of
decontamination achieved by the coating removal. The vendor was not required to remove additional
concrete from the demonstration area if the final radiological levels were still above acceptable levels.
During the demonstration, evaluators from FIU-HCET collected data in the form of visual and physical
measurements. Time studies were performed to determine the production rate of the technology and
implementation costs. The end-point condition left by the demonstration was compared with the
requirement of removing the coating and any subcoatings to produce a bare concrete floor. Additional field
measurements collected included secondary waste generation, potential personnel exposure, and ease of
equipment operation. The performance of the centrifugal shot blast technology was evaluated against that
of the baseline technology, mechanical scabbling.
Treatment Performances
Table 1 presents both the results of the Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast technology
demonstration and a comparison with the baseline technology.
Table 1. Performance data
Criteria
Applicable surface
Production rate (removal
rate only)
Amount and type of
primary waste generated
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal
shot blast technology
Coating removal from painted
concrete floor.
SlOfrVh
2.5 ft3 of a powdery mixture consisting
of paint, concrete, and spent shot
(contained by the dust collector as
generated). ;
Baseline mechanical
scabbling technology
1/4 in concrete removal from floor.
200 ft2/h
An estimated 24 ft3 of a mixture
of powdery and large pieces of
paint chips and concrete (this
requires manual cleanup; no
vacuum system is attached).
U. S. Department of Energy
49
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Criteria
Type of secondary waste
generated
Airborne radioactivity
generated by equipment
Noise level
Capability to access floor-wall
unions
Development status
Ease of use
End-point condition
Worker safety
Concrete Cleaning, Inc.,
centrifugal shot blast technology
1 . Roughing filters - three units
2. High-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filter - one unit
3. Vacuum hose - 50-ft section
4. Used steel shot - @ 100 Ib
All airborne radiological
measurements were at or below
background levels.
97 dBA in work area; hearing
protection is required.
No closer than 2 in.
Up to 5 in at corners and confined
spaces.
Modified blast unit available through
Concrete Cleaning, Inc.
Improvements to dust collector are
required for efficient use.
Training - Not applicable as
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., is a
service organization.
Shot blast unit is a self-propelled
floor model.
Paint coating is removed, leaving a
smooth, bare concrete surface.
Shot created projectile and slipping
hazards.
Tripping hazard caused by multiple
hoses.
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology
Tent-enclosure materials and
worn pistons/scabbling bits.
Since the baseline technology is
not connected to a vacuum
system, up to 10 percent of debris
generated can become airborne.
84 dBA (per vendor, not
measured).
No closer than 1 in.
Commercially available.
Compatible vacuum systems are
also available.
Training required = 2 h/person.
Walk behind, push-floor model.
Moderate-to-heavy vibrations can
cause operator fatigue.
Paint coating is removed, leaving
a rough, bare concrete surface.
Flying concrete poses a potential
eye hazard.
Radiological surveys of the demonstration area were performed before and after the demonstration. Table
2 lists the total fixed beta/gamma contamination results for the locations of elevated gross direct beta
readings.
Table 2. Radiological results
Location
1
2
3
Total p/y(dpm/100 cm2)
contamination,
pre-demonstration
4,300
5,300
5,300
Total p/y(dpm/100 cm2)
contamination,
post-demonstration
*
*
it
Results were at or below background levels of no greater than 1,500 dpm/100 cm2
U. S. Department of Energy
50
-------
The following difficulties were encountered during the demonstration.
During the operation of the shot blast unit, steel shot escapes from under the unit and can become a
projectile hazard. To reduce this hazard, a temporary 4-ft-tall herculite wall was erected around the
demonstration area, and all personnel except the equipment operator were restricted from this area
during equipment operation. Regardless, occasional shot ricocheted off objects in the area and struck
support personnel.
The steel shot left on the floor by the shot blast unit is to be collected by the equipment operator using
a magnetic roller attached to a broom handle. This shot is then to be recycled back into the shot blast
unit or collected for disposal. However, during this demonstration, the magnetic roller was not effective
in collecting the shot. At the end of the demonstration, the operator disconnected the flexible vacuum
hose from the shot blast unit and vacuumed the shot from the floor while on his hands and knees.
Several problems were encountered during the assembly and disassembly of the dust collection
system. Improvements to the modifications already made by Concrete Cleaning, Inc., and to the
HEPA filter unit of the dust collector are required to ensure safe and efficient assembly and
disassembly of the equipment.
U. S. Department of Energy
51
-------
SECTION 4
Technology Applicability
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast technology is a commercially available technology. The
primary application of this technology is hazardous coating and concrete removal from large floor areas.
During the January 28 - February 4,1997, technology demonstration at CP-5, the modified centrifugal
shot blast system was evaluated as an alternative to the mechanical scabbling technology for the removal
of coatings from large areas of concrete floor.
The main advantage the Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast technology offers over mechanical
scabbling is the simultaneous collection of dust and debris by a dust collection system that is connected to
the shot blast unit. The use of the dust collection vacuum system significantly reduces the amount of
airborne dust generated during the D&D process; thus, it has the potential to lead to a significant reduction
in respiratory protection and PPE requirements, especially in highly contaminated facilities. The shot blast
unit is also self-propelled, thereby significantly reducing operator fatigue. It can be adjusted to remove the
entire coating layer, specific layers of the coating, or the coating and up to Vz in of concrete.
The major shortcoming of the centrifugal shot blast technology was the modifications made by Concrete
Cleaning, Inc., to the dust collection system. The unit was modified to allow a HEPA filter to be added and
the unit was lifted to allow a 55-gal drum to be attached to the waste discharge. However, there were
problems with the modifications (e.g., the HEPA filter did not fit the holder, the legs on the dust collector
were hard to put on and remove). Additional improvements are required to make this unit safer and more
efficient to operate in a DOE facility.
Competing Technologies
In addition to centrifugal shot blast technologies, a number of other technologies are available to D&D
professionals for removing coatings from concrete floor surfaces.
Examples of competing technologies include:
mechanical scabbling (ANL baseline technology),
milling,
flashlamp,
carbon dioxide blasting,
grit blasting,
high pressure and ultra-high pressure water blasting,
sponge or soft-media blasting,
laser ablation,
wet ice blasting, and
various chemical-based coating removal technologies.
In the category of centrifugal shot blasting there are several competing technologies and vendors.
Data comparing the performance of the modified centrifugal shot blast technology to all of the competing
technologies listed above is not available.
U. S. Department of Energy
52
-------
Patents/Commerciafization/Sponsofj
This demonstration used an existing commercial technology. The centrifugal shot blast unit and dust
collection system demonstrated at CP-5 were purchased and modified by Concrete Cleaning, Inc.
Because this company is a service provider, it does not sell or rent the modified equipment. A patent for
the modifications to the shot blast unit is pending.
U. S. Department of Energy
53
-------
SECTION 5
introduction
This cost analysis compares the relative costs of the innovative centrifugal shot blast system and the
baseline mechanical scabbling technology and presents information which will assist D&D planners in
decisions about the use of the centrifugal shot blast technology in future D&D work. This analysis strives
to develop realistic estimates that represent actual D&D work within the U.S. DOE complex. However, this
is a limited representation of actual cost because the analysis only uses data observed during the
demonstration. Some of the observed costs will include refinements to make the estimates more realistic.
These adjustments are allowed only when they do not distort the fundamental elements of the observed
data (e.g., do not change the productivity rate, quantities, and work elements) and eliminate only those
activities that are atypical of normal D&D work. Descriptions contained in later portions of this analysis
detail the changes to the observed data. The CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project, Technical Data
Report for the Concrete Cleaning, Inc. Centrifugal Shot Blast Technology (Strategic Alliance for
Environmental Restoration, 1997) provides additional cost information.
Methodology
This cost analysis compares an innovative centrifugal shot blast technology used for the decontamination
of floors to a conventional baseline technology, mechanical scabbling. The centrifugal shot blast
technology demonstration took place at the CP-5 Reactor facility at ANL. The vendor provided personnel
and equipment for which timed and measured activities were recorded to determine achievable production
rates.
Data collected during the demonstration included the following:
activity duration;
work crew composition;
equipment used to perform the activity;
supplies used, including the replacement of machine parts and utilities; and
training courses required and attended (e.g., radiation worker and site orientation classes).
A concurrent demonstration of the mechanical scabbling technology was not held. Baseline information
was extracted from existing budget or planning documentation for CP-5, whereas the labor, equipment,
production rate specifications, and productivity loss factors (PLF) were provided by site personnel at ANL.
The following documents and sources were used as references on the baseline technology:
Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Full Decommissioning of the CP-5 Reactor Facility (Nuclear
Energy Services, Inc., 1992);
Activity cost estimate backup sheets, dated 5/15/96, for CP-5 decommissioning; and
Current information from D&D personnel at ANL.
Because the baseline costs are not based on observed data, additional effort has been exerted in setting
up the baseline cost analysis to ensure unbiased and appropriate production rates and crew costs..
Specifically, a team consisting of members of the Strategic Alliance (ICF Kaiser, an ANL D&D technical
specialist, and the test engineer for the demonstration) and USAGE reviewed the estimate assumptions to
ensure a fair comparison.
The selected basic activities analyzed are those recommended by the Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive
Waste Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure and Data Dictionary (HTRW RA WBS) (USAGE
U. S. Department of Energy
54
-------
1996). The HTRW RA WBS, developed by an interagency group, was used in this analysis to provide
consistency with the established national standards.
Some costs are omitted from this analysis to facilitate site-specific use in cost comparison. The ANL
indirect expense rates for common support and materials are omitted from this analysis. Overhead rates
for each DOE site vary in both magnitude arid application. Decision makers seeking site-specific costs can
apply their site's rates to this analysis without having to first retract ANL's rates. This omission does not
sacrifice the cost saving's accuracy because overhead applies to both the innovative and the baseline
technology costs. Engineering, quality assurance, administrative costs, and taxes on services and
materials are also omitted from this analysis for the same reasons indicated for the overhead rates.
The standard labor rates established by ANL for estimating D&D work are used in this analysis for the
portions of the work performed by local crafts. Additionally, the analysis uses an 8-h work day and a 5-day
week.
The hourly equipment rates representing the Government's ownership are based on general guidance
contained in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94, revised for cost
effectiveness analysis (OMB, 1992). The rate consists of ownership and operating costs. Operating costs
consist of items such as fuel, filters, oil, grease, other consumable items, repairs, maintenance, overhauls,
and calibrations. When the vendor does not provide an hourly rate, the equipment rates representing
vendor ownership include required maintenance costs and allow for depreciation and the facility capital
cost of money (FCCM) of 4.8 percent. These are computed in accordance with the Construction
Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedule (USAGE, 1995).
Summary of Cost Variable Conditions^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The DOE complex presents a wide range of D&D work conditions because of its variety of operations and
facilities. The work conditions for an individual job directly affect the manner in which D&D work is
performed; as a result, the costs for individual jobs are unique. The innovative and baseline technology
estimates presented in this analysis (Table 3) are based upon a specific set of conditions or work
practices found at CP-5. This table is intended to aid the technology user in the identification of work
differences that can result in cost differences.
Table 3. Summary of cost variable conditions
Cost variable
Centrifugal shot blast technology
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology
^f '!"", *' H ^'-' ,3 Z2 - - "- JSoppeofVirork^^ C*. , V-'^t' ~\t> f"'^- "--Ti"**
Quantity and
type of
material
Location
Nature of work
800 ft2. The multiple layers of paint were
of varying thickness and worn through in
many locations.
Service floor of CP-5 Research Reactor.
Reduce radiological levels on the floor
via paint removal.
800 ft2. Equivalent to the demo area
(approximately one-quarter of the baseline's
area scope of 2,542 ft2).
CP-5 Research Reactor area (estimated,
not observed).
Reduce radiological levels on floor via 1/4-in-
paint and concrete removal.
U. S. Department of Energy
55
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Cost variable
Centrifugal shot blast technology
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology
1 ; ; : '."";" !' 'Ti',' !;;, ,;,: r,'i ^ ;;^ '"_.;* --.,., -i'
Worker
protection
Level of
contamination
Requires PPE and respirators, possibly to
a lesser degree than the baseline.
Demonstration area was not a high
contamination area. Contamination that
was present was fixed.
Requires PPE, respirators, and
construction of a temporary containment
tent for airborne contaminants. The tent is
estimated to cover 133 percent (1 ,064 ft2)
of the area being decontaminated at
$2.87/ft2.
Concrete chips and airborne dust created
by the equipment.
1 , ป * Work f^rformance ^s "~ ",, f/l/ ~"> ' "
Acquisition
means
Scale of
production
Production
rates
Equipment
and crew
Primary waste
Secondary
waste and
consumables
Work process
steps
End condition
Vendor provided service.
Demonstrated in an open area with some
vertical edges. The centrifugal shot blast
(CSB) had a 13-in-cutting width and was a
self-propelled floor model.
One machine at 31 0 f^/h (observed).
One GOFFฎ 15E13 CSB with Concrete
Cleaning, Inc., modifications; a two-
person vendor crew, one operating the
machine and the other on standby; one
health physics technician (HPT)
supporting all activities.
2.5 ft3 mix of paint and concrete powder.
Filter hose, HEPA and roughing filters,
PPE, cleaning brushes, plastic matting for
the dust collector, and 100 Ib of shot.
Blast the surface with one machine and
collect debris and spent shot in the dust
collector system connected to the shot
blast unit.
Paint coating is removed, leaving a
smooth, bare concrete surface.
Local craft workers with rented equipment.
Based on a large, unconfined area and a
crew of three, one operating the machine
and two supporting. The scabbier is a
large floor model with an 11 -in-cutting
width.
One scabbier at 200 ft2/h (based on
experience).
One Trelawny Scale Force-1 1 scabbier
and two decontamination technicians, one
HPT supporting all activities.
24.0 ft3 of paint and concrete rubble
(based on historical experience).
Worn scabbling bits, swipes, PPE, and the
dismantled containment tent.
Scabble the surface area, leaving debris
and airborne contaminants. Sample
rubble, and manually cleanup and load
into containers.
V4-'m mix of paint coating and concrete is
removed, leaving a rough, bare concrete
surface.
Potential Savings and Cost Conclusions
For the conditions and assumptions presented in Appendix B, the baseline mechanical scabbling
technology results in savings of approximately 75 percent over the innovative centrifugal shot blast
technology alternative for this demonstration area of 800 ft2. Even though the baseline is less expensive
for the scope and conditions of this demonstration, the centrifugal shot blast's lower incremental costs
should result in savings for areas larger than approximately 1,900 ft2. Figure 4 presents a comparison of
the costs of mobilization, decontamination, demobilization, and waste disposal for the centrifugal shot
blast and the baseline. As Figure 4 shows, the centrifugal shot blast has higher costs in the mobilization,
decontamination, and demobilization cost categories. Waste disposal is the only cost category in which
U. S. Department of Energy
56
-------
the centrifugal shot blast is less expensive than the baseline. This is due to the fact that centrifugal shot
blast removes only floor coatings versus the 14-in coating and concrete removal performed by the
baseline. . . . ;
25000
D Centrifugal Shot Blast
Baseline - Scabbling
Figure 4. Technology cost comparison.
Although the baseline is less expensive than the centrifugal shot blast for the conditions of the
demonstration, it should be recognized that the mobilization and demobilization costs for the centrifugal
shot blast have an invariable relationship to its operating costs. In other words, the costs of the transport
of the equipment and personnel for the centrifugal shot blast demonstration are a much larger percentage
of the overall costs for the centrifugal shot blast than they would have been had the area being
decontaminated been much larger. In contrast, the construction and dismantling of the containment tent
for the baseline technology's mobilization and demobilization most likely have costs that increase in
proportion with the size of the decontamination area.
Even though the centrifugal shot blast has higher decontamination costs for the 800, ft2 demonstration
area, this technology has a higher productivity rate, 310 ft*/h versus 200 ffVh for the scabbier. The higher
decontamination costs are a result of the relatively high level of initial consumables (e.g., 50-ft filter hose)
required by the centrifugal shot blast. This level of consumables remains relatively constant, except for the
minor cost of shot replacement, regardless of job size. In addition, the maintenance cost for high-wear-
parts during heavy coating and/or concrete removal for the centrifugal shot blast is SO.OS/ft2 versus
$0.227^ for the baseline. Although maintenance, costs did not prove to be a significant cost factor for the
800-ft2 demonstration (~$24 and ~$176, respectively), it may be a significant factor for larger areas. To
summarize these cost factors, the centrifugal shot blast has lower incremental costs for each additional
square foot of decontamination.
Based on the cost relationships described above, the cost for the centrifugal shot blast is equal to the cost
for the baseline technology at approximately 1,900 ft2 for the conditions and assumptions of the"
demonstration. For areas beyond this square footage, the centrifugal shot blast technology is less
expensive than the baseline.
It is important to note that the scabbier is estimated to render a removal depth of % in of coating and
concrete, whereas the centrifugal shot blast removes only the coating. Therefore, the volume of waste to
be disposed and the resulting costs are estimated to be much higher for the scabbier. In addition, because
ANL^ssumes it will dispose of the scabbier at the end of its project, the resulting hourly rate is higher due
U. S. Department of Energy
57
-------
to the abbreviated life-span and the absence of salvage value. Adjusting the hourly rate downward to
reflect a full life-span does not significantly impact the costs or findings noted herein.
if a site is considering that a vendor provide either centrifugal shot blast or mechanical scabbling service,
the costs for vendor travel, per diem, profit, and site-specific training must be considered as they were in
this estimate. Concrete Cleaning, Inc., provided cost estimates for conditions similar to this demonstration.
For areas of 5,000 ft2 at $77^ and $14/fr (coating only and % in removal, respectively) and 40,000 ft2 at
$5^ and $127^ (coating only and 14 in removal, respectively), the resulting total costs for 5,000 ft2 are
$35,000 and $70,000, respectively, and for 40,000 ft are $200,000 and $480,000, respectively. Concrete
Cleaning, Inc., provides centrifugal shot blast decontamination as a service only; no equipment rentals are
allowed.
Mechanical scabbling equipment is available in a range of sizes offering different production rates (40 ft2/h
to over 495 ft2/h). The centrifugal shot blast is offered in two sizes with production rates ranging from 250
ft2/)! for heavy removal to 3,000 ft2/!! for lightly coated surfaces. It should be noted that the smaller
centrifugal shot blast can access within about 2 in from a wall, whereas the larger model accesses within
about 10 in. The demonstration compares the smaller centrifugal shot blast with a larger scabbier. A
potential user should investigate the appropriate equipment size for the job and assess any potential for
savings on this basis.
A computation of the potential savings for D&D work should be estimated by substituting the expected
quantities, mobilization distance, and other site-specific factors into Appendix B, Tables B-1 and/or B-2, so
that a site-specific cost can be computed.
In conclusion, even though the baseline is less expensive for the conditions and assumptions of the 800-
ft2 demonstration, the centrifugal shot blast's lower incremental costs should result in savings for areas
larger than approximately 1,900 ft2.
U. S. Department of Energy
58
-------
SECTION 6
Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory and permitting regulations related to use of the Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot
blast technology at the ANL CP-5 Research Reactor consist of the following. These same regulations
apply to the baseline mechanical scabbling technology.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1926
1926.300 to 1926.307
1926.400 to 1926.449
1926.28
1926.52
1926.102
1926.103
QSHA29CFR1910
1910.101 to 1910.120 (App E)
1910.211 to 1910.219
1910.241 to 1910.244
1910.301 to 1910.399
1910.95
1910.132
1910.133
1910.134
1910.147
10 CFR 835
Tools - Hand and Power
Electrical - Definitions
Personal Protective Equipment
Occupational Noise Exposure
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
Hazardous Materials
Machinery and Machine Guarding
Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held
Equipment
Electrical - Definitions
Occupational Noise Exposure
General Requirements (Personal Protective Equipment)
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)
Occupational Radiation Protection
Disposal requirements/criteria include the following issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) and DOE:
49 CFR Subchapter C
171
172
173
174
Hazardous Materials Regulations
General Information, Regulations, and Definitions
Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous
Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information,
and Training Requirements
Shippers - General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging
Carriage by Rail
U. S. Department of Energy
59
-------
177
178
10CFR71
Carriage by Public Highway
Specifications for Packaging
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material
If the waste is determined to be hazardous solid waste, the following Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requirements should be considered:
40 CFR Subchapter I Solid Waste
Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) from the disposal facilities used by ANL include:
Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria: WHC-EP-0063-4,
Bamwell Waste Management Facility Site Disposal Criteria: S20-AD-010, and
Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: DOE/WIPP-069.
Waste form requirements/criteria specified in these WACs may require the stabilization or immobilization
of final waste streams because of their powdery consistency. This requirement would be valid for any
aggressive coating/concrete removal technology.
Since the modified centrifugal shot blast technology is designed for the decontamination of structures,
there is no regulatory requirement to apply CERCLA's nine evaluation criteria. However, some evaluation
criteria required by CERCLA, such as protection of human health and community acceptance, are briefly
discussed below. Other criteria, such as cost and effectiveness, were discussed earlier in the document.
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
With respect to safety issues, when the shot blast unit is in operation, the shot moving at a high velocity
can escape from under the unit and become a projectile hazard. To protect observers during the
demonstration, a temporary 4-ft containment wall was erected. However, a few pieces of shot ricocheted
off walls and struck observers outside the containment area.
The contaminated waste debris generated during the coating removal process are simultaneously
vacuumed up by the dust collection system, thereby efficiently reducing the risk to the operator posed by
flying paint, concrete chips, or airborne radioactive dust. During the demonstration, no increase in airborne
radioactivity levels above background levels was detected. This could lead to an easing of respiratory
protection requirements, thus allowing for greater worker efficiency and time savings. In contrast,
mechanical scabbling does not incorporate a vacuum system, and up to 10 percent of the debris can
become airborne during the D&D process.
The use of the centrifugal shot blast technology rather than mechanical scabbling would have no
measurable impact on community safety or socioeconomic issues.
U. S. Department of Energy
60
-------
SECTION 7
Implementation Considerations
The Concrete Cleaning, Inc., system demonstrated at CP-5 is a commercially available technology.
Design improvements in the HEPA filter unit and the modifications made by Concrete Cleaning, Inc., to
the dust collection system should be incorporated into the system prior to implementation.
Technology Limitations and Needs for Future Development
The Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast technology would benefit from the following design
improvements.
A second vacuum connection should be placed at the rear of the shot blast unit to vacuum shot that is
missed by the main part of the unit during the decontamination.
A stronger magnetic roller or a portable vacuum system should be employed to collect steel shot that
is left on the floor by the shot blast unit. This could significantly reduce the amount of time required for
cleanup after the shot blast unit is used, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the technology.
A means should be found to reduce the amount of shot that escapes from under the shot blast unit
during operation. This would make the technology safer to use during the D&D process.
Technology Selection Considerations
The Concrete Cleaning, Inc., centrifugal shot blast unit and dust collection system is a modified shot blast
technology for the removal of coatings and concrete from concrete floors. Concrete Cleaning, Inc.,
provides its equipment as part of a service and does not rent or sell the modified shot blast unit. The
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., system has been used at the U.S. Department of Defense's Fairchild Air Force
Base. The unit used at CP-5 demonstrated its ability to remove coatings from concrete floors effectively.
However, the vendor stated that this size unit is also capable of removing up to one-half inch of concrete.
A larger-sized unit is available for the removal of 1 in or more of concrete from large flat areas.
U. S. Department of Energy
61
-------
APPENDIX A
Argonne National Laboratory. CP-5 Cost Estimate, rev.1, Argonne, IL 1996.
Argonne National Laboratory. Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Placing the CP-5 Reactor Facility into
Safe Storage, Argonne, IL. 1992.
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Barnwell Waste Management Facility Site Disposal Criteria Chem-Nuctear
Systems, Inc., Barnwell Office, S20-AD-010, rev. 11, South Carolina. 1995.
Dataquest. Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment, Vol. 1, p. 3-1, Machinery Information
Division of K-111 Directory Corporation, San Jose, CA. 1997.
Rscher, George. Blast Cleaning Equipment, Bulletin, Seminole, OK. 1997.
Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology. Analysis of Potential Concrete Floor
Decontamination Technologies, prepared for Fluor Daniel Fernald, Miami. 1997.
Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Full Decommissioning of the CP-5
Reactor Facility, prepared for Argonne National Laboratory. 1992.
Office of Management and Budget. Cost Effectiveness Analysis, No. A-94 Circular rev., Washington,
D.C.
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration. CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project, Test Plan for
the Demonstration of Centrifugal Shot Blast Technology at CP-5, Hemispheric Center for
Environmental Technology, Miami. 1996.
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration. CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project, Technical
Data Report for the Concrete Cleaning, Inc. Centrifugal Shot Blast Technology, Hemispheric
Center for Environmental Technology, Miami. 1997.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Construction Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense
Schedule, EP-1110-1-B, Headquarters USAGE, Washington, D.C. 1995.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Action Work
Breakdown Structure and Data Dictionary, Headquarters USAGE, Washington, D.C. 1996.
United States Department of Energy. Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria, WHC-EP-0063-4,
page change numbers, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Washington. 1993.
United States Department of Energy. Decommissioning Handbook, DOE/EM-0142P, Office of
Environmental Restoration, Oak Ridge, TN. 1994.
United States Department of Energy. Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
DOE/WIPP-069, rev, 5, U.S. Department of Energy. 1996.
U. S. Department of Energy
62
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY!COST COMPARISON
This appendix contains definitions of cost elements, descriptions of assumptions, and computations of
unit costs that are used in the cost analysis.
INNOVATIVE TECHNO LOGYCentrifugal Shot Blast
Mobilization (WBS 331.01 ) = . ^^^=
Transport Equipment
Definition: The vendor crew, consisting of two decontamination (decon) technicians, drives the
equipment via flatbed truck from Spokane, WA, to Chicago, IL (1,785 mi). Shipping weight is
approximately 2,000 Ib.
Assumption: According to the vendor, the crew will receive pay at one-half their normal rate while
transporting the equipment. It is assumed the crew will average 50 mph at 10 h/day maximum, resulting
in a 3.6-day' s drive time. The Chicago per diem of $110/day is assumed and incorporated into the labor
rate, and equipment costs consist of rental and operating costs for a flatbed truck.
Site Training
Definition: This cost element covers the time vendor personnel spend in site-specific required training
classes prior to commencing work.
Assumption: The vendor crew has had all the necessary hazardous worker training before arriving on-
site. Therefore, only one day of site training is assumed to be required.
Unload the Equipment
Definition: Unloading the centrifugal shot blast equipment includes the time required for the vendor crew
to off-load the equipment from the truck using a forklift provided by the site, move the equipment to a
staging area, and unpack it for radiological survey.
Assumption: One-third of an hour is required to unload and unpack the equipment. This is based on
observed times from the demonstration.
Survey-in the Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for the vendor crew's wait-time while radiological surveys of
equipment are conducted by a HPT to ensure that contaminated equipment is not brought on-site.
Assumption: One-third of an hour is required for the survey based on the time observed during the
demonstration.
Health Physics Support
Definition: Cost for one HPT during all mobilization activities (includes both standby and survey time).
Assumption: HPT is present at all times.
U.S. Department of Energy
63
-------
Decontamination of Floor (WBS 331.17)
Survey of the Area for Radioactivity
Note: This cost element covers the radiological surveying performed to characterize the workplace which
will facilitate the elaboration of a work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable. There is no cost effect for this estimate. This activity is assumed to have
been completed prior to decontaminating the areas assigned.
Move Equipment to the Work Area
Definition: The vendor crew moves the equipment by hand from the staging area to the demonstration
area.
Assumption: Based upon observed times during the demonstration, a two-person vendor crew took 45
min to move all equipment 120 to 150 ft.
Prepare the Site and Equipment
Definition: This cost element includes time for the vendor crew to prepare the equipment for operation
upon arrival at the demonstration area. This includes removing wheels from the dust collector, replacing
the wheels with steel tube support legs, duct taping the metal joints of the centrifugal shot blast, and
connecting power lines.
Assumption: Set-up takes 6.0 h based upon observed times during the demonstration.
Remove the Floor Coatings
Definition: This cost element consists of the two-person vendor crew blasting off the concrete floor
coatings. One person operates the centrifugal shot blast while the other is on standby.
Assumption: Centrifugal shot blast will remove 800 ft2 of coatings in 2.58 h at 310 ft2/h.
Clean the Floor of Shot
Definition: This cost element consists of the vendor crew's using a magnetic roller broom or vacuum
hose to pick up all remaining shot debris.
Assumption: It took 1.5 h to clean 800 ft2 resulting in a productivity rate of 533.33 ft2/h. The centrifugal
shot blast had an observed shot waste rate of 30 Ib/800 ft2 during the demonstration. This is either broken
and/or errant shot which the centrifugal shot blast could not recycle. Approximately 70 Ib of the 100-lb-
capacity of shot remained in the machine after coating removal.
Remove the Waste Drum
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time it takes the crew to remove the waste drum from the
dust collector.
Assumption: During the demonstration of this technology, only 2.5 ft3 of primary waste was generated. To
match the baseline, secondary waste is not included. This consisted of six "4-ft bags" of filters, the filter
hose, spent shot, discarded PPE, and swipes. This cost is covered in the all-in-one rate/ft3.
U.S. Department of Energy
64
-------
Table B.1. Personal Protective Equipment Cost Per Day Calculation
Equipment
Respirator
Respirator Cartridges
Booties
Tyvek
Gloves (inner)
Gloves (outer pair)
Gloves (cotton liner)
Quantity
in box
200
25
12
100
Cost
per
box
50.00
85.00
2.00
14.15
Cost
each
1,933
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
7.45
0.14
No. of
reuses
200
1
1
1
1
10
1
Cost
each
time
10
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
0.75
0.14
No. used
per day
1
2
4
4
8
1
8
Cost per
day
10.00
18.50
1.00
13.60
1.36
0.75
1.12
Total 46.33
The PPE costs are taken predominantly from the ANL activity cost estimates for 1996 (the costs for outer
gloves, glove liners, and respirator cartridges are from commercial catalogs).
Assumption: The vendor crew and HPT require PPE during all decontamination, equipment cleaning,
and breakdown activities.
Health Physics Support
Definition: Cost for one HPT during all mobilization activities (includes both standby and survey time).
Assumption: HPT is present at all times.
Health and Safety Productivity Loss Factor
Definition: A factor applied to productive hours to compensate for radiation/as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA), dressing in and undressing from protective clothing, and for breaks. This factor is
based on the vendor crew time in Table B-2 for decontamination and demobilization activities requiring
PPE.
Assumption: A productivity factor of 1.49 from the CP-5 Cost Estimate (Argonne National Laboratory,
1996).
Demobilization (WBS 331.21 )
Clean/Decontaminate/Breakdown the Equipment
Definition: Time the vendor crew requires to clean, decontaminate, and breakdown the equipment. This
cost element includes time for the removal of the steel tube support legs from the dust collector and their
replacement with wheels. This also includes the removal of duct taping metal from the metal joints of the
centrifugal shot blast, disconnecting the power lines, removal of the HEPA and roughing filters,
demonstration site surveys by the HPT, and all other site and equipment breakdown activities.
Assumption: 6.9 h to clean, decontaminate, and breakdown the equipment based on observed times
from the demonstration.
Survey and Return the Equipment to Staging Area
Definition: This cost element provides for crew wait-time while the equipment is being surveyed, time for
any remaining decontamination, and the return of the equipment approximately 120 to 150 ft to the
staging area.
Assumption: 45 min is required. Longer distances may require more time.
U.S. Department of Energy
65
-------
Load the Equipment onto the Truck
Definition: Time required for the vendor crew to load the centrifugal shot blast equipment onto the truck
using a site-provided forklift.
Assumption: 1.2 h is required for packing and loading the equipment. This is based on observed times
from the demonstration.
Health Physics Support
Definition: An HPT is present for all activities except for equipment transportation.
Assumption: The HPT is present during all activities except for transporting equipment.
PPE Cost Per Day Calculation
See Table B-1.
Assumption: Both the vendor crew and the HPT require PPE during all decontamination, equipment
cleaning, and equipment breakdown activities.
Health and Safety Productivity Loss Factor
Definition: A factor applied to productive hours to compensate for Radiation/ALARA, donning and doffing
protective clothing, and for breaks. This factor is based on the vendor crew time presented in Table B-2
for decontamination and demobilization activities requiring PPE.
Assumption: A productivity factor of 1.49 from the CP-5 Cost Estimate (Argonne National Laboratory,
1996).
Transport Equipment
Definition: Reverse of Transport Equipment" under "Mobilization" above.
Assumption: Same as 'Transport Equipment" under "Mobilization" above.
WASTE DISPOSAL (WBS 331.18 )
Transport to Disposal Site
Definition: This cost element is for the charges for the volume of waste being shipped.
Assumption: Not applicable as such, but covered in the all-in-one shipping, packaging, and disposal
rate/ft3.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fees charged by the commercial facility for dumping the
waste at their site.
Assumption: All-in-one shipping, packaging, and disposal rate of $52.78/ft3.
COST ANALYSIS
The centrifugal shot blast vendor that supplied the equipment used for this demonstration was Concrete
Cleaning, Inc. This vendor offers the centrifugal shot blast technology as a provided service only with no
rentals. Concrete Cleaning, Inc., has made internal changes to the blast mechanism, shot and dust
separation system, and to the dust collection system. The vendor claims these changes increase the
productivity of the centrifugal shot blast and that their changes to the dust collection system reduce the
potential for airborne contaminants. Centrifugal shot blast technology is also available from the
manufacturer as a rental; however, these machines do not have the Concrete Cleaning, Inc.,
U.S. Department of Energy
66
-------
modifications. The manufacturer quoted centrifugal shot blast rental rates of $795/day, $1,795/week, and
$5,595/month, not including consumables.
The typical cost activities for performing work using the centrifugal shot blast technology consist of the
following:
mobilizing and demobilizing personnel and equipment to and from ANL;
unloading and moving equipment to the staging area;
preparing site and equipment;
removing the floor coating;
decontaminating and cleaning the reusable equipment;
replacing centrifugal shot blast consumables, including PPE and high-wear parts;
collecting all waste resulting from operation;
handling waste drums containing the coating and concrete powder;
full-time HPT support; and
waste disposal charges.
The following assumptions were made regarding the centrifugal shot blast cost analysis:
The decontamination is performed by a vendor-provided service.
The centrifugal shot blast model used for this demonstration is the GOFFฎ 15E13 with a Model 816
Cartridge Dust Collector with modifications made by Concrete Cleaning, Inc., to the internal blast
mechanism, shot and dust separation system, and the dust collection system.
The centrifugal shot blast removed 800 ft2 of coating in only 2.58 h, resulting in a production rate of
310ft2/h.
The vendor crew consists of two Concrete Cleaning, Inc., employees who have already attended
hazardous worker training.
One HPT is present during all demonstration activities.
Oversight engineering, quality assurance, and administrative costs for the demonstration are not
included. These are normally covered by another cost element, generally as an undistributed cost.
The centrifugal shot blast technology, with its integrally designed vacuum system, eliminates the
need for erecting the containment barriers required for airborne contamination.
Equipment part wear was estimated by the vendor to be SO.OS/ft2. According to the centrifugal shot
blast manufacturer, normal part wear ranges between $0.02/ft2for light removal (thin coatings) to
$0.05/ft2for heavy removal (1/4-in depth or more of coating and concrete).
Costs for the construction of a temporary herculite wall and video setup are excluded because it is
assumed that the operation of the centrifugal shot blast would not normally be videotaped and
access to the work area is limited to those wearing PPE.
Time spent (6 h) locating a replacement HEPA filter because of a centrifugal shot blast manufacturer
error is excluded.
The centrifugal shot blast has a 100-lb shot capacity, all of which is used during operation. The shot
is continuously recycled by the machine's dust and shot separation system until it eventually
becomes pulverized to the point it becomes waste. The observed shot waste rate is estimated at 30
lb/800 ft2 or 0.0375 lb/ft2. Thus, assuming the shot is purchased commercially at $0.50/lb, the net
cost for shot waste is about $0.02/ft2. Approximately 70 Ibs of recyclable shot was assumed waste for
this cost analysis.
The ANL procurement rate of 9.3 percent is applied to all vendor costs.
U.S. Department of Energy
67
-------
A productivity loss factor of 1.49 is applied to the centrifugal shot blast demonstration activities. The
calculation of the following productivity factor is obtained from Table 3 in the CP-5 Cost Estimate
(Argonne National Laboratory, 1996).
Base 1.00
+ Height
+ Radiation/ALARA
+ Protective clothing 0.15
- Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
~ Subtotal
x Breaks
0.00
0.20
1.35
1.00 (no factor required, included in the observed times)
1.35
Total
1.49
Depending on site conditions, additional health and safety (H&S) requirements could be imposed beyond
the regulatory minimums, which require a tent-like structure even when using the centrifugal shot blast
technology.
The activities, quantities, production rates, and costs observed during the demonstration are shown in
Table B-2.
U.S. Department of Energy
68
-------
Table B-2. Centrifugal shot blast cost summary
Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS)
Unit Cost (UC)
Labor
Hours Rate
Equipment
Hours Rate
Other
Rate
Total
UC
Total
Quantity
(TQ)
Unit
of
Measure
Total
Cost
(TC)(1)
Comments
Transport equipment (equip)
Site-specific training
Unbad equip at site
Survey in equip
Health Physics Technician
EJECtJNTMN/TOOf'llfEte^n
Move equip to work area
Site and equip preparation
Remove floor coatings
Clean floor of shot
Consumables
Remove waste drum
10.0 $ 63.6
8.0 $216.4
0.3 $216.4
0.3 $216.4
0.7 $ 56.0
f$fSง^t0f47K?S
0.8 $216.4
6.0 $216.4
0.003 $216.4
0.002 $216.4
0.5 $216.4
Personal protection equip (PPE)
HPT support
Productivity loss factor (PLF)
16.9 $ 56.0
1.0 $216.4
10.0 $52.1
8.0 $31.9
0.3 $31.9
0.3 $ 31.9
0.8 $31.9
6.0 $31.9
0.003 $31.9
0.002 $31.9
0.5 $ 31.9
1.0 $31.9
$ 13.2
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 1,159
$ 139.0
Clean/decon/breakdown
Survey out/return equip
Load equipment onto truck
HPT support
PPE
Productivity loss factor (PLF)
Transport equipment
wii^f^rt^c>sjsS8!ฎSฎi
Shipping and disposal fees
6.9 $216.4
0.8 $216.4
1.2 $216.4
13.2 $ 56.0
4.3 $216.4
10.0 $ 63.6
6.9 $31.9
0.8 $31.9
1.2 $31.9
4.3 $31.9
10.0 $ 52.1
$ 13.2
$ 139.0
$
&-*9^
$ 52.8
$ 1,156
$ 1,987
$ 82
$ 82
$ 50
$ 186
$ 1,490
$ 0.83
$ 0.49
$ 1,159
$ 124
$ 139
$ 946
$ 248
$ 1,721
$ 199
$ 290
$ 738
$ 139
$ 1,077
$ 1,156
3.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
afit.f .
1.0
1.0
800
800
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.6
Days
Day
Each
Each
Each
fSubtotils
Each
Each
ff
ft2
Lump sum
(LS)
Drum
Days
LS
Hours
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.6
$ 53
26.5
LS
LS
LS
LS
Davs
LS
Days
ft3
$ 4,129
$ 1,987
$ 82
$ 82
$ 50
$ 186
$ 1,490
$ 668
$ 389
$ 1,159
$ 124
$ 139
$ 946
$ 1,379
10 h/day drive, vendor crew from Spokane-
Chicago, truck costs, labor = 1/2 normal rate
Site required training for vendor crew of two
Vendor crew - 2 @ $99.01/h/each
Vendor crew wait-time for surveys
One HPT full-time
; K^^^^^^^^M.'^^9^'^
Vendor crew labor rate includes per diem costs
Vendor crew - 2 @ $99.01/h/each
Production rate = 310 ff/h; equipment = 2 weeks
@ $1,795 each + spare parts @ $738, includes
cleaning f bor of spent shot; other = part
replacement rate @ $0.03/flz
Crew vacuumed shot @ 533.33 ffVh; other =
shot replaced @ 0.0375 Ib/fr2 * $0.50/lb
50 ft hose ($350); roughing/high-efficiency
parfculate air (HEPA) filters ($670), brushes
($5); and 70 ib extra shot ($35)
Remove waste drum from dust collector
PPE for crew & HPT @ $46.33/day/person
HPT to perform surveys, time includes PLF
Applied PLF of 1.49
$ 1.721
$ 199
$ 290
$ 738
$ 278
$ 1,077
$ 4,129
Clean/decon/breakdown equip for shipment
Equip moved -135 ft while HPT performed final
surveys; other = survey waste
Vendor crew - 2 @ $99.01/h/each
HPT to perform surveys; time includes PLF
PPE for crew and HPT @ $46.33/dav/person
Applied PLF of 1.49
Reverse of transport equipment for mobilization
'fA
$ 1,399
Low-level waste (LLW) disposal (1st and 2nd
generation waste)
(1)TC = UC*TQ
Total: $ 22,640
U.S. Department of Energy
69
-------
Baseline TechnologyMechanical Scabbling
Mobilization (WBS 331.01 )
Construct Contaminant Tent
Definition: This cost element provides for the supply and construction of a temporary structure to contain
airborne contaminants in the area being decontaminated. It includes decon workers, HPT coverage, and
the building materials. Dismantling of the contaminant test is described in the demobilization account.
Assumption: The conceptual scope definition is per ANL personnel. A temporary enclosure for airborne
contamination is erected using Unistrut material ($2.00/lin ft plus $1.00/lin ft for fittings and connections)
as studs, beams, and bracing for walls and ceiling and'Visqueen ($.01/ft2) as the enclosing membrane.
Labor consists of three decon workers ($33.60/h) for 3 h to erect the tent, requiring no PLF or PPE. This
activity is to be completed prior to mobilizing for the decon activities described below.
Load the Equipment at the Warehouse
Definition: This cost element provides for transportation of the site-owned decontamination equipment
from its storage area to a staging area near the facility being decontaminated. Therefore, this cost
includes a truck and forklift and their operators, the decon workers' loading and hauling the construction
equipment, and the hourly charges for transporting the equipment.
Assumption: Distance to a site warehouse varies, but is less than 2 mi. The flatbed truck and pneumatic
forklift are rentals using rates from the Rental Rate Blue Book For Construction Equipment (Dataquest,
1997). Loading takes 2 h; driving,, 0.5 h, and returning to the equipment pool, 0.25 h.
Unload the Equipment
Definition: Unloading delivered equipment includes time required for the decon crew to off-load the
equipment from the truck using a forklift, move the equipment to a staging area, and unpack it for
radiological survey. This activity is combined with the survey activity described below.
Assumption: A 2-h period is assumed for unloading/unpacking the equipment. Procurement's effort
regarding the receipt of purchased equipment and the completion of paperwork is excluded. A forklift
operator is included in the crew rate, and the forklift rental rate is $11.65/h, taken from the Rental Rate
Blue Book For Construction Equipment (Dataquest, 1997).
Survey the Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for a radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment is not brought on-site. Costs include crew stand-by time plus HPT labor.
This activity is combined and concurrent with the unloading activity described above.
Assumption: Equipment survey is required.
Training
Definition: This cost element captures the cost of site and health and safety-related training required for
subcontractor personnel or other unqualified personnel.
Assumption: Not applicable. Personnel on-site are already trained.
U.S. Department of Energy
70
-------
Decontamination (WBS 331.17),
Perform the Radiological Survey
Note: This cost element covers the performance of radiological surveying which will characterize the
workplace to facilitate the elaboration of a work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable. There is no cost effect for this analysis. This activity is assumed completed
prior to decontaminating the area.
Move and Set Up the Equipment
Definition: This cost element includes the required time to lay out the equipment and hoses in
preparation for the day's work. With the air supply compressor outside the facility, air hoses are strung
through doors, penetrations, and cable hangers to the work area. The scabblers, hand tools, air
manifolds, waste containers, and other incidental consumables are taken to the work area from the
staging area. Setup excludes the erection costs of a temporary containment tent. This cost is covered in
the mobilization activity.
Assumption: The CP-5 Cost Estimate (Argonne National Laboratory, 1996) sheets included scaffolding
because the scope also involved walls. As this analysis scope is for the floor only, the 4 h specified in the
baseline for both activities were reduced to 2 h, eliminating the 2 h of time assumed to be for scaffolding.
Remove Floor Surface Concrete
Definition: This cost element consists of the following.
Scabbling the floor concrete by making one pass removing 14 in, including replacing consumable
scabbier bits that wear with use.
The activity consists of one decon worker scabbling with a machine, one decon worker as support,
and one HPT as the radiation monitor and/or escort.
The HPT takes readings of the area and/or the rubble during removal at full-time participation along
with the decon personnel.
Manual cleanup and packaging of the concrete rubble into containers (transportation to the disposal
collection area is excluded).
The production rate varies depending upon the thickness of the concrete that must be removed to
obtain acceptable radiation readings.
Cost of mechanical scabbling equipment and consumable bits.
Cost of PPE (see Table B-1).
Any lost time from production. This involves daily safety meetings, daily work planning reviews,
donning and doffing PPE, heat or temperature stress, work breaks, etc., which are accounted for
through a PLF.
Assumptions:
The quantity scope for the baseline is the same as that for the demonstration, 800 ft2, for comparison
equality.
One crew of two decon workers and one HPT is required. These three people handle the scabbling,
sampling, cleanup, and containerizing as a team, for which the estimate is separated into two sub-
elements of cost by craft.
U.S. Department of Energy
71
-------
One mechanical scabbling machine is used.
Baseline technology produces primary waste that is manually vacuumed up, radiologically
monitored, and packaged. It amounts to 24.0 ft3.
The decon crew workers are qualified to change worn bits. Standby time is necessitated by this
activity.
Production rate in this analysis is 200 ft2/!! for one machine (Trelawny Model SF-11), one person
scabbling (67 ft2/work hour as a net effective rate for a three-person crew). The scabbier is priced at
an ownership hourly rate of $9.95/h.
A safety meeting occurs and is accounted for in the baseline PLF.
Health and Safety
Definition: A factor applied to productive hours to compensate for safety meetings, donning and doffing
PPE, etc.
Assumption: The factor used, 2.05, and the PPE costs are predominantly calculated from the CP-5 Cost
Estimate (Argonne National Laboratory, 1996) (the costs for outer gloves, glove liners, and respirator
cartridges are priced from commercial catalogs.)
Note: The cost per day per person calculation for PPE is the same as that shown in the Innovative
Technology section.
Demobilization (WBS 331.21 )
Remove Temporary Facilities (Airborne Contaminant Enclosure)
Definition: This cost element provides for the dismantling of a temporary structure used to contain
airborne radioactivity during decon activities. It includes the cost of decon workers and HPT coverage. It
also includes gathering and containerizing the waste building materials. PPE and a PLF are included.
Assumption: Labor required is three persons for three hours, per ANL personnel, to dismantle and load
the waste.
Survey and Decontaminate the Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for the radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to
ensure that contaminated equipment does not leave the site or work area or to ready it for the next use.
This element also covers the costs to decontaminate it. Costs include HPT labor plus decon crew stand-
by or assistance time, including the use of PPE and experiencing a PLF.
Assumption: Survey and decontamination require 2 h based on an allocation from the 4 h in the original
baseline.
Pack Up and Load the Equipment
Definition: This cost element covers the time and equipment required for the crew to pack up and load
the rental and owned equipment in a truck for return.
Assumptions: The time required to pack and load is 2 h using a forklift for the total duration.
Personnel and Equipment Transport
Definition: The account covers the cost of transporting the equipment back to the point of origin.
Assumption: The estimate assumes local crew members incur no personnel transportation costs. The
transport of the equipment is the same as that specified in the mobilization account, except in reverse.
U.S. Department of Energy
72
-------
Waste Disposal (WBS 331.18)
Waste Collection
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time and equipment required to pick up containers and
assemble them in a designated area. It does not cover the time and equipment required to package the
primary waste generated by the decon activity into containers.
Assumptions: Baseline waste generated is calculated at 0.03 ft3/ft2as taken from the CP-5 Cost Estimate
(Argonne National Laboratory, 1996) sheets, which amounts to 19.5 ft3 including a 70 percent efficiency
factor. The secondary waste consists of several bags of expended scabbling bits, used PPE, and swipes.
This is not applicable as such, but it is covered in the all-in-one rate per cubic foot described below.
Transport to the Disposal Site
Definition: This cost element provides for the charges for the volume of waste that is shipped to a
commercial off-site facility.
Assumption: This is not applicable as such, but is covered in the all-in-one disposal fee rate/ft3 described
below.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fee charged by the commercial facility for dumping the
waste at their site.
Assumption: This cost is represented as an all-in-one disposal fee rate/ft3 from the same 1996 estimate
and covers all three waste disposal activities.
Cost Analysis
The cost of performing the work consists of the following activities:
mobilizing the site-owned equipment from a warehouse,
unloading at the staging area,
moving the equipment into the work area,
scarifying the concrete with the mechanical scabbling tool,
sampling the rubble and floor surface for radioactivity,
loading the rubble into transfer containers and transferring the waste,
demobilizing the equipment,
charges for waste disposal, and
returning the equipment to the warehouse.
The following are assumptions for the baseline:
The site already owns the scabbier and will dispose of it at the end of the project with no salvage
value.
Mobilization consists of a forklift used to load the equipment at the warehouse, a rented truck to haul
the equipment to the facility, site personnel to unload near the work area, and returning the transport
equipment to the equipment pool.
The construction of a temporary enclosure is necessary for the containment of airborne
contaminants. The conceptual scope, provided by ANL D&D personnel, involves Unistruts as studs,
beams, and braces and Visqueen as walls and ceiling. Construction and dismantling of the tent
requires an equal amount of time. The containment tent is estimated to enclose 133 percent of the
area being decontaminated.
Markup of labor and equipment costs for the ANL overhead rate are not included.
U.S. Department of Energy
73
-------
Equipment is set up by moving it into the work area, stringing the air hoses from the compressor, and
dressing in PPE for the work.
Work is performed by local site craft using a site-owned mechanical scabbling tool and other owned
and rented equipment. The crew consists of two decon workers and one HPT. Additional
administrative, engineering, and supervisory personnel are excluded from the analysis assuming
their costs are accounted for in distributed costs and are equal in both cases.
Concrete removal is to a depth of one-quarter inch, and debris is manually vacuumed up and placed
in containers. The %-in depth makes the baseline comparable to the innovative technology.
Production rate is 200 fta/h for one decon technician scabbling (200 ft2/h/person) and the other
performing all other supplemental removal activities. The one HPT assists full-time by checking the
rubble radioactivity level.
The replacement of worn scabbling bits can be done by the qualified decon technicians.
The waste volume generation factor is 0.03 ft3/ft2, including a 70 percent efficiency bulking factor.
Equipment operating costs are listed separately from hourly ownership rates because the
consumable usage may vary by site.
The hourly rate for the scabbier is taken from the CP-5 Cost Estimate with all applicable assumptions
used in that document. ANL personnel indicated the scabbier would be discarded at the end of the
CP-5 Project.
The decontamination area is modified to 800 ft2 to match the demonstration area.
The PLF, applied to the productive work hours, accounts for H&S considerations that typically occur.
The calculation is as follows:
Base
+ Height factor
+ Radiation/ALARA
{Protective clothing
= Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
a Subtotal
x Breaks
ซTotal
1.00
0.00 (not applicable; work is on the floor)
0.20
0.15
1.35
1.38
1.86
110
- Total 2.05
The activities, quantities, production rates and costs utilized in the baseline are shown in Table B-3.
U.S. Department of Energy
74
-------
Table B-3. Baseline Cost Summary (Scabbling Technology)
Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS)
^'Bli^l"n^llWRS^i1^fr^
Construct containment tent
Load equipment (equip) at
warehouse.
Transport equip to site
Unload equip at site and survey
Return truck and forklift
Health Physics Technician (HPT)
support
DECONTAMJNATION (Defcon.) (\
Move equip to work area
Scarify concrete floor
Equip consumables:
Bits
Air compressor
Air tools
Sample rubble/surface
Load rubble in containers
Personal protection equipment
(PPE)
Productivity loss
DEMOBILIZATION (WBS 331.21
Clean and decon equip
Dismantle containment tent
HPT
PPE
Productivity loss
Move equip and load-out
Return to warehouse
Unit Cost (UC)
Labor
Hours Rate
Equipment
Hours Rate
Other
Rate
Total
UC
irfr%^i5f ..,..IL i". , TJ -L ?ฃ*L^ i.1**^*
0.003 $100.8
2.0 $146.9
0.5 $146.9
2.0 $146.9
0.3 $ 79.7
5.7 $ 56.0
2.0 $ 32.5
0.5 $ 42.5
2.0 $ 42.5
0.3 $ 32.5
$ 2.58
$ 13.2
tfi^SMTi' i* *ป " t.b< & * ',. - f ,
2.0 $ 67.2
0.005 $ 67.2
0.01 $ 56.0
0.15 $ 67.2
1.0 $123.2
2.0 $ 38.5
0.005 $ 38.5
4.0 $ 6.40
4.0 $ 0.25
0.2 $ 38.5
1.0 $ 38.5
$ 0.22
$ 139.0
$ 2.93
$ 359
$ 95
$ 379
$ 28
$ 332
Total
Quantity
(TO)
1,064
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.,'. ', , ''P.^/, * X
$ 211.3
$ 0.53
$ 0.22
$ 25.6
$ 1.00
$ 0.54
$ 16.3
$ 139.0
$ 161.7
1.0
800
800
1.0
1.0
800
24.0
2.0
8.1
Unit
of
Measure
Total
Cost
(TC)1"
.
fta
Each
Trip
Lump Sum
(LS)
Trip
LS
'tSttbtotak
Each
ft2
ff2
Each
Each
ft2
ft3
Days
Hours
$ 3,116
$ 359
$ 95
$ 379
$ 28
$ 332
%<'%^fl,s
$ 211
$ 423
$ 175
$ 26
$ 1
$ 431
$ 390
$ 278
$ 1,306
Comments
3 decon. workers @ $33.6 each to build and
dismantle tent @ 133.3 percent of decon area
(2) 10 h day drive, Oklahoma City-Chicago, 4.0
h load, teamster, plus truck rental
(2) 10h day drive, Oklahoma City-Chicago, 4.0 h
load, teamster, plus truck rental
Forklift operator @ $39.85/h and decon crew @
$67.2/h, 0.25 ft3 decon waste @ $52.78/ft3
Decontamination crew standby durinq survey
One @ $56/HR and 1/4 cf survey waste
'ซ?; ,ff * ^f, ,* >^f*ป*** t/f i. &
Decontamination crew @ $67.2/h
Decontamination crew @ $67.2/h
Varies with bit life and replacement frequency
Consumable rates/ft2
250 ft3 per minute air compressor
One HPT
Wa<5te ฉ n?1 ff3/ft2 w/70 nprrpnt pffiripnrv -
2 decon + 1 HPT @ $46.33/day/person
Rgured at 2.05 per 1996 Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL) guidance
% 'i ซ"'//?, "ปf~' <4s ^*p8fe , ' J * i 'A ''S.'r ^ ",- '4^i0t6tett % i 63Jj>fi3%$f> ' |" '/? '4v' ii' frc^S*
2.0 $ 67.2
0.003 $100.8
11.7 $ 56.0
1.0 $123.2
2.0 $146.9
0.5 $146.9
2.0 $ 38.5
0.003 $ 38.5
1.0 $ 38.5
2.0 $ 42.5
0.5 $ 32.5
$ 0.30
$ 13.2
$ 278.0
$ 211.3
$ 0.78
$ 666.4
$ 278.0
$ 161.7
$ 378.7
$ 89.7
1.0
1,064
1.0
2.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
LS
ft2
LS
Days
Hours
LS
Each
$ 211
$ 834
$ 666
$ 556
$ 966
$ 379
$ 90
Clean and decontaminate equip
3 decon workers @ $33.6 each dismantle tent;
other = (0.0057 ft3/ft2 waste) * ($52.78/ft3)
Other = survey waste at 0.25 ft3
PPE for equip decon and tent dismantle
Fiqured at 2.05 per 1996 AM quidance.
Includes site forklift and driver.
Reverse of eauio mobilization
WMtiSKP<^lLiWlS-,litlM*i!i* ."l^-lik^' V :>iV ?* "i Wl^W ''-'$&#&&>
Shipping & disposal fees
$ 52,8
$ 52.8
31.4|ft3
$ 1 ,655 (Low-level waste disposal (1st and 2na generation
(1)TC=UC*TQ
Total: $ 12,905
U.S. Department of Energy
75
-------
APPENDIX C
Technology Description
Concrete Cleaning, Inc., demonstrated a larger centrifugal shot blast unit at Florida International
University from May 20 to 24,1996. Similar to the system demonstrated at CP-5, the larger centrifugal
shot blast machine is an abrasive blasting technology that propels hardened steel shot against the
contaminated surface at a high velocity to remove contaminants and substrate. The amount of substrate
removed can be adjusted by varying the size and amount of shot expelled from the blast chamber or the
speed at which the blast unit moves over the substrate. The steel shot is collected and recycled until it is
spent (i.e., too small to reuse). A photograph of the large centrifugal shot blast unit is presented in Figure
C-1.
Figure C-1. Large centrifugal shot blast unit.
This system combines the dust collection system and the shot blaster into a single unit with the debris
being collected in a dust bin at the bottom of the machine. Concrete Cleaning, Inc., has performed
modifications to the standard large centrifugal shot blast to increase the efficiency and speed of substrate
removal. Like the smaller unit, Concrete Cleaning, Inc., considers these modifications proprietary and
has applied for a patent.
U.S. Department of Energy
16
-------
The operational parameters of this centrifugal shot blast unit are as follows:
Manufacturer:
Dimensions (L x W x H):
Weight:
Speed:,
Cutting width:
Primary roughing filter cartridges:
Vendor rated vacuum flow:
Compressed air requirements:
Electrical requirements:
Noise level:
George Fischer (+GF+, GOFFฎ), Model 420E
96 in x 38 in x 72 in
4,000 Ib
Self-propelled variable speed drives:
Blast Wheel (320): 30 hp/3,600 rpm
Hydraulic Motor: 3 hp/1,800 rpm
Dust Collector: 3 hp/1,800 rpm
20 in
Quantity-12
1,200ft3/min
90 psi
230/460 V, 3 phase
-95 dBA per vendor
System Operation
The centrifugal shot blast machine is self-propelled, requiring only one operator to work behind the
unit.
The floor to be decontaminated must be dry to ensure that the substrate removed does not clog the
hoses and screens within the shot blast unit.
A control panel attached to the rear of the shot blast unit includes toggle switches for steering the
unit either left, right, forward, or in reverse. Dials control tracking and the speed at which the shot
blast unit moves over the floor. The amount of shot released into the blast unit is controlled by a
switch on the panel. Gauges measure the amps generated by the unit as well as the number of hours
the unit has been in operation. The control panel also features an emergency stop button.
The amount of substrate removed in a single pass is controlled by the size and amount of shot
released by the unit as well as the speed at which the unit moves over the floor.
Simultaneous to the decontamination of the floor, the shot and substrate debris are vacuumed by the
shot blast unit. The mixture passes through an abrasive recycling system, where the larger/heavier
pieces of shot are recycled back into the holding area. The smaller/lighter spent shot and substrate
debris are removed to the dust collection system.
Shot that has escaped from under the shot blast unit or was not collected by the vacuuming is
collected by the operator using a magnetic broom or roller. This shot is then recycled into the shot
blast unit.
Demonstration Plan
In a project for the Fernald Environmental Management Project, Fluor Daniel Fernald contracted FIU-
HCET to evaluate and test commercially available technologies for their ability to decontaminate
radiologically contaminated concrete flooring. The results of this project are presented in the final report,
Analysis of Potential Concrete Floor Decontamination Technologies.
The demonstrations were held at the FID campus on 20 ft x 40 ft concrete slabs prepared specifically for
these demonstrations. The concrete slabs were 6 in thick and had a final compressive strength of 5,700
psi. One-half of the slab (20 ft x 20 ft) was coated with an epoxy urethane coating. A 6-in dike
surrounded each test section to aid in the evaluation of the technology's capability to remove concrete at
the interface of a floor and a wall. These demonstrations were not conducted in a radiological
environment.
During the demonstration, FIU-HCET evaluators collected data in the form of visual and physical
measurements. Time studies were performed to determine the production rate of the technology and
implementation costs. Additional field measurements collected include secondary waste generation,
operation/maintenance requirements, and benefits and limitations of the technology. To determine the
U.S. Department of Energy
77
-------
depth of removal, a state of Florida certified surveyor performed a 57-point survey of each test area prior
to and proceeding the demonstration. The difference of these survey readings was determined and then
averaged to determine the average depth of removal. The accuracy of the survey instrument was + 0.03
ft. In addition, to enhance the technology assessment process, the International Union of Operating
Engineers (IUOE) provided a review of the health and safety factors pertinent to the test.
Treatment Performance
Table C-1 presents the results of the FIU-HCET demonstration of Concrete Cleaning, Inc.'s large
centrifugal shot blast unit.
Table C-1. Performance data
Criteria
Applicable surface
Production rate
Type of primary waste generated
Type of secondary waste generated
Media used
Noise level
Capability to access floor-wall unions
Development status
Ease of use
End-point condition
Worker safety
Concrete Cleaning, Inc.'s Centrifugal Shot
Blast Technology - Large Unit
Expected to perform 1-in concrete removal.
173ft2/h
A fine powder mixed with spent steel shot. No
visible difference can be observed between the
spent shot and the powder.
Dust collection filters and spent shot.
Hardened steel shot size S460 at a rate of 35
Ib/h.
Not available.
Hearing protection required.
No closer than 8-10 in.
Commercially available. Needs modifications for
HEPA filter and direct waste disposal to drum.
Self-contained, requiring very little set-up time.
Self-propelled unit reducing operator fatigue.
Mostly for large open areas; not easily
maneuverable. High maintenance is required
because of the destructive nature of the process.
Removed between 1/2 in and 1 in concrete over
surface. The surface was rough and uneven.
Shot can be a projectile and trip hazard. Uneven
surfaces can cause excessive shot loss. Emptying
of dust bin can generate airborne dust.
Implementation Considerations
Technology requires an integral HEPA vacuum system to meet U.S. DOE's radiological control
requirements.
A waste drum collection system that reduces the probability of airborne contamination and is not as
labor intensive as the emptying of the dust bin is required.
Additional equipment is required to complete the task of removing concrete from an entire floor area.
The large shot blast unit is capable of reaching only within 8-10 in from the floor to wall interface.
U.S. Department of Energy
78
-------
APPENDIX D
ALARA
ANL
CFR
cm
CP-5
CSB
D&D
dBA
DDFA
Decon
DOE
DOT
dpm
EPA
Equip
ESH
FCCM
FIU
ft
ft3/min
gal
h
H&S
HCET
HEPA
hp
HP
HPT
HTRWRAWBS
IH
in
IUOE
Ib
lin ft
LLW
LS
mi
min
LSDP
as low as reasonably achievable
Argonne National Laboratory
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter(s)
Chicago Pile-5
Centrifugal Shot Blast
decontamination and decommissioning
decibels
Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area
decontamination
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Transportation
disintegration per minute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
equipment
Environment, Safety, and Health
facilities capital cost of money
Florida International University
foot (feet)
cubic feet per minute
gaNon(s)
hour(s)
health and safety
Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology
high-efficiency particulate air
horsepower
health physics
Health Physics Technician
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial
Action Work Breakdown Structure and Data
Dictionary
Industrial hygiene
inch(es)
International Union of Operating Engineers
pound(s)
linear foot (feet)
low-level waste
lump sum
mije(s)
minute(s)
large scale demonstration project
U.S. Department of Energy
79
-------
OMB
OSHA
OST
PLF
PPE
psi
Tech(s)
TC
TQ
UC
USAGE
V
WAG
WBS
WMO
Office of Management and Budget
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Science and Technology
productivity loss factor
personnel protective equipment
pounds per square inch
technician(s)
Total Cost
Total Quantity
Unit Cost
United States Army Corps of Engineers
volt(s)
waste acceptance criteria
work breakdown structure
Waste Management Operations
U.S. Department of Energy
80
-------
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
81
-------
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
Site Name:
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory
Location:
Argonne, Illinois
Contaminants:
Radioactive-contaminated paint
Period of Operation:
1/28/97 to 2/4/97
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
Peter J. Fritz
Michael W. Lovejoy
3M Abrasive Systems Division
(612) 736-365S/(612) 733-7181
West Environmental
Pentek, Inc
EDCO
Additional Contacts:
EdWiese
Cedric Andres
Argonne National Laboratory
(630) 252-2000
Technology:
Rotary Peening with Captive Shot:
- 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen
(HDRP) flaps supporting tungsten
carbide shot mounted on a rotating
hub
- EDCO CPM-4 concrete planer -
cutting width of 5.5 inches and
capable of rotating the Roto Peen
at 1,800 rpm
- Pentek VAC-PACฎ model 24
vacuum system - 600 ftVmin;
primary roughing filter cartridges
with 95% efficiency at 1 micron;
secondary HEPA filter with
99.97% efficiency at 0.3 micron
- Pb Sentry vacuum monitor (for
vacuum pressure)
Cleanup Authority:
Project performed as part of DOE's
Large-Scale Demonstration
Project, Office of Science and
Technology, Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Radioactive-
contaminated paint coating on
concrete floor
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 425 ft2 of concrete flooring
covered with contaminated paint
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate Rotary
Peening with captive shot and
compare results with those for
mechanical scabbing
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of Rotary Peening with Captive Shot to
remove contaminated paint coating from 425 ft2 of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this
technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.
Results:
- Reduced radiological levels in 5 of 6 areas tested to below background levels. For one location, levels were
reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 dpm/100 cm2. A possible reason for the remaining radioactivity was a crack in
the floor that trapped contamination (could not be removed superficially).
- Removed paint coatings at a rate of 71 ft2/hr with a two-person crew and a 5.5-inch cutting width.
- Vacuum system performed sufficiently to maintain airborne radioactivity levels at background levels.
- Removed floor's paint coating with minimal concrete removal, resulting in minimal waste generation.
- The main advantage of the modified centrifugal shot blast system over the baseline technology is the ability to
simultaneously collect dust and debris using a dust collection system attached to the shot blast unit.
82
-------
Rotary Peering with Captive Shot at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)
Cost:
The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.
- Cost analysis results show the total cost for Roto Peen with captive shot was 50% lower than the baseline of
mechanical scabbing (about $4,500 versus about $9,500). The major contributor to the savings was that the
Roto Peen with captive shot blast did not require a temporary enclosure (about $2,400).
Description:
3M's Rotary Peening with Captive Shot system was demonstrated at the Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5) Large-
Scale Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination
and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uranium-
fueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut
down in 1979.
The 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen (HDRP) flap consists of tungsten carbide shot attached to a flexible, heavy duty
material and mounted on an aluminum rotating hub. As the hub rotates, the shot particles on each flap impact
against the surface and mechanically fracture and remove coatings. A concrete planer (EDCO Model CPM-4),
used to drive the Roto Peen, had a cutting width of 5.5 inches and was capable of rotating the Roto Peen at
1,800 rpm. The dust collection system was a Pentek VAC-PACฎ model 24 vacuum system. A Pb Sentry
vacuum monitor (proprietary design by West Environmental) was used to interrupt the electrical supply to the
concrete planer when a variation in vacuum pressure at the CPM-4 was detected. The demonstration showed
that the main advantage of the Roto Peen with captive shot technology compared to mechanical scabbing was
the simultaneous collection of dust and debris. The report includes a detailed comparison of the two
technologies. In addition, the Roto Peen technology reduced radiological levels to below background levels in
all but one area. For one location, levels were reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 dpm/100 cm2. The elevated
readings were attributed to a possible crack in the floor which trapped contamination and could not be removed
superficially. The technology removed paint coatings at a rate of 71 ftVhr, and removed floor's paint coating
with minimal concrete removal, resulting in minimal waste generation.
The report includes results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the centrifugal shot blast technology with
mechanical scabbing. Cost analysis results show that the total cost for Roto Peen with captive shot was 50%
lower than the baseline of mechanical scabbing. The major contributor to the savings was that the Roto Peen
with rantive shot blast did not reauire a temporary enclosure.
83
-------
SECTION 1
Technology Description
Roto Peen with captive shot removes coatings and surface contamination from concrete floors. The
objective of treating radioactively contaminated concrete floors during the Deactivation and
Decommissioning (D&D) process is to reduce the surface contamination levels to meet regulatory criteria
for unrestricted use.
How it Works
Roto Peen uses centrifugal force to remove coatings and surface contamination from concrete floors. A
series of 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen flaps supporting tungsten carbide shot are mounted on a CPM-4
Concrete Planer provided by EDCO. The planer provides the correct rotational speed for the Roto Peen.
A vacuum system, the VAC-PACฎ Model 24 provided by Pentek, is then attached to the concrete planer.
It is a pneumatically driven vacuum system with isolated filters that permit the waste generated to be
collected directly into a drum. The system is also outfitted with a Pb Sentry from West Environmental to .
monitor vacuum pressure at the planer. This proprietary system will shut off electrical power to the
concrete planer should the detected vacuum drop below a safe threshold. The EDCO Concrete Planer is
designed to remove paints and other surface contaminants from flat, horizontal areas. It has a cutting
width of 5.5 in and the depth of removal is determined by the rate of speed with which the unit is driven.
Demonstration Summary
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Chicago Operations Office and DOE's Federal Energy
Technology Center (FETC) jointly sponsored a Large-Scale Demonstration Project (LSDP) at the
Chicago Pile-5 Research Reactor (CP-5) at Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL). The objective of
the LSDP is to demonstrate potentially beneficial D&D technologies in comparison with current baseline
technologies. As part of the LSDP, Roto Peen with captive shot was demonstrated March 17-20, 1997, to
treat a 20 x 25 ft area of radioactively contaminated concrete floor on the service level of the CP-5
building.
Handled by two CP-5 ANL operators, the 3M Roto Peen technology removed the coatings from a 425
ft2 area at a rate of 71 ft2/h. The coating removal left a uniform appearance on the Roto Peen finished
surface. The radiological levels of the original floor were thus reduced from 70,000 to 16,000
dpm/100cm2 on one hot spot and below or at background levels on the other parts of the area. There was
no airborne generation detected.
Figure 1. 3M Roto Peen demonstration.
U. S. Department of Energy
84
-------
Figure 2. Heavy duty Roto Peen flaps.
Benefits
In comparison with the baseline technology, which is mechanical scabbling, the main advantage of the
Roto Peen technology is that the dust and debris are collected simultaneously during the coating
removal. Thus the amount of airborne and loose contamination generated is considerably reduced.
The baseline technology, mechanical scabbling, uses a manually driven floor/deck sealer suitable for
thick coating removal and the surface preparation of large areas of concrete floors. This unit is equipped
with eleven 1-in-diameter pistons that impact the floor at a rate of 2,300 blows/min/piston. An aluminum
shroud surrounds the pistons capturing large pieces of debris; however, an attached dust
collection/vacuum system is not being used. Instead, a containment system (i.e., plastic tent) is erected
over the area to be decontaminated to minimize the potential release of airborne dust and contamination.
Key Results ^^^""^^"""^"^^^^"^^^^^"^^
The Roto Peen with captive shot technology was able to remove paint coatings at a rate of 71 fta/h
with a two-person crew and a 5.5-in cutting width machine and reduce contamination levels on the
floor to background levels.
The vacuum system component of the Roto Peen technology performed sufficiently to maintain
airborne radioactivity levels in the area of the demonstration at background levels. In contrast, the
baseline technology of scabbling has the potential for high levels of airborne contamination.
The Roto Peen technology was able to remove the floor's paint coatings with very little concomitant
concrete removal. This resulted in minimal waste generation of 2.1 ft3 of powder. The baseline
technology of scabbling would result in higher waste generation because a measurable depth (14 in to
Vs. in) of concrete is removed along with the floor coatings.
Technology Contacts
Requests for specific information should be directed to:
Technical (Roto Peen)
Peter J. Fritz, 3M Abrasive Systems Division, (612) 736-3655, pjfritz@mmm.com
U. S. Department of Energy
85
-------
Michael W. Lovejoy, 3M Abrasive Systems Division, (612) 733-7181
Technical (Support)
Craig S. Herbster, Pentek, Inc., (412) 262-0725,pentekusa@aol.com
Paul Gorgol/Leo Swan, EDCO, (301) 663-1600
Greg Butchko, West Environmental, Inc., (800) 356-5748
Demonstration
Ed Wiese, Argonne National Laboratory, Test Engineer, (630) 252-2000, ewiese@anl.gov
Cedric Andres, Argonne National Laboratory, Test Engineer, (630) 252-2000
CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project
Richard C. Baker, U.S. Department of Energy, (630) 252-2647, richard.baker@ch.doe.gov
Steven J. Bossart, U.S. Department of Energy, (304) 285-4643, sbossa@fetc.doe.gov
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration
Terry Bradley, Duke Engineering and Services, Administrator, (704) 382-2766,
tlbradle @ duke-energy.com
Web Site
The CP-5 LSDP Internet address is http://www.strategic-alliance.org.
Other
All published Innovative Technology Summary Reports are available online at http://em-50.em.doe.gov.
The Technology Management System, also available through the EM50 Web site, provides information
about OST programs, technologies, and problems. The OST Reference # for Roto Peen with captive
shot is 1812.
U. S. Department of Energy
86
-------
SECTION 2
The technology uses 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen (HDRP) flaps supporting tungsten carbide shot
mounted on a rotating hub. The particular unit demonstrated is supported by an EDCO CPM-4 concrete
. planer that maintains the correct rotational speed for the Roto Peen. This concrete planer is connected to
a vacuum system, the VAC-PACฎ model 24 provided by Pentek, and driven by an air compressor that
remained outside the CP-5 facility during the demonstration. A Pb Sentry, from West Environmental, is
mounted to the concrete planer and is used to monitor adequate vacuum pressure at the planer.
3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen
The 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen flap consists of tungsten carbide shot attached to a flexible, heavy duty
material and mounted on an aluminum hub. As the hub rotates, the shot particles on each flap impact
against the surface, mechanically fracturing and removing coatings. The shot remains captive to the tool
and under complete control by the operator.
Several different types of flaps are available for removing coatings from steel or concrete surfaces. Type
A, for hard concrete, was demonstrated at CP-5. Using different units, the 3M system is also capable of
removing coatings from walls and pipes.
Concrete Planer
The concrete planer used to drive the 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen is provided by EDCO. Specifically,
the EDCO model CPM-4 floor unit, which requires 208 VAC at 30 amp single phase to rotate the Roto
Peen at 1,800 rpm and has the following specifications:
Weight:
Height:
Width:
Length:
Cutting width:
180lb
38 in
18 in
38 in
5.5 in
The cutting width of the concrete planer used in this demonstration was 5.5 in but larger units with cutting
widths up to 12 in are available from EDCO.
Pb Sentry Vacuum Monitor
The Pb Sentry is West Environmental proprietary technology designed for this application. The electrical
source to the planer is passed through the Pb Sentry, which interrupts the electrical supply to the
concrete planer when a variation in vacuum pressure at the CPM-4 shroud is detected. The level of
vacuum pressure is monitored via a tube connected at the vacuum port on the shroud that runs back to
the Pb Sentry. The settings on the monitor are adjustable for both upper and lower vacuum pressure
readings.
Vacuum System
Pentek's VAC-PACฎ used in conjunction with the Roto Peen offers two-stage positive filtration of
paniculate. The debris removed by the Roto Peen flaps are collected in this vacuum system that also
features Pentek's patented controlled seal drum system that allows the operator to fill, seal, remove, and
replace the waste drum under controlled vacuum conditions. This minimizes the operator's exposure to
the waste and the possibility of releasing airborne contamination during drum change.
U. S. Department of Energy
87
-------
Several standard VAC-PAC models are available from Pentek, with various specifications and
performance capabilities. The model 24 used at CP-5 is air-powered by an air compressor that remains
outside the facility. The air compressor is a Leroy 750, diesel fueled with 300 ft3/min at 100 psig because
of the 300 ft of air line hose from the air compressor to the vacuum system.
The VAC-PACฎ model 24 has the following parameters:
Rated vacuum flow:
Rated static lift:
Weight:
Height:
Width:
Length:
600 ft7min
100 in Water Gauge
750 Ib
72 in
28 in
48 in
Primary roughing filter cartridges:
Secondary HEPA filter:
Three at 8 in diameter
Efficiency: 95 percent at 1 micron
One at 12 in x 24 in
Efficiency: 99.97 percent at 0.3 micron
For the operation of the vacuum system, the utilities require a 110 VAC at 15 amp electrical current
source and 75 ft of 3-in diameter reinforced vacuum hose connecting the CPM-4 unit to the VAC-PAC*8
U. S. Department of Energy
88
-------
SECTION 3
Coating Removal
The demonstration was conducted according to the approved test plan, CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration
Project: Test Plan for the Demonstration of3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen and VAC-PACf System.
The demonstration area was located on the service level of the CP-5 building in an area approximately
20 x 25 ft. The concrete floor had multiple layers of contaminated paint on the surface. The area is
enclosed to the west by 8 linear feet (lin ft) of cabinets and 12 lin ft of hoses running along the wall and to
the east by 5 If of concrete wall and 15 If of steel floor plate. The north and south ends are open areas.
The Roto Peen machine was able to maneuver within 1 in of the floor plate and within 12 in of the
cabinets and hoses.
The CP-5 operators were required to wear one layer of Tyvek, a full-faced air purifying respirator, work
boots, and gloves. Due to the temperature in the room being very hot, the two operators were replacing
each other approximately every 30 min during the demonstration. After the low vacuum setting was
adjusted, the concrete planer would automatically shut off as soon as the operators lifted it up to move it.
Using the 3M Roto Peen technology, the operators removed the surface paint coating from
approximately 425 ft2 of concrete floor in the demonstration area at a rate of approximately 71 ft2/h. The
depth of removal, determined by the rate of speed with which the concrete planer is driven, was about
1/16 in. This removed all the coatings from the concrete surface and achieved a uniform appearance on
the finished surface. The finished surface has slight groove lines in it but is otherwise smooth.
Cabinets that were in the demonstration area for another operation at CP-5 were covered with plastic as
a precautionary measure. The hoses connected to those cabinets were left on the floor adjacent to the
wall. As a precaution to prevent damage to the hoses, the unit was not operated within 1 ft of the hoses.
However, the unit was able to remove concrete floor coatings about 1-2 in from other obstacles.
Radiological Results
The first survey, prior to the demonstration, showed that six portions of the 425 ft2 area contained
elevated fixed total beta/gamma contamination. The radiological levels for these six locations ranged
from approximately 6,000 to 70,000 dpm/100 cm2 and were at or below background levels for the
remaining parts of the floor.
After the coating removal, results of the second survey of the area indicate that five of the six
contaminated locations were at or below background levels. The contamination of the sixth location was
reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 dpm/100 cm2'. Pre- and post- demonstration results are listed in Table 1.
The elevated readings in the sixth location could possibly be the result of a crack in the area that has
trapped the contamination and cannot be removed by superficial decontamination methods.
Table 1. Radiological results
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total Area (cm2)
300
100
100
100
100
400
Pre-demonstration
Total (5/7
(dpm/1 00cm2)
6,300
12,200
10,500
6,300
7,300
70,700
Post-demonstration
Total p/7
(dpm/1 00cm2)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
16,000
U. S. Department of Energy
89
-------
Following the coating removal demonstration, it took three people approximately 80 min to clean the
concrete planer (without the Roto Peen flaps) and the vacuum system, using wet rags. A final survey of
the equipment did not show any contamination, and it was released to the vendors.
Waste Generation
Because the shot remains captive to the tool, the primary waste generated by the Roto Peen was the
actual concrete and paint debris removed from the floor. Via the vacuum system, the waste was
collected into a standard 55 gal drum. After the demonstration, the investigation of the drum showed that
approximately 2.1 ft3 (120 Ib) of primary waste, in the form of powdery concrete and paint chips, was
generated. All airborne radiological measurements were found to be at or below background levels. The
vacuum system was sufficient to contain the dust generated during decontamination.
Survey smears taken from the outside of the secondary waste bags, containing Tyyeks, high-efficiency
paniculate air (HEPA) cartridges, gloves, shoe covers, Roto Peen flaps, roughing filters, HEPA filter, the
vacuum hose, rags and smear papers, did not show any removable contamination (see Appendix B).
However they were handled as contaminated trash for disposal.
Summary of Demonstration Results
The results of the demonstration of the 3M Roto Peen technology are listed in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Performance data
Criteria
Applicable surface
Production rate (coating
removal rate only)
Depth of removal
Cutting width
Minimum crew size
Amount and type of
primary waste generated
Type of secondary
waste generated
Airborne radioactivity
generated by equipment
Noise level
Capability to access
floor-wall unions
Developmental status
Safety concerns
Set-up time
Innovative technology: Roto
Peen with captive shot
Coating removal from painted
concrete floor (horizontal unit
demonstrated: other units capable
of decontaminating walls and pipes)
71ff/h
1/1 6 in
5.5 in
Two people
2.1 ff of powdery mixture of paint
and concrete (contained by vacuum
system)
Used personnel protective
equipment (PPE), filters, flaps,
hoses, rags, smear papers
No visible dust during the
demonstration; airborne activity
levels were at or below background
at all times
100dBA@5ft
1-2 in is required
Commercially available components
Main hazards are heavy equipment
operation and noise
Minimal
Baseline technology: mechanical
scabbling
1/4 in concrete removal from floor
200ff/h
% to Vz in
Variable
Three people
Amount estimated to be 24 ff of a
mixture of powdery and large pieces
of paint chips and concrete (requires
manual cleanup: no vacuum system
is attached)
Used PPE, tent enclosure, worn
pistons
Not connected to vacuum system;
up to 10% of debris generated can
become airborne
84 dBA (per vendor)
1 in
Commercially available; compatible
vacuum systems are also available
Flying concrete pieces pose eye
hazard: airborne activity; heavy
equipment operation hazards; noise
Prerequisite erection of temporary
airborne enclosure
U. S. Department of Energy
90
-------
SECTION 4
Technology Applicability
In order to meet regulatory criteria for unrestricted use, any site that has a need for coating removal from
concrete floors would benefit from the use of the 3M Roto Peen technology. Demonstrated from March
17-20,1997, as an alternative to the scabbling technology for removing coating layers from a large area
of concrete floor, this technology showed several advantages:
The shot remained captive to the 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen flaps considerably reducing the
amount of waste, which was mainly paint chips with a powdery consistency. Therefore, the
secondary waste consisted only of protective clothing, Roto Peen flaps, filters, the vacuum hose,
some tape, smear papers, and rags.
The CPM-4 concrete planer provided by EDCO is well designed. It is very easy to operate and
replacement of the flaps can be done in a minimal amount of time. There was no need to vacuum
the floor after the coating removal was done, because no dust was left on the floor after the pass of
the concrete planer.
The VAC-PACฎ is efficient and well designed. The controlled-seal drum fill system allows waste
drums to be filled, sealed, removed, and replaced while minimizing the possibility of operator
exposure or the release of airborne contamination, The HEPA filter and roughing filters are also
easily accessible.
The Pb Sentry was designed to function transparently. It adds an important worker safety feature to
the overall system by cutting off power to the planer should the detected vacuum drop below a safe
threshold, and it automatically shuts off the machine when it is lifted from the floor.
The ease of operating the equipment, no generation of airborne dust, and less secondary waste make
the 3M Roto Peen technology a useful tool in reducing project costs. The only disadvantage was the
slow rate of the coating removal. However larger units are available from EDCO, which may greatly
increase the rate of removal.
There are a number of technologies currently available to D&D professionals for the purpose of removing
coatings from concrete floor surfaces.
Other technologies available are:
mechanical scabbling (the ANL baseline technology),
milling,
centrifugal shot blast,
flashlamp,
carbon dioxide blasting,
grit blasting,
high pressure and ultra-high pressure water blasting,
sponge or soft-media blasting,
laser ablation,
wet ice blasting, and
various chemical based coating removal technologies.
Data comparing the performance of Roto Peen with captive shot to all the competing technologies listed
above is not available.
U. S. Department of Energy
91
-------
SECTION 5
introduction
This cost analysis compares the relative costs of the innovative and baseline technologies and presents
information that will assist D&D planners in decisions about use of the innovative technology in future
D&D work. This analysis strives to develop realistic estimates that represent actual D&D work within the
U.S. DOE complex. However, this is a limited representation of actual cost, because the analysis uses
only data observed during the demonstration. Some of the observed costs will include refinements to
make the estimates more realistic. These are allowed only when they do not distort the fundamental
elements of the observed data of productivity rate, quantities, or work elements. They eliminate only
those activities that are atypical of normal D&D work. Descriptions contained in Appendix B of this
analysis detail the changes to the observed data. The CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project, Data
Report for the Demonstration of the 3Mm Heavy-Duty Roto Peen and VAC-PACf (ANL, 1997) provides
additional cost information.
Methodology
This cost analysis compares two decontamination technologies, an innovative Roto Peen with captive
shot technology and the baseline, a conventional mechanical scabbling technology. The Roto Peen with
captive shot technology was demonstrated at CP-5 under controlled conditions with facility personnel
operating vendor-provided equipment. Work process activities were timed and quantities were measured
to determine production rates.
Data collected during the demonstration included the following:
activity duration,
work crew composition,
equipment and supplies used to perform the work steps,
utilities consumed, and
waste generation.
A concurrent demonstration of the baseline scabbling technology was not performed. Baseline
information is developed from the following sources:
the existing CP-5 budget and/or planning documentation,
historical experience at ANL, and
the experience-based judgment of D&D personnel at ANL.
Because the baseline costs are not based on currently observed data, additional effort is applied in
setting up the baseline cost analysis to ensure unbiased and appropriate production rates and crew costs.
Specifically, a team consisting of members from the Strategic Alliance (ICF Kaiser, an ANL D&D
technical specialist, and a test engineer for the demonstration) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) reviewed the assumptions to ensure a fair comparison.
The cost analysis data are displayed in a predetermined activity structure. The activities are extracts
from the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure and
Data Dictionary (HTRW RA WBS), (USAGE, 1996.) The HTRW RA WBS was developed by an
interagency group, and its use in this analysis provides consistency to established national standards.
Some costs are omitted from this analysis so that it is easier to understand and to facilitate comparison
with costs for the individual site. The ANL indirect expense rate for materials and subcontracts is
included in this analysis at 9.3 percent but will vary at other sites. Overhead rates for each DOE site vary
in magnitude and in the way they are applied and are excluded in this cost analysis. Decision makers
U. S. Department of Energy
92
-------
seeking site specific costs can apply their site's rates to this analysis without having to first retract ANL's
rates except the 9.3 percent for materials and subcontracts. This omission does not sacrifice the cost
saving accuracy, because overhead is applied to both the innovative and baseline technology costs.
Engineering, quality assurance, administrative costs, and taxes on services and materials also are
omitted from this analysis for the same reason indicated for the overhead rates.
The standard labor rates, established by ANL for estimating D&D work, are used in this analysis because
all the work was performed by local crafts. Additionally, the analysis uses an eight hour work day with a
five day week.
The equipment hourly rates, representing the government's ownership, are based on general guidance
contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular No. A-94 for Cost Effectiveness Analysis.
The rate consists of ownership and operating costs. Operating costs consist of fuel, filters, oil, grease and
other consumable items plus repairs, maintenance, overhauls and calibrations.
Summary of Cost Variable Conditions
The DOE complex presents a wide range of D&D work conditions because of the variety of functions and
facilities. The working conditions for an individual job directly influence the manner in which D&D work is
performed. As a result, the costs for an individual job are unique. The innovative and baseline
technology estimates presented in this analysis are based upon a specific set of conditions or work
practices found at CP-5, and are presented in Table 3. This table is intended to help the technology user
identify work differences that can cause cost impacts.
Table 3. Summary of cost variable conditions
Cost Variable
PSPfeeatWoW;., "
Quantity & Type of
Material
Location
Nature of work
Innovative technology: Roto Peen
with captive shot
'"'"" " , *"**
425 ft"; coated concrete floor
Service floor of CP-5 including open
areas, and edges
Reduce radiological levels. Remove
coating (and 1/16 in of concrete)
Baseline technology: mechanical
scabbling
arf * y-V -t^C * 'tt^*'**'*'
425 ft , comparable to demo area, but
approx. 1/6 of original baseline scope
of 2,542 ft2, concrete floor
CP-5; same service floor area, open
areas only
Reduce radiological levels. Remove %
in of concrete (inherent in equipment)
along with coating
ซ"'.* ~ '."ฃ>'-:* -
Level of
contamination
Level of airborne
contamination
during D&D activity
Personnel
protection eq.
(PPE) requirements
Six portions on the floor have
elevated fixed total beta/gamma
contamination
No airborne exposure, therefore no
tent required. Vacuum system
integral with equipment. Debris
continuously contained in drums
PPE worn: clothes, gloves,
respirators as a requirement, despite
no airborne contaminants
Assumed baseline would be same as
demonstration area
Concrete chips and dust (airborne)
created by equipment. Temporary tent
required; estimated to cover 133% of
area being worked
Temporary tent required; 565 ft" used.
Requires PPE and respirator, same as
demonstration
U. S. Department of Energy
93
-------
Table 3. Summary of cost variable conditions (cont.)
1 Cost Variable
Innovative technology: Roto Peen
with captive shot
Baseline technology: mechanical
scabbling
M&RfXi8$B&&Stffeffi ''>"* " ' ." :- ^ '' ' ''. ; '. ' -- . . ซซ " - '. j-งS5lifllir Wi.
[Acquisition means
Scale of production
Production rates
(crew size)
Primary waste
Secondary waste
Work process steps
End condition
Subcontracted vendor provided
equipment and consumable captive
shot flaps. This analysis is based on
site craft using that equipment, but
as government owned and some
equipment as rental
1 . Demonstrated in large unconf ined
areas
2. Crew size: 2; 1 with machine, 1
supporting person
3. Equipment: floor, walk behind
model, 5.5" cut width
Experienced a rate of 71 ft*/h for the
person running the EDCO CPM-4
concrete planer - net effective
production with two persons on crew
is 35.5 ft2 per person-hour
2.84 ff
Vacuum hoses, worn flaps, PPE and
swipes, filters: estimated 16 ft3
1. Remove the surface coating and
concrete, using one electric driven
machine with continuous vacuum
collection into closed drum container
Coating and 1/16 in concrete
removed; radiation reduced to at or
below background level
Site craft workers with site owned and
some rental equipment
1 . Based on large open area and some
tight areas inaccessible for the size of
machine
2. Crew size: 3; 1 with scabbling
machine and 2 supporting people
3. Equipment: Large, floor walk behind
model, 11" cut width
Assumed constant rate: 200 ft2/h for
the person running the pneumatic
machine - net effective production with
three persons on crew is 67
ft2/person-hour
12.8 ft0
Worn scabbling bits, swipes, PPE:
estimated 14.7 ft3 (2 drums)
1 . Scabble the surface area to ~ 1/4 in
depth with one pneumatic machine
leaving debris and airborne
contaminants
2. Sample rubble health physics
technician (HPT)
3. Manually clean up and load into
containers by other worker
Coating and 1/4 in concrete removed;
Assumed radiation would be reduced
as well or better due to depth of cut
(not demonstrated)
U. S. Department of Energy
94
-------
Potential Savings and Cost Conclusions
For the conditions and assumptions stated, the innovative technology Roto Peen with captive shot saves
approximately 50 percent over the baseline scabbling alternate for this demonstration scope of 425 ft2.
Figure 3 is a summary and comparison of the potential savings between the two technologies.
Figure 3. Total and major work breakdown.
The major contributor to the savings is the elimination) in the baseline mobilization and demobilization
phases, of a temporary structure to contain the airborne contaminants. That amounts to $2,405. The
innovative technology does not require a temporary enclosure because all debris is continuously
vacuumed as it is generated. Minor savings include rubble loading, which is eliminated because the
vacuum dumps directly into a closed drum container. Waste disposal is the next largest savings.
Removal of 1/16 in of concrete generates a smaller quantity of waste than does a 14-in depth of concrete.
The savings from all these activities will vary with the size of the area to be decontaminated.
Other potential cost differences at various sites can include:
production rates of the machine model and its cut width and depth capabilities,
mobilization (mob) and demobilization (demob) of equipment and personnel,
ซ training of new or vendor personnel,
health and safety and site requirements, and
size of the area undertaken as a single continuous project effort.
The production rates and operating costs for scabbling and Roto Peen with captive shot will vary
depending upon site specific conditions and the model of the machine selected. The available production
rates range from 30 ft /h to over 450 ft2/h.The width of cut affects the production rate and ranges from 2
in to 18 in. Some wide cut, large floor models are easy to use but hard to maneuver in tight spots,
whereas the small hand-held units work well in confined spaces such as underneath stairways, but cause
worker fatigue. Scabbling, with its superior production rate, actually costs less than Roto Peen with
captive shot technology for the coating removal activity. However, the extra handling and cleanup of the
debris from the scabbier and the resultant productivity loss results in higher costs for the total
decontamination activity.
This analysis assumes government ownership of equipment. If vendor services are utilized at other sites,
there will be additional costs for mobilizing and training vendor personnel.
U. S. Department of Energy
95
-------
Depending on the situation at any given site, a health and safety requirement beyond regulatory
minimums could be imposed that would still require a tent-like structure be erected even though the
Innovative technology eliminates airborne contamination.
Some sites will choose to discard the scabbling or concrete planer at the end of a small project or keep it
for extended and future projects. That depends on the investment made and decontamination possible
for continued use. Amortizing equipment ownership over greater scope will result in lower unit rates. The
primary roughing filters and the secondary HEPA filters, used for only 425 ft2, were discarded following
the demonstration. The $989 cost of filters resulted in a unit cost of $2.337 ft2 or $164.83/h for the 6
productive hours in use, a relatively high cost element. However, the design of the filter system provides
for automatic blow-back filter cleaning about every 30 seconds. This increases the life of the roughing
filters to about 9 months or 1 yr of continuous, normal use and the HEPA filter to about 1 yr. For the cost
analysis, a life of 1 yr and 500 h of use for both filters is utilized, which equates to cleaning 35,420 ft2/yr.
Assuming that volume of use reduces the two unit costs to $0.0279/ft2 and $1.98/h, respectively. This is
a dramatic reduction in unit cost that depends on the planned use of the technology at each site.
All factors discussed above affect costs for both technologies. A user should compute the estimated
potential savings for D&D work by substituting the expected quantities, mobilization details, equipment
investment, and production rates into Table B-1 to calculate a site-specific cost for their situation.
U. S. Department of Energy
96
-------
SECTION 6
Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory/permitting issues related to the use of the 3M Roto Peen technology at the ANL CP-5
Research Reactor consisted of the following safety and health regulations:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1926
-1926.300 to 1926.307
-1926.400 to 1926.449
-1926.28
-1926.52
-1926.102
-1926.103
Tools - Hand and Power
Electrical - Definitions
Personal Protective Equipment
Occupational Noise Exposure
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
OSHA 29 CFR 1910
1910.211 to 1910.219
1910.241 to 1910.244
1910.301 to 1910.399
1910.95
1910.132
1910.133
1910.134
1910.147
Machinery and Machine Guarding
Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other
Hand-Held Equipment
Electrical - Definitions
Occupational Noise Exposure
General Requirements (Personal Protective Equipment)
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)
10 CFR 835
Occupational Radiation Protection
Disposal requirements/criteria include the following Department of Transportation (DOT) and DOE
requirements:
49 CFR Subchapter C Hazardous Materials Regulation
171
172
173
174
177
178
General Information, Regulations, and Definitions
Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous
Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information,
and Training Requirements
Shippers - General Requirements for Shipments and
Packagings
Carriage by Rail
Carriage by Public Highway
Specifications for Packaging
10 CFR 71 Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material
If the waste is determined to be hazardous solid waste, the following Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requirement should be considered:
40 CFR Subchapter 1 Solid Waste
These are the same regulations that govern the baseline technology of mechanical scabbling.
U. S. Department of Energy
97
-------
The waste form requirements/criteria specified by disposal facilities are used by ANL:
Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria, WHC-EP-0063-4
Bamwell Waste Management Facility Site Disposal Criteria, S20-AD-010
Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP-DOE-069
These waste form requirements/criteria may require the stabilization or immobilization of final waste
streams because of their powdery consistency. This requirement would be valid for the Roto Peen,
scabbling, or any other aggressive coating/concrete-removai technology.
Since Roto Peen with captive shot is designed for the decontamination of structures, there is no
regulatory requirement to apply CERCLA's nine evaluation criteria. However, some evaluation criteria
required by CERCLA, such as protection of human health and community acceptance, are briefly
discussed below. Other criteria, such as cost and effectiveness, were discussed earlier in this document.
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
The Roto Peen technology incorporates a vacuum system to collect the dust of the removed coating.
During the demonstration, no increase in airborne activity levels above background was detected. It is
possible that the requirement for operators to have respiratory protection may be eased, allowing for
greater worker efficiency and time savings.
The use of the Roto Peen technology rather than scabbling would have no measurable impact on
community safety or socioeconomic issues.
U. S. Department of Energy 98
-------
SECTION 7
The 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen technology demonstrated on the service floor of the CP-5 Research
Reactor is a commercially available product that does not have any implementation issues. The setup
time is very short and the equipment is easy to operate; It is very clean and does not generate airborne
dust.
The setup of the low vacuum point on the Pb Sentry, which automatically shuts off the machine when it
is lifted from the floor, should be done before starting the work. It needs to be calibrated to the vacuum
system being used.
The demonstrated unit has a slow rate of coating removal but larger units are available and would allow
the operators to increase the rate of removal.
The 3M Roto Peen technology is a superficial decontamination method and cracks or joints in the area
which have trapped contamination cannot be effectively decontaminated.
To meet regulatory criteria for unrestricted use, any site that has a need for contaminated coating
removal from concrete floors without any contaminated cracks would benefit from the use of the 3M
Roto Peen technology.
U. S. Department of Energy
99
-------
APPENDIX A
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration, CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project, Test Plan
for the Demonstration of3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen and VAC-PACf System, Argonne National
Laboratory, March 1997.
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration, CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project, Data
Report for the Demonstration of 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen and VAC-PA(f System, Argonne
National Laboratory, June 1997.
U. S. Department of Energy
100
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY COST COMPARISON
This appendix contains the activity dictionaries with definitions of cost elements, descriptions of
assumptions and some computations of unit costs. It also contains the cost analyses.
Activity Dictionary
Innovative Technology 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen with captive shot
ฎ
(with a VAC-PAC and Pb Sentry)
Mobilization (mob) (WBS 331.01) =5^^==
Equipment Transport
Definition: This cost element provides for transportation of the site-owned decontamination (decon)
equipment from its storage area to a staging area near the facility being decontaminated. Therefore, this
cost includes a truck and forklift, the teamster and operator, and the riggers loading and hauling the
subject construction equipment and the hourly charges for the transporting equipment and that being
transported.
Assumption: Distance to a site warehouse varies, but less than 2 mi is assumed. The pickup truck and
pneumatic forklift are rented using rates from the Dataquest construction equipment rental rate book.
Loading takes 0.5 h and driving takes 0.25 h for a duration of 0.75 h. Returning the transportation
equipment to the equipment pool takes 0.25 h and is a concurrent activity. Therefore, 1 h is priced. See
note under off-load activity.
Note: This scenario diverges from the actual demonstration conditions wherein the vendor mobilized
their representatives and equipment from both Minneapolis, MN, and Pittsburgh, PA.
Off-load and Unpack Equipment and Pre-survey Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for three activities with different crews. It includes 1) the riggers
time to off-load equipment from the truck using a forkliftj 2) the decon workers to move the equipment to
a staging area and unpack it for survey, and 3) a radiological survey of the equipment by an HPT to
ensure that contaminated equipment is not brought on site. Duration includes decon crew standby during
HPT pre-survey.
Assumptions: 3.5 h are assumed for off-loading, unpacking, and surveying the equipment.
Note: The first day (8 h) consisted of four activities observed, but not timed. The duration has been
allocated as follows: Equipment transport (previous activity), 0.75 h; this activity of three sub-activities,
3.5 h; set up and move in (a following activity), 2.25 h; and lost time not attributable to D&D activities but
to facilitate the demonstration, 1.5 h. However, this distribution was further based on similar activities
observed and timed during the demobilization phase. The crews involved varied in composition.
Training
Definition: This cost element captures the cost of site and health and safety related training required for
subcontractor personnel or other unqualified personnel.
Assumptions: There is no cost applicable due to the assumption that local site personnel are trained
already. However, the vendor personnel were trained in order to carry out the demonstration.
U. S. Department of Energy
101
-------
Decontamination of the Reactor Building Floor (WBS 331.17)
Radioactivity Surveys of the Area
Definition: This cost element is for radiological surveying to characterize the workplace to facilitate
making a work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable and no cost effect for this analysis. This activity is assumed completed prior
to decontamination activities.
Set Up, Move and/or Check Out Equipment
Definition: This cost element includes time to lay out the equipment and hoses in preparation for the
day's work. With the air supply compressor outside the facility, air hoses are strung through doors,
penetrations, and cable hangers to the work area. The floor planer, any hand tools, and other incidental
consumables are taken to the work area from the staging area.
Assumptions: The duration for moving equipment and set up is assumed to be 2.25 h based upon
observed demonstration time during the demobilization phase. See note above under off-load.
Remove Floor Surface Coatings
Definition: This cost element consists of:
Removing the coatings off the concrete floor and operational maintenance of replacing the roughing
and HEPA filters with clean ones and consumable parts that wear.
The activity labor consists of two decon workers.
Cost of equipment is included in the activity, and consumable equipment and supplies are listed as a
sub-breakout of this cost element because it is so variable.
Packaging of primary waste is automatic into the VAC-PACฎ and its container.
Transporting to disposal collection area is excluded.
Cost of PPE is included. See unit cost derivation in the next table.
Any lost time from production is included as a factor. This involves safety meetings, daily work
planning reviews, dress-out with PPE, heat or temperature stress, and work breaks.
Assumptions:
The quantity scope for the demonstration is 425 ft2.
Two decon workers are used. One actively operating the EDCO CPM-4 floor model concrete planer
which utilizes the Roto Peen with captive shot to remove the coatings. The other assists with hoses
and electric power cords.
An HPT is not necessary to accomplish the main task (and not priced).
Production rates used are 71 ft2/h per two person crew (or 35.5 ft2 h per person) for the
demonstration based on observed, timed activities. The crew composition is shown in Table B-1. The
time observed was 6 h.
One decon crew worker is qualified to change out the worn Roto Peen with captive shot flap parts.
The other decon worker is on standby while changing flaps.
The equipment configuration eliminates the vacuuming step because the VAC-PACฎ is connected to
and continuously vacuums debris from the EDCO CPM-4.
U. S. Department of Energy
102
-------
A, 20 min safety meeting was held on two mornings (not counted in the 6 h).
PPE changes and other related productivity losses were not measured in the demonstration but
experienced. A productivity loss factor (PLF) of 1.49 is applied.
Productivity Loss Factor
Definition: A factor applied to productive hours to compensate for loss of production while attending
safety meetings, dressing and undressing in PPE, work breaks, heat and cold work stress, etc.
Assumption: A PLF from the baseline 1996 activity cost estimate (ACE) sheets of 1.49 is used to make
the innovative case comparable to the baseline.
PPE Cost Per Day Calculation
Equipment Quantity Cost Cost No. of Cost No. Cost per
in box per box eacii reuses each used day per
time per day person
used
Respirator (Resp)
Resp. Cartridges
Booties
Tyvek
Gloves (inner)
Gloves (outer
pair)
Glove (cotton
Liner)
200
25
12
100
50.00
85.00
2.00
14.15
1,933
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
7.45
0.14
200
1
1
1
1
10
1
10
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
0.75
0.14
1
2
4
4
8
1
8
10.00
18.50
1.00
13.60
1.36
0.75
1.12
Total $46.33
The PPE costs are predominantly from the ANL activity cost estimate (ACE) sheets. (Costs for outer
gloves, glove liners, and respirator cartridges are from commercial catalogs.)
Waste Disposal (WBS 331.18) JJJJg^^=^s=
Waste Disposal Collection
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time and equipment required to pick up containers and
assemble them in a designated area awaiting transportation.
Transport to the Disposal Site
Definition: This cost element is for the charges for the volume of waste being shipped to a commercial
off-site facility.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fees charged by the commercial facility for dumping the
waste at their site.
Assumptions: (for all three of the accounts above combined as one price)
During the demonstration of this technology, only 2.84 ft3 of primary waste (paint and some concrete
chips) was generated and directly vacuumed into a barrel or container.
The secondary waste consists of a bag of the expendable vacuum hose, used PPE, and swipes
handled after the work is completed. (Estimated at 16 ft3, not supported by demo data.)
U. S. Department of Energy
103
-------
Cost is represented as an All-in Disposal fee rate per ft3 for contact-handled (<200 mrem/h) low level
radioactive waste (LLW) and covers a base rate, transportation costs, container cost and/or cask
rental, and ANL indirect costs.
Demobilization (WBS 331.21)
Survey and Decontaminate Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for radiological survey of equipment by a site HPT to ensure that
contaminated equipment does not leave the site or work area and includes costs for decontaminating it.
Costs include HPT labor plus decon crew assistance and or stand-by time.
Assumptions: Demonstration times observed are 80 min for decontamination of equipment by two decon
workers and an HPT and 1 h for survey by HPT only.
Pack Up and Load Equipment
Definition: This cost element covers the labor and equipment time to pack up and load out the
equipment onto a truck for returning to a point of origin.
Assumptions: Demonstration times observed are 2 h for boxing up using two decon workers and 30 min
for loading the equipment using three riggers and a teamster.
Personnel and Equipment Transport
Definition: Transport of equipment back to the warehouse involves obtaining transport equipment from
the equipment pool, driving loaded truck to the warehouse, and off-loading at the warehouse.
Assumption: Return trip mileage to a warehouse is less than 2 mi and is basically the reverse of
mobilization. Crafts involved are thee riggers and a teamster. Equipment included is a pickup truck,
forkiift, and the decon equipment. The estimate assumes a duration of 45 min plus 15 min for a
concurrent activity.
Note: This scenario diverges from the actual demonstration conditions wherein the vendor demobilized
their representatives and equipment back to both Minneapolis, MN, and Pittsburgh, PA.
Cost Analysis
Innovative Technology -- Roto Peen with captive shot
(and a VAC-PACฎ and a Pb Sentry)
The cost for performing work using the Roto Peen with captive shot technology consists of the following
activities:
1) mobilization of equipment;
2) unloading to a staging area;
3) set-up of equipment and hoses;
4) removal of the floor coating (about 1/16 in of concrete) using an EDCO CPM-4 floor model concrete
planer using a Roto Peen with captive shot, a Pb Sentry, and a VAC-PACฎ;
5) replacement of consumable flaps when necessary;
6) use of PPE;
7) decontamination of the reusable equipment;
8) collection of all waste;
9) handling the drums containing the waste;
10) demobilization back to point of origin; and
11) disposal fees.
U. S. Department of Energy
104
-------
The projection of demonstration costs to reflect a commercial cost for the scope of work includes
adjustments as a result of the assumptions shown below:
An EDCO CPM-4 concrete planer with a Pb Sentry and a VAC-PACฎ (assuming long-term need) are
purchased by a site and delivered to and received by the warehouse. The procurement indirect
expense (PIE) rate for ANL of 9.3 percent has been applied to equipment and services purchased in
determining the hourly rate. '.
Mobilization consists of loading with a forklift large and small tools at the warehouse tool room,
hauling them with a site truck (at rental rates) to the facility, unloading them at a staging area using
site personnel, and returning the transporting equipment to the equipment pool. The reverse holds
for demobilization. Three riggers and a teamster are involved.
A decontamination labor crew of two ANL facility workers, hired locally, require no mobilization or
training because of previous qualifications.
The technology demonstrated is coating removal, but additionally about 1/16 in of concrete is
removed from a test area of 425 ft2.
Hourly rates for Government owned equipment are based on amortizing the initial purchase price,
including its shipping costs, over the service life of the equipment using a discount rate prescribed in
the OMB circular No. A-94 of 5.8 percent. Service life of 5 to 15 yr (depending on the individual
piece of equipment) is used with an assumed use of 500 h/yr.
There is no difference in the PPE requirements between this technology and the baseline, and in
fact, PPE were worn.
The observed time of 6 h removing coatings from 425 ft2 results in a production rate of 71 ft2/h. The
definition also encompasses assistance in handling air and electrical cords and a prorated allowance
for captive shot flap replacement. Because of the two-person crew, the effective production rate
becomes 35.5 ft2/person-hour.
The captive shot flaps were not changed in the course of the demo. The flaps had 10 h of previous
wear when the demonstration started and added 6 h more during it. This analysis assumes one
change is necessary every 30 h, or 2,100 ft2, of use, a portion of which has been considered in the
analysis. The lifetime of the flaps will depend on the type of surface being cleaned.
The primary waste generation volume factor is 0.0067 ft3/ft2 including a 78 percent bulking factor.
The VAC-PACฎ roughing filters, designed with a continuous cleaning feature, and the HEPA filters
are reusable over several jobs or larger scope quantities. Filters are expected to last 9-12 mo
(assumed 1 yr at 500 h of use) based on conservative extrapolation of information provided during a
phone conversation with a Pentek representative.
Radiological survey of the floor before and after the task is excluded because it is a characterization
function.
Mark-up of labor and equipment costs for the ANL overhead rate is excluded.
U. S. Department of Energy
105
-------
A PLF of 1.49 is applied to the Roto Peen with captive shot demonstration activities. The data is
adjusted from the ACE sheets, CP-5 Cost Estimate qualifications, page 1.12 through 1.14 of 1.33
issued by ANL Technology Development Division of the D&D Project. While the demonstration was
timed and conducted wearing PPE, the time was not recorded separately for safety meetings and
suiting up and suiting off. The details are:
Base
+ Height factor
+ Radiation/ALARA
Protective Clothing
3 Subtotal
x Resoiratorv Protection
= Subtotal
x Breaks
1.35
1.00
1.35
1.10
1.00
0.00 (not applicable, since work is on the floor)
0.20
0.15 (to account for dress-out)
1.35
1.00 (no factor required, covered in the observed times)
-Total
1.49
The activities, quantities, production rates and costs observed during the demonstration form the basis of
the values shown in Table B-1, Innovative Technology Cost Summary.
U. S. Department of Energy
106
-------
TABLE B-1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY COST SUMMARY
Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS)
Unit Cost OJCT
Labor
Hour (hr) Rate
Equipment
Hour Rate
Other
Rate
Total
UC
TQ
Qnty
MOBIUZAT1OS (rndfe)- WBS 331,01 : ; ,--..--. . ,. : :
Transport Equipment (Eq.) -
Load at warehouse
Drive to staging & Unload Eq.
Return Transport Eq. to pool
Unpack equipment
Pre-survey equipment
0.5 $ 161
0.75 $ 161
0.25 $ 80
2 $ 67
1 $ 123
0.5 $ 25.41
0.75 $ 39.39
0.25 $ 25.41
2 $ 13.01
1 $ 13.01
$ 93
$ 150
$26
$160
$136
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
of
Measure
Subtotal:
Lump Sum
(LS)
Trip
Trip
LS
LS
|ECONTAfflJNATION(ซfeeort>-Wfi^ 331.17 Subtotals
Move eq. to work area & set up
task equipment
Scarify concrete floor
HPT escort/ as needed
Eq. Operating costs
Replacement Flaps
Air Compressor costs
Air tools/filters consumables
Sample rubble & surface
Load Rubble in containers
2.25 $ 67
0.01408 $ 67
0 $ 56
Personnel Protective Eq. (PPE)
PRODUCTIVITY LOSS | 1.00 $ 67
2.25 $ 37.78
0.014 $ 37.78
1 $ 60.27
1.000 $ 17.32
1.000 $ 3.55
1.00 $ 118.92
$
$ -
$ 93
$ 236
$ 1.48
$ -
$ 60.27
$ 17.32
$ 3.55
$ -
$ 93
$ 186
1
425
6
6
6
6.0
2.84
1.1
2.9
LS
ft2
h .
h
h
h
ft2
ft3
day
h
DEESOBtLZATION (demob)- WBS331.2t -,' ' ', " Subtotal;
Demob Equipment
Decon Equipment including HPT
Survey Eq. for free release
PPE during decon
PPE during survey
PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
Pack up equipment
Pool eq. to staging area
Load truck and return to whse
Unload at warehouse
1.33 $ 123
1 $ 56
1.00 $ 123
2 $ 67
0.25 $ 80
0.75 $ 161
0.5 $ 161
1.33 $ 13.01
1 $ , 13.01
1.98
1.49
1.00 $ 13.01
2 $ 13.01
0.25 $ 25.41
0.75 $ 39.39
0.5 $ 25.41
$ 13.20
$ 139
$ 46
$
$ 194
$ 69
$ 139
$ 46
$ 119
$ 160
$ 26
$ 150
$ 93
1
1
0.25
0.19
1.1
1
1
1
1.0
LS
LS
day
day
h
LS
trip
LS
LS
W^iilSPO$At.W0$ฎ1,1S , , Subtotal:
Disposal Fees-Prime & 2nd
$ 52.78
$ 52.78
18.8
ft3
Total
Cost
(TC) note
$' SET
$ 93
$ 150
$ 26
$ 160
$ 136
$ -, 2,000
$ 236
$ 628
$
$ 361
$ 104
$ 21
$
$
$ 103
$ 546
$ 873
$ 194
$ 69
$ 34
$ 9
$ 136
$ 160
$ 26
$ 150
$ 93
$ V994
$ 994
Note:TC=UCxTQ
Note: Qnty = Quantity; TQ = Total Quantity
Comments
V
I' - * - ' ^
Truck, forklift, teamster, & 3 riggers for 4.5 h total to mobilize
SCOPE! m square feet {ft?}
On-site labor 2 decon technicians (techs) @ $67.20/crew for
2.25 h plus Eq. standby
Production rate: 71 ft^/h by 1 person while another assists.
No flap replacement. Operating costs are below. Duration is 6
h.
Not required
1 drum x 50 Roto Peen flaps per drum x 1 changes x
$30.14/flap for 1 ,750 ft2=~$60.27/hr
Air Compr. 750 cubic feet per minute (ftVmin)
Assumed filter life = 500 h
No sampling required with technology
Auto-vacuumed. Waste generated=2.84 CF
2 decon techs @$46.33/day
Factor: 1.49 per ACE sheets from ANL
-,
"Other" is for waste generated by eq. decon at .25 ft3 @
$52.78/ft3. Time per demo.
1 HPT, 1 h per demo time
2 decon techs, 1 HPT @$46.33/day
1HPTat$46.33/day
Figured at 1 .49 per 1 996 ACE sheets
Reverse of mobilization. Time per demo.
Reverse of mobilization. Time per demo.
Reverse of mobilization. Time per demo.
Reverse of mobilization. Time per demo.
- -
From 1 996 ACE, Table 2.0, pg. 1 .1 1 of 1 .33
Total $ 4,433
U. S. Department of Energy
107
-------
Activity Dictionary
Baseline Technology - Scabbling
Mobilization (WBS 331.01)
Construct Temporary Facilities (Airborne Contaminant Enclosure)
Definition: This cost element provides for the supply and erection of a temporary structure to contain
airborne contaminants in the area being decontaminated. It includes decon workers and HPT coverage.
It includes the building materials. Dismantling of the "tent" is included in the demobilization account.
Assumptions: Conceptual scope definition is from ANL D&D personnel. A temporary enclosure for
airborne contaminants is erected using unistrut material ($2.00 per lin ft plus $1.007 lin ft for fittings and
connections) as studs, beams, and bracing for walls and ceiling and visqueen ($.01/ft2) as the enclosing
cover. Labor consists of three decon workers ($33.60/h) for 2 h to erect a size of 565 ft.
NOTE: Since this decontamination test area (425 ft2) is smaller than the area basis (650 ft2) used in
development for another demonstration, the area for this tent is reduced to 565 ft. The time to erect has
been reduced to 2 h from 3 h in a direct proportion to the area reduction ratio (565 ft 7865 ft). No PLF or
PPE are used during erection but are during dismantling. This activity is completed prior to mobilizing for
the decon activities. The unit rate is 2 h/565 ft2 or 0.0035 h/ft2.
Equipment Transport
Definition: This cost element provides for transportation of the site-owned decontamination equipment
from its storage area to a staging area near the facility being decontaminated. Therefore, this cost
includes a truck and forklift and the operators, the decon workers loading and hauling the subject
construction equipment, and the hourly charges for the transporting equipment and that being
transported.
Assumption: Distance to a site warehouse varies, but is less than 2 mi. The flatbed truck and pneumatic
forklift are rentals using rates from the Dataquest construction equipment rental rate book. Loading takes
2 h; driving, 0.5 h; and returning to the equipment pool, 0.25 h.
Unload Equipment
Definition: Unloading delivered equipment includes time required for the decon crew to off-load
equipment from the truck using a forklift, move the equipment to a staging area, and unpack for
radiological survey. This activity is combined with the survey activity below.
Assumptions: A 2 h period to unload/unpack the equipment is assumed. Procurement's effort to receive
purchased equipment and complete paperwork is excluded. Forklift operator is included in the crew rate,
and forklift rental rate (base) is $11.65/h, taken from Dataquest construction equipment pricing book.
Survey Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment is not brought on-site. Costs include crew stand-by time plus HPT labor.
This activity is combined and concurrent with the unloading activity above.
Assumptions: Equipment survey is required.
Training
Definition: This cost element captures the cost of Site and Health and Safety related training required for
subcontractor personnel or other unqualified personnel.
Assumptions: No cost to this element. Personnel on site already are trained.
U. S. Department of Energy
108
-------
Decontamination of the Reactor Building Floor (WBS 331.17)
Radiological Survey
Note: This cost element is for radiological surveying to characterize the workplace to facilitate making a
work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable. There is no cost effect for this analysis. This activity is assumed completed
prior to decontaminating the area.
Set Up or Move Equipment and Check it Out
Definition: This cost element includes time to lay out the equipment and hoses in preparation for the
day's work. With the air supply compressor outside the facility, air hoses are strung through doors,
penetrations, and cable hangers to the work area. The scabblers, hand tools, air manifolds, waste
containers, and other incidental consumable supplies are taken to the work area from the staging area.
Set-up excludes the erection costs of a temporary containment tent, covered in the mobilization activity.
Assumptions: The May 1996 ACE sheets included scaffolding because the scope also involved walls.
The analysis scope is for the floor only. Therefore, the original baseline 4 h were reduced to 2 h,
eliminating 50 percent of the time assumed to be required for scaffolding.
Remove Floor Surface Concrete
Definition: This cost element consists of:
Remove the floor concrete making one pass of 14 in removed including replacing consumable tool
bits that wear with use.
The activity consists of one decon worker operating the machine, one decon worker as support or
tender and one HPT as the rad monitor and/or escort.
HPT activity is taking readings of the area and/or the rubble during removal at full time participation
along with the decon personnel.
The manual function to clean up and package the concrete rubble into containers is required.
Transporting it to disposal collection area is excluded.
The production rate will vary depending upon the thickness of the concrete to remove to obtain
acceptable radiation readings.
Cost of scabbling equipment and consumable bits is in this cost element.
Cost of PPE is included. See table in Innovative Technology section, this appendix.
Any lost time from production is included. This involves daily safety meetings, daily work planning
reviews, dressing out with PPE, heat or temperature stress, work breaks, etc., which is accounted for
through the PLF.
Assumptions:
The quantity scope for the baseline is the same as the demonstration, 425 ft2 for comparison
equality.
One crew of two decon workers and one HPT are required. Those three people handle the scabbling,
sampling, cleaning up, and containerizing as a team for which the estimate is separated into two sub-
elements of cost by craft.
One scabbling machine is used.
U. S. Department of Energy
109
-------
Baseline technology produces primary waste that is manually vacuumed up, radiological monitored,
and packaged. It amounts to 19.5 ft3.
The decon crew workers are qualified to change out the worn bits. Stand-by time is necessitated by
this activity.
Production rate in this analysis is 200 ft2/h for the one machine, a Model -11, Trelawny. The net
effective production rate is 67 ft2/person-hour due to the three-person crew. The scabbier is priced at
an ownership hourly rate of $9.95/h based on pricing information from ANL D&D personnel,
A safety meeting occurs and is in this analysis through use of the 2.05 PLF.
Productivity Loss Factor
Definition: A factor which is applied to productive hours (the PLF) to compensate for safety meetings,
dressing and undressing in PPE, etc.
Assumption: The PLF used, 2.05, and the PPE costs are predominantly from the ANL baseline 1996
ACE sheets. (Costs for outer gloves, glove liners, and respirator cartridges are priced from commercial
catalogs.)
Note: The cost per day calculation for PPE is the same as in the Innovative Technology section in this
appendix.
Waste Disposal (WBS 331.18) s^=^=^=i^^^=
Waste Collection
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time and equipment required to pick up containers and
assemble them in a designated area. It does not cover the time and equipment to package into
containers the primary waste generated by the decon activity.
Transport to Disposal Site
Definition: This cost element is for the charges for the volume of waste being shipped to a commercial
off-site facility.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fee charged by the commercial facility factor for dumping
the waste at their site.
Assumptions (for all three of the accounts above combined as one price):
Primary waste generated of 19.5 ft3 is calculated at 0.03 ft3/ft2 including a 70 percent efficiency
bulking as taken from the May 1996 Activity Cost Estimate sheets.
The secondary waste consists of a couple of bags of expended scabbling bits, used PPE and swipes,
and no vacuum hoses. Assumed 14.7 ft3.
Not applicable, as such, to each of the detailed accounts, but all three accounts are covered with a
single rate per ft3.
Cost is represented as an All-in Disposal fee rate per ft3 for contact handled (<200 mrem/h) LLW and
covers a base rate, transportation costs, container cost and/or cask rental, and ANL indirect costs.
Demobilization (WBS 331.21 ) ^==^=
Remove Temporary Facilities (Airborne Contaminant Enclosure)
U. S. Department of Energy
110
-------
Definition: This cost element provides for the dismantling of a temporary structure used to contain
airborne radioactivity. It includes decon workers and HPT labor. It includes gathering up and
containerizing the waste building materials. PPE and a PLF are included due to the airborne
contamination.
Assumptions: As originally defined by ANL personnel for another demonstration, labor required is three
persons for 3 h to dismantle and load up waste. However, the time has been reduced to 2 h due to the
size reduction for a smaller tent than the other demonstration basis.
Survey and Decontaminate Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment does not leave the site or work area or to ready it for the next use. It covers
costs to decontaminate it. Costs include HPT labor plus decon crew stand-by or assistance time,
including the use of PPE and experiencing a PLF.
Assumptions: Survey and decontamination requires 2 h based on an allocation from the 4 h in the
original baseline.
Pack Up and Load Equipment
Definition: This cost element covers the time and equipment required for the crew to pack up and load
the rental and owned equipment in a truck for return.
Assumptions: Time required is 2 h to pack and load up using a forklift for 2 h of the total duration.
Personnel and Equipment Transport
Definition: The account covers the cost to transport the equipment back to the point of origin.
Assumption: The estimate assumes local crew members incur no personnel transportation costs to the
project. The transport of the equipment is the same as in the mobilization account, except in reverse.
Cost Analysis
The cost of performing the work consists of the following activities:
mobilizing the site-owned equipment from a warehouse,
unloading the equipment at the staging area,
moving it into the work area,
scarifying the concrete with the mechanical scabbling tool,
sampling the rubble and floor surface for radioactivity,
loading the rubble into transfer containers and transferring the waste,
demobilizing the equipment,
charges for waste disposal, and
returning the equipment to the warehouse.
The baseline includes the following assumptions:
Mobilization consists of a forklift loading tools at the warehouse tool room, a rented truck hauling
them to the facility and unloading them near the work area using site personnel, and returning the
transport equipment to the equipment pool.
The construction of a temporary enclosure is necessary to contain airborne contaminants during the
work operation. The conceptual scope, provided by ANL D&D personnel, involves unistruts as studs,
beams, and braces and visqueen as walls and ceiling. Erection requires three persons for 3 h, as
does the dismantling activity following decontamination.
Setup involves moving equipment into the work area, stringing the air hoses from the compressor
outside, dressing up, and other preparatory activities.
U. S. Department of Energy
111
-------
Work is performed by local site craft using a site-owned mechanical scabbling tool and other owned
and rented equipment. The crew consists of two decon workers and one HPT (acts as the escort).
Additional administrative, engineering, and supervisory personnel are excluded from the analysis,
assuming their costs are accounted for in distributed costs and are equal in both cases.
Concrete removal is to a depth of one-quarter inch. Waste is vacuumed manually and placed in
containers. The 1/4-in depth makes the baseline comparable to the innovative technology.
Production rate is 200 ftz/h/one decon tech scabbling (200 ft2/h/person) and one decon tech
performing all other supplemental removal activities. The HPT assists full-time by checking the
radioactivity level of the rubble.
The scabbling activity includes the time for replacement of worn bits by the qualified decon tech.
The factor for waste volume generation is 0.03 ft3/ft2, including a 70 percent efficiency bulking factor.
Equipment operating costs are listed separately from hourly ownership rates because the
consumable usage may vary by site.
Pricing for the scabbier is taken from the 1996 ACE sheets with all applicable assumptions used in
that document. ANL personnel indicated the scabbier would be discarded at the end of the CP-5
project.
The decontamination area is modified to 650 ft2 to match the demonstration area.
The PLF, applied to the productive work hours, accounts for health and safety (H&S) considerations
that typically occur. The calculation is as follows. (Markup of labor and equipment costs for the ANL
overhead rate is not included.)
Base
+ Height factor
+ Radiation/ALARA
+ Protective clothing
s Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
= Subtotal
x Breaks
= Total
1.00
0.00 (not applicable; work is on the floor)
0.20
0.15
1.35
1.38
1.86
1.10
2.05
The activities, quantities, production rates, and costs used in the baseline calculations are shown in
Table B-2.
U. S. Department of Energy
112
-------
TABLE B-2 BASELINE COST SUMMARY (SC ABB LING TECHNOLOGY)
Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS)
MOBILIZATION (mob)- WB
Build containment tent
Health Physics Tech
(HPTHorTent
Transport Equipment (Eq.) -
load at warehouse
Drive to site
Unload Equipment at site &
survey
Return truck/forklift
DECONTAMINATION (decor
Move Eq. to Work Area
Removal of concrete floor
coatinqs
Eq. Operatinq costs
Consumable (consum) Bit
wear
Air Compressor costs
Air tools consum.
HPT Sample rubble &
surface radioactivity
Load Rubble in containers
Unit Cost (UC)
Labor
Hour(h) Rate
5 331,31
0.0035 $ 101
2.0 $ 56
2 $ 147
0.5 $ 147
2 $ 203
0.25 $ 80
V WBS 331.17
2 $ 67.2
0.005 $ 67.2
0.012 $ 56.0
0.235 $ 67.2
Personnel Protective Eq. (PPE)
PRODUCTIVITY LOSS | 1.000 $123.2
Equipment
Hr Rate
----"--'--
2 $32.51
0.5 $42.46
2 $42.46
0.25 $32.51
Other
Rate
$ 3.07
$13.20
Total
UC
ii - i .. ;
$3.41
$123
$ 359
$ 95
$491
$28
TQ
Qntjj
Unit
of
Measure
Subtotal:
565
1
1
1
1
1
ft2
LS
Trip
Trip
Trip
Trip
Subtotal:
2 $38.47
0.005 $38.47
2.125 $ 7.00
2.125 $ 0.27
0.235 $38.47
1.000 $38.47
DEMOBILZATION (demob)- WBS 331. 21
Decon & Survey Equipment
HPT work effort
PPE during decon
PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
Move Equipment & Load out
Return to warehouse
Dismantle temporary tent
WASTE DISPOSAL - WBS 31
Disposal Fees-Prime & 2nd
2 $ 67
8.1 $ 56
' 1.0 $ 123
2 $ 147
0.5 $ 147
0.0035 $ 101
2 $38.47
6.16
1.00 $38.47
2 $42.46
0.5 $32.51
0.0035 $38.47
$
$ 0.22
$ -
$ 139
$ 211
$ 0.53
$ 0.22
$ 14.86
$ 0.58
$ 0.68
$24.86
$ 139
$ 162
:*'
$13.20
$ 278
$
$ 0.36
$ 211
$ 468
$ 278
$ 162
$ 379
$ 90
$ 0.84
1
:*:ซ;*ซ
425
1
1
425
12.8
2.0
5.38
LS
ft2
ft2
LS
LS
ft2
ft3
day
Hr
Subtotal:
1
1
2.00
4.16
1
1.0
565
LS
LS
day
Hr
LS
trip
ft2
H^18 " 'V ,-; " -",.'. ", Saitotaf:
1$ 52.781$ 52.78
27.5lft3
Total
Cost
(TO note
$ -3,025
$ 1,930
$ 123
$ 359
$ 95
$ 491
$ 28
$ 2,296
$ 211
$ 225
$ 93
$ 15
$ 1
$ 287
$ 317
$ 278
$ 870
$ 2,850
$ 211
$ 468
$ 556
$ 672
$ 379
$ 90
$ 474
I 1.449
$ 1.449
Note: TC=UC x TQ
Note: Qnty = Quantity; TQ=total quantity
Comments _
,-* -- - -; .. ;-;--: ;ฃ*.-: > - :'- Jf_',
3 decon wrkr, 2 h @ $33.60 plus materials
Covers building tent only. Other: decon waste
at 95 ft3 at ซe;9 7R/ft3
Truck, forklift, teamster, operator, & two decon
workers for 2 h
Same as above, 0.5 h, add scabbier
Same as above, 2 h, add health physics tech
(HP"n for survey
SCOPE: 425 Square Feet (SF) (Sq Ft) .: \
On-site labor 2 decon technicians(techs) @
$33.60/h for 2 h plus Eq. Standby
Two Decon workers; one machine at 200 ft2/h
infill idinn rpnlaoprnpnts total 3 2^ h
Varies with life of bits, replacement frequency
Per operating cost calculation which is similar
tn PFMTFK rnnci imahlo ratoc/ft2
Air Comoressor.250 ft3/min
One HPT at $56/h, same hrs as decon.plus
manual loading.
Waste at .021 ft3/ft2 w/ 70% efficiencv= .03.
3 men x $46.33/day
Factor: 2.05 per '96 ACE sheets
,'; t ' ' : ~
Other: decon waste at .25 ft3 at $52.78/ft3
Crew of 3 plus 3 for tent dismantle
Figured at 2.05 per 1 996 ACE sheets.
Assumed reverse of the mobilization.
Assumed reverse of the mobilization.
3 decon wrkr, 2 h @ $33.60 plus materials
1 ,. ?
From '96 ACE. Table 2.0. pq. 1 .1 1 of 1 .33
Total $ 9,621
U. S. Department of Energy
113
-------
APPENDIX C
Technology Description
The 3M Heavy Duty Roto Peen Flap technology was demonstrated at the Hemispheric Center for
Environmental Technology at Florida International University from April 30 to May 2,1996. The 3M
Heavy Duty Roto Peen Flap is tungsten carbide shot brazed to a hardened steel rivet that is supported
by a flexible flap. The shot rivet is kept captive to the equipment by mounting the flaps in a slotted hub.
Three different size planers were demonstrated, Figure C-1; each has different cutting widths for use on
different areas of the floor space (e.g., main open area of floor, near edges, and around obstructions).
Table C-1 includes the specifications for each of these pieces of equipment.
Figure C-1. CPU-10 and CPM-4E equipment.
Table C-1. Equipment specifications
Criteria
Manufacturer
Floor unit or hand-held
Weight
Dimensions (WxLxD)
Speed
Cutting width
Media used
Amount of media
required (no. of flaps)
CPU-10-18KE
EDCO
Floor unit
575 Ib
24 in x 45 in x 38 in
1 ,700-1 ,800 rpm
10 in
3M Heavy Duty
Roto Peen flaps -
Type A
200 flaps
CPM-4E
EDCO
Floor unit
180lb
18 in x 38 in x 38 in
1 ,800 rpm
5.5 in
3M Heavy Duty
Roto Peen flaps -
Type A
50 flaps
PEENA CLEANER
Unique Systems
Hand-held
9lb
14.5 in x 9 in x 9 in
1,200-3,700 rpm
adjustable
2 in
3M Heavy Duty
Roto Peen flaps -
Type A
10 flaps
U. S. Department of
114
-------
Criteria
Vendor advertised life
of flaps
Utilities required
Able to attach a
vacuum source
CPU-10-18KE
30 h
Propane
Yes
CPM-4E
30 h ;
220 volt 1 phase
Yes
PEENA CLEANER
30 h
110 volt 15 amp
Yes
A non-nuclear vacuum system, manufactured by Tornado, was demonstrated with the equipment
described above. The Tornado vacuum directed the dust and debris generated from the coating removal
into a 55-gal drum collection system. However, the system did not have HEPA filters.
System Operation
The CPU-10 was self-propelled and required one hand placed on the rail at all times to steer the
equipment with the other hand operating the speed control. The unit has hydrostatic forward and
reverse drive, a depth control, an engage/disengage lever for the scaling head, an oil alert, a meter
for monitoring the number of hours the head has been operating, and a lifting bail.
The CPM-4 was a stand-behind push unit with variable depth control. This unit also has an
engage/disengage lever to raise and lower the scaling head.
The PEENA Cleaner is hand-held and requires one hand on the trigger at all times to operate with
the other hand on the handle located at the top of the unit to push the equipment across the floor.
The floor to be decontaminated must be dry to ensure that the substrate removed does not clog the
hoses.
Simultaneous to the decontamination of the floor, the dust and debris are vacuumed by the
equipment and the debris collected in a 55 gal drum.
Demonstration Plan
In a project for the Fernald Environmental Management Project, Fluor Daniel Fernald contracted the
Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technologies at Florida International University (FIU-HCET) to
evaluate and test commercially available technologies for their ability to decontaminate radiologically
contaminated concrete flooring. The results of this project are presented in the final report, Analysis of
Potential Concrete Floor Decontamination Technologies.
The demonstrations were held at the Florida International University campus on 20 ft x 40 ft concrete
slabs prepared specifically for these demonstrations. The concrete slabs were 6 in thick and had a final
compressive strength of 5,700 psi. One-half of the slab (20 ft x 20 ft) was coated with an epoxy urethane
coating. A 6-in dike surrounded each test section to aid in the evaluation of the technology's capability to
remove concrete at the interface of a floor and a wall. These demonstrations were not conducted in a
radiological environment.
During the demonstration, FIU-HCET evaluators collected data in the form of visual and physical
measurements. Time studies were performed to determine the production rate of the technology and
implementation costs. Additional field measurements collected include secondary waste generation, ,
operation/maintenance requirements, and benefits and limitations of the technology. In addition, to
enhance the technology assessment process, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
provided a review of the health and safety factors pertinent to the test.
U. S. Department of
115
-------
Treatment Performance
Table C-2 presents the results of the FIU-HCET demonstration of 3M's Heavy Duty Roto Peen flaps
using various types/sizes of floor equipment.
Table C-2. Performance data
Criteria
Applicable surface
Production rate for a
one-person crew
Floor space worked
Type of primary
waste generated
Type of secondary
waste generated
Media used
Noise level
Capability to access
floor-wall unions
Section of floor space
worked
Development status
Ease of use
End-point condition
Worker safety
EDCO CPU-10-18KE
Coating removal,
main floor area
298 ft2/h
740ft2
A fine powder
Roto Peen flaps
3M Roto Peen
flaps, Type A
91.9dBA(1>
No closer than 5 in
Open area, no
obstructions
Commercially
available
Self-propelled floor
unif
Smooth, flat surface
Tripping hazard from
hoses and cords.
Exposed rotating
machinery. Burn
hazard from muffler.
EDCO CPM-4E
Coating removal,
edges of floors
95 fta/h
50ft2
A fine powder
Roto Peen flaps
3M Roto Peen flaps,
Type A
d)
No closer than % in
Edge of floor next to
walls
Commercially
available
Stand-behind push
model
Smooth, flat surface
Tripping hazard from
hoses and cords.
PEENA CLEANER
Coating removal,
edges of floors
107ft2/h
10ft2
A fine powder
Roto Peen flaps
3M Roto Peen flaps,
Type A
(1)
No closer than % in
Edge of floor next to
walls and around
obstructions
Commercially
available
Hand-held unit
requires operators to
be on hands and
knees
Smooth, flat surface
Arm-hand vibration.
Individual measurements for noise control were not performed. This number represents an average across the entire demonstration.
Implementation Considerations
Technology requires an integral HEPA vacuum system to meet the U.S. DOE's radiological control
requirements.
The vacuum shroud on the EDCO equipment could not be adjusted to ensure a good seal of the
interface with the concrete. This resulted in small pieces of debris being expelled from the vacuum
shroud.
The vacuuming of debris from the EDCO equipment was more efficient when the equipment was
used in the direction which allowed the material to move toward the vacuum connection. When the
equipment was operated in the opposite direction, minimal debris was vacuumed from the floor.
U. S. Department of
116
-------
APPENDIX D
ACE
ALARA
amp
ANL
P/72
cm
CFR
CP-5
D&D
dBA
DDFA
Decon
Demo
Demob
DOE
DOT
dpm
EPA
Eq.
ESH
FCCM
FETC
FIU-HCET
ft2
ft3
h
H&S
HDRP
HEPA
HPT
HTRW
IUOE
in
Ib
linft
LLW
LS
LSDP
mi
min
Mob
mrem
OMB
OSHA
PIE
PLF
PPE
activity cost estimate (sheets)
as low as reasonably achievable
amplifier
Argonne National Laboratory
beta/gamma
square centimeters
Code of Federal Regulations
Chicago Pile-5
decontamination and decommissioning
decibels
Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area
Decontamination
Demonstration
Demobilization
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Transportation
disintegrations per minute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
equipment
Environment, Safety, and Health
facilities capital cost of money
Federal Energy Technology Center
Florida International University - Hemispheric Center
for Environmental Technology
square feet
cubic feet
hour(s)
health and safety
Heavy Duty Roto Peen
high efficiency particulate air
health physics technician
hazardous, toxic, radioactive waste
International Union of Operating Engineers
inch (es)
pound (s)
linear foot (feet)
low-level waste
lump sum
Large-Scale Demonstration Project
mile (s)
minute (s)
mobilization
millirem
Office of Management and Budget
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
procurement indirect expense
productivity loss factor
personnel protective equipment
U. S. Department of Energy
117
-------
psi
psig
Qnty
RA
Resp.
rpm
TC
TQ
UC
USAGE
VAC
WAG
WBS
WM
WMO
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch gallons
quantify
remedial action
respirator
revolutions per minute
total cost
total quantity
unit cost
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volts alternating current
waste acceptance criteria
work breakdown structure
waste management
waste management operations
U. S. Department of Energy
118
-------
Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
119
-------
Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
Site Name:
Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5) Research
Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory
Location:
Argonne, Illinois
Contaminants:
Radioactive-contaminated paint
Period of Operation:
12/9/96 -12/12/96
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
Pentek Inc.
Additional Contacts:
Susan C. Madaris
Leonel E. Lagos
Test Engineers
Florida International University
(305) 348-3727/1810
Technology:
Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ
System
- Hand-held (6.5 Ib) tool with a
cutting width of 2 inches
- Pneumatically driven
- Works with a variety of cutting
media and cutting wheels
- Dust collection system - portable
Pentek VAC-PACฎ System; high-
efficiency HEPA filter (sealer can
be used with or without this
system)
Cleanup Authority:
Project performed as part of DOE's
Large-Scale Demonstration
Project, Office of Science and
Technology, Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Contaminated
paint coating on concrete floor
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate Roto
Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ
System and compare results to
those for mechanical scabbing
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Radioactively contaminated concrete floor - 650 ft2 of concrete flooring
covered with contaminated paint
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objective of the demonstration was to evaluate the performance of the Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ
System to remove contaminated paint coating from 650 ft2 of concrete flooring and to compare the results of this
technology with those from the baseline technology of mechanical scabbing.
Results:
- Removed paint coating at an average rate of 40.6 ft2/hr/scaler; capable of removing coatings to within ฅ2. inch
of walls and obstructions - can be used in confined areas.
- Reduced total fixed beta/gamma contamination levels from pre-demonstration levels as high as
13,500 dpm/100 cm2 (hot spot) to below background levels, with the hot spot reduced to 5,900 dpm/100 cm2.
- Use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the
scaling process and has the potential to lead to the use of less respiratory protection and PPE requirements
Cost:
- The report presents a detailed cost analysis of this technology compared to the baseline technology.
- Cost analysis results show the total cost for Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System was 40% lower than
the baseline of mechanical scabbing (about $6,500 versus about $11,000). The major contributor to the savings
was that the Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System did not require a temporary enclosure.
120
-------
Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System at Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (continued)
Description:
The Pentek, Inc. Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System was demonstrated at the Chicago Pile 5 (CP-5)
Research Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory. This demonstration was part of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5)
Large-Scale Demonstration Project sponsored by DOE, Office of Science and Technology, Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area, to demonstrate the benefits of using innovative and improved decontamination
and decommissioning technologies. CP-5 was a heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uranium-
fueled thermal reactor designed to supply neutrons for research and was operated for 25 years before being shut
down in 1979.
The Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System is a hand-held tool weighing 6.5 Ibs, with a cutting width of 2
inches. The sealer is designed to work with a variety of cutting media, including cutting wheels and the 3M
Heavy Duty Roto Peen flaps. The unit can be used with or without the Pentek VAC-PACฎ System. The VAC-
PACฎ is portable and has a patented controlled-seal drum fill system that allows the operator to fill, seal, and
replace the waste drum under vacuum conditions. The demonstration showed that the main advantage of the
Roto Peen Sealer with the VAC-PACฎ System, compared'to mechanical scabbing, was the simultaneous
collection of dust and debris. The report includes a detailed comparison of the two technologies. In addition,
the technology removed paint coating at an average rate of 40.6 ft2/hr/scaler and was able to remove coatings to
within Yt inch of walls and obstructions. The sealer also reduced radiological levels to below background levels
and use of the dust collection system significantly reduced the amount of airborne dust generated during the
scaling process.
The report includes results of a detailed cost analysis comparing the Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System
with mechanical scabbing. Cost analysis results show that the total cost for Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ
System was 40% lower than the baseline of mechanical scabbing. The major contributor to the savings was that
the Roto Peen Sealer with VAC-PACฎ System did not require a temporary enclosure.
121
-------
SECTION 1
Technology Summary
The Pentek, Inc., milling technology, comprising the ROTO PEEN Sealer and the VAC-PACฎ waste
collection system, is a fully developed and commercialized technology used to remove hazardous
coatings from concrete and steel floors, wails, ceilings, and structural components.
The ROTO PEEN Sealer, the basic hand-held tool shown in Figure 1, weighs 6.5 Ib, has a cutting width of
2 in, is pneumatically driven, and works with a variety of interchangeable cutting media such as cutting
wheels and 3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen Flaps. It was designed to remove lead-based paints and
radioactive and other hazardous contaminants from flat areas and large vertical surfaces, including the
interface near walls and within confined spaces. The ROTO PEEN Sealer operates independently or in
conjunction with the Pentek VAC-PACฎ waste collection system (Figure 2).
The VAC-PACฎ high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and vacuum system is a portable unit offering
two-stage positive filtration of hazardous particulates, including radioactive particles and lead-based paint.
The VAC-PACฎ also has a patented controlled-seal drum fill system, which allows the operator to fill, seal,
remove, and replace the waste drum under controlled vacuum conditions. Skills and training required to
operate the Pentek milling technology are minimal because the equipment is relatively easy to operate.
Figure 1. Pentek's ROTO PEEN Sealer.
Figure 2. Pentek's VAC-PACฎ.
Potential markets exist for the innovative ROTO PEEN milling system at the following sites: Nevada, Oak
Ridge Y-12 and K-25, Paducah, Portsmouth, Rocky Flats D&D sites, and the Savannah River Site. This
information is based on a revision to the OST Linkage Tables dated August 4, 1997.
Advantages
The main advantage of the Pentek milling technology over the baseline technology, mechanical scabbling,
Is the simultaneous collection of dust and debris by the VAC-PACฎ, which is connected to the ROTO
PEEN Sealer. Mechanical scabbling uses a floor/deck sealer suitable for thick coating removal and
surface preparation of large areas of concrete floors. This unit is equipped with eleven 1-in-diameter
pistons that impact the floor at a rate of 2,300 blows/min/piston. An aluminum shroud surrounds the
pistons to capture large pieces of debris; however, an ancillary dust collection/vacuum system is not being
U. S. Department of Energy
122
-------
used. Instead, a containment system (i.e., a plastic tent) is erected over the area to be decontaminated to
minimize the potential release of airborne dust and contamination.
Using the Pentek milling system's dust collection/vacuum system significantly reduces the amount of
airborne dust generated during the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) process and reduces
personnel exposure, which may lead to a significant reduction in respiratory protection and personnel
protective equipment (PPE) requirements, especially in highly contaminated facilities.
The ROTO PEEN Sealer also can remove only the coating, specific layers of the coating, or the coating
and concrete. The size of the ROTO PEEN Sealer makes the unit ideal for use in tightly confined areas
that the mechanical scabbier would be too large to access.
Demonstration Summary
This report describes a demonstration of the Pentek, Inc., milling system to remove the paint coating from
650 ft2 of concrete flooring on the service floor of the Chicago Pile-5 (CP-5) Research Reactor. CP-5 is a
heavy-water moderated and cooled, highly enriched, uranium-fueled thermal reactor designed to supply
neutrons for research. The reactor had a thermal-power rating of 5 megawatts and was operated
continuously for 25 years until its final shutdown in 1979. These 25 years of operation produced activation
and contamination characteristics representative of other nuclear facilities within the Department of
Energy (DOE) complex and the commercial nuclear sector. CP-5 contains many of the essential features
of other DOE and commercial nuclear facilities and can be used safely as a demonstration facility for the
evaluation of innovative technologies for the future D&D of much larger, more highly contaminated
facilities.
This Pentek, Inc., milling technology demonstration is part of the CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project
(LSDP) sponsored by the DOE Office of Science and Technology (OST), Deactivation and
Decommissioning Focus Area (DDFA). The objective of the LSDP is to select and demonstrate potentially
beneficial technologies at the Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL) CP-5 Research Reactor. The
purpose of the LSDP is to demonstrate that using innovative and improved D&D technologies from various
sources can result in significant benefits, such as decreased cost or increased health and safety, when
compared with baseline D&D technologies.
The demonstration period (December 9-12, 1996) included the mobilization, demonstration, and
demobilization of the Pentek milling system. Radiological surveys were performed both before and
immediately after the demonstration to determine the level of decontamination achieved by the ROTO
PEEN milling system's removal of floor coatings. The vendor was not required to remove additional
concrete from the floor area if the final radiological levels were still found to be elevated at the end of the
demonstration.
Pentek personnel operated three identical hand-held ROTO PEEN Sealers for the demonstration. ANL
personnel from the CP-5 Project and the Environment, Safety, and Health (ESH) Division provided
support in the areas of health physics (HP), industrial hygiene (IH), waste management (WM), and safety
engineering. Data collection, including benchmarking and cost information, was performed by Florida
International University - Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology (FIU-HCET). The cost
analysis was performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and benchmarking activities were
performed by ICF Kaiser, International.
Key Results
The key results of the demonstration are as follows:
The Pentek ROTO PEEN Sealers removed the pairit coating from the 650 ft2 of concrete flooring in the
demonstration area at an average rate of 40.6 f^/h/scaler.
This technology is best used in confined areas and around and under obstacles. It is capable of
removing coatings to within one-half inch from the edge of walls and obstructions.
U. S. Department of Energy
123
-------
Removal of the coatings from the concrete floor was sufficient to reduce the radiological levels from an
original area of elevated fixed total beta/gamma contamination measuring 800 cm2 (0.86 ft2) with a
maximum hot spot of 13,500 dpm/100 cm2 to an elevated contamination area of only 200 cm2 (0.22 ft2)
with the same hot spot reduced to 5,900 dpm/100 cm2 fixed total beta/gamma. The contamination
levels for the remaining floor were at or below background levels before the demonstration.
The Pentek VAC-PACฎ dust-collection system, which was connected to the ROTO PEEN Sealers
tested, has the potential to significantly reduce the amount of airborne radioactivity during D&D
activities and, therefore, potentially to reduce PPE requirements, especially respiratory protection.
This feature is beneficial in contrast to the mechanical scabbling technology, which requires that a
plastic tent containment system be erected around the area to be decontaminated.
Investigators recommend that, if the ROTO PEEN Sealer is to be used for the decontamination of
large floor spaces, one or multiple ROTO PEEN Scaler(s) be mounted on a lawn-mower-type
apparatus to increase production rates and allow the operators to decontaminate large floor areas
while standing rather than on their hands and knees.
Contacts
Technical
Linda Lukart-Ewansik, Pentek, Inc., Decontamination Products Division, (412) 262-0725,
pentekusa@aol.com
Demonstration
Leonel E. Lagos, Test Engineer, Florida International University-Hemispheric Center for Environmental
Technology, (305) 348-1810, leonel@eng.fiu.edu
Susan C. Madaris, Florida International University-Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology,
(305) 348-3727, madariss@eng.fiu.edu
CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project or Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration
Richard C. Baker, U.S. Department of Energy, Chicago Operations Office, (630) 252-2647,
richard.baker@ch.doe.gov
Steve Bossart, Federal Energy Technology Center, (304) 285-4643, sbossa@fetc.doe.gov
Terry Bradley, Strategic Alliance Administrator, Duke Engineering and Services, (704) 382-2766,
tlbradle@duke-energy.com
Web Site
The CP-5 LSDP Internet address is http://www.strategic-alliance.org.
Other
All published Innovative Technology Summary Reports are available online at http://em-50.em.doe.gov.
The Technology Management System, also available through the EM50 Web site, provides information
about OST programs, technologies, and problems. The OST Reference # for ROTO PEEN Sealer with
VAC-PAC* System is 1943.
U. S. Department of Energy
124
-------
SECTION 2
Technology Schematic
The Pentek ROTO PEEN Sealer is a hand-held tool marketed to remove coatings from concrete, steel,
brick, and wood. Manufactured of solid cast alloy, the ROTO PEEN Sealer is rugged, and its lightness
makes it highly portable and easy to maneuver. It is designed to treat vertical and horizontal surfaces such
as beams, girders, tank shells, and areas near walls and in confined spaces. Figure 3 is a schematic of
the Pentek system.
1) The VAC-PACฎ system can support the operation of up to 10 tools, each
located up to 100 ft away.
Figure 3. Schematic of the Pentek decontamination system.
Interchangeable cutting media are available for various applications. The operator can select from a
variety of 3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen Flaps for the removal of coatings, tight mill scale, or concrete
scarification. Type A flaps, used for concrete scarification, were used at the CP-5 demonstration. These
flaps are studded with rows of tungsten carbide cutters and mounted on a rotating hub. Pentek personnel
also demonstrated the use of star cutter metal wheels on a 9-ft2 section of floor at CP-5. Because the
application of the star cutter metal wheels exceeded the scope of this demonstration, this equipment is not
discussed further in this document.
The vendor's operational parameters for the Pentek ROTO PEEN Sealer include the following:
Required vacuum source
Air consumption at 90 psig
Dimensions (L x W x H)
Weight
Speed
75 fP/min
30 standard flrVmin
6 in x 2% in x 4 in
6.5 Ib
User adjustable up to 2,400 rpm
U. S. Department of Energy
125
-------
Cutting width
Pentek advertised production rate
2 in
30 to 50 f^/h on flat surfaces
The ROTO PEEN Sealer is not designed specifically for corners or edges. However, Pentek markets a
second tool, the CORNER-CUTTERฎ, for this purpose. In addition, an optional right-angled ROTO PEEN
Sealer is available with a right-angled motor/drive for access to narrow spaces such as I-beams and stair
risers. Neither of these tools were applied during the CP-5 demonstration.
The Pentek VAC-PACฎ was used in conjunction with the ROTO PEEN Sealer during the CP-5
demonstration. The objective of the demonstration was to remove the contaminated paint coating from
650 ft2 of concrete flooring on the service floor of the ANL CP-5 Research Reactor facility. The debris
removed by the ROTO PEEN Sealer was collected in this vacuum system. The VAC-PACฎ features
Pentek's patented controlled-seal drum fill system, which allows the waste drum to be filled, sealed,
removed, and replaced under controlled vacuum conditions. With this system, the operator's exposure to
the contents of the waste drum and the possibility of releasing airborne contamination during drum-change
operations is minimized.
Several models of the VAC-PACฎ are available, including models with different vacuum flow rates and
electric- and air-powered models. Model 24, the largest air-powered unit, was demonstrated at CP-5. The
vendor's specifications for this unit are as follows:
Rated vacuum flow
Air consumption @ 85 psig
Rated static lift
Dimensions (L x W x H)
Weight
Primary roughing filter cartridges
Secondary HEPA filter
Standard waste drum
600 ft3/min
280 standard ft3/min
100 in water gauge
48 in x 28 in x 72 in
Approximately 750 Ib
Three at 8-in diameter, 95 percent efficient at 1 micrometer (jim)
One @ 12 in x 24 in, 99.97 percent efficient at 0.3 n,m
23, 52, or 55 U.S. gal
System Operation
The ROTO PEEN Sealer is operated by using a squeeze trigger mounted on the handle of the sealer
unit The unit travels on small wheels along the floor and is led using the handle on the top of the unit.
As the floor is being decontaminated, the debris generated is vacuumed into the VAC-PACฎ and
drummed for disposal.
Skills and training required to operate the Pentek milling technology are minimal because the
equipment is relative;/ easy to operate.
Utilities required for the operation of the Pentek milling system at the CP-5 LSDP included an air
compressor (minimum 370 psi) and a 115-V, 20-amp electrical current source.
Decontamination of the ROTO PEEN Sealer is relatively easy. The sealer comes apart for easy
wiping. The VAC-PACฎ system is also easily wiped down after the filters are removed.
Primary waste generated by the coating removal process consists of a light, powdery mixture of paint
and concrete. Secondary waste consists of spent Roto Peen flaps, vacuum hoses, the roughing and
HEPA filters in the VAC-PACฎ, and any material used during equipment decontamination (e.g., damp
rags).
U. S. Department of Energy
126
-------
SECTION 3
Demonstration Plan
The demonstration of the Pentek milling technology was conducted according to the approved test plan,
CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project: Test Plan for the Demonstration of Milling Technology at
CP-5 (Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration 1996). The objective of the demonstration was to
remove the contaminated paint coating from 650 ft2 of concrete flooring on the service floor of the ANL
CP-5 Research Reactor facility. The concrete is approximately 40 years old and is covered with multiple
layers of paint. The paint has worn through in many locations, exposing the subcoatings. Because the
depth of the contamination in the concrete floors at CP-5 was unknown, the decision to perform coating
removal was based on the potential future need to reuse the floor space where demonstrations were held.
Coating-removal techniques tend to yield a smooth surface that can be repainted or covered easily. In
contrast, concrete-removal technologies have the potential to produce an uneven, rough surface that
could be difficult to reuse.
Radiological surveys for both fixed and removable contamination were conducted both before and
immediately after the demonstration to determine the level of decontamination achieved by the coating
removal. The vendor was not required to remove additional concrete from the demonstration area if the
final radiological levels were still found to be above acceptable levels.
During the demonstration, evaluators from FIU-HCET collected data in the form of visual and physical
measurements. Time studies were performed to determine the production rate of the technology and
implementation costs. The end-point condition left by the demonstration was compared with the
requirement of removing the coating and any subcoatings to produce a bare concrete floor. Additional field
measurements collected included secondary waste generation, potential personnel exposure, and utility
consumption. The milling technology was evaluated against the baseline technology, mechanical
scabbling.
Treatment Performance
Table 1 summarizes the results of the Pentek milling technology demonstration and compares them with
the baseline technology.
Table 1. Performance data
Criteria
Applicable surface
Production rate (removal
rate only)
Amount and type of
primary waste generated
Pentek milling technology
Coating removal from painted
concrete floor.
40.6 fP/h
2.54 ft3 of very powdery paint
chips (contained by the VAC-
PACฎ as generated).
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology*
VA in concrete removal from floor.
200 ft2/h
Amount estimated to be 19.5 ft3 of
a mixture of powdery and large
pieces of paint chips and concrete;
requires manual cleanup; no
vacuum system is attached.
U. S. Department of Energy
127
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Criteria
Type of secondary waste
generated
Airborne radioactivity
generated by equipment
Noise level
Capability to access floor-
wall unions
Development status
Ease of use
End-point condition
Worker safety
Pentek milling technology
Roto Peen flaps
Roughing filters and high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter
Vacuum hoses - 50-ft sections.
All airborne radiological
measurements were at or below
background levels.
94 dBA in work area,
hearing protection is required.
No closer than Yz in.
Commercially available.
Minimal training required for use.
Operators work on hands and
knees for floor areas, resulting in
a need for frequent breaks.
Paint coating was removed,
leaving a smooth, bare concrete
surface.
Tripping hazard because of
hoses. Rotating and cutting
hazards.
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology*
Tent-enclosure materials and worn
pistons/scabbling bits.
Not connected to vacuum system;
therefore, up to 10 percent of
debris generated can become
airborne.
84 dBA (per vendor, not
measurements).
No closer than 1 in.
Commercially available; compatible
vacuum systems are also
available.
Training required: 2 h/person.
Walk-behind, push-floor model.
Moderate-to-heavy vibrations can
cause operator fatigue.
Paint coating is removed, leaving a
rough, bare concrete surface.
Flying concrete poses a potential
eye hazard.
* Baseline was not demonstrated and data are from vendor-supplied information and engineering
estimates.
Radiological surveys of the demonstration area were performed before and after the demonstration. The
total fixed beta/gamma contamination results for the locations of elevated gross direct beta readings are
listed in Table 2. Immediately after the coating was removed by Pentek personnel, ANL ESH-HP spot-
checked known elevated locations in the demonstration area. Two of the seven locations were above
background levels (actual values were not documented). Pentek personnel subsequently removed an
additional 1/16 in of concrete from these areas beyond the requirements of this demonstration.
Nonetheless, the contamination was deeper than the depth of concrete removed.
Table 2. Radiological results
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
area
(cm2)
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total p/Y (dpm/100cm2)
contamination -
pre-demonstration
7,500
9,400
7,800
13,500
6,700
9,700
3,300
Total p/y (dpm/100cm2)
contamination -
post-demonstration
*
*
*
5,900
*
3,300
*
* Results were at or below background levels of no greater than 1,500 dpm/100cm2.
U. S. Department of Energy
128
-------
SECTION 4
Technology Applicability
The Pentek milling technology is a fully mature and commercialized technology that is used to remove
hazardous coatings from confined areas of concrete and steel on floors, walls, ceilings, and structural
components. During the December 9-12,1996, technology demonstration at CP-5, the ROTO PEEN
Sealer was evaluated as an alternative to the mechanical scabbling technology for the removal of coatings
from large areas of concrete floor.
The advantages of the Pentek milling technology are summarized below.
The ROTO PEEN Sealer is well designed as evidenced by
- the solid cast alloy construction, which allows the unit to hold up under the normal wear and tear
of field operations;
- the speed and ease with which the 3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen Flaps could be replaced during
the demonstration; and
- the ease with which the sealer could be disassembled for decontamination.
The VAC-PACฎ is well designed so that
- the controlled-seal drum fill system allows waste drums to be filled, sealed, removed, and
replaced while minimizing the possibility of operator exposure or the release of airborne
contamination;
- the HEPA and roughing filters are easily accessible; and
- the VAC-PACฎ provides ports for multiple tool operation.
The major shortfall of the Pentek ROTO PEEN Sealer is that coating removal from a large floor surface is
extremely labor intensive. Although this technology was effective in removing the coatings from the test
area, the operators were required to work on their hands and knees for several hours at a time.
Consequently, they had to stop every few minutes to stretch or adjust their PPE. The best use of this
technology is for the decontamination of confined spaces around and under obstacles (e.g., staircases).
Competing Technologies
In addition to milling technologies, a number of other technologies are available to D&D professionals for
removing coatings from concrete floor surfaces.
Competing technologies include the following:
mechanical scabbling (ANL baseline technology),
centrifugal shot blast,
flashlamp,
carbon dioxide blasting,
grit blasting,
high-pressure and ultra-high pressure water blasting,
U. S. Department of Energy
129
-------
sponge or soft-media blasting,
laser ablation,
wet ice blasting, and
various chemical-based coating removal technologies.
Several competing technologies also exist in the category of milling. These technologies differ with respect
to
cutting media (e.g., star cutter metal wheels versus 3M Roto Peen Flaps),
equipment design (e.g., floor model versus hand-held), and
operation (e.g., remote versus manual).
Data comparing the performance of the Pentek milling system to the competing technologies listed above
is not available.
Patents/Commercialization/Sponsor
This demonstration used an existing and fully developed commercial technology. The ROTO PEEN Sealer
and the VAC-PACฎ are owned by Pentek, Inc., from whom they may be purchased. The patent for the
VAC-PACฎ is owned by Pentek, Inc. The Heavy-Duty Roto Peen Flaps used by Pentek during this
demonstration are manufactured by 3M Company and can be purchased by Pentek. No issues related to
patents, commercialization, or sponsorship are pending.
U. S. Department of Energy
130
-------
SECTION 5
Introduction
This cost analysis compares the relative costs of the ROTO PEEN Sealer and VAC-PAC system and the
mechanical scabbling technology and presents information that will assist D&D planners in decisions
about use of the innovative technology in future D&D work. This analysis strives to develop realistic
estimates that represent actual D&D work within the DOE complex. However, this is a limited
representation of actual cost because the analysis uses only data observed during the demonstration.
Some of the observed costs will include refinements to make the estimates more realistic. These
adjustments are allowed only when they do not distort the fundamental elements of the observed data
related to productivity rate, quantities, or work elements. They eliminate only those activities that are
atypical of normal D&D work. Descriptions contained in later portions of this analysis detail the changes to
the observed data. The CP-5 Large-Scale Demonstration Project Technology Data Report for the Pentek,
Inc., Milling Technology (Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration, 1997) provides additional cost
information. Appendix B contains more detailed cost information.
Methodology
This cost analysis compares two decontamination technologies, the innovative milling technology and the
baseline mechanical scabbling technology. The milling technology was demonstrated at the CP-5 facility
under controlled conditions using vendor personnel and equipment. Work process activities were timed
and quantities were measured so that production rates could be determined.
Data collected during the demonstration included the following:
activity duration,
work crew composition,
equipment and supplies used to perform the work steps,
frequency and cost of worn part replacement, and
utility consumption.
A demonstration of the baseline mechanical scabbling technology was not performed. Baseline
information has been developed from the following sources:
the existing CP-5 budget or planning documentation,
historical experience at ANL, and
the experience-based judgment of D&D personnel at ANL.
Because the baseline costs are not based on currently observed data, additional effort has been exerted
in structuring the baseline cost analysis to ensure unbiased and appropriate production rates and crew
costs. Specifically, a team consisting of members from the Strategic Alliance (IGF Kaiser, an ANL D&D
technical specialist, and a test engineer for the demonstration) and USAGE reviewed the assumptions to
ensure a fair comparison.
The cost analysis data are displayed in a predetermined activity structure. The activities are extracts from
the Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure and Data
Dictionary (HTRWRA WBS) (USAGE, 1996.) The HTRWRA WBS was developed by an interagency
group, and its use in this analysis provides consistency with established national standards.
U. S. Department of Energy
131
-------
Some costs are omitted from this analysis to facilitate site-specific use in cost comparison. The ANL
indirect expense rates for common support and materials are omitted from this analysis. Overhead rates
for each DOE site vary in both magnitude and the way they are applied. Decision makers seeking site-
specific costs can apply their site's rates to this analysis without having to retract ANL's rates. This
omission does not sacrifice the accuracy of the cost-saving data because overhead is applied to both the
innovative and the baseline technology costs. Engineering, quality assurance, administrative costs, and
taxes on services and materials are also omitted from this analysis for the same reasons indicated for the
overhead rates.
The standard labor rates established by ANL for estimating D&D work are used in this analysis for the
portions of the work performed by local crafts. Additionally, the analysis assumes an 8-h work day and a
5-day week.
The equipment hourly rates, representing the Government's ownership, are based on general guidance
contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94, revised (OMB, 1992), for cost-
effectiveness analysis. The rate consists of ownership and operating costs. Operating costs consist of
fuel, filters, oil, grease, and other consumable items and repairs, calibrations, maintenance, and
overhauls.
Summary of Cost Variable Conditions
The DOE complex presents a wide range of D&D work conditions because of its variety of functions and
facilities. The working conditions for an individual job directly influence the manner in which D&D work is
performed. As a result, the costs for an individual job are unique. The innovative and baseline technology
estimates presented in this analysis (Table 3) are based on a specific set of conditions or work practices
found at CP-5. This table is intended to help the technology user identify work differences that can affect
cost.
Table 3. Summary of cost variable conditions
Cost variable
Quantity and type of
material
Pentek milling technology
650 ft2; coated concrete floor.
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology
Salg'j!S3iJliliil
650 ft2, comparable to
demonstration area but
approximately one-quarter of
original baseline scope of 2,542 ft2.
Location
Service floor of Chicago Pile-5 (CP-
5) Research Reactor, including open
areas, edges, foundation vertical
edges, and under cramped stairway.
CP-5 Research Reactor; same
service floor area, open areas only.
Nature of work
Level of
contamination
Reduce radiological levels. Remove
coatings only (paint chips).
The demonstration area is not a
high-radiation area. All contamination
was fixed.
Reduce radiological levels.
Remove % in of concrete (inherent
in equipment along with coating).
Assumed baseline would be the
same as that of the demonstration
area.
Level of
contamination
during D&D activity
No airborne contamination was
generated. The vacuum system
component of the equipment
contained debris continuously.
Concrete chips and dust (airborne)
created by equipment.
Temporary
protection
No airborne exposure. No tent.
Protective clothing (PCs) and
respirator were donned, but to a
lesser degree than required by the
baseline.
Temporary tent required; estimated
to cover 133 percent of area being
worked; 865 ft2 used. Requires
PCs and respirator for comparison.
U. S. Department of Energy
132
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Cost variable
Pentek milling technology
Baseline mechanical scabbling
technology
::s :?>& r :^r rซ ;ซ;- -N?-,d
Means of
acquisition
Scale of production
Production rates
(crew size)
Primary waste
Secondary waste
Work process steps
End condition
Subcontracted vendor demonstrated
a provided service of craft and
equipment. This analysis is based on
using site craft and owned as well as
some rental equipment.
1. Demonstrated both in large, open
areas and tight spaces.
2. Crew size varied from two to
three, each with a ROTO PEEN
Sealer.
3. Equipment: small, hand-held, 2-in
cut width.
Net average of 40.6 ff^/person-hour
for crew of three persons1.
2.54ft3
Vacuum hoses, worn flaps, PPE,
swipes, filters: estimated 12.16 ft3.
Mill off the surface coatings using
three machines simultaneously with
continuous vacuum collection into
closed container.
Coating removed; radiation reduced.
Local craft workers with site-owned
and some rental equipment.
1. Based on a large, open area and
some tight areas inaccessible for
the size of machine.
2. Crew of three: one with machine
and two supporting members.
3. Equipment: large, floor, walk-
behind model, 11-in cut width.
Assumed constant rate: 200 ftVh
for the person running the
machine. Net effective production
with three persons on crew is 67
fp/person-hour.
19.5ft3
Worn scabbling bits, swipes, PPE:
estimated 7.35 ft3 (1 drum).
1 . Scabble the surface area to ~/4
in depth with one machine, leaving
debris and airborne contaminants.
2. Sample rubble [health physics
technician (HPT)].
3. Manually clean up and load into
containers (steps not quantified; no
earned value).
Coating and % in concrete
removed. Presumably, radiation
would be reduced as well as or
better than by milling because of
the depth of cut (not
demonstrated).
1 As the demonstration progressed and the areas being decontaminated became more complex (e.g.,
under stairwells and around obstructions), the production rate decreased. On the first day, 510 ft2 of open
flooring was decontaminated at a production rate of 45.1 fP/h. On the second day, only 97 ft2 was worked
at a production rate of 36.5 ft2/!-). On the third day, the final 43 ft2 was completed at a production rate of
21.
Potential Savings and Cost Conclusions
For the conditions and assumptions stated, the innovative milling technology results in cost savings of 40
percent over the baseline mechanical scabbling alternative for this demonstration scope of 650 ft2. Figure
4 presents a summary and comparison of the potential savings offered by the two technologies.
U. S. Department of Energy
133
-------
rj Innovative Milling
jH Baseline Scabbling
Figure 4. Technology cost comparison.
The major savings derived from Pentek's milling technology stem from the elimination of the need to
construct a temporary structure to contain airborne contaminants. The innovative technology does not
require the construction of a temporary structure because all debris is vacuumed continuously as it is
generated.
Waste disposal constitutes the next largest savings. Removed coating generates a considerably smaller
quantity of waste than does a 14-in depth of concrete and coating removal. Minor savings include those
resulting from (1) the elimination of rubble loading because the vacuum dumps directly into a closed-drum
container and (2) sampling, which is not necessary because the system is closed. The savings from these
activities will vary with the size of the area to be decontaminated.
Other potential cost differences at various sites may include the following:
production rates of the machine model and its cut width and depth capabilities,
mobilization and demobilization of equipment and personnel,
training of new personnel,
site health and safety requirements, and
the size of the area undertaken as a single project.
The production rates and operating costs for milling and mechanical scabbling vary depending upon site-
specific conditions and the model of the machine selected. The available production rates range from
30 ffVh to more than 490 fP/h. The width of cut affects the production rate and ranges from 2 to 18 in.
Some wide-cut, large floor models are easy to use but hard to maneuver in tight spots, whereas the small,
hand-held units work well under stairways but cause worker fatigue. Removal activities using mechanical
scabbling with superior production rates actually cost less than the milling technology.
This analysis assumes government ownership. If vendor services are used, additional costs to mobilize
and train personnel are incurred. Moreover, depending on any given site situation, a health and safety
requirement beyond regulatory minimal requirements could be imposed, requiring that a tent-like structure
be erected even though the innovative technology does not create airborne contamination.
U. S. Department of Energy
134
-------
Some sites will choose to discard the mechanical scabbling or scaling/milling equipment at the end of a
small project or keep the equipment for extended use and future projects. Amortizing equipment
ownership costs over a greater scope results in lower unit rates. For instance, the primary roughing filters
and the secondary HEPA filter, used for only 650 ft2, were discarded following the demonstration. The filter
costs of $989 resulted in a unit cost of $1.52/ft2 or $159.15/h for the 6.2 productive hours in use, a
relatively high cost element. However, the design of the filter system provides for automatic blow-back
cleaning about every 30 seconds, which increases the life of the roughing filters to about 9 months to 1
year of continuous, normal use and the life of the HEPA filter to about 1 year. For the cost analysis, a life
of 1 year and 500 h of use is assumed, which equates to about 52,420 ft2, yielding a reduction in the two
unit costs to $0.019/ft2 and $1.98/h, respectively. Thus, the reduction in unit cost is dramatic, but the
planned use of each technology depends on each site.
All factors discussed affect costs for both technologies. Users should compute the estimated potential
savings for D&D work by substituting the expected quantities, mobilization distance, equipment
investments, and production rates into Appendix B, Table B-2 to determine site-specific costs.
U. S. Department of Energy
135
-------
SECTION 6
Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory/permitting issues related to use of the Pentek milling technology at the ANL CP-5
Research Reactor consist of the following safety and health regulations. These regulations also apply to
the baseline mechanical scabbling technology.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1926
-1926.300 to 1926.307
-1926.400 to 1926.449
-1926.28
-1926.52
-1926.102
-1926.103
OSHA 29 CFR 1910
Tools-Hand and Power
Electrical-Definitions
Personal Protective Equipment
Occupational Noise Exposure
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
-1910.101 to 1910.120 (App E)
-1910.211 to 1910.219
-1910.241 to 1910.244
1910.301 to 1910.399
1910.95
1910.132
1910.133
1910.134
1910.147
10 CFR 835
Hazardous Materials
Machinery and Machine Guarding
Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held
Equipment
Electrical-Definitions
Occupational Noise Exposure
General Requirements (Personal Protective Equipment)
Eye and Face Protection
Respiratory Protection
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)
Occupational Radiation Protection
Disposal requirements/criteria include the following Department of Transportation (DOT) and DOE
requirements:
49 CFR Subchapter C
171
172
173
174
177
178
10 CFR 71
Hazardous Materials Regulations
General Information, Regulations, and Definitions
Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous
Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information,
and Training Requirements
Shippers-General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings
Carriage by Rail
Carriage by Public Highway
Specifications for Packagings
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material
U. S. Department of Energy
136
-------
If the waste is determined to be hazardous solid waste, the following Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requirement should be considered:
40 CFR Subchapter I Solid Waste
Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAG) from the following disposal facilities are used by ANL:
Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria
Barnwell Waste Management Facility Site Disposal Criteria
Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
WHC-EP-0063-4
S20-AD-010
WIPP-DOE-069
The waste form requirements/criteria may require the stabilization or immobilization of final waste streams
because of their powdery consistency. This requirement would be valid for any aggressive
coating/concrete-removal technology.
Since the ROTO PEEN milling system is designed for the decontamination of structures, there is no
regulatory requirement to apply CERCLA's nine evaluation criteria. However, some evaluation criteria
required by CERCLA, such as protection of human health and community acceptance, are briefly
discussed below. Other criteria, such as cost and effectiveness, were discussed earlier in this document.
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
With respect to safety issues, the Pentek milling technology is considered to be relatively safe. The cutting
media used by the ROTO PEEN Sealer, the 3M Heavy-Duty Roto Peen Flaps, are fully contained within
the sealer unit, thus reducing the potential risk to the operator's fingers. The contaminated waste debris
generated during the coating removal process is simultaneously vacuumed away by the VAC-PACฎ,
thereby efficiently reducing the risk to the operator posed by flying paint, concrete chips, or airborne
radioactive dust. In contrast, mechanical scabbling, the baseline technology, does not incorporate a
vacuum system; thus, up to 10 percent of the debris can become airborne during the D&D process. In
addition, the VAC-PACฎ controlled-seal drum fill system minimizes the risk of a release of airborne
contamination during the handling of the waste drum.
However, when the Pentek ROTO PEEN Sealer is used for large-area decontamination, the ergonomics
of the system require that operators work for long periods of time on their hands and knees, limiting the
amount of time they can work without short breaks to stretch or rearrange their PPE. Moreover, the hoses
connecting the sealer to the vacuum system constitute a hindrance for the operators because they have to
be moved or rearranged frequently. Thus, it is recommended that this system be used for small floor areas
or confined areas.
The use of the milling technology rather than mechanical scabbiing would have no measurable impact on
community safety or environmental and socioeconomic issues.
U. S. Department of Energy
137
-------
SECTION 7
Implementation Considerations ^ss^^^ssi^ssi^^ssss^^ssi^^sssssss
The Pentek ROTO PEEN milling system demonstrated at CP-5 is a fully developed and commercially
available technology. No implementation considerations were identified.
Technology Limitations and Needs for Future Development
The Pentek ROTO PEEN technology would benefit from the following design improvements:
For use on large, open floor areas, it is recommended that the ROTO PEEN Sealer be adapted to
allow the operator to operate the unit while standing. This larger unit could be adapted to use
additional 3M Flaps, thereby increasing both the cutting width from the current 2 in and the
productivity rate for the decontamination of large areas.
When the HEPA filter is seated in the VAC-PACฎ, it is clamped in place and then measured on each
side to ensure that it is centered in the unit. To facilitate the filter installation process, it is suggested
that a guide be built in the VAC-PACฎ to ensure the proper placement of the HEPA filter before it is
secured in place with clamps.
Technology Selection Considerations =si==i==^=H^=^=
The Pentek ROTO PEEN milling system composed of the ROTO PEEN Sealer and the VAC-PACฎ is an
established and proven technology for the removal of coatings from metal, concrete, brick, and wood.
When used on a large floor area, the technology proves to be labor intensive and requires that the
operators take several short breaks to stretch, readjust PPE, and move hoses. Although the milling
technology demonstrated the ability to remove coatings, the vendor states that the ROTO PEEN Sealer is
also capable of removing concrete up to a depth of % in.
U. S. Department of Energy
138
-------
APPENDIX A
Argonne National Laboratory. CP-5 Cost Estimate, rev. 1, Argonne, IL. 1996.
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Barnwell Waste Management Facility Site Disposal Criteria Chem-Nuclear
Systems, Inc., Barnwell Office, S20-AD-010, rev. 11.1995.
Dataquest. Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment, Vol. 1, p. 3-1, Machinery Information
Division of K-111 Directory Corporation, San Jose, CA. 1997.
TLG Engineering, Inc. Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost
Estimates, Vols. 1 and 2, Table 3.7 c-2, Atomic Industrial Forum, Bethesda, MD. 1986.
Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Full Decommissioning of the CP-5
Reactor Facility, prepared for Argonne National Laboratory. 1992.
Office of Management and Budget. Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Circular No. A-94 revised, Washington,
D.C. 1992.
Pentek, Inc. ROTO PEEN Sealer For Dustless Coating Removal from Steel, Concrete, Brick, and Wood,
Bulletin No. M-700, Pennsylvania. 1996.
Pentek, Inc. VAC-PACฎ High Performance H.E.P.A. Vacuum/Drumming Systems, Bulletin No. M-406,
Pennsylvania. 1994.
Reape, A.G. "Productivity Study for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Remediation Projects," Cost Engineering,
Vol. 38, No. 2. 1996.
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration. CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project, Test Plan for
the Demonstration of Milling Technology at CP-5, Hemispheric Center for Environmental
Technology, Miami. 1996.
Strategic Alliance for Environmental Restoration. CP-5 Large Scale Demonstration Project, Technology
Data Report for the Pentek, Inc. Milling Technology, Hemispheric Center for Environmental
Technology, Miami. 1997.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Construction Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedule,
EP-1110-1-B, Headquarters USAGE, Washington, D.C. 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Action Work Breakdown
Structure and Data Dictionary, Headquarters USAGE, Washington, D.C. 1996.
U.S. Department of Energy. Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria, WHC-EP-0063-4, page
change numbers, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Washington. 1993.
U.S. Department of Energy. Decommissioning Handbook, DOE/EM-0142P, Office of Environmental
Restoration, Oak Ridge, TN. 1994.
U.S. Department of Energy. Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, DOE/WIPP-
069, Revision 5, U.S. Department of Energy. 1996.
U. S. Department of
139
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY COST COMPARISON
This appendix contains definitions of cost elements, descriptions of assumptions, and computations of unit
costs that are used in the cost analysis.
Innovative Milling Technology ROTO PEEN Sealer and VAC-PAC
ฎ
Mobilization (mob) (WBS 331.01)
Equipment Transport
Definition: This cost element provides for the transportation of the site-owned decontamination equipment
from its storage area to a staging area near the facility to be decontaminated. Therefore, this cost includes
a truck, a fbrklift, and their operators; the decontamination (decon) workers that load and haul the subject
construction equipment; and the hourly charges for the equipment transportation.
Assumption: The distance to a site warehouse varies, but a distance of less than 2 mi is assumed. The
flat-bed truck and pneumatic forklift are rented using rates from the Rental Rate Blue Book for
Construction Equipment (Dataquest, 1997). Loading takes 2 h; driving, 0.5 h; returning the vehicles to the
equipment pool, 0.25 h.
Note: This scenario diverges from the actual demonstration conditions that mobilized vendor personnel
and equipment from Pittsburgh, PA.
Unload Equipment and Survey Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for unloading the construction equipment. It includes the time taken
by the decon crew to unload equipment from the truck using a forklift, move the equipment to a staging
area, and unpack it for survey. The site HPT does a radiological survey of the equipment to ensure that
contaminated equipment is not brought on-site. Duration includes HPT/escort standby during unloading
activity and decon crew standby during the HPT survey.
Assumptions: Of the observed 4 h, 2 h are assumed for unloading and unpacking the equipment. The
other 2 h are assumed to be for the survey activity. The sum of the two activities totals the 4 h of the
demonstration.
Training
Definition: This cost element captures the cost of the site and Health and Safety-related training required
for subcontractor personnel or other unqualified personnel.
Assumptions: Local site personnel are already trained. No applicable costs result from this assumption.
U. S. Department of
140
-------
Decontamination of the Reactor Building Floor (WBS 331.17)
Radioactivity Surveys of the Area
Definition: This cost element covers radiological surveying to characterize the workplace, which will
facilitate the elaboration of a work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable. This analysis has no cost effect. This activity is assumed to be completed
before decontamination.
Set Up, Move and/or Check Out Equipment
Definition: This cost element includes time to lay out the equipment and hoses in preparation for the day's
work. With the air supply compressor outside the facility, air hoses are strung through doors, penetrations,
and cable hangers to the work area. The sealers, hand tools, air manifolds, and other incidental
consumables are taken to the work area from the staging area.
Assumptions: Equipment move and setup are assumed to take 2 h based on observed times during the
demonstration and the vendor's experience.
Remove Floor Surface Coatings
Definition: This cost element consists of the following activities.
Milling the coatings off the concrete floor and the operational maintenance involving the replacement
of the rough and HEPA filters and the consumable tool parts that wear.
Three decon workers who simultaneously remove the coatings by working from a single air manifold
and a single VAC-PACฎ ;
Packaging of primary waste into the VAC-PACฎ is automatic. Cleanup consists of a final hand
vacuuming of very little additional debris, which is carried out while the decontamination of the last
small area is being completed.
Cost of the VAC-PACฎ and ROTO PEEN Sealer is built into the decontamination activity. Consumable
equipment and supplies are listed as a subbreakout of this cost element because of the variability of
this element.
Cost of PPE (see unit cost derivation in Table B-1).
Any lost time from production is included as a factor; this includes safety meetings, daily work
planning reviews, donning and doffing PPE, heat or temperature stress, and work breaks.
Transporting final waste stream to the disposal collection area is excluded.
Assumptions:
The quantity scope for the demonstration is 650 ft2, which is consistent with the scope discussed for
the baseline technology.
Three decon workers, all actively milling, are employed in the demonstration.
An HPT is not needed to accomplish the main task but is included as a standby or escort.
The innovative milling technology eliminates the vacuuming step because the VAC-PACฎ is connected
to and continuously vacuums the debris from the ROTO PEEN Scaler(s), eliminating the need for HPT
readings and manual containerizing.
U. S. Department of
141
-------
One decon crew worker is qualified to change the worn flap parts while other workers continue milling
by swapping machines as necessary.
Production rates used are 122 fWh/three-person crew (or 40.6 ft2/h/person) for the demonstration
based on observed, timed activities that coincided favorably with the vendor's advertised production
range of 40 to 50 fi?/h/scaler.
A15 min safety meeting is held on two mornings during the demonstration.
PPE changes and other related productivity losses are not measured in the demonstration but are
experienced. A productivity loss factor (PLF) of 1.49 is applied to the milling demonstration activities,
as illustrated herein:
Base 1-00
+ Radiation/as low as reasonably
acceptable (ALARA )
+ Protective clothing
0.15
Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
Subtotal
x Breaks
0.20
1.35
1.00 (no factor needed; covered in the observed times)
1.35
1.10
Total
1.49
Health and Safety Factor
Definition: A factor applied to productive hours to compensate for loss of production as a result of
attending safety meetings, donning and doffing PPE, work breaks, heat and cold work stress, etc.
Assumption: A PLF of 1.49 from the baseline 1996 ANL Activity Cost Estimate (ACE) sheets is used to
make the innovative case comparable to the baseline.
Table B-1. Personnel protective equipment cost/day calculation
Equipment
Respirator
Respirator Cartridges
Booties
Tyvek
Gloves (inner)
Gloves (outer pair)
Glove (cotton liner)
Quantity
in box
200
25
12
100
Cost/Box
($)
50.00
85.00
2.00
14.15
Cost
each
($)
1,933
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
7.45
0.14
No. of
reuses
200
1
1
1
1
10
1
Cost
each
time
used
($)
10
9.25
0.25
3.4
0.17
0.75
0.14
No.
used/day
1
2
4
4
8
1
8
Cost/Day/Person
($)
10.00
18.50
1.00
13.60
1.36
0.75
1.12
Total $46.33
The PPE costs are taken predominantly from the ANL ACE sheets; however, the costs for outer gloves,
glove liners, and respirator cartridges are taken from commercial catalogs.
U. S. Department of
142
-------
Waste Disposal (WBS 331.18)
Waste Disposal Collection
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time and equipment required to pick up containers and
assemble them in a designated area before transportation.
Assumptions:
During the demonstration of this technology, only 2.5 ft3 of primary waste (paint chips) is generated
and vacuumed directly into a barrel or container.
The secondary waste consists of several bags of expended flaps, the expendable vacuum hoses,
used PPE, and swipes handled after the work is completed.
This account activity is not measured during the demonstration, but the times used are accounted for
within the total hours.
Secondary waste is similar to those items in the baseline.
Cost is represented per cubic foot and is covered in the following sections.
Transport to the Disposal Site
Definition: This cost element accounts for the charges for the volume of waste being shipped to a
commercial off-site facility.
Assumption: Cost is covered in the all-in-one disposal fee rate per cubic foot described herein.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fees charged by the commercial facility for dumping the
waste at their site.
Assumptions: An all-in-one disposal fee rate per cubic foot covers any and all activities of these three
items under Waste Disposal. Fees are those listed in the 1996 ANL ACE sheets.
Demobilization (demob) (WBS 331.21)
Survey and Decontaminate Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for the radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment does not leave the site or work area and for the decontamination costs for
such equipment. Costs include HPT labor and decon crew standby or assistance time.
Assumptions: Of the total observed 3.75 h, 2 h are dedicated to survey and decon.
Pack Up and Load Equipment
Definition: This cost element covers the labor and equipment time involved in packing and loading the
equipment for return to the point of origin.
Assumptions: Of the total observed 3.75 h, 1.75 h are assumed for boxing up and loading the equipment.
This assumption is based on observed times during the demonstration and the use of a forklift and an
operator for 2 h of the total duration.
U. S. Department of
143
-------
Personnel and Equipment Transport
Definition: Transport of equipment back to the warehouse.
Assumption: Return trip mileage is less than 2 mi and is basically the reverse of mobilization. The estimate
assumes that the local crew members add no transportation costs to the project.
Cost Analysis
The cost for performing work using the milling technology consists of the following activities:
mobilizing the equipment,
unloading to a staging area,
setting up the equipment and hoses,
removing the floor coatings by milling,
replacing all worn consumable flaps,
using PPE,
decontaminating the reusable equipment,
collecting all waste,
handling the drums containing the waste,
demobilizing back to the point of origin, and
disposal fees.
The projection of demonstration costs to reflect a commercial cost for the scope of work includes the
adjustments made as a result of the following assumptions.
The VAC-PACฎ and ROTO PEEN Scaler(s) are purchased by a site and delivered to and received by
the warehouse. The ANL procurement indirect expense (PIE) rate of 9.3 percent is applied to
equipment and services purchased (included in the hourly rate for equipment purchased).
Mobilization consists of loading large and small tools at the warehouse tool room using a forklift,
hauling these tools to the facility using a site truck, unloading them near the work area using site
personnel, and returning the transport equipment to the equipment pool. The transport equipment is
priced at commercial rental rates for convenience. The reverse holds for demobilization.
A labor crew of three workers is hired locally and requires no mobilization or training because of
previous qualifications.
The technology demonstrated is for removal of coatings only.
The hourly rates for government-owned equipment are based on amortizing the initial purchase price,
including shipping costs, over the service life of the equipment using the discount rate of 5.8 percent
prescribed in the OMB Circular No. A-94, revised (Office of Management and Budget, 1992). A
service life of 5 to 15 yr (depending on the individual piece of equipment) is used with an assumed use
of500h/yr.
No difference exists between the PPE requirements of this technology and those of the baseline.
The milling production rate used in the cost analysis is 40.6 fP/person-hour spent milling, which is
calculated from a demonstration (demo) time of 16 h to complete 650 ft2. All include coating removal
and flap replacement when worn.
The size of demonstration area is 650 ft2.
Flaps were changed twice (three sets used) on each of the three milling machines in the course of the
demo (the last flap changed had only minor wear when the demonstration concluded). This analysis
U. S. Department of
144
-------
assumes one change (two sets used) as more representative of the flap changes required for a job
this size.
The roughing filters, designed with a continuous cleaning feature, and the HEPA filters are reusable
over several jobs or larger quantities. Filter life is assumed to be 9 mo to 1 yr (or 500 h of use) based
on the conservative extrapolation of information provided during a telephone conversation with Ben
Nichols of Pentek.
Markup of labor and equipment costs for the ANL overhead rate is not included.
Because vendor personnel are not used, their transportation and training are excluded. This diverges
from the demonstration.
A PLF of 1.49 is applied to the milling demonstration activities. The data are taken from the 1996 ACE
sheets and the CP-5 cost-estimate qualifications, pages 1.12 through 1.14 of 1.33, issued by the ANL
Technology Development Division of the D&D Project.
Radiological survey of the floor, both before and after milling, is excluded as a characterization
activity.
Base
+ Height factor
+ Radiation/ALARA
+ Protective clothing
= Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
= Subtotal
x Breaks
1.00
0.00 (not applicable because work is on the floor)
0.20
0.15
1.35
1.00 (no factor required; covered in the observed times)
1.35
1.10
= Total
1.49
The activities, quantities, production rates, and costs observed during the demonstration form the basis of
the values shown in Table B-2.
U. S. Department of
145
-------
B-2. Innovative milling technology cost summary (Pentek system)
Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS)
yjs^mm^mm^^^mm"
transport equipment (equip) - load at
warehouse
Drive to site
Unload equip at site and survey
Return equip
pECOJTAfflJNATION (decon) -VY BS 3
Move equip to work area and set up
Scarify concrete floor (milling)
Health Physics Technician (HPT)
Equip operating costs
Replacement flaps
Air compressor costs
Air tools/filters consumables
Sample rubble and surface
Load rubble in containers
Safety/Planning Meetings
Personnel Protective Equip (PPE)
Productivity loss
DEMOB1LZATION (demob) - WBS 331
Demob equip
Decon and survey equip
HPT work effort
PPE during decon
Productivity loss
Move equip and load out
Return to warehouse
Unit Cost (UC)
EDO"
Hour Rate
? = ~ -
2 $ 147
0.5 $ 147
2 $ 203
0.25 $ 80
Equipment
Hour Rate
=" '--
2 ง32.51
0.5 $42.46
2 $42.46
0.25 $32.51
Other
Rate
total
UC
$ 359
$ 95
$491
$28
TQ
Qnty
1
1
1
1
31:17 ^ " ;
2 $ 101
0.009 $ 101
1 $ 56
1.0 $ 157
1.00 $ 101
2 $43.10
0.009 $43.10
0.009 $15.85
1.000 $25.86
1.00 $68.96
$
$ 1.65
$ -
$ 185
$ 288
$ 1.28
$ 56.00
$ 1.65
$91.61
$ 25.86
$
$ 157
$ 185
$ 170
1
650
6
660
1
5.8
2.6
0.5
1.2
3.8
21 ,- >' " : : '- - .V;A ' : . . .;;, ;
2 $ 101
2 $ 66
0.98 $ 157
1.25 $ 181
0.5 $ 80
2 $43.10
2.98
0.98 $43.10
1.25 $75.61
0.5 $32.51
$13.20
$ 185
$
$ 301
$ 112
$ 185
$ 200
$ 320
$ 56
1
1
0.3/
1.0
1
1.0
VV/^fp DISPฎงAk ^BSซ331i.18
Disposal fees-primary and secondary
$52.78
$ 52.78
14.7
Unit
of
measure
buptajai?
Trip
Trip
Trip
Trip
Subtotal:
Lump
Sum (LS)
ft2
h
ft2
LS
h
ft2
ft3
h
day
h
Subtotal:
LS
LS
day
h
LS
Trip
Subtotal:
ft3
Total
cost
(TC) note
4* P*
$ 3od
$ 95
$ 491
$ 28
'$JT3i7p5"
$ 288
$ 832
$ 324
$ 1,073
$ 92
$ 149
$
$
$ 78
$ 222
$ 647
$ '+,054*-
$ 301
$ 112
$ 69
$ 196
$ 320
$ 56
5 774
$ 774
Note: I t?=uc x TQ; Qnty = Quantity;
TQ= Total Quantity
Comments
- ^ 5 = 5-^ = i= - - = = -
Truck, forklift, teamster, operator, and two
decon workers for 2 h
Same as above, 0.5 h; add scabbier
Same as above, 2 h; add HPT for survey
SCOPE:;6SO ftf " ------- !
On-site labor three decon technicians (techs) @
$101/crewfor 2 h plus equip standby
One three-person crew doing 112.5 fr^/h
induding flap replacements; no operating costs
Standby full-time and assist when necessary
Three milling units x six tlaps/unlt x two
changes x $29.87/flap for 650 ft2
Air compressor, 750 ft^/min
Assumed filter life = 500 h
No sampling required with technology.
Auto-vacuumed. Waste generated = 2.5 ft3
Three decon techs plus one HPT x $46.33/day
Productivity loss factor (PLF) = 1 .49 per 1996
activity cost estimate (ACE); includes $25.86
Other cost is for waste generated by decon at
0.25 ft3 @ $52.78/ft3; time per demo
Three decon techs plus one HPT x $46.33/day
Figured at 1.49 per 1996 ACE sheets
Reverse of mobilization; time per demo
Reverse of mobilization'; time per demo
From 1996 ACE, Table 2.0, pg. 1.11 of 1.33
Total
o.ouo
U. S. Department of Energy
146
-------
Baseline TechnologyMechanical Scabbling of Concrete and Disposal
Mobilization (WBS 331.01)
Construct Temporary Facilities (Airborne Contaminant Enclosure)
Definition: This cost element provides for the supply and erection of a temporary structure to contain
airborne contaminants in the area being decontaminated. It includes decon workers, HPT coverage, and
building materials. Dismantling of the structure is accounted for in the demobilization account.
Assumptions: Conceptual scope definition is from ANL D&D personnel. A temporary enclosure for
airbornes is erected using unistrut material ($2.00/lin ft plus $1.00/lin ft for fittings and connections) such
as studs, beams, and bracing for walls and ceiling and visqueen (S.OI/ft2) as the enclosing membrane.
Labor consists of three decon workers ($33.60/h) for 3 h to erect the enclosure, requiring no PLF or PPE.
This activity is completed before mobilizing for the decon activities described below.
Equipment Transport
Definition: This cost element provides for transportation of the site-owned decontamination equipment
from its storage area to a staging area near the facility being decontaminated. Therefore, this cost
includes a truck and a forklift and their operators, the decon workers' loading and hauling of the subject
construction equipment, and the hourly charges for the equipment transportation.
Assumption: The distance to a site warehouse varies but is less than 2 mi. The flat-bed truck and
pneumatic forklift are rentals using rates from the Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment
(Dataquest, 1997). Loading takes 2 h; driving, 0.5 h; and returning to the equipment pool, 0.25 h.
Note: This scenario is identical to that for the innovative technology for purposes of comparison.
Unload Equipment
Definition: Unloading delivered equipment.includes time; required for the decon crew to unload the
equipment from the truck using a forklift, move the equipment to a staging area, and unpack for the
radiological survey. This activity is combined with the survey activity described below.
Assumptions: A 2-h period is assumed for unloading/unpacking the equipment. Procurement's effort to
receive purchased equipment and complete paperwork is excluded. A forklift operator is included in the
crew rate, and the forklift rental rate is $11.65/h, as per Dataquest (1997).
Survey Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for the radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment is not brought on-site. Costs include crew standby time plus HPT labor. This
activity is combined and concurrent with the unloading activity described earlier.
Assumptions: Equipment survey is required.
Training
Definition: This cost element captures the cost of site and Health and Safety-related training required for
subcontractor personnel or other unqualified personnel.
Assumptions: There is no cost for this element. Personnel on-site are already trained.
U. S. Department of Energy
147
-------
Decontamination of the Reactor Building Floor (WBS 331.17) MMIMMM^M^MMMII,
Radiological Survey
Note: This cost element is for radiological surveying to characterize the workplace, which will facilitate the
elaboration of a work plan well before starting the decontamination effort.
Assumption: Not applicable. There is no cost effect for this analysis. This activity is assumed to be
completed before decontaminating the area.
Set Up or Move Equipment and Check it Out
Definition: This cost element includes the time needed to lay out the equipment and hoses in preparation
for the day's work. With the air supply compressor outside the facility, air hoses are strung through doors,
penetrations, and cable hangers to the work area. The scabblers, hand tools, air manifolds, waste
containers, and other incidental consumables are taken to the work area from the staging area. Setup
excludes the erection costs of a temporary containment tent, which are covered in the mobilization activity.
Assumption: The May 1996 ACE sheets included scaffolding because the scope also involved walls. The
analysis scope is for the floor only. Therefore, the baseline time of 4 h was reduced to 2 h by eliminating
the 2 h of time assumed to be for scaffolding.
Remove Floor Surface Concrete
Definition: This cost element consists of the following activities.
Scabbling the floor concrete by making one pass of % in removed, including replacing consumable
scabbier bits that wear with use.
One decon worker scabbling with a machine, one decon worker as support or tender, and one HPT as
the radiation monitor and/or escort.
HPT takes readings of the area and/or the rubble during removal at full-time participation along with
the decon personnel.
Manual cleanup and packaging of the concrete rubble into containers (transportation to the disposal
collection area is excluded).
Varying production rates depending upon the thickness of the concrete to be removed to obtain
acceptable radiation readings.
Cost of scabbling equipment and consumable bits.
Cost of PPE (see Table B.1).
Any lost time from production, including daily safety meetings, daily work planning reviews, dressing
up with PPE, heat or temperature stress, work breaks, etc., which is accounted for through a factor.
Assumptions:
The quantity scope for the baseline is the same as the demonstration, 650 ft2 for comparison equality.
One crew of two decon workers and one HPT is required. These three people handle the scabbling,
sampling, cleanup, and containerizing as a team for which the estimate is separated into two sub-
elements of cost by craft.
One mechanical scabbling machine is used.
U. S. Department of Energy
148
-------
Baseline technology produces primary waste that is manually vacuumed up, radiologically monitored,
and packaged. It amounts to 19.5 ft3.
The decon crew workers are qualified to change the Worn bits. Stand-by time is necessitated by this
activity.
Production rate in this analysis is 200 ft2/h for one machine, a Model SF-11, Trelawny, one person
scabbling (67 ft2/person-hour as a net effective rate for a three-person crew). The scabbier is priced
using the $9.95/h rate taken from the 1996 ACE sheets, including all assumptions made at that time.
A safety meeting occurs and is in the baseline PLF.
Health and Safety
Definition: A factor applied to the PLF to compensate for safety meetings, donning and doffing PPE, etc.
Assumption: The PLF used, 1.49, and the PPE costs are taken predominantly from the ANL baseline 1996
ACE sheets (costs for outer gloves, glove liners, and respirator cartridges are priced from commercial
catalogs).
Note: The cost/day calculation for PPE is the same as that presented in the Innovative Technology
section.
Waste Disposal (WBS 331.18) =s==^=^^=i=^
Waste Collection
Definition: This cost element accounts for the time and equipment required to pick up containers and
assemble them in a designated area. It does not cover the time and equipment required to package the
primary waste generated by the decon activity into containers.
Assumptions: Baseline waste generated is calculated at 0.03 ff/ft2 as taken from the May 1996 ACE
sheets, which amounts to 19.5 ft3, including a 70 percent efficiency factor. The secondary waste consists
of several bags of expended scabbling bits, used PPE, and swipes. This is not applicable as such but is
covered in the all-in-one rate per cubic foot described in the following sections.
Transport to disposal site
Definition: This cost element accounts for the charges for the shipment of the volume of waste to a
commercial off-site facility.
Assumption: This is not applicable as such but is covered in the all-in-one disposal fee rate per cubic foot
described below.
Disposal Fees
Definition: This cost element accounts for the fee charged by the commercial facility for dumping the
waste at its site.
Assumptions: This cost is represented as an all-in-one disposal fee rate per cubic foot from the same
1996 estimate and covers all three activities that fall under Waste Disposal.
U. S. Department of Energy
149
-------
DEMOBILIZATION (WBS 331.21 )
Remove Temporary Facilities (Airborne Contaminant Enclosure)
Definition: This cost element provides for the dismantling of a temporary structure used to contain airborne
radioactivity during decontamination activities. It includes decon workers, HPT coverage, and gathering up
and containerizing the waste building materials. PPE and PLF are also included.
Assumptions: Labor required consists of three persons for 3 h to dismantle and load up waste.
Survey and Decontaminate Equipment
Definition: This cost element provides for the radiological survey of the equipment by a site HPT to ensure
that contaminated equipment does not leave the site or work area or to ready it for the next use. It covers
the costs of decontaminating the equipment. Costs include HPT labor plus the decon crew's standby or
assistance time, including the use of PPE and PLF.
Assumptions: Survey and decontamination require 2 h based on an allocation from the 4 h in the original
baseline.
Pack Up and Load Equipment
Definition: This cost element covers the time and equipment required for the crew to pack up and load the
rental and owned equipment in a truck for return.
Assumptions: Time required is 2 h to pack and load up using a forklift for 2 h of the total duration.
Personnel and Equipment Transport
Definition: The account covers the cost to transport the equipment back to the point of origin.
Assumption: The estimate assumes local crew members incur no personnel transportation costs to the
project. The transport of the equipment is the same as in the mobilization account, except in reverse.
COST ANALYSIS
The cost of performing the work consists of the following activities:
mobilizing the site-owned equipment from a warehouse,
unloading the equipment at the staging area,
moving it into the work area,
scarifying the concrete with the mechanical scabbling tool,
sampling the rubble and floor surface for radioactivity,
loading the rubble into transfer containers and transferring the waste,
demobilizing the equipment,
charges for waste disposal, and
returning the equipment to the warehouse.
The baseline includes the following assumptions:
Mobilization consists of a forklift loading tools at the warehouse tool room, a rented truck hauling them
to the facility and unloading them near the work area using site personnel, and returning the transport
equipment to the equipment pool.
The construction of a temporary enclosure is necessary to contain airborne contaminants during the
work operation. The conceptual scope, provided by ANL D&D personnel, involves unistruts as studs,
beams, and braces and visqueen as walls and ceiling. Erection requires three persons 3 h, as does
the dismantling activity following decontamination.
U. S. Department of Energy
150
-------
Setup involves moving equipment into the work area, stringing the air hoses from the compressor
outside, dressing up, and other preparatory activities.
Work is performed by local site craft using a site-owned mechanical scabbling tool and other owned
and rented equipment. The crew consists of two decon workers and one HPT (acts as the escort).
Additional administrative, engineering, and supervisory personnel are excluded from the analysis,
assuming their costs are accounted for in distributed costs and are equal in both cases.
Concrete removal is to a depth of one-quarter inch. Waste is vacuumed manually and placed in
containers. The %-in depth makes the baseline comparable to the innovative technology.
Production rate is 200 fF/h/one decon tech scabbling (200 ft2/h/person) and one decon tech
performing all other supplemental removal activities, the HPT assists full-time by checking the
radioactivity level of the rubble.
The scabbling activity includes the time for replacement of worn bits by the qualified decon tech.
The factor for waste volume generation is 0.03 ffVft2, including a 70 percent efficiency bulking factor.
Equipment operating costs are listed separately from hourly ownership rates because the consumable
usage may vary by site.
Pricing for the scabbier is taken from the 1996 ACE sheets with all applicable assumptions used in
that document. ANL personnel indicated the scabbier would be discarded at the end of the CP-5
project.
The decontamination area is modified to 650 ft2 to match the demonstration area.
The PLF, applied to the productive work hours, accounts for health and safety (H&S) considerations
that typically occur. The calculation is as follows. (Markup of labor and equipment costs for the ANL
overhead rate is not included.)
Base
+ Height factor
+ Radiation/ALARA
+ Protective clothing 0.15
= Subtotal
x Respiratory protection
= Subtotal
x Breaks
= Total
1.00
0.00 (not applicable; work is on the floor)
0.20
1.35
1.38
1.86
1.10
2.05
The activities, quantities, production rates, and costs used in the baseline calculations are shown in Table
B-3.
U. S. Department of Energy
151
-------
Table B-3. Baseline cost summary (Scabbing technology)
Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS)
pflOBIlilZAJiJpiN" (mob) - WE
6ui[d containment tent
Health physics technician
(HPT) for tent
Transport equipment (equip)
- load at warehouse
Drive to site
Unload equip at site and
survey
Return truck/forklift
unit cost (UU)
CSBo'r
Hour Rate
tquipment
Hour Rate
other
rate
loiai
UC
3^031.01
O.OdSS $ 101
3.0 $ 56
2 $ 147
0.5 $ 147
2 $ 203
0.25 $ 80
2 $ 32.51
0.5 $ 42.46
2 $ 42.46
0.25 $ 32.51
$ 2J58
$ 13.20
$3.03
$181
$ 359
$ 95
$491
$28
TQ
Qnty
^ -
865
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
of
measure
Subtotal:
ft*
Lump
sum (LS)
Trip
Trip
Trip
Trip
DECONllAM|N>ifWpNr(Cleoon)-ig(B^331Vlt7 ^ 1 ^ ' r Su&!ฐ*4!:
Move equip to" work area
Removal of concrete floor
coatings
Equip operating costs
Consumable (consum) bit
wear
Air compressor costs
Air tools consum
HPT sample rubble and
surface radioactivity
Load rubble in containers
Personnel protective equip (
Productivity loss
2 $ 67.2
0.005 $ 67.2
0.010 $ 56.0
0.154 $ 67.2
i-PE)
1.000 $ 123.2
2 $ 38.47
0.005 $ 38.47
3.25 $ 7.00
3.25 $ 0.27
0.154 $ 38.47
1.000 $ 38.47
$
$ 0.22
$ -
$ 139
$ 211
$ 0.53
$ 0.22
$ 22.73
$ 0.89
$ 0.54
$16.26
$ 139
$ 162
1
650
t&O
1
1
650
19.5
2.0
6.56
PpMOBILZ^Ti|Ojl^(d!empb)-ป5?>BSJ?ai!21 MM: ' ^ r .'-* T.
Decon and survey equip
HPT work effort
PPE during decon
Productivity loss
Move equip and load out
Return to warehouse
Dismantle temporary tent
WASTE DISPOSAL - J&BS 3
2 $ 67
10.2 $ 56
1.0 $ 123
2 $ 147
0.5 $ 147
0.0035 $ 101
2 $ 38.47
7.25
1.00 $ 38.47
2 $ 42.46
0.5 $ 32.51
0.0035 $ 38.47
$ 13.20
$ 278
$
$ 0.32
$ 211
$ 587
$ 278
$ 162
$ 379
$ 90
$ 0.80
1
1
2.00
5.25
1
1.0
86b
LS
ft2
ft2
LS
LS
ft2
ft3
day
h
Subtotal:
LS
LS
day
h
LS
Trip
ft4
31;^8 r; - ?ฃ; i -ซ! "-': ^subtotal:
Disposal fees-primary and secondary
$ 52.78
$ 52.78
26.9
ft3
Total
cost
(TC) note
9 3ป<775
$ 2,622
$ 181
$ 359
$ 95
$ 491
$ 28
'$ 2,726
$ 211
$ 343
$ 142
$ 23
$ 1
$ 350
$ 317
$ 278
$ 1,061
fr 3^363'
$ 211
$ 587
$ 556
$ 848
$ 379
$ 90
$ 692
t? wป?
$ 1,417
Note: TC=uu x I u; Qnty - Quantity;
TQ=total quantity
Comments
-
Three decon, 3 h @ $33.60 plus materials
Covers building tent only; other-decon waste
at0.25ft3at$52.78/ft3
Truck, forklift, teamster, operator, and two
decon workers for 2 h
Same as above, 0.5 h, add scabbier
Same as above, 2 h, add HPT for survey
SCOPE: 650ft2
On-site labor two decon technicians (techs) @
$33.60/h for 2 h plus equip standby
Two decon workers; one machine at 200 f^/h
including replacements, total 3.25 h
Varies with life of bits, replacement frequency
Per operating cost calculation, which is similar
to Pentek consumable rates/ft2
Air compressor, 250 ftVmin
One HPT at $56/h, same hours as decon plus
manual loading
Waste at 0.021 ff/fp w/ 70 percent efficiency
= 0.03
Three persons x $46.33/day
Factor: 2.05 per 1996 activity cost estimate
(ACE) sheets
Other, decon waste at 0.25 ft3 at $52.78/ft3
Crew of three plus three for tent dismantle
Figured at 2.05 per 1996 ACE sheets
Assumed reverse of the mobilization
Assumed reverse of the mobilization
Three decon, 3 hr @ $33.60 plus materials
From 1996 ACE, Table 2.0, pg. 1.11 of 1.33
Total
11,282
U. S. Department of Energy
152
-------
APPENDIX C
ACE
ALARA
amp
ANL
CFR
cm
CP-5
dBA
D&D
DDFA
Decon
Demo
demob
DOE
DOT
dpm
EPA
Equip
ESH
ft
FIU-HCET
gal
h
H&S
HEPA
HP
HPT
HTRWRAWBS
IH
in
Ib
LS
LSDP
ixm
mi
min
mob
OMB
OSHA
OST
PCs
PIE
PLF
PPE
psi
psig
Activity cost estimate (sheets)
as low as reasonably acceptable
amplifier
Argon ne National Laboratory
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter(s)
Chicago Pile-5
decibels
decontamination and decommissioning
Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area
Decontamination
Demonstration
demobilization
U.S. Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
disintegration per minute
Environmental Protection Agency
equipment
Environment, Safety, and Health
foot (feet)
Florida International University - Hemispheric Center
for Environmental Technology
gallon(s)
hour(s)
health and safety
high-efficiency particulate air
health physics
Health Physics Technician
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial
Action Work Breakdown Structure and Data
Dictionary
industrial hygiene
inch(es)
pound(s)
lump sum
Large-Scale Demonstration Project
micrometers)
mile(s)
minute(s)
mobilization
Office of Management and Budget
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Science and Technology
protective clothing
procurement indirect expense
productivity loss factor
personnel protective equipment
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch gallons
U. S. Department of Energy
153
-------
RA
rpm
qnty
TO
tech
TQ
UC
USAGE
V
WAG
WBS
WM
remedial action
revolutions per minue
quantity
total cost
technician
total quantity
unit cost
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volts
waste acceptance criteria
work breakdown structure
waste management
U. S. Department of Energy
154
-------
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah
155
-------
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Site Name:
Envirocare of Utah
Location:
Salt Lake City, Utah
Contaminants:
Radioactive waste
Period of Operation:
Fiscal Year 1996
Cleanup Type:
Demonstation
Vendor:
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Additional Contacts:
Technical Program Officer
Thomas E. Williams
DOE-ID
(208) 526-2460
Principal Investigator
PatTrudel
DOE-ID
(208)526-0169
Technology:
Polyethylene Macroencapsulation:
- Davis-Standard 4.5-in single-
screw extruder feed hopper, two-
stage rotating augerlike screw, heat-
controlled barrel, and output die
assembly:
- Extruder equipped with five
electric clamshell-type barrel
heating zones and two die heating
zones with thermocouple
controllers and cooling loop
- Output capacity of 2000 Ib/hr
- Temperature of melted
polyethylene exiting extruder - 300-
350ฐF
- Virgin polymer (LDPE) with a
melt index of 2 g/min initially used
for demonstration; changed to
LDPE with melt index of 9 g/min
Cleanup Authority:
RCRA
- Cooperative agreement
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Lead bricks
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Determine
production-scale feasibility of this
technology for mixed lead waste
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Radioactively contaminated lead bricks/disposed of 500,000 Ib of
macroencapsulated waste
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Waste must meet the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions for debris (40 CFR 268.2) prior to disposal
(encapsulation).
Results:
- Initial use of an LDPE with a low melt index (2 g/min) and recycled platics proved impractical. The
polyethylene was too viscous (requiring manual assistance to mix with wastes) and the properties of the plastics
varied from batch to batch, making use for production-scale impratical.
- A change to a LDPE with a melt-index of 9 g/min (blend of 2 g/min and 60 g/min) proved to be optimal for
production-scale.
156
-------
Polyethylene Macroencapsnlation at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah (continued)
Cost:
- Costs were shared between Envirocare and DOE under the terms of the cooperative agreement. Envirocare paid
for equipment and supplies, facility construction and modification, permitting and personnel training, and
provided facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastes. DOE paid for the treatment and disposal of the
encapsuated waste. DOE's cost for disposal of about $1 million for 500,000 Ib or $1.92/lb
- An estimate of current costs for polymer macroencapsulation are $90 to $100/cubic foot. Polyethylene
macroencapsulation operating costs at DOE sites average about $800/55-gal drum.
Description:
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) located in Salt Lake City, Utah, is licensed and RCRA-permitted to treat
and dispose of low-level radioactive and mixed waste. Under a cooperative agreement between the DOE Idaho
Operations Office (DOE-ID) and Envirocare, a demonstration of a polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion
process, developed by DOE at Brookhaven National Laboratory, was conducted at Envirocare's Utah facility to
evaluate the technology for mixed waste lead and debris. The company obtained the required RCRA-permit
modification to operate this technology, and, under the cooperative agreement, waste streams from 23 DOE sites
were shipped to Envirocare.
The polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion process heats, mixes, and extrudes the polyethylene into the
waste container in one operation. The four basic components of the extruder are the feed hopper, rotating auger-
like screw, heat-controlled barrel, and output die assembly. The polyethylene is masticated by the rotating screw,
heated gradually, and mixed. The melted polyethylene is conveyed from the extruder at 300-350ฐF and poured
directly into the waste container where it flows around and into the waste matrix voids to encapsulate the waste.
The polyethylene melt has sufficient heat capacity to provide a fusion bond at the cold polyethylene interface
resulting in a continuous monolithic pour. For the demonstration, Envirocare used a Davis-Standard 4.5 inch
single-screw extruder with an output capacity of 2000 Ib/hr. A virgin polymer (LDPE) with a relatively low melt
index of 2 g/min was chosen for this demonstration because Envirocare planned to augment the polymer feed with
recycled plastics. During the demonstration, Envirocare determined that the use of this polymer was not well
suited for production-scale operations for two reasons: (1) the extrudate was overly viscous and would not flow
around the waste without manual assistance and (2) the recycled plastics had inconsistent properties from batch to
batch, and therefore would not be efficient for production-scale operations. Envirocare experimented with
composite LDPE mixtures with varying melt indexes before determining that LDPE with a melt index of 9 g/min
(blend of materials with melt indexes of 2 and 60 g/min) provided the optimum feed stock for production-scale
operations. (Envirocare found that using LDPE with high melt indexes ranging from 24 to 60 g/min were prone
to cracking.) During the demonstration and throughout the cooperative agreement, Envirocare has continued to
expand its process capabilities; the process has been proven effective for package sizes ranging from 5-gal
buckets to 55-gal drums hi 110-gal overpacks. Based on the results of the demonstration, Utah state regulators
have developed specific waste acceptance criteria for the macroencapsulation process. Details of these criteria
are presented hi the report, along with an analysis of technology applicability and alternatives.
Through the cooperative agreement, Envirocare paid for equipment and supplies, facility construction and
modification, permitting and personnel training, and provided facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastes.
DOE paid for the treatment and disposal of approximately 500,00 Ib of mixed waste lead and debris (lead bricks)
that had been macroencapsulated using this process. The cost for this disposal was about $1 million or $1.92/lb.
This amount includes substantial treatability study activities and costs for Envirocare to experiment with scale-up
and process improvements. An estimate of current costs for polymer macroencapsulation are $90 to $100/cubic
foot. Polyethylene macroencapsulation operating costs at DOE sites average about $800/55-gal drum.
157
-------
SECTION 1
Technology Description
The lead waste inventory throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex has been estimated
between 17 million and 24 million kilograms. Decontamination of at least a portion of the lead is viable but
at a substantial cost. Because of various problems with decontamination and its limited applicability and
the lack of a treatment and disposal method, the current practice is indefinite storage, which is costly and
often unacceptable to regulators.
Macroencapsulation is an approved immobilization technology used to treat radioactively contaminated
lead solids and mixed waste debris. (Mixed waste is waste materials containing both radioactive and
hazardous components.) DOE has funded development of a polyethylene extrusion macroencapsulation
process at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) that produces a durable, leach-resistant waste form.
This innovative macroencapsulation technology uses commercially available single-screw extruders to
melt, convey, and extrude molten polyethylene into a waste container in which mixed waste lead and
debris are suspended or supported (Figure 1). After cooling to room temperature, the polyethylene forms a
low-permeability barrier between the waste and the leaching media.
Polyethylene liner
Waste cage
Radioactive lead
Figure 1. Cross-section of macroencapsulated final waste form.
Polyethylene macroencapsulation offers many technological and economic advantages:
Polyethylene extruders are commercially available and have a long history of industrial use. Except for
a specialized pour nozzle, the equipment and materials used in the process are available off the shelf.
Polymer extrusion technology can be scaled or tailored to site-specific conditions and can be readily
incorporated into existing treatment trains.
Macroencapsulation offers low capital and operating costs and is readily commercialized.
The process operates at low temperatures, needs no off-gas treatment, and generates only small
quantities of recyclable secondary waste (i.e., molten polyethylene waste).
The polyethylene encapsulate is one of the most commonly used polymers and is relatively
inexpensive compared to other treatment processes. Polyethylene is extremely tough and flexible, has
excellent chemical resistance, and is easy to process.
U. S. Department of Energy
158
-------
Macroencapsulation produces a waste barrier that is durable, leach resistant, and compliant with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).requirements for disposal of mixed waste lead and debris.
Demonstration Summary
Under a cooperative agreement (DE-FC07-95ID13372) between the DOE Idaho Operations Office (DOE-
ID) and Envirocare of Utah, Inc., a polyethylene macroencapsulation process developed by DOE at BNL
was transferred to Envirocare, whose facility is located approximately 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, UT.
The polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion process was demonstrated and implemented in fiscal
year 1996 by Envirocare, which is fully licensed and permitted to treat and dispose low-level radioactive
and mixed waste.
Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, each party contributed approximately equal resources of
$1 million:
Envirocare provided equipment and supplies, facility construction/modification, permitting, and
personnel training.
DOE paid for treatability studies for multiple waste streams and treatment and disposal of
approximately 500,000 Ib of mixed waste lead and debris.
Envirocare already had a RCRA permit to operate as a hazardous waste treatment/storage/disposal
facility. The company was required to obtain a modification to its RCRA Part B permit from the state of
Utah to operate the macroencapsulation equipment for processing mixed waste lead and debris. Under
the cooperative agreement, waste streams were shipped to Envirocare from 23 DOE sites: Argonne
National Laboratory-East, Battelle Columbus, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, BNL, Charleston Naval
Shipyard, Energy Technology Engineering Center, Fernald, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP) Colonie Site, General Atomics, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Laboratory
for Energy-Related Health Research, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), KAPL Kesselring Site,
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pinellas, and Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard.
The Pinellas Site eliminated its entire remaining mixed waste inventory under the agreement. Under
separate contracts, Fort St. Vrain and the Kansas City Plant also eliminated their entire remaining
mixed waste inventories using macroencapsulation at Envirocare. Eighty Navy sites eliminated lead
waste streams.
The FUSRAP Colonie Site and NTS eliminated entire waste streams. DOE-ID and Envirocare
extended the final completion milestone to include the remaining 500 Ib of the NTS waste stream.
DOE-ID, Envirocare, and LANL renegotiated the cooperative agreement to allow LANL to ship 60,000
Ib of mixed waste lead, the site's entire inventory, to Envirocare for treatment and disposal.
This change required an expansion of the cooperative agreement total processed waste quantity
from 500,000 to 520,000 Ib. LANL Waste Management Operations (EM-30) provided the
additional budget (approximately $40,000) required to fund the expanded allocation.
LANL estimates a savings of more than $824,000 by working an agreement with Envirocare
through the Mixed Waste Focus Area (MWFA) rather than negotiating a separate agreement.
U. S. Department of Energy
159
-------
Key Results,
High-melt-index polyethylene (>50 g/10 min) has better flow characteristics and produces higher
quality final waste forms than the relatively low-melt-index polyethylene Envirocare used in the early
stages of the demonstration and implementation.
For large-scale pours, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is more successful than high-density
polyethylene because it has a lower shrinkage factor.
Contacts
Technical Program Officer
Thomas E. Williams, DOE-ID, (208) 526-2460, williate@inel.gov
Principal Investigator
PatTrudel, DOE-ID, (208) 526-0169, trudelpr@inel.gov
Management
Bill Owca, MWFA, DOE-ID, (208) 526-1983, owcawa@inel.gov
Licensing Information
All equipment and materials are commercially available.
Other
All published Innovative Technology Summary Reports are available online at http://em-50.em.doe.gov.
The Technology Management System, also available through the EM50 Web site, provides information
about OST programs, technologies, and problems. The OST Reference # for polyethylene
macroencapsulation is 30.
U. S. Department of Energy
160
-------
SECTION 2
Overall Process Definition
The polyethylene macroencapsulation extrusion process involves heating, mixing, and extruding the
polyethylene in one basic operation. An extruder consists of four basic components: feed hopper, rotating
augerlike screw, heat-controlled barrel in which the screw rotates, and an output die assembly to shape
the final product (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Macroencapsulation process schematic.
Envirocare used a Davis-Standard 11.4-cm (4.5-in) single-screw extruder with an output capacity of
900 kg/h (2000 Ib/h).
The extruder was equipped with five electric clamshell-type barrel heating zones and two die heating
zones with thermocouple controllers to provide gradual heating of the polyethylene. A solid-state,
dual-probe anticipatory temperature-control system held the barrel temperatures to ฑ1ฐF.
The extruder cooling loop consisted of distilled water circulation; a flow-through, water-cooled heat
exchanger; and individual zone flow indicators.
The extruder was equipped with a two-stage screw driven by a 150-hp motor, feed transfer and
metering sections in the first stage, and vent and metering sections in the second stage. (The vent is
not needed for macroencapsulation applications.) A.Maddock mixing section was at the end of the
metering section.
The drag-induced flow associated with the rotating screw produces a pressure buildup that forces the fluid
through the die.
U. S. Department of Energy
161
-------
System Operation
The rotating screw of a conventional plasticating extruder has three geometrically different sections:
The feed section has deep flights, and material is generally solid state.
The transition section connects the feed section and the metering section. The depth of the screw
channel decreases linearly from the feed section to the metering section, thus causing a
compression of material in the screw channel. Compression is essential to proper functioning of
the extruder.
The metering section has shallow flights and is located closest to the die assembly.
Once inside the extruder, the polyethylene is conveyed through the barrel by the motion of the rotating
screw. As the polyethylene moves forward, it is masticated under pressure because of compressive
effects of a gradual reduction in the channel area between the screw and barrel.
The polyethylene is melted by the gradual transfer of thermal energy from shear energy produced by
the screw and from electric heaters mounted on the barrel. The heat buildup from barrel friction cannot
be consistently predicted and must be compensated for by regulating the resistance band heaters
using external blowers.
A Maddock mixing section at the end of the metering section increases dispersive mixing, producing a
more homogeneous thermal profile in the extrudate and more consistent flow characteristics:
Longitudinal splines in the mixing section force molten polymer over barrier flights.
The Maddock mixer is a pressure-consuming section reducing the output of the extruder.
The longitudinal geometry with constant channel depth results in a stagnant region; thus, this
design is not suitable with materials of limited thermal stability.
Because polyethylene is a thixotropic material, the extra shear energy (frictional heat) imparted by the
Maddock mixer also reduces the viscosity of the extrudate.
The melted polyethylene is conveyed from the extruder at 300-350ฐF (150-160ฐC) and is usually
poured directly into the waste container, where it flows around and into the waste matrix voids,
completely encapsulating the waste. The LDPE melt has sufficient heat capacity to provide a fusion
bond at the cold LDPE interface, resulting in a continuous monolithic pour.
Because of the properties of polyethylene, approximately 3% shrinkage will occur upon cooling. This
shrinkage must be accounted for in developing waste container configurations.
For the initial demonstration, Envirocare used virgin high-density polyethylene with a melt index of
2 g/10 min. This particular polyethylene was chosen because Envirocare planned to augment its polymer
feed with recycled plastics. This plan proved impractical for two reasons:
The extrudate was overly viscous and would not flow around the waste without manual assistance
(hand-packing) by the operators.
Recycled plastics have inconsistent properties batch to batch, making them inefficient for production-
scale operations.
Envirocare modified its process to use LDPE with a melt index of 24 g/10 min. Although LDPE with higher
melt indexes flows better, it is more prone to cracking. Currently, Envirocare blends LDPE with melt
indexes of 2 g/10 min and 60 g/10 min to create a composite melt index of 9 g/10 min. This formulation
flows freely enough to fill voids in the waste matrix without hand-packing, while minimizing cracks.
U. S. Department of Energy
162
-------
SECTION 3
Demonstration Plan
Envirocare conducted technology demonstrations during fiscal year 1996 to support its permitting process.
Prior to this test phase, state of Utah regulators witnessed polymer encapsulation process demonstrations
at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). During the demonstration at Envirocare, Utah
regulators worked with researchers at BNL to better understand the macroencapsulation process. These
interactions greatly influenced Envirocare's RCRA permit requirements as defined by the Utah regulators.
Concurrently, the MWFA issued a letter to solicit interest throughout the DOE complex for participation in
the cooperative agreement. Twenty-three sites responded, and more than one thousand tons of waste
was identified for inclusion in the demonstration. The MWFA developed a seminar package to train
participants to complete the waste profiles required by Envirocare. Waste shipment began in early
summer 1996.
Treatment Performance
The encapsulating polymer used during the initial demonstration phase of the cooperative agreement was
not well suited for production-scale operations. The relatively low melt index (2 g/10 min) of virgin LDPE
resulted in overly viscous extrudate that had to be hand-packed in the waste receptacle. Envirocare tried
materials with melt indexes of 24 g/10 min and then 60 g/10 min, finding that the higher melt index
polyethylene was prone to cracking.
Envirocare experimented with composite LDPE mixtures until determining that LDPE with a melt index of
9 g/10 min (made by blending materials with melt indexes of 2 and 60 g/10 min) provides an optimum feed
stock for production-scale operations. During the demonstration phase and throughout the cooperative
agreement, Envirocare continued to expand its process capabilities. The process has now been proven
effective for package sizes ranging from 5-gal buckets to full 55-gal drums in 110-gal overpacks.
Based on results of the demonstration phase at Envirocare and interactions with BNL and RFETS, Utah
state regulators imposed specific waste acceptance criteria for the macroencapsulation process,
examples of which are discussed below.
Surface-coating material must be of one of the following two types:
Polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics) are acceptable, but nonpolymerics such as waxes
are not allowed. Plastic wrap is also unacceptable.
Jackets of inert materials are allowed but must be composed of metal or inorganic materials;
metal jackets must be in direct surface contact with macroencapsulated material through
lamination, welding, molten pouring, or similar technique. Other inorganic materials may be used
as jackets, but they must not be carbon-based compounds or substances.
Cracks or gaps in the macroencapsulation monolith can result in substantial surface exposure to
leaching media. This possibility led to the following .waste acceptance criteria:
Waste shall not protrude through the surface or the waste form.
The waste form shall be created to prevent interior voids or air pockets containing waste.
U. S. Department of Energy
163
-------
The preceding requirement has been superseded by the following: Nonwaste protrusions from
hangers or spacers may be present. Such protrusions shall be cut off at the surface of the waste form.
Gaps between the encapsulation material and such protrusions are not acceptable.
Buoyant waste forms can "float" when the waste is placed in planar arrays and back-filled with
flowable grout. To prevent this, waste forms submitted for disposal must have a minimum density of
70 Ib/ft3 (about 1.1g/ml).
Utah originally required minimum coverage around the waste form of 2 in. of polyethylene to meet the
regulatory specification to reduce potential for exposure to leaching media. However, thick layers of
LDPE have a tendency to crack, with higher melt indexes being the worst. Consequently, Utah
modified the Envirocare permit and waste acceptance criteria as follows: "...a minimum exterior
surface-coating thickness of 1 in. for waste forms up to 30-gallons (4 ft3) and 2 in. for larger volumes
unless a demonstration is made to and approved by the Executive Secretary for an alternative
minimum thickness based on waste type."
U. S. Department of Energy
164
-------
SECTION 4
Competing Technologies
The Debris Rule (57 FR 37194, August 18,1992) identified extraction or destruction technologies as
alternatives to macroencapsulation of debris wastes. The materials sent to Envirocare were not
decontaminable. Mixed waste processed at Envirocare under the cooperative agreement had already
undergone unsuccessful decontamination attempts because of volumetric contamination.
Polymer encapsulation was devised as an alternative to grout/cement encapsulation. The advantages of
polymer encapsulation are lower teachability and permeability and greater impact resistance, durability,
and resistance to environmental degradation after disposal.
At least two other polymer macroencapsulation technologies are available:
Several companies offer container-type technologies for macroencapsulation. Waste is placed in
premanufactured polyethylene containers and the containers are sealed using a variety of techniques.
Fillers can be added to minimize void space in the container. One such technology developed by
Arrow-Pak has been implemented at Hanford. It involves supercompaction of "soft waste debris" (e.g.,
Tyveks, Kimwipes) in 55-gal drums into "pucks" that are then overpacked in a polymer sleeve and
sealed. However, these systems are acceptable only for macroencapsulation of debris. A technology
ruling equivalent to 40 CFR 268.42(b) would have to be obtained to use this process for radioactively
contaminated elemental lead.
Thermoset polymer encapsulation technologies are also available. These technologies are attractive
for their flexibility and high mobility, but base resin costs are significantly higher than those of
polyethylene.
Technology Applicability
Macroencapsulation is specifically limited to treatment of radioactively contaminated elemental lead and
mixed waste debris. Macroencapsulation has been successfully demonstrated on several mixed waste
streams, including radioactive lead, leaded gloves, debris contaminated with beryllium fines, and filters.
Polymer encapsulation technologies are appropriate for the wastes sent to Envirocare because they are
contact-handled wastes with half-lives <30 years. Low levels of ionizing radiation (<100 megarad) will not
adversely impact the structural integrity of the final waste form. Testing conducted at BNL indicated that
polymers could withstand an accumulated radiation dose of 100 megarad without significant hydrolysis.
Macroencapsulation is not appropriate for any RCRA Land Disposal Restricted (LDR) material other than
radioactive lead solids (D008) or hazardous debris as defined by RCRA.
U. S. Department of Energy
165
-------
Technology Maturity
Screw-type extruders were first employed in the United States by the rubber industry and were
adapted for the extrusion of various thermoplastics in 1938. The use of extruders to process various
thermoplastic materials is commonplace in industry today.
Polymer macroencapsulation has been extensively tested at Rocky Flats (Getty and Riendeau 1995).
Polymer extrusion technology can be scaled or tailored to site-specific conditions and can be readily
incorporated into existing treatment trains or manufacturing processes.
Patents/Commercialization/Sponsor
Envirocare of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT has acquired this technology from DOE through Cooperative
Agreement DOE DE-FC07-95ID13372. There are no known patents issued.
Twenty-three federal sites participated in the cooperative agreement macroencapsulation program at
Envirocare. Cooperative Agreement DOE DE-FC07-95ID13372 is the primary end-user sponsorship
document. Envirocare issued certificates of disposal to all sites that participated in the cooperative
agreement
Envirocare has also treated radioactively contaminated lead solids and mixed waste debris using the
macroencapsulation technology for nonfederal entities.
U. S. Department of Energy
166
-------
SECTION 5
Methodology
Implementation of macroencapsulation at Envirocare was effected through a cooperative agreement
between Envirocare and DOE-ID.
Under the agreement, Envirocare paid for equipment and supplies, facility construction/modification,
permitting, and personnel training. Envirocare acquired an amendment to its operating license from
the state of Utah to macroencapsulate mixed waste. Under the cooperative agreement, Envirocare
also provided facilities for treatment and disposal of these wastes.
DOE paid for the treatment and disposal of approximately 500,000 Ib of mixed waste lead and debris
using polyethylene macroencapsulation technology.
Cost Analysis and Conclusions
Capital Costs
ซ The appropriate polymer extruders for this application cost between $50,000 and $160,000. Actual
costs incurred by Envirocare are considered proprietary information and not disclosed.
Ancillary equipment, such as feed hoppers and transfer systems, total approximately $10,000.
Operating Costs
Approximately 500,000 Ib of radioactively contaminated lead bricks was encapsulated in LDPE and
disposed of in Envirocare's RCRA Subtitle C disposal facility for a cost to DOE of approximately
$1,000,000, or $1.92/lb. This amount includes substantial treatability study activities and is based on
the process as it existed at the time. This cost also includes resources for Envirocare to experiment
with scale-up and process improvement efforts.
Current contracting cost for polymer macroencapsulation at Envirocare is dependent on the amount
and type of waste to be processed. However, a reasonable range is between $90/ft3 and $100/ft3.
(Envirocare does not base treatment contract costs on a per-pound basis.)
Commercial surface decontamination of lead costs approximately $2.00/lb. Recent experience has
shown that up to 50 percent of contaminated lead cannot be sufficiently decontaminated for clean
recycling purposes. Consequently, this material must be treated in accordance with LDRs and
disposed of. The following brief analysis contrasts the costs of disposal of 500,000 Ib of contaminated
lead through polymer macroencapsulation with those for decontamination of the same amount with a
50 percent release rate:
Disposal
Purchase of new lead
Total
Decontamination
Disposal of waste lead
Total
500,000 lb@$1.70/lb
250,000 Ib @ $0.35/lb
500,000 Ib @ $2.00/lb
250,000 Ib@$1.70/Ib
$850,000
87.500
$937,500
$1,000,000
425.000
$1,425,000
U. S. Department of Energy
167
-------
Polyethylene macroencapsulation operating costs at a DOE site average approximately $800/55-gal
drum. These costs are based on the following assumptions:
There is a 1-in annular space between the drum and the waste.
Virgin polyethylene is used as the encapsulating material. Significant cost savings may be
realized using recycled plastic.
Downdraft tables or glove bags are used for radiation containment.
The process uses two operators.
Because macroencapsulation is an approved treatment technology, waste form qualification testing is
not required. Off-gas monitoring is also not required. These factors lead to significant cost savings
compared to destruction and separation technologies.
Virgin LDPE costs approximately $0.61/lb or less depending on purchase volume. Recycled material
costs about one-third as much, but supplies of appropriate recycled LDPE tend to be unreliable.
LANL estimates a savings of more than $824,000 for treatment of its 60,000 Ib of radioactive lead by
working an agreement with Envirocare through the MWFA rather than negotiating a separate
agreement.
U. S. Department of Energy
168
-------
SECTION 6
Regulatory Considerations
The waste streams treated in this demonstration were subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) but not the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA).
By RCRA definition, macroencapsulation is specifically limited to treatment of radioactively
contaminated elemental lead solids and mixed waste debris.
Macroencapsulation, which is the RCRA technology-based treatment standard for radioactively
contaminated elemental lead, is defined in 40 CFR 268.4 as "Application of surface-coating materials
such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics), or use of a jacket of inert inorganic materials to
substantially reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media." Macroencapsulation specifically
does not include any material that would be classified as a tank or container according to 40 CFR
260.10.
The Debris Rule defines macroencapsulation as encapsulation with "surface-coating materials such
as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics) or use of a jacket of inert inorganic materials to
substantially reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media." This definition does not include the
container restriction that is identified for macroencapsulation of lead.
Currently, macroencapsulated debris contaminated with a listed waste must be managed as a RCRA
hazardous waste. Proposed regulatory modifications (i.e., DOE's response and recommendations to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule) would
exclude immobilized mixed debris from RCRA Subtitle C restrictions after treatment. This exclusion
would be similar to the one provided for hazardous debris treated by extraction or destruction
technologies.
Permit requirements for implementation of this technology at other facilities are expected to include
RCRA permitting depending on site-specific requirements,
National Environmental Policy Act review (categorical exclusion), and
radioactive materials license.
Air permits are unlikely to be required.
Because macroencapsulation is a technology-based treatment standard, the process used must be
approved by local regulatory agencies as meeting the definition of MACRO, as provided in 40 CFR
268.2 prior to disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
Radiological exposures to personnel must be kept "as low as reasonably achievable" pursuant to DOE
regulations.
U. S. Department of Energy
169
-------
Safety, Risks, Benefits, and Community Reaction
Worker Safety Issues
Hughes Associates evaluated the relative fire hazards associated with a production-scale
polyethylene extrusion process. The results of the study indicate that fire hazards associated with the
process are common to industrial extruder processes and not unique to the intended application. Fire
hazards associated with the extruder include the potential for overheat conditions, electrical power
faults, and ignition of combustible lubricants. The primary fire hazard associated with the polyethylene
extrusion process is the storage of raw polyethylene, but the hazard is minor because of the low
flammability of polyethylene.
Molten polyethylene can cause severe burns, so precautions for worker safety are necessary.
A properly operated polymer macroencapsulation process requires minimum operator input other than
drum placement at the output of the extruder.
Level B or C personnel protection is required depending on waste characteristics and process
ventilation.
Community Safety, Potential Environmental Impacts and Exposures
The risk to community is very low. Macroencapsulation waste barriers meet LDR requirements, and the
physical process used to encapsulate waste has very low accident and release potential.
Benefits
Polymer extruders are easy to install and operate.
The process operates at low temperature, needs no off-gas treatment, and does not generate
secondary wastes.
The process produces compliant, leach-resistant, and durable final waste forms.
The process has low profile and requires little space.
Potential Socioeconomic Impacts and Community Perceptions
Polymer macroencapsulation has minimal economic or labor force impact.
The polymer extrusion macroencapsulation process is not generally considered to be a viable
alternative to incineration. As pointed out earlier, this process is not cost-effective for "soft debris,"
which is primarily combustible waste and can be incinerated.
No adverse public or tribal input regarding macroencapsulation technology was received.
Stakeholders have expressed preference for this technology over cement/grout encapsulation
technology because of long-range stability.
U. S. Department of Energy
170
-------
SECTION 7
Technology Selection Considerations
Polyethylene macroencapsulation is a good treatment option for lead and debris wastes contaminated
with low levels of radioactivity.
The technology is competitive with separation and destruction technologies for debris wastes
contaminated with low levels of volatile organic compounds.
Polyethylene macroencapsulation has been demonstrated at Envirocare and various DOE sites to be
effective in the treatment of radioactively contaminated lead and debris wastes.
Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the long-term mechanical stability of the final waste
form. In particular, the waste form's response to biodegradation, photodegradation, radiolysis,
chemical attack, and fire were examined:
Polymers are highly resistant to microbial attack. Ecological concerns over the ability of plastics to
resist microbial degradation have precipitated numerous studies on the biodegradability of plastics
and potential techniques for enhancing it. All of these studies concluded that, under normal
conditions, biodegradation rates for polyethylene are negligible.
Photodegradation of polyethylene exposed to ultraviolet radiation can cause deterioration of
structural integrity; however, this failure mechanism is unlikely since radioactive waste forms are
not exposed to the sun.
Low levels (<100 megarad) of ionizing radiation will not adversely impact the structural integrity of
the final waste form. Four chemical reactions are generally responsible for the effects of radiation
on polyethylene: cross-linking, chain scission, increased unsaturation, and oxidation. Of these,
cross-linking is the predominant effect. Increased unsaturation has little effect on the mechanical
properties, but it occurs with nearly the same yield as cross-linking. Each of these two reactions
results in the production of hydrogen on a 1:1 basis. Chain scission is a minor reaction, occurring
at a rate of about 5 percent of cross-linking and increased unsaturation. Oxidation is generally
neglected, but it could play a significant role. The occurrence of each of these reactions is linearly
dependent on the absorbed dose of radiation.
Experiments conducted to evaluate the thermal stability of the waste form conclusively
demonstrated that no exothermal reaction hazards exist. In the event of a hot fire, however, the
waste form is likely to burn. The flash-ignition temperature of polyethylene is 340ฐC, and the auto-
ignition temperature is 430ฐC.
Polyethylene's resistance to chemical attack is one of the main reasons for its widespread use in
many diverse applications. At ambient temperatures, polyethylene is insoluble in virtually all
organic solvents and is resistant to many acids and caustic solutions.
Implementation Considerations
LDPE with a melt index of approximately 9 g/10 min has adequate flow characteristics with minimal
surface cracking, as compared to material with extremely low (2 g/10 min) or extremely high
(60 g/10 min) melt indexes. This material provides a cost-effective production-scale process with
higher quality final waste forms.
U. S. Department of Energy
171
-------
Because it has a lower shrinkage factor, LDPE is more successful than high-density polyethylene for
large-scale pours.
The annular space between the waste and the container is a critical parameter in ensuring complete
coverage and minimizing cracking.
To minimize fire hazards associated with the process, a Hughes Associates study recommended the
use of noncombustible lubricants, thermal limit switches to shut down the extruder in the event that a
heating unit overheats, and routine maintenance and cleaning. Hughes Associates also recommended
limitations on the quantity and arrangement of stored polyethylene to reduce the fire hazard.
Technology Limitations and Needs for Future Development
The rationale for minimum layer thickness, leaching performance, durability, and effect of void spaces
should be addressed, particularly since some of these issues affected the acceptance criteria for
Envirocare. Development of technically defensible positions on these issues will assist in future
regulatory review and permitting processes and lead to a more cost-effective final waste form.
Research should be conducted to determine whether compaction technologies should be incorporated
with macroencapsulation to improve waste loading.
The polymer encapsulation process with LDPE is relatively intolerant of the presence of free liquids
and organics. Encapsulation of mixed waste forms containing free liquids or organics will require
additional investigation and site-specific regulatory interaction and approval.
U. S. Department of Energy
172
-------
APPENDIX A
Block-Bolton, A., et al. Polyethylene Waste Form Evaluation of Explosion and Fire Hazards. CETR Report
FR91-91-03, Center for Explosives Technology Research, Socorro, NM, June 1991.
Charlesby, A. Atomic Radiation and Polymers. Pergamon, New York, 1960.
Franz, E. M., et al. Immobilization of Sodium Nitrate Waste with Polymers. BNL-52081, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, NY, April 1987.
Getty, R. H., and M. P. Riendeau. Polymer Macroencapsulation of Low-Level Radioactive Lead Wastes.
Interim Report TI95-018, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, CO, September 1995.
Gleiman, S. S., et al. "Remediation of Low-Level Mixed Waste Through Polymer Macroencapsulation."
Presented at the Environmental Restoration '95 Conference, Denver, CO, 1995.
Kalb, P. D., J. H. Heiser, III, and P. Columbo. "Long-Term Durability of Polyethylene for Encapsulation of
Low-Level Radioactive, Hazardous, and Mixed Wastes," Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste
Management, 1993.
Kalb, P. D., J. H. Heiser, III, and P. Columbo. Polyethylene Encapsulation of Nitrate Salt Wastes: Waste
Form Stability, Process Scale-up, and Economics. BNL-52293, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY, January 1991.
Moriyama, N., et al. "Incorporation of Radioactive Spent Ion Exchange Resins in Plastics," Journal of
Nuclear Science and Technology, 12(6), 363-69 (1975).
Rauwendaal, C. Polymer Extrusion. Hanser, New York, 1990.
U. S. Department of Energy
173
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
174
-------
Cap at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU
175
-------
Cap at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU
Site Name:
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300 - Pit 6
Landfill Operable Unit (OU)
Location:
Livermore, CA
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds:
- Trichloroethene (TCE)
Radionuclides:
- Tritium
Period of Operation:
Installed Summer 1997;
groundwater monitoring scheduled
for 30 years (post-closure care)
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor/Consultants:
Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems
Inc.
Oak Ridge, TN
Weiss Associates
Emeryville, CA
Additional Contacts:
Michael G. Brown
Deputy Director
DOE/OAK Operations Office
L-574
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence, CA 94551
(510)423-7061
John P. Ziagos
Site 300 Program Leader
L-544
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence, CA 94551
(510)422-5479
Technology:
Cap
Multilayer cap that consists of (top
to bottom):
- Topsoil and vegetative layer (2-
feet)
- Geocomposite drainage
layer/biotic barrier (high-density
polyethylene (HPDE) netting
between synthetic filter fabric)
- HDPE/geosyntheic clay layer (60-
mil HOPE liner over bonded
bentonite clay layer)
- General fill (compacted native
soil; 2-feet thick)
- Georigid reinforcement (HOPE
flexible grid material; two to three
layers separated by 6-inches of
general fill)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA - Removal Action
Federal Facility Agreement
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Waste debris and
biomedical waste from operations
at Site 300
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Cap - 2.4 acre multilayer cap over a landfill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Multilayer capping of
a landfill
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The CERCLA compliance criteria analysis for the Pit 6 landfill removal action include overall protection of
human health and the environment; compliance with the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
(ARARs), long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume; short-term
effectiveness; and implementabiliry.
176
-------
Cap at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Site 300, Pit 6 Landfill OU (continued)
Results:
- A summary is included in the report comparing the CERCLA objectives to the performance of the landfill. The
cap is meeting the objectives for protection of human health and the environment, reduction of mobility of the
waste, short-term effectiveness and implementability.
- While the landfill cap construction meets all ARARs, capping alone may not meet State requirements for
protection of beneficial uses of groundwater. In addition, a cap does not reduce the toxicity and volume of
buried waste and contaminated groundwater. At the time of this report, the post-closure monitoring plan was
still being written.
Cost:
- Total cost of constructing the landfill cap was $1,500,000, including design, mobilization and preparatory work
and site work.
- Total cost of the removal action was $4,100,000, including costs for preliminary/preconstruction activities,
construction activities and projected costs for 30 years of landfill O&M and groundwater monitoring.
Description:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 is a DOE experimental test facility located near Livermore
California. Pit 6 Landfill OU was the location of buried waste including laboratory and shop debris and
biomedical waste, including radioactive wastes. From 1964 to 1973, approximately 1,900 cubic yards of waste
were disposed of in three unlined debris trenches and six animal pits. The trenches, located near the center of the
landfill, were each about 100 feet long, 10 feet deep, and 12 to 20 feet wide. The animal pits, located in the
northern part of the landfill, were each about 20 to 40 feet long, 16 feet deep, and nine feet wide. VOC and
tritium were detected in soil and groundwater at the site. TCE concentrations in the groundwater have declined
from levels as high as 250 ug/L in 1989 to 15 ug/L in 1997 (slightly above the federal and state MCL of 5 ug/L).
Trace concentrations of chloroform, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene are also present in the
groundwater. The maximum activity of tritium currently detected in groundwater is 1,540 pCi/L, below the MCL
of 20,000 pCi/L.
In the summer of 1997, a 2.4 acre multilayer cap was placed over the three trenches and six animal pits. The cap
extended more than 25 feet beyond the perimeter of the trenches and pits due to uncertainties in the exact location
of the waste and to cover areas where VOCs in the subsurface had potential to cause worker inhalation exposure.
The cap consists of a vegetative/topsoil layer, a geocomposite drainage layer underlain by a geosynthetic liner
over a bonded bentonite clay layer, and compacted general fill which includes georigid reinforcement. A summary
is included hi the report comparing the CERCLA objectives to the performance of the landfill which indicates that
the cap is meeting the objectives for protection of human health and the environment, reduction of mobility of the
waste, short-term effectiveness and implementability. While the landfill cap construction meets all ARARs,
capping alone may not meet State requirements for protection of beneficial uses of groundwater. In addition, a
cap does not reduce the toxicity and volume of buried waste and contaminated groundwater. A Post-Closure
Monitoring Plan was being written at the time of the report and will establish a Detection Monitoring Program
and a Corrective Action Monitoring Program. Several observations and lessons learned from this application
related to implementation are included in the report, along with information on technology advancements.
Total cost of constructing the landfill cap was $1,500,000, including design, mobilization and preparatory work
and site work. Total cost of the removal action was $4,100,000, including costs for preliminary/preconstruction
activities, construction activities and projected costs for 30 years of landfill O&M and groundwater monitoring.
177
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
11. SUMMARY!
From 1964 to 1973, approximately 1,900 cubic yards
of waste was placed in nine unlined debris trenches and
animal pits at the Pit 6 Landfill at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Site 300. The material buried includ-
ed laboratory and shop debris, and biomedical waste.
Contaminants potentially associated with the waste
include organic solvents, radionuclides, PCBs, and metals.
Plumes of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and tritium
in ground water emanate from the landfill. The primary
VOC released is trichloroethene (TCE). In 1997, a
2.4-acre engineered cap was constructed over the landfill
as a CERCLA removal action, isolating the waste from
rain water or surface water infiltration and eliminating
safety concerns related to potential subsidence. The total
cost of constructing the landfill cap was about $1,500,000.
Selectively substituting geosynthetic for natural materials
saved over $500,000. Total past and projected project
costs are approximately $4,100,000.
.Sacramento
Location of LLNL Site 300.
Pit 6 Landfill and overlying rifle range prior to cap construction; view looking south (May 1997).
178
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
12. SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Facility: Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL)
Site 300.
Operable Unit: Pit 6 Landfill
(OU 3).
Regulatory Drivers:
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), Site
300 Federal Facility
Agreement.
' Type of Action: Landfill cap-
ping and ground water moni-
toring as a CERCLA non-
time-critical removal action.
Period of Operation: Capping
completed in September 1997.
Post-closure maintenance and
monitoring will continue.
co/ral Hollo* Road
Location of the Pit 6 Landfill at LLNL Site 300.
Technology Application
A cap has been constructed over the Pit 6 Landfill to:
(1) isolate the buried waste from rain water and/or surface
water infiltration, (2) divert surface water from the cov-
ered area, (3) eliminate safety hazards from subsidence
into void spaces in the buried waste, (4) mitigate risk
from potential inhalation of vapors from the subsurface,
and (5) reduce ground water recharge near the contami-
nant pumes.
179
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Site Background
LLNL Site 300 is a DOE experimental test facility located
in the rugged, semiarid Altamont Hills east of Livermore,
California. The Pit 6 Landfill lies near the southern
boundary of Site 300 along Corral Hollow Road, and is
situated on an alluvial terrace about 40 feet above the
Corral Hollow Creek flood plain. The landfill received
about 1,900 yd3 of material from LLNL and Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory from 1964 to 1973. Waste was
placed in three debris trenches and six smaller animal pits.
A disposal log was kept by LLNL, but is not sufficiently
detailed to permit full characterization of the waste.
Laboratory and shop debris was placed in trenches 1, 2,
and 3, located in the central part of the landfill. Each
trench was about 100 feet long, 12 to 20 feet wide, and 10
feet deep. Debris was placed in 42 shipment cells, with a
total volume of approximately 1,750 yd3. Records indi-
cate that the trench waste includes capacitors, drums
and tanks, compressed gas cylinders, lamps
and ignition tubes, shop and laboratory equip-
ment and waste, ductwork, filters, and glove
boxes. Contaminants potentially associated with
the debris include uranium (exhumed in 1971),
thorium, beryllium, VOCs, PCBs, mercury,
and cutting oil.
The six animal pits located in the northern
part of the landfill received waste from bio-
medical experiments. Each pit was 20 to 40
feet long, 9 feet wide, and about 16 feet
deep. Waste was placed in 13 shipment
cells, with a total volume of approximately
150 yd3. The waste consisted of animal
carcasses, blood, milk, feces, and urine.
Records indicate that up to 42 radioactive
isotopes were present in the waste, with
an estimated total activity at time of bur-
ial of 0.7 to 2.1 Curies (Ci). This
includes about 0.5 Ci of tritium buried
in two shipment cells; 99.96% in cell 55
and 0.04% in cell 23. The half lives
of the buried isotopes range from 12.8
hours to 30 years. Some of the decay
products of the original isotopes
have longer half lives, but the activity
of these daughter products is estimated to
be below background. The total activity
remaining in the animal pits after at least 24 years of burial
is estimated to be 0.12 to 0.18 Ci.
After burial, all waste was covered with several feet of
native soil. The landfill was not constructed with liners,
containment structures, or leachate control systems. Due
to safety considerations, no intrusive investigations of the
buried material have been performed. A rifle range used
for training exercises by LLNL was located directly over
the landfill.
Documents prepared for the Pit 6 OU include the Site-
Wide Remedial Investigation report (Webster-Scholten,
1994); a Feasibility Study (Devany et al., 1994), which
was later redesignated as an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA); an addendum to the EE/CA (Berry,
1996); and an Action Memorandum (Berry, 1997). A
Post-Closure Plan is in preparation.
All releases in the Pit 6 OU fall under SIC
code 9631A (DOE activities).
Pit 6 Landfill.
Scale: feet
0 35 70
All locations are approximate.
180
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Site Contacts
Michael G. Brown
Deputy Director
Environmental Restoration Division
DOE/OAK Operations Office
L-574
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551
(510) 423-7061
John P. Ziagos
Site 300 Project Leader
L-544
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551
(510) 422-5479
3. MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Approximately 1,900 yd3 of laboratory and shop debris
and animal waste are buried in the Pit 6 Landfill. VOCs
and tritium have been released contaminating ground
water, soil, and bedrock.
Hydroqeology
The Pit 6 Landfill is located on a Quaternary-age alluvial
terrace up to 55 feet in thickness. The alluvium overlies
Tertiary-age sedimentary bedrock. The landfill is situated
along the northern limit of the Corral Hollow-Carnegie
Fault Zone. North of the fault zone, bedrock dips south-
ward at 5 to 20 degrees. Within the fault zone, bedrock is
nearly vertical to overturned. Evidence of Holocene
activity has been observed along a fault strand located
about 150 feet south of the landfill.
Ground water is about 30 to 50 feet below ground surface
beneath the landfill. While ground water elevations can
vary seasonally by several feet, the water table remains at
least 15 feet below the bottom of the buried waste.
Shallow, unconfined ground water flows to the southeast
at an estimated average rate of 30 to 70 feet per year.
During the winter rainy season, ground water has been
observed flowing intermittently from springs along the
edge of the alluvial terrace. These springs have been dry
for the past several years as water levels declined.
181
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Hydrogeology (cont.)
Evapotranspiration
Conceptual hydrogeologic model of
the Pit 6 Landfill Operable Unit.
Contaminant Physical Properties
"- 'v.
ll
f ~
Physical properties of VOCs released from the Pit 6 Landfill.
Contaminant
Chloroform
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Tctrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vapor
pressure
(mm Hg)
160
208
14
58
Henry's Law
constant
(atm-nr'/mol)
3.23E-03
7.58E-03
1.53E-02
9.10E-03
Density
constant
(g/cnnr)
1.4890
1.2837
1.6227
1.4642
Water solubility
(mg/L)
8.00E+03
3.50E+03
1.50E+02
1.10E+03
Kow
79.43-
5.01
398.11
338.84
KOC
43.65
49.00
263.03
107.15
Vapor Pressure: The higher the vapor pressure, the more volatile.
Henry's Law Constant: Compounds with constants greater than
1E-3 readily volatilize from water.
Density: Compounds with a density greater than 1 have a tendency to
sink (i.e., DNAPLs); compounds with a density less than 1 have a
tendency to float (i.e., LNAPLs).
Water Solubility: Highly soluble chemicals can be rapidly leached
from wastes and soils and are mobile in ground water; the higher the
value, the higher the solubility.
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): Used in estimating
the sorption of organic compounds on soils (high Kow tends to
adsorb more easily).
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc): Indicates the
capacity for an organic chemical to adsorb to soil because organic
carbon is responsible for nearly all adsorption in most soils'(the
higher the value, the more it adsorbs).
182
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Contaminant Physical Properties (cont.)
Tritium is the only radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It
contains two neutrons in the nucleus, in addition to one
proton that all hydrogen isotopes share. Thus, it has an
atomic number of 1, an atomic weight (mass number) of
3, and is three times heavier than a hydrogen atom. Due
to radioactive decay, tritium has a physical half-life of
12.26 years. It decays to a stable isotope of helium with
the emission of a low-energy beta particle. Tritium con-
centration in ground water is typically expressed in units
of radioactivity, or activity per unit volume as picoCuries
per liter (pCi/L).
Nature arid Extent of Contaminatiori
250 -
200 -
150 -
o
I
8
I
g 100
Analyses of ground water, soil vapor, soil, and bedrock
indicate that VOCs and tritium have been released from
the Pit 6 Landfill. Contamination extends to a depth of
about 70 feet, and affects the saturated terrace alluvium
and shallow bedrock aquifer. No water-supply wells have
been affected, nor has any contamination been detected
offsite.
Data indicate that the TCE emanates from the southeastern
part of the landfill, possibly from drums placed in trench 3.
TCE concentration in ground water has been declining
since 1989 when the highest concentration measured was
250 micrograms per liter (ug/L). The maximum concen-
tration of TCE detected in 1997 was 15 ug/L, slightly
above the federal and state Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 5 ug/L. Trace (sub-MCL) concentrations of
chloroform, czs-l,2-dichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene
are also present.
The maximum activity of tritium currently detected in
ground water is 1,540 pCi/L, well below the MCL of
20,000 pCi/L. Disposal records indicate that shipment cell
55, near the northeastern corner of the landfill, received
more than 99% of the tritium buried in the landfill and is
the most likely source of the tritium contamination.
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
TCE concentration in ground water monitor wells at the Pit 6 Landfill.
183 '
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Nature and Extent of Contamination (cont.)
r**v^+
WvW\
-Landfill cap
Legend
^ Contaminant
\ isoconcentratlon contour,
* dashed where uncertain
-^- Monitor well
-4~ Active water-supply well
-$- Inactive water-supply well
) Intermittent spring
Approximate locations of
disposal trenches and
animal pits
Building
Scale: feet
o 100 200
r^>
Camegte State
Vehicle Recreation Area
(SVRA) Headquarters
-f
>-.
EflO-fTS-87-cpr.il
Distribution of contaminants in ground water (1997).
Carnegie SVRA
residence area
184
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
14. REMEDIATION DESCRIPTION
Primary i Technology
The primary remedial technology selected for the Pit 6
Landfill OU is capping. In the summer of 1997, a multi-
layer cover was placed over the three trenches and six ani-
mal pits in the landfill to isolate the buried waste, prevent
future rainwater infiltration, prevent further void space
collapse and associated safety hazards, and reduce ground
water recharge near the VOC plume. The cap also pre-
vents the potential flux of VOC vapors to the surface. To
control surface water, a diversion and drainage system
was constructed along the perimeter of the cap.
The contents of the trenches and animal pits will remain
in place. Rising ground water inundating the waste is
unlikely because the water table historically has been at
least 15 feet below the bottom of the waste, and the cap
and drainage diversion system will reduce recharge by
infiltration. TCE and tritium in ground water will contin-
ue to be monitored. Final cleanup standards for ground
water will be determined in the forthcoming Site-Wide
Record of Decision.
Key Design Criteria
The Pit 6 Landfill cap is about 2.4 acres in size, extending
more than 25 feet beyond the perimeter of the buried
waste trenches and animal pits. In some areas, the cap
was extended farther due to uncertainties in the exact
location of the buried waste and to cover areas where
VOCs in the subsurface had potential to cause worker
inhalation exposure.
The cap consists of several layers, and meets the perfor-
mance criteria of preventing rainwater infiltration into the
buried waste, mitigating potential damage by burrowing
animals and vegetation, preventing safety hazards due to
potential collapse of void spaces in the buried waste, and
mitigating potential flux of VOC vapors through the soil.
The northern diversion channel is lined with rip-rap and
will capture runoff from the slope north of the landfill and
divert it to a natural drainage divide to the west. Drainage
channels on the east, west, and south sides of the landfill
cap are lined with concrete and will collect and drain rain-
water that runs off the cap as well as rainwater that has
infiltrated through the vegetative layer and drained to the
perimeter through the geocomposite drainage layer.
185
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Key Design Criteria (cont.)
T
w J J \> \il lil \\ii /i \ i __
i
-Finished grade-
2 feet Topsoil and vegetative layer
{ Geocomposite drainage
layer/biotic barrier
60-mil High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
geosynthetic clay liner
is
T '
5+
;J4~1; ; -<^i,' ' .-^H~l;: -<^i* '.-^1;. ^ 2 feet Compacted general fill (includes two
:.''.^4^^;'i-^:''i-^^/i-7^:''^i'. (min) layers of geogrid reinforcement
... .. . .... . . .......... incnes of genera| fj|| between)
-.X.X-X T: x'-fr X ~ X ' X X rr-X-r--X--r X.-X -X_
f
ฃ
Thicknesses approximate
\'
11
t
Existing grade-
2-14 Existing or graded cover material
feet (2-3 feet over debris trenches,
12-14 feet over animal pits)
Buried waste
Typical section of the Pit 6 Landfill cap.
186
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Key Design Criteria (cont.)
Shipment ceils
Legend
Surface water diversion
and drainage showing
Landfill cap
flow direction
(widths not to scale)
A A> Line of section
Scale: feet
0 35 70
Pit 6 landfill cap and surface water diversion and drainage system.
187
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Key Design Criteria (cont.)
A
South
Lined surface water
diversion channel
A1
North
Lined surface water
diversion channel
Landfill cap
Buried waste
Trench and pit cover material
Highest recorded
ground water level
(January 1983)
Horizontal and vertical scale: feet
I I I
0 20 40
Cross section of the Pit 6 Landfill.
Pit 6 Landfill liner during installation; view looking south (July 1997).
188
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Key Design Criteria (cpnt.)
Components of the landfill cap.
Layer
(top to bottom)
Description and purpose
Topsoil and vegetative layer
A minimum of 2 feet of native soil to protect underlying liner system. Prevents majority of
infiltration by capturing rainwater and allowing evapotranspiration and/or runoff before water
reaches the liner. Vegetation minimizes erosion. Grasses selected with root depths that will
not impact underlying liner system.
Geocomposite drainage
layer/biotic barrier
High-Density Polyethylene (HOPE) netting sandwiched between synthetic filter fabric. High
transmissivity material drains infiltrating water to the perimeter of the landfill cap, preventing
water from ponding on underlying liner. Material will also serve as a deterrent to burrowing
animals.
HDPE/geosynthetic clay liner
60-mil HOPE liner over bonded bentonite clay layer. Very low permeability prevents rainwater
infiltration into buried waste. Bentonite clay layer acts as an expansive sealant in the unlikely
event of a liner puncture. Liner also prevents potential upward flux of VOC vapor.
General fill
Compacted native soil to provide a level surface for liner placement. Design specifies a
thickness of 2 feet to mitigate damage to liner system from potential local earthquakes.
Geogrid reinforcement
HOPE flexible grid material to provide short- and long-term structural support over potential
void spaces in the buried waste. Two or three layers (depending on location) separated by 6
inch lifts of general fill. Geogrid reinforcement provides increased safety during and after
construction.
189
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
15. REMEDIATION PERFORMANCE
Design concern
Performance goals
Performance criteria
Infiltration
Subsidence caused by
void space collapse in
buried waste
Surface water control
Vapor control
Burrowing animals
Earthquake damage
Post-closure use
Minimize surface water infiltration to
prevent leachate generation.
Ensure long-term integrity of cap and
safety of onsite workers.
Protect cap from storm water run-off and
run-on.
Prevent the possible escape of low
concentration VOC vapors to the surface
to mitigate potential inhalation exposure
to onsite workers.
Prevent damage to liner system by
burrowing animals.
Minimize potential for liner integrity
compromise as a result of a seismic event
that could potentially occur on a fault
located about 150 feet south of the
landfill.
Cap must accommodate installation of a
new rifle range to replace the one
demolished during construction.
Vegetative/topsoil layer 2 feet thick (minimum) to maximize
evapotranspiration.
Geocomposite drainage layer prevents ponding of infiltrated
rainwater on liner.
Combined 60-mil HOPE liner and 0.25-inch-thick
geosynthetic clay liner provides a permeability of
less than 4 x 10'12 cm/sec.
Geogrid reinforcement layers used to bridge potential void
spaces. Strength of layers capable of supporting loads from
new rifle range structure and a 2.5-ton service truck.
Perimeter drainage system including concrete-lined ditches,
rip-rap-lined channel, and corrugated metal culverts with
capacity for a 24-hour Probable Maximum Precipitation storm
event.
Low permeability liner used to prevent water infiltration also
prevents vapor escape. Buried waste will not produce methane
so gas buildup not a concern.
Geocomposite drainage layer to deter animals. Periodic
inspections to be conducted.
Used probability assessment to determine Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% chance of being exceeded in
50 years. Determined that 2-foot-thick general fill layer
beneath liner is sufficient to prevent damage to liner as a result
of4.4-gPGA.
An additional geogrid reinforcement layer was placed over a
portion of the landfill to bear the load of the rifle range
structure.
Monitoring
Post-closure ground water monitoring will include analy-
ses for substances confirmed to have been released from
the Pit 6 Landfill debris trenches and animal pits (VOCs
and tritium), as well as for those potentially present in
the buried waste (beryllium, PCBs, mercury, and radionu-
clides). Ground water samples will be collected quarterly,
and statistical analyses performed on the results. Ground
water elevation will also be measured quarterly. The Post-
Closure Plan will establish: (1) a Detection Monitoring
Program to identify future releases, and (2) a Corrective
Action Monitoring Program to assess the performance of
the landfill cap. Both programs will be periodically evalu-
ated as part of Site 300 CERCLA Five-Year Reviews.
190
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Risk Reduction
' '
The baseline risk assessment for Pit 6 presented in the
Site-Wide Remedial Investigation Report (Webster-
Scholten, 1994) concluded that potential exposure to
VOCs volatilizing from shallow soil in the vicinity of the
rifle range above Pit 6 presented a maximum excess life-
time cancer risk to onsite workers of 5 in 1,000,000 (5 x
10~6). The landfill cap is designed to mitigate this risk by
preventing upward flux of VOCs from the subsurface.
Surface water, when present at spring 7, presents a maxi-
mum excess lifetime cancer risk to onsite workers of 4 in
100,000 (4 x lO'5). This spring has not flowed since the
summer of 1992, and no exposure pathway currently exists.
The cap is designed to reduce recharge to the shallow
aquifer, and may prevent flow from spring 7 from occurring
in the future. If flow resumes and VOC concentrations are
detected at levels that pose a risk, contingency measures will
be implemented which may include access controls and
ground water remediation.
Ground water modeling indicates that there is little possi-
bility of VOCs reaching off site water supply wells; the
nearest are located at the Carnegie State Vehicle
Recreational Area, over 800 feet southeast of the Pit 6
ground water plume.
16. REMEDIATION COSTS
Cost elements for the Pit 6 Landfill.
General activity
areas
(WBS)
Preliminary/
Preconstraction
Activities
(32)
Construction
Activities (33)
Post-Construction
Operations and
Maintenance:
Removal Action
(34)
WBS second level
cost elements
(WBS)
RI/FS (32.02)
Remedial Design
(32.03)
Mobilization and
Preparatory Work
(33.01)
Site Work (33.03)
Monitoring,
Sampling, Testing,
and Analysis
(34.02)
Cost items
* Feasibility Study (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis) and
related work
- Alternative evaluation
- Conceptual design
- Ground water extraction modeling
- Document preparation
- Regulatory interface
Addendum to EE/CA
Public Workshop/Action Memorandum
Landfill Cap Design
- Title I design document
- Title II design document
Post-closure plan
Contractor selection/site preparation
- RFP distribution/contractor selection
- Controlled burn of vegetation
- Security coordination
- Construction site fencing installation
- Archaeological and ecological clearances
- Coordination with other facility operations
Removal Action Construction:
- Demolish rifle range
- Construct .landfill cap
Construction quality assurance and report
Construction management
Landfill Operation and Maintenance (30 yrs in present-worth dollars)
- Inspections, surveys, reporting
- Maintenance and repairs
Ground water monitoring (30 yrs in present-worth dollars)
- Sampling
- Analysis
Costs
($K)
844
47
65
398
47
53
698
89
238
121
1,491
Total Pit 6 Landfill Removal Action
Subtotal
($K)
1,401
1,078
1,612
$4,09 IK
191
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
[7. REGULATORY ISSUES
AH remediation activities are carried out under CERCLA
and in accordance with the Site 300 Federal Facility
Agreement. Regulatory agencies overseeing the Pit 6 OU
include the U.S. EPA, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board-Central Valley Region, and California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
As part of the DOE/LLNL program of streamlining the
CERCLA process, the landfill capping was conducted as a
non-time-critical removal action. Federal and State regu-
latory agencies approved of this approach, which resulted
in accelerating the project schedule by a full year. DOE
authorized capping to proceed through an Action
Memorandum.
Final ground water cleanup standards for the OU will be
established in the forthcoming Site-Wide Record of
Decision. If natural attenuation of the VOC plume con-
tinues, it is possible that no further action will be neces-
sary. However, if VOC concentrations do not decline to
meet cleanup standards, or if plume migration accelerates,
active measures such as ground water extraction and treat-
ment may be required.
CERCLA compliance criteria analysis for the Pit 6 Landfill removal action.
Objective/criteria
Summary of analysis
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction in toxicity, mobility,
and volume
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Landfill cap: (1) reduces possibility of future releases from the buried waste, (2)
prevents any potential direct exposure to the waste, (3) removes potential safety
hazard from subsidence, and (4) reduces inhalation risk from VOCs in subsurface
soils and exposure potential for sensitive ground-dwelling species.
Landfill cap construction meets all ARARs, but capping alone may not meet
State requirements for protection of beneficial uses of ground water.
Landfill cap reduces possibility of future releases by preventing surface water
infiltration, prevents direct exposure to waste, and reduces potential inhalation
exposure to VOCs in subsurface soil. May not protect all beneficial uses of
ground water. Cap requires inspection and maintenance to ensure integrity and is
subject to damage by rain, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. Fence,
signs, and site access restrictions will manage inhalation health risks at spring 7,
if necessary.
Landfill cap reduces mobility of waste by preventing surface water infiltration.
Toxicity and volume of buried waste and contaminated ground water are not
reduced.
Safety monitoring and construction procedures minimize possible releases and
worker exposure during landfill cap construction and monitoring. Human
exposure and contaminant release could occur from cave-ins, rupture of waste
containers, and dust generated during cap construction.
Technically and administratively implementable. Equipment and materials for
cap readily available. Landfill cap grading and compacting activities could
cause additional releases by disturbing buried containers. Landfill cap
construction requires demolition and replacement of rifle range.
192
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
8. SCHEDULE
Pit 6 site investigations
Site 300 listed on National Priority List (Superfund)
Site-Wide Remedial Investigation report
Feasibility Study
(converted to Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis)
Landfill cap Title 1 and II engineering design
Action Memorandum
Landfill construction (CERCLA removal action)
Post-closure monitoring and maintenance
Year
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
'
*
*
>
-
4
-
*
19. OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED!
Implementation Considerations
Implementing landfill cap design and construction as a
non-time-critical removal action reduced the number and
size of required regulatory documents needed for approval
and accelerated the project by one full year. A major
component of schedule acceleration was paralleling
design work with regulatory and community input and
approval to reduce review time and edits.
It is important to provide bidding contractors sufficient
time to prepare competitive bids, essentially because there
are a limited number of qualified geosynthetic installation
contractors available. Due to tight scheduling, there was a
a short bid submittal time frame for the Pit 6 landfill cap
(about two weeks) that may have reduced the number of
bids submitted and inhibited competition for the work.
The successful construction contractor's bid was within
allowable cost tolerances, but all other bids were signifi-
cantly higher. This may have been a result of bidders not
having been allowed sufficient time to analyze specifica-
tions in detail, with the effect of added contingencies
being included by bidders.
The landfill cap design specifications were required to
accommodate constructing and operating a new rifle
range on top of the cap. The geogrid structural reinforce-
ment layer, combined with restrictions on using motor
vehicles on the cap, will minimize the potential for dam-
age caused by the collapse of void spaces in the buried
waste.
193
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
Technology Advancements
Selectively substituting geosynthetic materials for natural
materials saved over $500,000. Using a HDPE/geosynthetic
clay liner in place of one to two feet of clay virtually elimi-
nated concerns over possible desiccation cracks, low mois-
ture content, and compaction of the impermeable liner dur-
ing hot weather construction. Additionally, installation was
much faster and quality assurance was more controllable.
Over $300,000 of these savings were realized by substitut-
ing a geocomposite drainage layer for a conventional cobble
layer to protect the underlying liner from burrowing ani-
mals. Weight over the buried waste was reduced and over-
all cover height was kept to a minimum. However, data are
limited on the performance of the geocomposite drainage
layer to deter burrowing animals. A geocomposite drainage
layer has been used successfully at other sites, but careful
inspections will be conducted to ensure continued integrity
of the cap.
Installing the HDPE/geosynthetic clay liner (July 1997).
194
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
110. REFERENCES
Berry, T. (1996), Addendum to the Pit 6 Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
(UCRL-AR-113861 Add).
Berry, T. (1997), Action Memorandum for the Pit 6
Landfill Operable Unit Removal Action at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
(UCRL-AR-126418).
Devany, R., R. Landgraf, and T. Berry (1994), Final
Feasibility Study for the Pit 6 Operable Unit Livermore
National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
(UCRL-AR-113861). Note: In August 1995, this docu-
ment was accepted as an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis.
Webster-Scholten, C. P. (Ed.) (1994), Final Site-Wide
Remedial Investigation Report, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
(UCRL-AR-108131).
111. VALIDATION I
Signatories:
"This analysis accurately reflects the current performance
and projected costs of the remediation."
Michael G. Brown
Deputy Director
Environmental Restoration Division
Oakland Operations Office
U. S. Department of Energy
John
Site 300 Project Leader
Environmental Restoration Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
195
-------
Pit 6 Landfill Cost and Performance Report
December 1997
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This analysis was prepared by:
Weiss Associates
Emeryville, California
under Subcontract B319805
(T. Berry, R. Ferry)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division
Livermore, California
under Contract W-7405-Eng-48
(B. Clark, T. Dresser)
HAZWRAP
Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems Inc.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
(T. Ham)
DOE Headquarters
Washington, DC
(K. Angleberger)
196
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA542-R-98-017
------- |