c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air And Radiation
(6603J)
EPA402-R-93-011
March 1993
Environmental Characteristics Of
EPA, NRC, And DOE Sites
Contaminated With Radioactive
Substances
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EPA, NRC, AND DOE SITES
CONTAMINATED WITH RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES
March 1993
A Cooperative Effort By
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Environmental Restoration
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(PL-12J)
I2th
-------
PREFACE
This report is the product of the Interagency Environmental
Pathway Modeling Workgroup. The Workgroup is composed of
representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, the Department of Energy Office of Environmental
Restoration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. This report is one of
several consensus documents being developed cooperatively by the
Workgroup. These documents will help bring a uniform approach to
solving environmental modeling problems common to these three
participating agencies in their site remediation and restoration
efforts. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report represent a consensus among the Workgroup members.
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Offices of Radiation and Indoor Air Programs
and Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards have initiated preliminary efforts to promote the
more appropriate and consistent use of computer models in the remediation of sites contaminated by
radioactive substances and managed by the participating Federal agencies. As a baseline for these
overall efforts, the nature and types of problems present at these sites must be understood. This report
responds to this need. It presents in textual, tabular, and graphical formats: a list of the 45 EPA
National Priorities List Superfund sites and the 38 NRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan sites
containing radioactive waste materials, the types of wastes found at each site, a description of the
physical form of the waste, physical characteristics of the site itself, and demographic characteristics
of the region surrounding the site. The summary information presented in this report will support other
programmatic efforts to identify benchmark type sites and problems for computer model selection and
evaluation purposes. Similarly, the report provides a broad overview of the general and unique
problems prevalent at radioactively contaminated sites.
11
-------
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
2 Statutory and Regulatory Considerations 3
2.1 CERCLA/SARA 3
2.2 Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) 4
3 Radioactively Contaminated Sites 4
3.1 NPL Sites 7
3.1.1 Defense plants 7
3.1.2 Mill tailings, processing, and disposal 8
3.1.3 Radium sites 8
3.1.4 Commercial landfills 9
3.1.5 Low-level waste disposal sites 9
3.1.6 Research facilities 9
3.1.7 Commercial manufacturing 9
3.2 SDMP Sites 10
3.2.1 Defense plants 10
3.2.2 Mill tailings, processing, and disposal 10
3.2.3 Commercial landfills 11
3.2.4 Research facilities 11
3.2.5 Commercial manufacturing 11
3.2.6 Fuel fabrication and processing 12
3.2.7 Scrap metal recovery 12
4 Contaminant Properties 12
4.1 Chemical Properties 13
4.1.1 Non-metals 18
4.1.2 Transition, noble metals, and lanthanides 18
4.1.3 Alkaline metals and earths 18
4.1.4 Actinides and transuranics 18
4.2 Radioactive Properties 19
4.3 Environmental Mobility 19
4.4 Biological and Health Effects Properties 20
5 Waste Characterization 21
in
-------
6 Site Environmental Characteristics 24
6.1 Surface 24
6.1.1 Precipitation 24
6.1.2 Airtransport 25
6.1.3 Surface water 25
6.2 Subsurface 27
6.2.1 Solid transport 27
6.2.2 Fluid transport 27
7 Receptor Characteristics 29
7.1 Population 31
7.2 Water Use .31
7.3 Land Use 33
8 Discussion 33
9 Summary and Conclusions 35
References 72
Acknowledgement 84
TABLES
la. Geographic and administrative data for NPL sites 37
Ib. Geographic and administrative data for SDMP sites 39
2a. Isotopes identified at NPL radioactively contaminated sites 41
2b. Isotopes identified at NRC SDMP sites 52
3a. Radiochemical and biological properties of isotopes identified at NPL
Superfund and NRC SDMP radioactively contaminated sites 57
3b. Ranges for Krfs for elements found at radioactively contaminated sites 59
4a. Summary of source, environmental, and receptor characteristics of NPL sites 60
4b. Summary of source, environmental, and receptor characteristics of NRC
SDMP sites 67
IV
-------
FIGURES
1. Exposure pathways 2
2a. Locations of EPA NPL radioactively contaminated sites 5
2b. Locations of NRC SDMP sites 6
3a. Isotope distribution at NPL radioactively contaminated sites 13
3b. Isotope distribution at NRC SDMP sites 14
4a. Exposure pathway distribution at NPL radioactively
contaminated sites (as reported) 16
4b. Exposure pathway distribution at NPL radioactively
contaminated sites (HRS scored) 16
4c. Exposure pathway distribution at NRC SDMP sites 17
5a. Source characteristics at NPL radioactively contaminated sites 22
5b. Source characteristics at NRC SDMP sites 23
6a. Mean annual precipitation by category for NPL radioactively
contaminated sites 26
6b. Air transport vectors at NPL radioactively contaminated sites 26
7. Hydrogeologic regions of the continental United States 28
8. Frequency distribution of depth to water table at NPL radioactively
contaminated sites (number ot sites for which data were available) 30
9a. County population density at NPL radioactively
contaminated sites 32
9b. County population density at NRC SDMP sites 32
-------
1 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Offices of Radiation Programs (ORP) and
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (ONMSS) have initiated preliminary
efforts to promote the more appropriate and consistent use of computer models by the participating
federal agencies to remediate sites contaminated with radioactive substances. To coordinate modeling
activities within and among the three participating agencies, a project has been initiated to describe
the roles of modeling at each stage in the remedial process; to identify models in actual use at EPA
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites, DOE
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) sites and NRC Decontamination and
Decommissioning (D&D) sites; to produce detailed critical reviews of selected models in widespread
use; and to produce draft guidance for Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs) and their equivalents to select and review models used in remediation and restoration
submittals. As the program matures and a portfolio of reviews is completed, efforts will be initiated to
produce an inventory of models for specific remediation and restoration problems, and a guidance
document for model selection and evaluation purposes.
As a baseline for these overall efforts, the nature and types of problems present at the several
types of remediation sites contaminated with radioactive materials must be understood.
Characterizations are available for every site on the NPL in the form of Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) screening packages, as well as for NRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) and
DOE/EM sites. However, a broad overview is needed. This report responds to this need.
Following administrative guidance, the emphasis in this report is on the 45 NPL sites
containing radioactive materials. Among these are included 10 DOE/EM sites (which account for 14 of
the 45 NPL sites). For completeness, 38 NRC/SDMP sites are also reviewed (one of which is also on the
NPL), but in less detail. Because effort was concentrated on the NPL sites, data for the SDMP sites may
in some cases be sparse.
Figure 1 illustrates the framework which was used to select site characteristics most important
in controlling the transport of contaminants from a site to the environment. Specifically, this report
presents in textual, graphical and tabular formats:
• a brief overview of the statutory and regulatory processes administered by EPA and
NRC to remediate abandoned hazardous waste sites,
• a list of the 45 Superfund sites and 38 SDMP sites containing radioactive materials,
• a list of the radioactive isotopes found, and the media contaminated at each site,
• a description of the physical form of the waste (e.g., packaged in a drum or buried in a
trench),
• environmental and geohydrologic characteristics of the site, (e.g., depth to
groundwater and mean annual precipitation), and
• characteristics of the region surrounding the site (e.g., population density and type of
land use).
-------
Dose from
external gamma
radiation
Dose from
inhalation
Dose from
ingestion of
contaminated
water
Dosage from ingestion of contaminated food
Plant
Animal
Terrestrial
Aquatic
Transport and dispersion of radionuclides through media in the environment
Atmosphere
Biota
Ground
Surface water
Groundwater
Plant uptake
Human
activities
Wind | Water
Surface erosion
Burrowing
animals
Leaching and
seepage
Routine
emissions
Abnormal
events
Predicted
doses
and dose
commitments
Exposed
population
Exposure
pathways
Release
mechanisms
Figure 1. Exposure pathways
-------
This report does not intend to provide a complete description of every site, neither are the data
presented necessarily input to any particular pathway model. Likewise data may have been omitted
which are essential to processes of computer simulation of contaminant transport. The characteristics
data found in these tables will drive the selection of particular pathway models. In addition, every
model will require a given set of data which are defined by the pathway be modelled. It should be
noted here that data quality could at some sites be considered a site characteristic. As noted
throughout this document, data quality varies significantly; at many sites certain data may be
unreliable, sparse or absent.
In spite of these limitations the summary information presented in this report will support
other programmatic efforts to identify bench-mark type sites and problems for model selection and
evaluation purposes. Similarly, the report provides a broad overview of the general and unique
problems prevalent at Superfund NPL, DOE/EM and NRC SDMP radioactively-contaminated sites.
2 Statutory and Regulatory Considerations
2.1 CERCLA/SARA
Under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1984 (42 USC 9601) as amended by the Superfund Amendments
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Public Law 99-499), EPA is charged to determine priorities for
the clean-up of abandoned hazardous waste sites and to take remedial actions. To help meet this
mandate and to help set priorities, EPA has adopted and used the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) (47
FR 31180, July 16,1982; 55 FR 51532, December 14,1990). The HRS is a scoring system used to assess the
relative threat associated with the actual or potential releases of hazardous substances at a site. Each
environmental pathway at a site is scored according to potential transport pathways and waste and
receptor characteristics. The composite score is used by EPA to determine whether a site is to be
included on the NPL, the Agency's list of sites that are priorities for long-term evaluation and
remedial response.
In the original HRS (47 FR 31180, July 16, 1982) and its subsequent revision (55 FR 51532,
December 14, 1990), sites at which radionuclides are found are treated differently. In the original
HRS, all radionuclides were assigned a maximum toxicity value by default because they are
categorized by EPA as known human carcinogens (See Section 4). In the revised HRS, radionuclides are
evaluated within the same basic structure as other hazardous substances, and the evaluation of many
individual HRS factors is the same whether radionuclides are present or not. For sites containing only
radionuclides, the revised HRS scoring process is very similar to the process for other hazardous
wastes, except that different scoring rules are applied to a number of radiation-specific factors and a
few other factors. For sites containing both radionuclides and other hazardous substances, both types of
substances are scored for all HRS factors.
All but two of the sites on the NPL which have been classified by EPA as "radioactive" were
scored using the original HRS. As noted above, under the orginal HRS there was limited instruction for
assessing the radioactive portion of the hazard at a site. Consequently, sites listed on the NPL were
most likely scored due to the nonradiologic component. With the advent of the revised HRS,
radioactive materials are treated in a manner consistent with other hazardous wastes. Irrespective of
the scoring process used, EPA classifies all sites containing significant amounts of radioactive substances
as "radioactive" for the purposes of remediation.
-------
2.2 Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP)
Under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the NRC has regulatory authority for source,
special nuclear, and by-product material. Though not regulated under CERCLA and RCRA, the
technical issues associated with the cleanup of NRC licensed sites are in many respects similar to those
associated with the remediation of sites under CERCLA/SARA.
In SECY-88-308 and SECY-89-369 the NRC staff identified over 30 material facilities sites
that have a sufficient level of contamination to require special attention from the Staff. The Office of
Material Safety and Safeguards (ONMSS) has regulatory responsibility for these sites and cannot
terminate the licenses nor release these sites for unrestricted use until the sites are decontaminated.
The objective of the SDMP is the timely cleanup of these sites. The NRC has directed that the sites be
prioritized according to a combination of health and safety factors, including:
• timeliness of action needed,
• status of regulatory efforts,
• knowledge of responsible parties, and
• Congressional commitments.
In contrast to the quantitative approach of HRS ranking, these factors are assigned weighted
priority scores based on subjective analysis of site status. Overall toxicity of the radioactive species,
migration potential of the radioactive material, and proximity to a potentially exposed population
are considered in assigning the Timeliness score, for example. The SDMP sites are assigned priority
level A, B, or C, with level A having the highest priority for use of NRC resources. This process is
discussed in greater detail in NRC (1991).
It should be noted that the NRC's approach to prioritization and remediation is pragmatic,
and level A sites do not necessarily present the greatest risk to health and safety. For example, if
prompt regulatory action and cleanup at a relatively low risk site will result in the most efficient use of
resources, by deleting the site from the SDMP list, for example, that site may receive a higher priority.
3 Radioactively Contaminated Sites
Table 1 lists and Figure 2 displays the 45 sites on the NPL and the 38 SDMP sites which are
contaminated with radioactive substances (FR 54(134):29820-29825, July 14, 1989; NRC, 1991). While
each of the sites has specific physical and environmental characteristics which will be discussed later
in this report, and while some sites could be placed in more than one group, it is possible to broadly
characterize these sites based on their historical usage. Nine general site types exist:
• defense plants
• mill tailings, processing and disposal sites
• radium and thorium sites
• commercial landfills
-------
lEPA Reel
ion
0 Regi...
Q Region II
H Region m
S Region IV
• Region V
• Region VI
3 Region YD
D Region V
0 Region IX
C3 Region X
MLD-12/12/91
Figure 2a. Locations of EPA NPL radioactively contaminated sites
-------
I NRC Regions
• Region 1
C3 Region 2
• Region 3
Q Region 4
• Regions
MLD-12/12/91
Figure 2b. Locations of NRC SDMP sites
-------
• low-level waste disposal sites
• research facilities
• commercial manufacturing
• fuel fabrication and processing
• scrap metal recovery.
Background data for these groupings are presented below:
3.1 NPL Sites
3.1.1 Defense plants
Fourteen of the 45 radioactively contaminated sites were involved in operations in some way
related to weapons manufacture. Included in this group (all of which are under DOE supervision) are:
Fernald Environmental Remediation Project (FEMP)
Hanford 100-, 200-, 300-, and 1100-Areas (4 sites)
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2 sites)
Mound Plant
Oak Ridge Reservation (includes Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Pantex Plant
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River Site
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works and Quarry/Plant/Pits (2 sites)
Many of these sites have been in operation since World War II. They were involved in the
handling of very high levels of actinide elements, uranium, thorium, and plutonium, along with
various daughter and fission products. Each site's involvement with these radioactive materials spans
a time over which there was an evolution of concern for the environmental consequences of such disposal
(see, for example, Eisenbud 1963 and 1990). The potential risks to human health and environment from
these sites are primarily attributed to the elevated activity levels and large volumes of materials at
each site. In addition the distribution of contamination tends to be complex. For security reasons many
of these sites were located in sparsely-populated regions and, as a consequence it is not surprising that
half of these sites are in arid or semi-arid areas not particularly suitable for agricultural or residential
use.
-------
3.1.2 Mill tailings, processing, and disposal
Twelve sites were or still are involved in the processing and disposal of uranium ore, thorium,
and/or rare earth for military and commercial operations. These operations easily rank first in terms of
the sheer volume of contaminated materials involved. Included in this list are:
Homestake Mining Co.
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek, Reed-Keppler Park, Residential Areas, Sewage
Treatment Plant) (4 sites)
Lincoln Park
United Nuclear
Monticello Mill Tailings and Radioactively Contaminated Vicinity Properties
(2 sites)
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings
Uravan Uranium (Union Carbide)
W.R. Grace/Wayne Interim Storage (DOE)
Common to these sites is a large volume of actinide wastes (primarily U and Th and their
daughters). Activity levels, however, are generally low. In some cases contaminated materials have
been widely distributed for use as fill or in construction materials long after their initial disposal.
3.1.3 Radium and thorium sites
Radium was the first radioisotope to enter into commercial use in the early part of the
twentieth century. Radium was and still is used in a wide range of applications, from luminous dials on
watches and instrument dials to medical applications in cancer therapy. Similarly, many small urban
industrial sites were involved in the processing of thorium for such uses as lamp mantles. Eleven of the
45 radioactively contaminated sites fall in this radium/thorium processing category:
Denver Radium Site
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Lansdowne Radiation Site (note: deleted from NPL September 10,1991)
Lodi Municipal Well
Maywood Chemical Co.
Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
Ottawa Radiation Sites
Pensacola Naval Air Station
-------
Radium Chemical Co.
U.S. Radium Corp.
Many of these sites were in operation long before any harmful effects of radiation were
recognized and before any regulatory mechanisms were in place to control the use of radioactive
materials. The operations were, in general, relatively small, primarily limited to radium and thorium
and their daughters (especially radon), and often located in urban areas. Because of the relatively long
history of these sites, contaminated materials often received wide distribution including incorporation
into building materials.
3.1.4 Commercial landfills
Four of the 45 sites were operated as general-purpose waste landfills which were at sometime
during their operation contaminated by radioactive wastes:
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Himco Inc., Dump
Shpack Landfill (DOE)
Westlake Landfill
There is no indication that the operators of these sites were aware or concerned with the
presence of radioactive materials in the wastes or that any special plans were made to isolate or
contain radioactive materials other than the routine practices at landfills. The isotopes that are
present at these sites vary widely, having originated from various medical, research and defense
operations. For these sites, it is commonly not known in what precise form or what original
concentration the radioactive materials are present.
3.1.5 Low-level waste disposal sites
One site, the Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal Site (MFDS), in Morehead, Kentucky, operated as
a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal site from 1963 to 1977, when operations ceased due to
the determination that waste was migrating through the subsurface media. As a low-level waste
disposal site, the MFDS received a variety of radioactive waste types. However, the risk assessments
performed in support of the RI/FS report for the site reveal that tritium in the leachate is of primary
concern due to its relatively large inventory and mobility.
3.1.6 Research facilities
One of the 45 sites, Brookhaven National Laboratory, is a research facility operated for the
DOE. Radioactive materials are employed or produced in various research activities not directly
related to defense. A wide range of isotopes was disposed of at low activity levels in landfills,
trenches, and other disposal facilities which has resulted in groundwater contamination.
3.1.7 Commercial manufacturing
One site, Teledyne Wah Chang, is involved in the commercial manufacture of products related
to the nuclear industry. In that capacity sludge materials were contaminated with actinide elements.
The nature and distribution of contaminated materials is fairly well defined at this site.
-------
None of the NPL sites falls into the categories of Fuel fabrication and processing or Scrap metal
recovery.
3.2 SDMP Sites
The majority of the NRC SDMP sites are located in the northeastern U.S., with the remainder
in the middle west. This distribution reflects the fact that most of these sites are or were commercial
enterprises, engaged in manufacturing, uranium processing, or other industrial activity. The NRC sites
have been grouped according to the same classification that was used for the NPL sites (sec. 3.1), with
the addition of two categories, Commercial Fuel Fabrication and Processing, and Scrap Metal Recovery.
One site, Amax, could not be classified. There are no low-level waste disposal sites and no radium sites
in the NRC SDMP program.
3.2.1 Defense plants
Three NRC sites were involved in weapons manufacture. Responsibility for the Watertown
Arsenal site has been transferred from DOE to the General Services Administration (GSA); the other
two are under the control of the Department of Defense (DOD).
Aberdeen Proving Ground
GSA Watertown Arsenal Site (2 sites)
Remington Arms Co., Inc.
Whereas the NPL Defense sites are generally located in the western U.S., the NRC Defense
sites are located in the east or midwest. The NPL (DOE) sites are large, having been developed
primarily for the manufacture and testing of nuclear bombs under the Manhattan Engineering District
during World War II. The NRC sites, on the other hand, were involved in development and testing of
ammunition for the U.S. Army and are comparatively smaller. The principal contaminant at all three
sites is depleted uranium (DU); natural uranium is found in the soil at Watertown. Because DU is
relatively insoluble, the potential for groundwater contamination at these sites is low.
3.2.2 Mill tailings, processing, and disposal
Ten NRC sites fall into this category. Unlike the NPL sites in this group, however, not all of
these sites deal with uranium ore. Some sites process other ores (tantallum, columbium, zircon,
leucoxene) which contain U or Th as a byproduct.
Cabot Corporation (3 sites)
Fansteel, Inc.
Heritage Minerals
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Molycorp., Inc. (2 sites)
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (2 sites)
10
-------
3.2.3 Commercial landfills
The two commercial landfills in the NRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan are:
Kawkawlin Landfill
West Lake Landfill
These two sites present different problems: some groundwater contamination (Ra-226) is
evident at the West Lake site, but the groundwater at the Kawkawlin site, where the principal
contaminant is insoluble Th/Mg, has not been affected. The West Lake Landfill is also on the NPL list.
3.2.4 Research facilities
The NRC research facilities are all private (commercial) operations.
Gulf United Nuclear Fuels Corporation
Permagrain Products
Westinghouse Electric (Waltz Mill)
The Gulf site carries out nuclear fuels research and development and includes both laboratories
and reactors. The Permagrain site is now owned by the Pennsylvania Forest Service. In addition to
engineering design, research, and development, the Westinghouse facility provides decontamination
services to nuclear power plants. Sr-90 contamination has been detected at both the Permagrain and
Westinghouse sites, but groundwater contamination has appeared only at Westinghouse.
Contaminated media at the other two sites include facilities and surrounding soils. Pu and Cs-137 are
the principal contaminants at the Gulf site.
3.2.5 Commercial manufacturing
Ten NRC/SDMP sites are or were involved in manufacturing processes using licensable
radioactive materials:
Allied Signal
BP Chemicals
The Budd Company
Dow Chemical Company (3 sites)
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
Process Technology of New Jersey, Inc.
Safety Light Corporation
Schott Glass Technologies
11
-------
Whittaker Corporation
Wyman-Gordon Company
Two of the Dow sites, at Midland and Bay City, Michigan, are manufacturing operations; the
third, at Salzburg, Michigan, is a landfill owned and operated by Dow which is to be used for disposal
of low-level radioactive materials from the other two sites. Most of the commercial sites involve
contaminated facilities (buildings and equipment) or soils; three sites show evidence of groundwater
contamination due to migration of the radionuclides through the soil . However, only at Safety Light
is groundwater contamination a significant problem.
3.2.6 Fuel fabrication and processing
Seven NRC sites are or have been involved in uranium fuel fabrication and processing. One,
Babcock & Wilcox (Parks Township), was also used for plutonium fuel fabrication.
Babcock & Wilcox (Apollo)
Babcock & Wilcox (Parks Township)
Chemetron (Best Ave.)
Chemetron (Harvard Ave.)
Kerr-McGee (Cimmaron)
Kerr-McGee (Cushing)
Texas Instruments
Contamination at these sites is usually in the form of U in the soils in the vicinity of burial
trenches, occasionally in surface soil around buildings in former processing areas. Th, Pu and Ra are also
found. The Kerr-McGee plant at Cushing, OK, was formerly on the NPL but was deleted in 1991.
3.2.7 Scrap metal mecovery
Two sites are industrial, but cannot properly be classified as manufacturing operations. Both
were involved in scrap metal recovery from contaminated materials; both have been closed for about a
decade:
Pesses Company (METCOA)
UNC Recovery Systems
These sites have little in common. The UNC site is no longer functioning and has been
remediated, though some traces of U exist in the groundwater. Sources of Th contamination at the
Pesses site include leaking containers and several slag piles.
4 Contaminant Properties
Table 2 identifies the isotopes present at each of the 45 NPL and 38 SDMP radioactively
contaminated sites. These are also graphically presented in Figure 3. These data were obtained from
several primary and secondary sources, including the original HRS documentation, documents in support
of site RI/FS, lists and analyses of radioactive contamination at NPL sites, published surveys of
12
-------
Superfund sites, DOE Environmental Surveys and Five-Year Plans, and the annual summary of the NRC
Site Decommissioning Management Plan.
In addition Table 2 lists the media contaminated at each site by the particular isotope. In the
case of the NPL sites these are not necessarily the media which received high HRS scores. Ra-226 and
Rn-222, for example, are present at detectable levels in surface water and groundwater at the Glen
Ridge site, yet neither medium received a significant HRS score. Conversely, a particular medium may
have scored at a site but may not be contaminated by radioactive materials. For example, even though
surface water was the driving medium for listing the Hartford 1100-Area on the NPL, radioactivity in
surface water, though present at the sites, does not drive the selection of the site for placement on the
NPL.
Figures 4a-c present data compiled from Table 2 on exposure pathways and environmental
media impacted at NPL and NRC sites. A comparison of these two figures indicates that there is no
significant difference between the frequency of pathways noted as contaminated and those scored under
the HRS system (those with contaminants at levels that according to the HRS process pose a
significant health risk). In both cases, each medium is about equally represented. This is contrary to
the original assumptions at the time of project initiation, when it was believed that groundwater
contamination would dominate.
By their nature, radioactive materials spontaneously transform with time. While the isotope
may have certain chemical characteristics which will control its concentration in solution, the manner
and rate of decay of a radioisotope may be more significant than its concentration. The risk to health
posed by any particular isotope will be the product of the amount that is delivered to some segment of
the environment, the rate at which a given radioisotope decays and the type of transformation it
undergoes. In addition radioisotopes may have effects on living organisms which are directly or
indirectly related to the emission of ionizing radiation. Thus, it is important to understand the
chemical, radioactive and biological characteristics of these elements. In Table 3, properties of the
radioisotopes identified at the 83 radioactively-contaminated sites are given.
Because many of these radioactive contaminants will be transported from their source through
the environment in solution in surface or groundwater, the emphasis in the following discussion is on the
aqueous geochemical properties of these isotopes.
4.1 Chemical Properties
A review of Table 2 reveals that the more than 30 isotopes present at the radioactively
contaminated sites span the entire gamut of chemical behavior. These can be divided into four
behavioral groups:
• non-metals and organics (C, H, I, Rn, Se)
• transition, platinum-group metals, and lanthanides (Mn, Ni, Co, Ru, Tc, Eu, Pm)
13
-------
w •* z "
a 3 rf -n"
^?3
S «n G A
^ tu E~ £
-
01
«^
O
rr>
U
10
o
ro
Tc-99
Co-60
Sr-90
H-3
*Other
Cs-134/
135/137
Pu-238/
239/240
Th-228/
230/232
Rn-220/222
Ra-226/228
U-234/
235/238
•a
c
o
•O
C
Cu
Z
rt
C
O
•a
x>
01
a
o
rt
I
(N
Number of sites
14
-------
s
o
OJ
p
*Other
Sr-90
Ra-226
U-235/238
Ol
a,
I
00
O
•fl
£>
-------
1
3
28"
27-
2
•S 26
u-,
O
25 ••
24--
23
22
H
Air
Soil
Surface
Water
Groundwater
Figure 4b. Exposure pathway distribution at NPL radioactively contaminated
sites (MRS scored).
16
-------
Soil
Surface Water
Groundwater
Figure 4c. Exposure pathway distribution at NRG SDMP sites.
-------
• alkaline metals and earths (Cs, Ra, Sr)
• actinides and transuranics (U, Th, Pu, Am, Ac, Pa).
4.1.1 Non-metals
The non-metallic elements (C, H, I, Rn, and Se) will, under normal geochemical conditions exist
as either gases or as anions dissolved in water. As gases these elements pose a completely different set
of problems from the other radioisotopes. As anions, such as carbonate or selenate, these radioisotopes
will be much less affected by adsorption and ion exchange than will the other, primarily cationic,
radioisotopes.
4.1.2 Transition, noble metals, and lanthanides
These elements (Mn, Ni, Co, Ru, Tc, Eu, and Pm) exist as atoms with 1, 2, 3 or more valence
electrons (except for the lanthanides, Eu and Ru which exhibit only the +3 valence state and behave
similarly). In solution they exist as simple cations in most common geochemical environments.
Reactions which lead to the precipitation of oxides, sulfides, carbonates and sulfates, etc. and ion-
exchange will dominate the behavior of these elements.
4.1.3 Alkaline metals and earths
Cs, Ra, and Sr occur in nature at only one valence state (+1 for Cs, and +2 for Ra and Sr). They
tend to form very soluble cations in water. Ra and Sr will behave similar to Ca while Cs will tend to
follow K and Na in solution.
4.1.4 Actinides and transuranics
Unlike the lanthanide series whose members have essentially identical chemistry, the
actinide series elements exhibit a more varied and complex array of chemical behaviors. This
complexity is the consequence of their potential for existing at more than one oxidation state and their
related tendency to form complexes with anions and/or organic substances dissolved in water.
The geochemical behavior of many of the actinides (and some of the transition metals) will,
therefore, be controlled not only by their concentration, but also by the redox conditions which prevail
in the media through which the isotopes are transported. Uranium, for example, can be found in any of
five valence states (+2,+3,+4,+5,+6) with two (+4 and +6) of geochemical significance. In most geologic
environments, the reduced uranous ion (U) is insoluble, while the oxidized uranyl ion (UC^"1"1") is
considerably more soluble. At virtually every Superfund site of concern to this report the possibility
exists for transitions within media from reducing to oxidizing conditions on both a macro and micro
scale.
While multiple oxidation states will generally suggest that redox conditions will be a
controlling factor in the behavior of actinides, other properties may mask the charge effect. For
example, although Pu can exist in any of five oxidation states (+3,+4,+5,+6,+7) few of these are, in fact,
of geochemical importance. In practice, the property that controls the behavior of Pu, for example, is
the insolubility of Pu(FV) hydrolysis products, which are, in turn, strongly adsorbed to particle surfaces
(Watters, et ai, 1983). Similarly, Th can be considered to be insoluble in the vast majority of
freshwater and marine environments due to the formation of insoluble Th(OH)4.
18
-------
4.2 Radioactive Properties
The decay of radioisotopes can produce daughter products which may differ both physically
and chemically from their parents. These daughter products may, as well, be more or less hazardous
than their parents. In addition, radioisotopes decay by several different paths, emitting several
different types of radiation in simple steps or in complex decay chains.
Those isotopes which decay with very long half-lives relative to their travel time along some
environmental pathway may be considered stable in a study of their transport. Similarly, most
isotopes with very short half-lives can be ignored at a site because the travel time of most groundwater
will allow for their complete decay before reaching a receptor. However, for the purpose of assessing
the importance of a short-lived daughter in association with a long-lived parent, the activity of the
daughter will rapidly equilibrate with the parent.
Simple linear decay involves the first-order transformation of one substance into another.
Radioactive decay of a chemically inert parent into a stable, inert daughter at low concentrations is, in
concept, simpler even than the decay of organic compounds, for example, since it occurs independent of
environmental conditions or the concentration of any other species. Decidedly non-linear behavior can
be encountered with multiple-step decay series, on the other hand, and/or decays which involve
reactive parents that decay to reactive daughters. An example of such a decay series is the U-238 ->
Pb-206 series in which intermediate daughter products have both different chemistries and different
phases.
Multi-step decay schemes not only impose additional complexity on the characterization of
contamination at a site but also place certain limits on the occurrence of daughter products at sites
where chemical processing leads to disequilibrium within a series. For example, if uranium at a site
was processed in the form of raw uranium ore, the concentration of uranium daughters in processing
materials may be expected to have been in secular equilibrium with the parent. However, if purified
ore was used at a processing plant, like, .for example, uranium ore ("yellowcake") then the activity of
daughters will be considerably less than unity for very long periods of time. For U-238, for example,
the activity of daughters will be minimal for periods of time comparable to the half-life of Th-230,
which is 75,000 years. On the other hand the activity of daughters in mill tailings may far exceed the
activity of the parent isotope. This explains the frequency that Ra and its daughter Rn are identified
as contaminants at many of the mill-tailing sites.
Table 3a presents radiochemical data for the isotopes listed in Table 2. Data have been
compiled from several sources (U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970; Diem and
Lentner, 1970; and Weast, 1990) for the more fundamental radiochemical parameters including half-
life, specific activity, decay product, and the energy levels of the emitted radiation. As shown, there
are isotopes which decay to stable daughters (e.g., C-14 to N-14) and others that decay to unstable
daughters (e.g., 1-131 to Xe-131); different radioactive decay chains (e.g., Th and U); and a mix of
alpha (e.g., U-238), beta (e.g., Ra-228), and gamma (e.g., Mn-54) emitters. Isotopes which decay to
stable daughters through long chains of radioactive daughters are the most common materials at the 45
NPL sites (see Figure 4). Simple, single-step radioactive isotopes are found at less than 25% of the sites
in this survey.
4.3 Environmental Mobility
For transport from source to receptor to occur the radionuclide must be carried by a fluid, either
air or water. In both cases the radionuclide may exist either in solution or associated with solid
particles. In water the partitioning of an element between dissolved and adsorbed forms is a function of
both the characteristics of the solution and those of the adsorbing surfaces. Because both the
geochemical characteristics of natural and artificial solutions and the adsorption characteristics of
soils are so complex and dynamic, thermodynamic models based on steady-state conditions may not
adequately describe the proportion of any given isotope in solution relative to that adsorbed on soil
19
-------
particles. It is necessary, therefore, to rely on empirical estimates of the distribution coefficient, or Kd,
to express the ratio of the concentration of adsorbed isotope relative to dissolved isotope:
concen adsorbed on particle (Ci/g)
Ni \ & - concen dissolved in solution (Ci/ml)
The higher the K
-------
5 Waste Characterization
Sources of hazardous waste may be classified as either point sources or area sources. Point
sources release contaminants to the environment from a single location which potentially can be
precisely identified (e.g., a leak in a drum). Area releases, on the other hand, occur over a measurable
(two-dimensional) area whose boundaries may be difficult to identify.
Hazardous wastes are often sequestered in a form that limits their release to the environment.
Although the nature of the containment is not strictly a characteristic which governs environmental
transport at a site, it may affect the type of release (point vs. area) as well as the rate of delivery to
the environment. Even if containment was not deliberate, as is the case for many of the urban, radium-
contaminated sites, soils and man-made materials themselves provide a minimum amount of
containment. The form of containment varies very widely, but some broad classes are appropriate.
Below is a brief description of the characteristics of these containments which are listed in Table 4 for
each site:
• Water-based
— ponds: unlined or lined excavated into the land surface into which hazardous wastes
were originally deposited in fluids, usually water.
— surface water: deliberate or accidental discharge to streams or lakes.
— wells: deliberate or accidental subsurface injection of waste.
• Containers
- containerized: 55 gallon steel drums and concrete slurry.
- tanks: large surface or buried structures designed to contain waste for long periods.
• Ground-based
— landfills: engineered above-ground facilities designed to limit the escape of
materials more or less indefinitely; usually excavated into the landscape somewhat
and surrounded by some form of dike or embankment
— piles: aboveground heaps of material with or without controls on leaching or
erosion.
— burial: accidental or intentional burial of wastes below ground level.
— asphalt and aggregate: the use of radioactively contaminated materials for
construction purposes, generally by those unaware that the materials were
contaminated.
Since most of the burials and piles and a portion of the landfills and ponds at the 83 sites can be
described as uncontrolled (Figure 5), the difficulties that must be faced in characterizing the source
term at these sites are considerable. Only about 25% of the containment of radioactive materials at
these sites is in a form that might be described as localized.
21
-------
Tanks,
Containers
Burial
Drums
Landfill
§
u
±J
I
1
Buildings,
Equipment
I
V)
Ponds
Surface
Water
C
1
0)
Piles
I
Number of sites
22
-------
K¥^fe^C» 5>mS -
Tanks,
Containers
Burial
Drums
Landfill
Buildings,
Equipment
Ponds
Surface
Water
Piles
S
'5
a,
I
u
of,
z
V)
o
•a
u
01
I
o
Number of sites
23
-------
The physical form of hazardous waste can be characterized by the volume of waste and the
concentration of contaminants in the waste. These data, while critical to an adequate understanding of
the environmental threat of a contaminant release, are frequently difficult to obtain and have a high
degree of uncertainty. The quantity and concentration figures shown in Table 4 are approximate and are
given for comparison purposes only. It can be seen that the quantity and variety of isotopes present at
NFL defense facilities is frequently orders of magnitude greater than at other types of sites. This
pattern is not apparent at the NRC defense sites, which, as previously noted, are different in nature
from the NPL (DOE ) defense sites.
6 Site Environmental Characteristics
The NPL sites are distributed across the 48 contiguous United States (see Figure 2a). They span
most of the large-scale physiographic and climatic regions of the North American continent. The
terrain in which these sites are located is underlain by a wide range of soils and geologic formations.
Therefore, no single assumption can be made about the climatic or hydrogeologic characteristics of
these sites. Sites must be evaluated for the specific conditions under which contaminants may be
mobilized and the atmospheric and subsurface properties that will control the direction and velocity of
contaminant transport. The NRC sites, on the other hand, are concentrated in the northeastern U.S.,
with a few in me midwest and Oklahoma (Figure 2b). Over one third are in Pennsylvania.
In this report a set of characteristics have been selected which will aid in classifying each of
the sites into a limited number of environmental types. These site characteristics can then be
considered in light of the general type of site operation and nature of the source as discussed above and
in terms of the receptor characteristics (human population and ecosystem) as discussed below. All of
these data are then summarized in one table (Table 4).
Environmental characteristics have been divided into two groups in the following discussion:
surface and subsurface characteristics. This classification follows the traditional distinctions made
between above-ground and below-ground processes and in general reflects a distinction both in kind and
degree. Below are listed each of the characteristics likely to effect the transport of radioactive
materials, the reasons for inclusion in the table, and a summary of the data for each characteristic from
all the sites.
6.1 Surface
At approximately half of the 45 NPL sites (Figures 4a,b) either surface water or groundwater is
the principal transport mechanism. Rainfall will therefore be of principal importance, since surface
runoff and percolation of water through surface impoundments and containments will ultimately
deliver contaminants to receptors. Atmospheric dispersion of gaseous or particulate contaminants is
also an important site surface characteristic.
6.1.1 Precipitation
Gross precipitation, the average total rainfall for a site, is only a rough measure of the relative
importance of runoff and infiltration to the overall transport processes. As noted earlier, these sites
span a considerable geographic area. Thus, the same amount of rain falling in Richland, Washington
as in Pensacola, Florida will not have the same consequences for contaminant transport. Similarly, a
simple measure of net precipitation (average precipitation cumulative losses) does not give proper
weight to that fraction of precipitation which ultimately enters into surface and groundwater systems
even in arid regions. On the other hand, an exhaustive analysis of the actual rate of runoff, soil
percolation and groundwater recharge, such as defined by Dunne and Leopold (1978), is beyond the scope
of this report. For the present purpose, therefore, average annual precipitation at each of the sites is
24
-------
given; this information is usually available in HRS documents, site Environmental Reports, or standard
climate reference works.
The data for the NPL sites are summarized in Figure 6a. Sixteen of the 45 sites occur in regions
which are arid or semiarid. This reflects the fact, discussed below in Sec. 7, that many of these sites
were located in remote (and, therefore, generally not prime agricultural) regions for both safety and
security reasons. A similar figure for the SDMP sites is not shown because all of the NRC sites are in
relatively humid areas; the driest receives 73 cm/yr.
6.1.2 Air transport
Rather than attempt to arrive at some set of parameters that would describe the general
atmospheric characteristics of each site, the actual transport vector for air-borne contaminants was
chosen as the differentiating characteristic. For sites where air transport poses an environmental
hazard, Table 4 indicates whether contamination is either in the form of a particle (dust), gas (most
often Rn-222 or Rn-220), or both. These data are summarized in Figure 6b.
Sites with unique atmospheric conditions which may impose special conditions on transport
mechanism are noted in the "Other" column of Table 4. For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
has a high frequency of atmospheric inversions which would certainly have to be considered when
evaluating air transport at the site.
Figure 6b summarizes the frequency of occurrence of each of these possible transport
mechanisms. For about 30% of the NPL sites air transport is a significant vector. The overwhelming
importance of gas over particulate reflects the importance of gaseous daughter products of U, Th, and Pu
at these sites. While various actinide elements may exist at relatively low levels in soils or containers
as solid particles which are demonstrably immobile, gaseous decay products are very difficult to
control.
6.1.3 Surface water
Surface transport is a consequence of the complex interaction of climate and geology. Streams
may or may not be present; existing streams may be perennial or intermittent. Natural standing bodies
of water can serve as sinks to which contaminants are transported or as sources for transporting media.
Both standing bodies of water and streams can interact with groundwater, affecting both the delivery
of contaminants and the hydrologic characteristics of groundwater flow. Contact between surface and
groundwater can be especially significant if frequent fluctuations in surface water level impose similar
fluctuations in groundwater levels.
Most of the sites contain perennial streams which may act as vectors for contaminant transport
(see Table 4). In addition, seven sites contain or are contained within freshwater wetlands. The
presence of continuous standing bodies of water surrounding contaminated materials or of bodies of water
which may act as transient sinks for contaminants is an important site characteristic. Only two of the
sites (Pensacola and Jacksonville in Florida) are sufficiently close to estuaries to suggest that tidal
transport mechanisms may be important.
25
-------
Number of sites
jr
£
|
•a
o
n
n
z
13
y>
a
o'
rt
n
O
£
v>
I
1 \—I—I 1—I 1 1
8?
3.
n
ET
f?
8 S
or
2
w'
?
I.B
(T
n
r-f
n
o
3
31
•t
z
13
r1
3
a
o'
Arid
(0-25 cm)
Semiarid
(25-50 cm)
Semihumid
(50-100 cm)
Humid
(100-200 cm)
Very wet
(>200 cm)
Number of sites
I - 1
1 - 1 - 1 - 1
1 - 1
-------
6.2 Subsurface
6.2.1 Solid transport
Subsurface movement of contaminants may occur by either solid or fluid (liquid or vapor)
transport. In the case of solid transport, soils and unconsolidated rocks may have physical or chemical
properties that make them resistant to transport while others may have properties that actively
promote vertical and/or horizontal movement. Stream transport of particulate materials is to be
expected at every site. In addition, one site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, is flooded with
sufficient frequency to suggest that fluvial transport mechanisms should be given particular attention.
With the possible exception of the mill tailings sites, the direct transport of solid materials by mass
wasting of subsurface materials (landslides, for example) is not a significant vector at most of the sites.
Possible subsurface transport of bulk materials may occur via mechanisms unique to given sites. For
example, the activity of burrowing animals can lead to the excavation of substantial quantities of
contaminated unconsolidated materials (OTarrell and Gilbert, 1975; Winsor and Whicker, 1980;
Hakonson and Martinez, 1981; Arthur and Markham, 1983). Others (Smith, 1977) have noted that
grazing animals may ingest soil. Humans may excavate contaminated materials and subsequently
incorporate mem into structures or use them as landfill.
The importance of solid transport mechanisms at these sites must be evaluated on a site by site
basis even though certain mechanisms are fairly common. For example, at most of the radium/thorium
and mill tailings and processing sites, excavation and incorporation into remote (off-site) structures has
been an important mechanism of transport and has been primarily responsible for the wide dispersion of
radium contamination.
6.2.2 Fluid transport
Generally speaking, the major mechanism of transport below the upper soil layers will be
vapor transport and the movement of materials dissolved in water. Groundwater movement is often
controlled by a complex interaction of forces which impart or resist fluid motion. Gravity, fluid
pressure and other physical forces provide the energy required to move groundwater. The resistance to
flow is provided by the geologic medium through which the water moves. That resistance can vary
substantially both geographically from region to region, vertically down through a stratigraphic
column, and horizontally within a hydrostratigraphic unit. Various attempts have been made to
categorize hydrogeologic regions throughout the U.S. (for a review see Aller et al., 1985). Figure 7
reflects Heath's system (1984) dividing the continental U.S. into 11 hydrogeologic regions. There is at
least one site from among the radioactively-contaminated sites considered in this report in each of
these 11 regions (see Table 4).
Groundwater flow will occur by similar processes in any of the hydrogeologic regions. For
example, on a local basis, given a similar geologic setting across a site, water transport below the
ground surface can be divided into two relatively distinct phases, transport through the unsaturated or
vadose zone (subsurface materials not saturated with water) and transport through the saturated or
phreatic zone.
Unsaturated zone transport. Transport through the unsaturated or vadose zone is an extremely
complex process (Campbell, 1985; Hanks and Ashcroft, 1980; Hillel, 1980a,b; Koorevaar, Menelik, and
Dirksen, 1983) for the following reasons:
First, unsaturated zone transport may occur in more than one phase. Contaminant materials
may enter the soil in rainwater solution, be precipitated within the upper portions of the soil as solids,
move from one section of the soil to another along with solid particles due, for example, to animal
burrowing, and even, for materials with significant vapor pressures, move across pore spaces by gaseous
diffusion.
27
-------
Western Mountain Ranges
A I I uv i a I Bas i n
Columbia Lava Plateau
Co I orado P I ateau
H i gh PI a i ns
Nonglaciated Central Reg.
Glaciated Central Reg.
Piedmont & Blue Ridge
Northeast Superior Uplands
Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain
Southeast Coastal Plain
Figure 7 HydrogeoIogic regions of the Continenta
United States Cafter Heath, 19845
-------
Also, liquid transport through the unsaturated zone may not occur by physical means which are
appropriately described by Darcy's Law, the single most common approach to conceptualizing transport
in porous media. Liquid transport may occur in part due to vapor transfer and in part due to turbulent
flow.
As a first approximation to the importance of unsaturated zone transport, depth to groundwater
represents a characteristic variable. Depth to groundwater will be closely related to annual
precipitation given the caveats discussed above, but will also be controlled by the soil, overburden and
bedrock characteristics at a given site.
Depth to groundwater has not been compiled in a central location for every site. For sites where
these data are available, average figures are given in Figure 8.
Saturated zone transport. Within the saturated zone groundwater transport is usually less
complex than transport through the unsaturated zone. When water completely fills available
interconnected pores in the subsurface material, transport will be a function of two principal factors.
The first of these factors is whether the aquifer is confined or unconfined. If, for example, the
aquifer is confined by aquitards above and below, then transport may be adequately described by
relatively simple laws as long as flow falls within limits appropriate for Darcy's Law. Such solutions
to groundwater flow are termed "analytical" or exact solutions (Bear, 1972; Freeze and Cherry, 1979;
Fetter, 1988). Unconfined flow cannot be completely described by analytical equations, because the
upper surface of unconfined flow (the water table) can move. Only in cases where the water table is
nearly constant with time is unconfined flow susceptible to appropriate mathematical formulation and
description.
The second factor is the nature of flow within the aquifer. The only flow through porous
materials which can be completely described is diffuse flow through pores driven by differences in
hydrostatic head, known as Darcian flow (Bear, 1972; Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Fetter, 1988). Such
flow occurs through porous media. If flow occurs through some other mechanism, for example through
channels or fractures in the soil, regolith, or rock, then the medium cannot be considered to be continuous.
Various methods have been suggested to arrive at an approximate description of such flow, but, while
such methods may indeed provide adequate solutions under certain conditions, they are rarely applied.
The potential for transport through channels and fractures is important enough to warrant listing in the
matrix.
Table 4 includes a listing of the hydrogeologic regions defined by Heath (1984) and sub-regions
as defined by Aller, et al. (1985) in the DRASTIC system of classification. The sites cover all the major
geologic features of the U.S. Twenty percent of the NPL sites, including many with the largest
quantities and highest concentrations of radioactively contaminated materials, occur in areas where
either karst or volcanic terrains exist. In these settings open fracture flow may important. In contrast,
only one of the SDMP sites lies in a karst area.
7 Receptor Characteristics
Potential receptors of contamination at a site include both the human population and its
natural environment (threatened species, fragile ecosystems). Inclusion on the NPL is weighted most
heavily by potential human risk. Total risk is a function of both population itself and the ways that
the population uses the environment.
29
-------
0-10
10-20
>20
Figure 8. Frequency distribution of depth to water table at NPL radioactively
contaminated sites (number of sites for which data were available).
-------
7.1 Population
County population or population density is frequently chosen as a gross measure of the
population potentially at risk because it is an easily available statistic and provides a rough "region"
around the site. However, county population is not necessarily characteristic of the area immediately
surrounding the site. For this reason, population in the immediate area must also be known. Table 4a
shows both the county population density and the density within a 5 km radius for the 45 NPL
radioactively contaminated sites. Table 4b shows county population density only for the 38 SDMP
sites.
Population densities at both the county and local levels vary considerably among the 45 NPL
radioactively contaminated sites As shown in Figure 9a, the county population densities tend to fall
into four logarithmic groups. Where the population is less than 10/km2, an area may be considered
unpopulated. Rural regions are those with a population density of 10-100/km2. From 100-1000/km2 an
area is classed as suburban, and population densities of 1000/km2 or greater are labelled urban. Defense
plants are generally located in sparsely populated areas, frequently in the western U.S., largely for
security reasons. Even sites in densely populated counties (e.g., FEMP) are located in less-populated
rural areas. Similarly, mining and processing of ore is a spatially extensive industrial activity
necessarily found in areas of low population density, though disposal of wastes from the final
processing stages may occur in more populated settings (e.g., Kerr-McGee/W. Chicago, Wayne Interim
Storage). In contrast, the radium sites are more characteristically located in higher-density urban
areas. Other types of sites are less easily categorized.
As indicated in Figure 2b, most of the SDMP sites are located in the eastern half of the country.
This is reflected in the population densities of the counties where these sites are located; none fall in
the "unpopulated" group (Figure 9b).
It is necessary to examine population at several impact distances, since neither small-scale nor
large-scale regional densities can necessarily be extrapolated to each other and since-contaminant
concentrations may vary considerably over distance. For example, the Monticello site is located in a
remote rural county in southeastern Utah with a very low population density. However, the
commercial center of the town of Monticello, as well as several residences, lie adjacent to the mill site;
the population density of the immediate area is nearly 200 times that of the county as a whole.
Conversely, the Maywood site is located in a heavily urbanized county in New Jersey with a high
population density. The area immediately surrounding the site is mainly industrial, with a
residential population density less than a third that of the surrounding county. The appropriate target
distance for population estimates/measurements depends on the contaminant(s) in question and the
various factors affecting contaminant transport to the potential receptors (see 40 CFR Part 300).
7.2 Water Use
The principal transport media for radioactive contaminants are water and air. Unlike air,
water use may vary from site to site. Groundwater or surface water in the immediate site area may be
used for drinking, irrigation, watering of livestock, or for recreational purposes. Table 4 indicates how
local water is used in the vicinity of the radioactively contaminated sites. Water lor drinking is
obtained from local supplies at 30 of the 45 NPL sites. Four sites, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Himco, Inc., Dump, Feed Materials Production Center, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, are
located above Safe Drinking Water Act Sole-Source Aquifers. Local surface waters are used for
recreation at seven sites and for agricultural purposes at five sites. Information on local groundwater
and surface water use was not generally available for the SDMP sites.
31
-------
Ol
2
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Unpopulated
Figure 9a. County population density at NPL radioactively contaminated sites.
01
I
Z
Suburban
Urban
Rural
Figure 9b. County population density at NRC SDMP sites.
32
-------
7.3 Land Use
Another aspect of receptor characterization is the land use associated with the area
surrounding a site. Broadly speaking, land use and population density are related: urban areas have
higher population densities than do rural regions. Within these groups, particular land uses can be
distinguished which affect receptor status. Awareness of land use permits consideration of potentially
exposed non-resident populations. The four population density groupings previously mentioned can also
be translated into categories of land use.
• Urban land use includes commercial, industrial, and medium- to high-density
residential uses. Commercial zones have a large but transient (non-resident)
population. Population density is far higher during the day than in residential areas,
but may drop to nearly empty at night. Industrial areas have the lowest potential
population at risk of the primary urban land use groups (Murphy, 1966).
• Suburban land use is usually thought of as medium- to low-density residential, but it
also includes large areas of commercial land (shopping malls) and industrial parks.
The transient populations of suburban commercial and industrial areas tends to be lower
than those of their urban counterparts.
• Rural areas include both agricultural and non-agricultural land. Agricultural land uses
can expose non-resident populations to risks from contamination in several ways. Cattle
or other animals may graze on contaminated ground or drink contaminated water.
Contaminated water may also be used to irrigate crops. The primary non-agricultural
rural land use which may result in population exposures is recreation. Potential risks
arise from swimming in contaminated surface waters, soil ingestion by children at picnic
sites, or eating contaminated fish or game.
• Unpopulated regions have effectively no regular use by human populations. Large
areas of desert which were used for nuclear weapons testing are an example of this land
"use."
Approximately 70% of both the NPL sites and the SDMP sites are located in rural or suburban
areas. Only seven NPL sites are located in urban areas, all of which are radium sites. Six of the seven
are in the greater New York City area; the other (Lansdowne) is near Philadelphia. Seven SDMP sites
are located in urban counties, four in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Four different types of sites are
represented. There are also seven NPL sites in counties classed as unpopulated. These sites are all
located in the western U.S.; all are mill tailings/processing/disposal sites.
8 Discussion
This summary review of the characteristics of the 83 NPL and NRC radioactively
contaminated sites is a first step in establishing the conceptual boundaries within which
environmental pathway models will necessarily be applied. While it was not the intent at the outset
of this review to create a general-purpose list of all possible environmental characteristics which
should be treated in environmental pathway models, in the final analysis the sites themselves present
so broad a range of characteristics that few, if any, can be ignored. In this section the implications of
these characteristics for modeling contaminant mobility at these sites are discussed.
The sites described in this report differ on the most fundamental level in the quality and
quantity of information available for characterization. Some have been monitored for long periods of
time and are subjected to repeated and detailed surveys. Others can be described in little more detail
33
-------
than the minimum needed to initially identify contamination. Thus some of the data summarized in
the tables in this report are presented with a great deal of confidence, while for other variables
information must simply be left-blank or listed as "unknown."
In the absence of reliable data and long-term records, compromises must be made in order to
implement a conceptual model that assumes that site characteristics are well known. While data
quantity and quality are not in themselves site characteristics, the absence of high quality data may
influence the choice and operation of environmental pathway models.
One of the most common areas where data are scant or ambiguous is in the characterization of
the source of radiochemical contamination. Where the source is well defined, the problem can be
approached from a deterministic perspective employing well-understood and well-documented
methodologies. For example, at the K-65 silos at Fernald, the quantities of radioactive materials
within the silos are well known, the physical characteristics of the containment are well known, and
the emissions of radioactive materials from the silos have been monitored in detail for an extended
period of time.
On the other hand, if the source is ill-defined, it mayjbe necessary to use techniques such as
stochastic methods to estimate the quantity of material present. At many of the landfill sites (Himco,
Inc., Dump, Shpack Larid.fill, and Kawlawlin Landfill, for example), it is only known that radioactive
materials are present at the site and are contaminating one or more pathways. Neither the exact form
of the contaminants nor the characteristics of the containment are known.
The physical settings of these sites range from urban, industrial centers to near wilderness.
Local environments vary from deserts to temperate rainforests and from simple to highly complex and
varied hydrogeology. The quantities and concentrations of radionuclides are in some cases minor
components of primarily non-radiochemical contamination problems; in other cases the level of
radiochemical contamination alone would pose a serious threat to human health and environmental
integrity if those radiochemicals were not located within the boundaries of controlled and closely-
managed facilities.
There are few sites in which it would be appropriate to examine a single environmental
pathway, for example, air or water. This situation is due primarily to the fact that the most common
radioactive contaminants themselves have diverse physical characteristics, occurring as gases, as
solutes in water, as solids, or adsorbed onto the surfaces of particles. Thus, simultaneous contamination
of multiple media (air, soil, surface- and groundwater) is the rule at these sites rather than the
exception.
Similarly, at those sites where the contamination of one environmental pathway may pose a
more significant problem than any other, it is frequently found that the contaminated medium is
neither homogeneous or isotropic. This is primarily a consequence of both the size and the geographic
location of these sites. Some sites, the Savannah River Site and Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, for example, are so large that subsurface characteristics alone span a range of geologic and
hydrogeologic types. Yet even the smaller sites tend to entail a remarkable degree of environmental
complexity. This situation prevails because more than half of the sites examined in this study are
located within the formerly glaciated regions of North America. Glacial terrain is commonly complex.
While in a few cases glacial materials were laid down over bedrock which, in itself, posses no
particular problem with respect to complexity, in many cases ice deposits both modify previously
complex terrain and have been modified since deposition into even more complex features. The
influence of continental glaciation and the superimposition of that influence on a pre-existing complex
terrain is particularly evident in the U.S. midwest and northeast. It is not uncommon in these regions to
find a number of different bedrock lithologies in close proximity. Glacial deposits of very limited areal
extent can easily vary from impervious tills to sand and gravel deposits with significant aquifer
potential. In addition, the geomorphic complexity which often follows glacial modification of these
areas leads to a varied and intricate drainage pattern which can have further implications for present-
34
-------
day surface- and groundwater flow. Glaciation also complicates the geochemical conditions which
may prevail at any particular site by having carried and deposited exotic materials at a site and by
having imposed climatic conditions in the recent past far different than those existing today.
Finally, receptor characteristics generally have no direct impact on the pathways by which
radionuclides are transported through the environment, except in cases such as drinking wells, where
human activity will actually modify contaminant transport. Yet receptor characteristics may, like
data quality, exert an influence on the approach taken in modeling a given pathway at a site. It may
be assumed that even under circumstances where two sites have the same or very similar environmental
characteristics, there may be a need to employ different models if, for example, local population is
distributed randomly or in clusters about the site.
9 Summary and Conclusions
The information presented in the previous sections characterizes the types of isotopes and
package forms, site characteristics, and receptor characteristics at Federal (EPA, DOE, and NRC)
radioactive waste sites. Since the purpose of this effort was to bound the nature of the problems at
these sites, these characterizations by necessity are limited. Nevertheless, important issues have been
identified:
• The sites listed on the NPL as radioactive are so classified because radioactive
materials have been found there. The hazard to health from these materials,
however, is not necessarily related to or dominated by the radiation component. In fact,
radioactive contamination scored for toxicity persistence in the original HRS process at
only 25 of the 45 NPL sites. The 38 SDMP sites are by administrative definition low-
level radioactive waste sites. Prioritization of these sites within the SDMP does not
necessarily reflect level of contamination or potential risk.
• Although it was originally believed that groundwater would be the dominant medium
of concern (and for this reason data collection efforts were focused in this area), the
data show mat all exposure pathways are present in roughly equal amounts. For this
reason, a broader characterization of the sites may be needed if other media are to be
considered.
• Most of the 45 NPL sites (38 out of 45) can be classified as either defense related
facilities, mill tailing sites, or radium or thorium contaminated sites. Nineteen of
these sites are owned or operated by the DOE. The SDMP sites, on the other hand, are
dominated by manufacturing, mill tailings, and fuel processing sites (27 out of 38).
• Although a total of 30 radionuclides were identified at the sites, U (U-234, -235, -238),
Th (Th-228, -230, -232) Ra (Ra-226, -228), and Pu (Pu-238, -239, -240) were found most
frequently.
• For the same set of dominant isotopes, radioactive daughters may be created which
may have different chemical, physical, and biological properties from their parents.
• While the actual physical and chemical processes which control the concentration of a
given substance may be rather complex, it is possible to describe the behavior of these
substances with relatively simple paradigms (e.g., Kd). However, this simple
approach may not be valid for many radioisotopes (e.g., U) whose aqueous geochemical
behavior is complex and can strongly affect contaminant mobility.
35
-------
• The source terms, i.e., contaminant types, quantities, and activity levels, are not well
defined. Nevertheless, all of the sites have sources or contamination which can be
treated as point sources.
• Most of the sites have more man one aquifer of concern. Almost all sites are underlain
by both confined and unconfined aquifers.
• Depth to groundwater at these sites is shallow (less than 10 m) at about 33% of the
NFL sites and nearly all the SDMP sites. As a consequence transport of contaminants to
groundwater may be relatively rapid in humid regions as there may be little
opportunity for adsorption in soils. The site with the greatest depth to groundwater is
Pantex, where groundwater is at more than 140 m.
• The sites cover all the major geologic features of the U.S. However, many of the NPL
sites, including many with the largest quantities and highest concentrations of
radioactively contaminated materials, occur in areas where either karst or volcanic
terrains exist. In these settings open fracture flow may be important.
• At present, there are no good estimates of the population potentially impacted now or
in die future from the contamination at these sites. Groundwater drawn from wells
proximate to at least 33 of these sites, however, is used for drinking water purposes.
Four sites (BNL, Himco, FEMP, and INEL) are located above designated "Sole Source
Aquifers."
• Many (-40%) of the sites are located in suburban regions (areas of population between
100 and 1000 persons per km2).
The 83 NPL and NRC sites reviewed here pose a wide range of challenges to the efficacious use
of models in environmental and health risk assessment. Since the stated goal of this project is to foster
the consistent use of appropriate environmental pathway models, the findings imply that a mix of
models capable of addressing the widest possible range of environmental characteristics may be
needed. Model defaults and assumptions, strengths and weaknesses, must be carefully examined within
the context of the prevailing characteristics at any given site. This document provides a framework in
which those challenges can be addressed and decisions based on models can be optimized.
36
-------
Table la. Geographic and administrative data for NPL sites
Site
FINDS
EPA
Region
Type State City
Zip
Code
County FIPS
NPL History
Proposed Final
Brookhaven Nat'l Lab
Denver Radium Site
Fernald Environ. Remed. Proj.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Hanford (100 Area)
Hanford (1100 Area)
Hanford (200 Area)
Hanford (300 Area)
Himco Inc., Dump
Homestake Mining Co.
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler)
Kerr-McGee (Res. Area)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage TP)
Lansdowne Rad. Site
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL (Site 300)
Lodi Municpal Well
Max'ey Flats Nuclear Disp.
Maywood Chemical Co.
Montclair Radium Site
Monticello Mill Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound Plant
Oak Ridge Res.
NY7890008975
COD980716955
OH6890008976
NYD981560923
NJD980785646
WA3890090076
WA4890090075
WA1890090078
WA2890090077
IND980500292
NMD007860935
ID4890008952
FL6170024412
ILD980823991
ILD980824007
ILD980824015
ILD980824031
PAD980830921
COD042167858
CA2890012584
CA2890090002
NJD980769301
KYD980729107
NJD980529762
NJD980785653
UTD980717979
UTD980667208
OH6890008984
TN1890090003
II
VIII
V
II
II
X
X
X
X
V
VI
X
IV
V
V
V
V
III
VIII
IX
IX
II
IV
II
II
VIII
VIII
V
IV
DOE
SF
DOE
SF
SF
DOE
DOE
DOE
DOE
SF
SF
DOE
DOD
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
DOE
DOE
SF
SF
SF
SF
DOE
SF
DOE
DOE
NY
CO
OH
NY
NJ
WA
WA
WA
WA
IN
NM
ID
FL
IL
IL
IL
IL
PA
CO
CA
CA
NJ
KY
NJ
NJ
UT
UT
OH
TN
Upton
Denver
Fernald
Niagara
Glen Ridge
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Elkhart
Grants/Milan
Idaho Falls
Jacksonville
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Lansdowne
Canon City
Livermore
Tracy
Lodi
Hillsboro
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello
Monticello
Miamisburg
Oak Ridge
11973
80204
45218
14094
07028
99352
99352
99352
99352
46514
87021
83401
32218
60185
60185
60185
60185
19050
81212
94500
95376
07644
41049
07602
07052
84535
84535
45342
37830
Suffolk
Adams
Hamilton
Niagara
Essex
Benton
Benton
Benton
Benton
Elkhart
Valencia
Bonneville
Duval
DuPage
DuPage
DuPage
DuPage
Delaware
Fremont
Alameda
Sanjoaquin
Bergen
Fleming
Bergen
Essex
San Juan
San Juan
Montgomery
Anderson
36013
08031
39061
36063
34013
53005
53005
53005
53005
18039
35000
16019
12031
17043
17043
17043
17043
42045
08043
06001
06077
34003
21069
34003
34013
49037
49037
39113
47145
14-Jul-89
23-Oct-81
14-Jul-89
29-Aug-89
l-Oct-84
24-Jun-88
24-Jun-88
24-Jun-88
24-Jun-88
24-Jun-88
23-Oct-81
14-Jul-89
14-Jul-89
15-Oct-84
15-Oct-84
15-Oct-84
15-Oct-84
l-Apr-85
8-Sep-83
15-Oct-84
14-Jul-89
15-Oct-84
15-Oct-84
l-Dec-82
l-Oct-84
l-Jul-89
15-Oct-84
14-Jul-89
14-Jul-89
21-Nov-89
8-Sep-83
21-Nov-89
21-Nov-89
14-Feb-85
4-Oct-89
4-Oct-89
4-Oct-89
4-Oct-89
21-Feb-90
8-Sep-83
21-Nov-89
21-Nov-89
ll-Feb-91
30-Aug-90
30-Aug-90
30-Aug-90
16-Sep-85
21-Sep-84
22-Jul-87
30-Aug-90
30-Aug-90
10-Jun-86
8-Sep-83
14-Feb-85
21-Nov-89
10-Jun-86
21-Nov-89
21-Nov-89
-------
Table la. Geogra
Ottawa Radioactive Areas
Pantex Plant
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River Site
Shpack Landfill
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium Corp.
United Nuclear Corp.
Uravan Uranium
Wayne Interim Storage
Weldon Springs Army OW
Weldon Springs Quarry
Westlake Landfill
FL9170024567
NYD001667872
CO7890010526
SC1890008989
MAD980503973
MOD980633176
ORD050955848
NJD980654172
NMD030443303
COD007063274
NJ1891837980
MO5210021288
MO3210090004
MOD079900932
V
VI
IV
II
VIII
IV
I
VII
X
II
VI
VIII
II
VII
VII
VII
SF
DOE
DOD
SF
DOE
SF
DOE
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
DOE
DOE
DOE
SF
phic and administrative data for NPL sites
IL
TX
FL
NY
CO
sc
MA
MO
OR
NJ
NM
CO
NJ
MO
MO
MO
Ottawa
Pantex Village
Pensacola
Woodside
Golden
Aiken
Norton/ Attleboro
Lambert
Millersburg
Orange
Church Rock
Uravan
Wayne
Weldon Spring
Weldon Spring
Bridgeton
61350
79068
32508
11377
80401
29812
02766
63134
97321
07050
87311
81436
07470
63386
63386
63044
LaSalle
Carson
Escambia
Queens
Jefferson
Barnwell
Bristol
St. Louis
Linn
Essex
McKinley
Montrose
Passaic
St. Charles
St. Charles
St. Louis
56926
54960
12033
36081
08059
45003
25005
29510
41043
34013
35031
08085
34031
29183
29183
29189
l-Jul-91
l-Jul-91
14-Jul-89
29-Aug-89
15-Oct-84
14-Jul-89
15-Oct-84
5-May-89
30-Dec-82
l-Dec-82
23-Oct-81
15-Oct-84
l-Sep-83
14-Jul-89
15-Oct-84
26-Oct-89
21-Nov-89
21-Nov-89
4-Oct-89
21-Nov-89
10-Jun-86
4-Oct-89
8-Sep-83
8-Sep-83
8-Sep-83
10-Jun-86
21-Sep-84
21-Feb-90
22-Jul-87
30-Aug-90
oo
-------
Table Ib.
Geographic and administrative data for SDMP sites
Docket NRC Zip
Site No. Region State City Code County FIPS Priority
Aberdeen Proving Gnd.
Allied Signal (2 sites)
Amax
Babcock & W ilcox (1)
Babcock & W ilcox (2)
BP Chemicals
Budd
Cabot (1)
Cabot (2)
Cabot (3)
Chemetron (1)
Chemetron (2)
Dow Chemical(3 sites)
Fansteel
GSA Arsenal(2 sites)
Gulf United Nuclear
Heritage
Kawkawlin Landfill
Kerr-McGee - Cimmaron
Kerr-McGee - Gushing
Magnesium Elektron
Molycorp (1)
Molycorp (2)
Nuclear Metals
Permagrain
Pesses (METCOA)
Process Technology
Remington
Safety Light
040-06354
040-00772
040-8820
70-135
70-364
040-07604
030-19963
040-06940
040-06940
040-06940
040-08724
040-08724
040-00017
040-7580
n/a
[1]
040-08980
n/a
[2]
[3]
040-08984
40-8778
40-8794
040-00672
030-29288
040-08405
030-07022
[4]
030-05980
I
I
II
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
III
III
III
IV
I
I
I
III
IV
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
I
MD
NJ
WV
PA
PA
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
OH
OH
MI
OK
MA
NY
NJ
MI
OK
OK
NJ
PA
PA
MA
PA
PA
NJ
MO
PA
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Teterboro
Washington Bottoms
Apollo
Parks Township
Lima
Philadelphia
Boyertown
Reading
Revere
Newburgh Hts
Newburgh Hts
Midland
Muskogee
Watertown
Pawling
Lakehurst
Bay City
Crescent
Gushing
Flemington
Washington
York
Concord
Media
Pulaski
Rockaway
Independence
Bloomsburg
21005
07608
28181
15613
45805
19512
18953
44105
44105
02172
12564
08733
73028
74023
08822
15301
01740
16143
07866
17815
Harford
Bergen
Wood
Armstrong
Armstrong
Allen
Philadelphia
Berks
Berks
Bucks
Cuyohoga
Cuyohoga
Midland
Muskogee
Middlesex
Dutchess
Ocean
Bay
Logan
Payne
Hunterdon
Washington
York
Bristol
Delaware
Beaver
Morris
Jackson
Columbia
24025
34003
54107
42005
42005
39003
42101
42001
42001
42017
39035
39035
26111
40101
25017
36027
34029
26017
40083
40119
34019
42125
42133
25005
42045
42007
34027
29095
42037
C
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
A
A
B
C
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
A
-------
Table Ib.
Geographic and administrative data for SDMP sites
Schott Glass
Shieldalloy (1)
Shieldalloy (2)
Texas Instruments
UNC Recovery
West Lake Landfill
Westinghouse
Whittaker
Wyman-Gordon
040-07924
40-8948
40-7102
70-33
70-820
[5]
070-00698
040-07455
n/a
I
I
III
I
I
III
I
I
I
PA
NJ
OH
MA
RI
MO
PA
PA
MA
Duryea
Newfield
Cambridge
Attleboro
Wood River Jet
Bridgeton
Madison
Greenville
North Grafton
08344
43725
02703
02894
63044
15663
16125
01536
Luzeme
Gloucester
Guernsey
Bristol
Washington
St Louis
Westmoreland
Mercer
Worcester
42079
34015
39059
25005
44009
29189
42129
42085
25027
B
C
B
A
A
A
B
C
C
(1) 50-23, 50-101, 50-290, 70-903
(2) 070-00925, 070-01193
(3) 040-01478, 070-00712 (term.)
(4) 040-8303,40-8767
(5)040-08035, 040-08801
Footnotes:
FINDS - Facility Index System Identification Number (EPA).
FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standards place code (National Bureau of Standards).
NPL History - data that the site was proposed/assigned to the National Priorities List.
-------
Table 2a. Isotopes identified at NPL radioactively contaminated sites
A=air
5=8011, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Brookhaven
Nat'l Lab
NUS-
ROA&DAR,
EMR,NPL
GW
S,SW
GW
GW
Denver Radium
Site
SAFFIRE,
1989GSS, HRS,
NPL, MITRE,
UNC-Geotech
A,S
A,S,SW,GW
A,S
S
S
S
S
Fernald Envir.
Reined. Project
NUS-
ROA&DAR,
DOE-ES, NPL,
HRS
A,S,SW,GW
SW
A,SW
A,SW
A
SW
S,SW
SW
A,S
A,S,SW,GW
A,S,SW,GW
A,S,SW,GW
Forest Glenn
Mobile Home
NPL, HRS
A,S
41
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=gronndwater
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
REF:
HRS scored:
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Glen Ridge
Radium Site
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, HRS,
NPL
A,S
S,SW,GW
A,S,SW,GW
S
Hanford
100 Area
SAFFIRE, DOE-
ES, NPL,
MITRE, EMR,
1989GSS, NUS-
DAR
SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW,GW
GW
SW
S
GW
SW
S,SW
SW
GW
S,SW,GW
GW
SW
SW,GW
Hanford
200 Area
SAFFIRE, DOE-
ES, EMR, HRS,
MITRE, NUS-
DAR, 1989GSS
SW,GW
GW
GW
SW,GW
A
SW,GW
SW,GW
GW
GW
A,GW
GW
S,SW,GW
S,GW
S,SW,GW
Hanford
300 Area
SAFFIRE, DOE-
ES, EMR, HRS,
MITRE, NUS-
DAR, 1989GSS
S,SW,GW
SW,GW
SW
GW
A
SW,GW
GW
A,GW
A,GW
A,GW
42
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Ma
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U,
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Hartford
1100 Area
NPL, NUS-
DAR
SW
GW
Himco, Inc.
Dump
HRS, NPL
GW
Homestake
Mining Corp.
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, NPL
GW
A,S,SW
A,S
A,S,GW
A,S,GW
Idaho Nat'l
Engineering
Lab
NPL,
NUS-
ROA&DAR
A,S,SW,GW
SW,GW
GW
S,GW,SW
GW
GW
S
S,GW,SW
GW,SW
A,S
S,SW
S
S
S,SW,GW
S
SW
SW
43
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
REF:
HRS scored:
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mi
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Jacksonville
Naval Air
Station
NPL, HRS
S,SW,GW
S
S
Kerr-McGee
Kress Creek
SAFFIRE, HRS,
1989GSS, NPL
SW,GW
S
S
S,SW,GW
S
S
Kerr-McGee
Reed-Keppler
Park
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, NPL,
Logan
A,S
S,GW
S
A
A
S,GW
A,S,GW
A,S,GW
Kerr-McGee
Residential
Area
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, HRS,
NPL,
Bluck,Logan
A,S
S,GW
S
A
A
S,GW
S,GW
S,GW
44
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
.Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Kerr-McGee
Sewage Treatmt
Plant
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, HRS,
NPL,
Bluck,Logan
A,S
S,GW
S
A
A
GW
S,GW
S,GW
S,GW
Lansdowne
Radiation Site
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, NPL
A,S,GW
A,S
A,S
A,S,SW,GW
A
A,S
S
Lawrence
Livermore Nat'l
Lab
EMR,
NUS-
ROA&DAR
GW
S,GW
Lawrence
Livermore (Site
300)
NPL, EMR,
NUS-
ROA&DAR
SW,GW
S,GW
A,S
45
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Synth.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Lincoln Park
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, NPL,
1989GSS
S,SW,GW
GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
Lodi Municipal
Well
1989GSS, NPL,
HRS, SAFFIRE,
NUS-
ROA&DAR
GW
GW
GW
GW
Maxey Flats
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, HRS,
1989GSS
A,S,GW
S
S,SW
A,S,SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
Maywood
Chemical Co.
1989GSS,
SAFFIRE, NPL
A,S
S,SW
A
S,SW
S,SW
S,SW
46
-------
Table 2a. (NFL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Montdair West
Orange Radium
Site
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, RI/FS,
NPL
A,S,GW
S,GW
A,GW
S
Monticello Mill
Taillings
NPL, MITRE,
SAFFIRE, HRS
A,SW
*t
A
GW
GW
Monticello
Radioactively
Contam. Prop.
NPL, MITRE,
SAFFIRE, HRS
A
S,SW,GW
A
S
S
S
Mound Plant
NUS, HRS
A,S,SW
A,SW,GW
S
A,S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW,GW
A,S,SW
S
S
S
A,S,SW,GW
47
-------
Table 2a. (NFL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Oak Ridge
National Lab
NUS-
ROA&DAR
NPL, DOE-ES
A,S,SW
S
S,SW,GW
S
S
S
S,SW,GW
S
S
S
S,SW,GW
GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
Ottawa
Radiation
Areas
NPL
S
S
Pantex Plant
NUS-DAR,
DOE-ES, NPL
A,S,SW,GW
A,S
A,S,SW,GW
A,S,SW,GW
Pensacola
Naval Air
Station
NPL
A,S
S
48
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Radium
Chemical
Corporation
NPL, HRS
NONE
S
A
Rocky Hats
Plant
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, NPL,
DOE-ES, 1989-
GSS, NUS-
ROA&DAR
A,S,SW,GW
A,S,SW,GW
S,SW
A,S,SW
A,S,SW,GW
GW
GW
SW
A,S,SW,GW
GW
A,S,SW,GW
Savannah River
Site
NUS, HRS,
DOE-ES
A,S,SW,GW
GW
A,S,GW
SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,GW
A,SW,GW
SW,GW
S,GW
S,GW
S,GW
S,SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW
S,SW,GW
Shpack
Landfill
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, NPL
S,SW,GW
S,GW
GW
S
S
S,GW
S
S,SW,GW
49
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Nti
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
St Louis Airpt.
Hazelwood Int
Stg/Futura Ctgs^
SAFFIRE, NPL
A,SW
S
A
S
S
S
S
Teledyne Wah
Chang
SAFFIRE,
MITRE, NPL
A,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
GW
A
S
S
s,sw
s,sw
U.S. Radium
Corporation
SAFFIRE, HRS,
1989GSS, NPL,
MITRE
A,S
S
A
United Nudear
Corporation
SAFFIRE, NPL,
1989GSS
A,S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW,GW
S,SW
S,SW,GW
A,S,SW
A,S,SW
50
-------
Table 2a. (NPL sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
REF:
HRS scored:
Element
Actinium
Americium
Antimony
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Ac
Am
Sb
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mi
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
125
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Uravan
Uranium (Union
Carbide)
SAFFIRE,
MITRE,
1989GSS, NPL
A,S,SW,GW
A,SW,GW
A
SW,GW
SW,GW
SW,GW
Weldon
Spring Quarry
Plant / Pits
HRS, DOE-
ES, 1989GSS,
MITRE,
SAFFIRE
A,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW
A
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S
S,SW,GW
Weldon Spring
Former Army
Ordnance Works
NPL, SAFFIRE,
1989GSS, HRS,
MITRE
A,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
SW
S
S,SW
S,SW
SW
S,SW
Westlake
Landfill
NPL
S,GW
S,GW
S,GW
Wayne
Interim
Storage
SAFFIRE,
1989GSS,
MITRE,
HRS, NPL
A,S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
A
A
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
S,SW,GW
51
-------
Table 2b. Isotopes identified at NRC SDMP sites
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Aberdeen
Proving
Ground
C
S
Allied
Signal
A
S
S
Amax
B
S
S
Babcock &
Wilcox
(Apollo)
B
S
Babcock &
Wilcox
(Parks)
B
S
S
S
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
BP
Chemicals
B
S
The Budd
Co.
C
S
Cabot Corp.
Boyertown
C
S
S
Cabot Corp.
Reading
B
S
S
Cabot Corp.
Revere
B
S
S
52
-------
Table 2b. (NRC sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Chemetron
(Best Ave.)
A
S
S
Chemetron
(Harvard
Ave.)
A
S
Dow
Chemical
B
S, SW, GW
Fansteel
C
S, SW
S, SW
GSA
Watertown
Arsenal
B
S
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Gulf United
Nuclear
Fuels
A
S
S
S
S
S, SW
Heritage
Minerals
B
S
S
Kawkawlin
Landfill
B
S
S
Kerr-McGee
(Cimmaron)
A
S
S
Kerr-McGee
(Gushing)
A
S
S
S
53
-------
Table 2b. (NRC sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
.Magnesium
Elektron
B
s, sw
s, sw
Molycorp
Washington
B
S
Molycorp
York
B
S
Nuclear
Metals
C
SW
Permagrain
C
S
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Pesses
(METCOA)
B
S
S
Process
Technology
ofNJ,Inc.
B
S
Remington
Arms Co.
C
S
Safety
Light
A
S, SW, GW
S, SW, GW
S, SW, GW
S, SW, GW
Schott Glass
B
S
S
54
-------
Table 2b. (NRC sites), cont.
A=air
S=soil, sediment
SW=surface water
GW=groundwater
Priority:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Shieldalloy
Metallurgical
Corp., NJ
C
S
S
S
Shieldalloy
Metallurgical
Corp., OH
B
S
S
S
Texas
Instruments
Inc.
A
S
S
UNC
Recovery
Systems
A
GW
S, GW
West Lake
Landfill
A
S, GW
S
S
Priorfty:
Element
Cobalt
Cesium
Hydrogen
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Strontium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symb.
Co
Cs
H
Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Sr
Th
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
60
137
3
238
239
240
226
90
228
230
232
235
238
Westinghouse
Electric
(Waltz Mill)
B
GW
Whittaker
Corp.
C
S
S
Wyman-
Gordon
C
3
S
55
-------
Table 2a,b. (cont.)
Footnotes:
HRS Scored - pathways which received a significant score (> 26.5) according to the EPA Hazard
Ranking system (applies to NPL sites only).
References:
SAFFIRE Daum et al. (1991)
1989GSS Glass and Mura (1989)
HRS (several publications; see References)
UNC-Geotech (several publications; see References)
EMR Annual Environmental Monitoring Report for the site
(see References)
NUS-ROA NUS (1989/90)
NUS-DAR NUS (1990)
DOE-ES DOE (1988)
Logan Logan (1988)
Bluck Bluck (1986)
56
-------
Table 3a. Radiochemical and biological properties of isotopes identified
at NPL Superfund and NRC SDMP radioactively-contaminated sites
Element
Actinium
Americium
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symbol
Ac
Am
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mn
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Decay
Constant
3.270E-02
1.513E-03
1.210E-04
1.318E-01
2.436E-03
3.357E-01
2.310E-07
2.310E-02
3.830E-02
5.776E-02
4.332E-02
3.827E-01
5.635E-02
5.924E-08
8.611E-02
6.460E-02
2.288E-03
7.534E-03
2.139E-05
8.023E-03
2.841E-05
1.053E-04
4.327E-04
1.205E-01
1.247E-02
1.813E-01
1.889E-03
1.066E-05
2.467E-02
3.270E-06
3.623E-01
8.887E-06
4.916E-11
2.806E-06
9.7626E-10
1.5369E-10
Unit
(-1)
yr
yr
yr
yr
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
day
yr
day
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
sec
day
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
Half-
Life
Physical
2.1E+01
4.6E+02
5.7E+03
5.3E+00
2.8E+02
2.1E+00
3.0E+06
3.0E+01
1.8E+01
1.2E+01
1.6E+01
1.8E+00
1.2E+01
1.2E+07
8.1E+00
1.1E+01
3.0E+02
9.2E+01
3.2E+04
8.6E+01
2.4E+04
6.6E+03
1.6E+03
5.8E+00
5.6E+01
3.8E+00
3.7E+02
6.5E+04
2.8E-I-01
2.1E+05
1.9E+00
7.8E+04
1.4E+10
2.5E+05
7.1E+08
4.5E+09
Unit
yr
yr
y
yr
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
day
yr
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
sec
day
day
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
Specific
Activity
(Ci/gr)
7.4E+01
3.2E+00
4.5E+00
1.1E+03
8.7E+00
1.3E+03
8.8E-04
8.7E+01
8.1E+01
2.0E+02
1.5E+02
1.3E+03
9.7E+03
2.4E-04
1.2E+05
1.4E+05
8.0E+03
6.2E+01
4.8E-02
1.7E+01
6.1E-02
2.3E-01
9.9E-01
2.7E+02
9.2E+08
1.5E+05
3.4E+03
7.0E-02
1.4E+02
1.7E-02
8.2E+02
2.0E-02
1.1E-07
6.2E-03
2.1E-06
3.3E-07
Decay
Product
Th-227
Np-237
stable
stable
Pr-144
stable
stable
Ba-137
Am-244
Gd-152
stable
stable
stable
stable
Xe-131
stable
stable
stable
Ac-227
U-234
U-235
U-236
Rn-222
Ac-228
Po-216
Po-218
Tc-106
stable
Rb-90
Mo-99
Ra-224
Ra-226
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-231
Th-234
(cont.)
57
-------
Table 3a. (cont.)
Element
Actinium
Americium
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Europium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Radium
Radium
Radon
Radon
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Symbol
Ac
Am
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cs
Cs
Cm
Eu
Eu
Eu
H
I
I
Kr
Mh
Ni
Pa
Pu
Pu
Pu
Ra
Ra
Rn
Rn
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
Th
Th
U
U
U
Mass
227
241
14
60
144
134
135
137
244
152
154
155
3
129
131
85
54
63
231
238
239
240
226
228
220
222
106
79
90
99
228
230
232
234
235
238
Radiation Type (MeV)
Alpha
5.4857
5.8048
5.0130
5.4992
5.1560
5.1683
4.7844
6.2882
5.4895
5.4230
4.6880
4.0130
4.7760
4.4000
4.1970
Beta
(avg)
0.0100
0.0490
0.0940
0.081
0.152
0.0570
0.1950
0.288
0.228
0.044
0.0050
0.0400
0.1800
0.249
0.0170
0.0140
0.0090
0.0580
0.2000
0.0850
Gamma
0.0595
1.3325
0.1335
0.6047
0.7869
0.6617
0.1218
0.1231
0.0865
0.0396
0.3645
0.8348
0.0274
0.0516
0.1861
0.5497
0.5100
0.0677
0.0532
0.1857
Pathway-Specific Unit Risk
Air
(pCi/
m3)-l
4.2E-02
2.1E-02
3.2E-09
8.1E-05
1.7E-04
1.4E-05
1.4E-06
9.6E-06
n/a
6.1E-03
7.2E-05
n/a
4.0E-08
6.1E-05
1.2E-05
n/a
2.6E-06
8.7E-07
2.0E-02
2.1E-02
2.6E-02
2.1E-02
1.5E-03
3.4E-04
6.1E-08
3.7E-07
2.3E-04
n/a
2.8E-05
4.2E-06
3.9E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.2E-02
Drinking
Water
^Ci/L)'1
1.8E-05
1.6E-05
4.7E-08
7.8E-07
3.0E-07
2.1E-06
2.1E-07
1.4E-06
n/a
1.1E-07
1.5E-07
n/a
2.8E-09
9.6E-06
1.8E-06
n/a
5.7E-08
1.2E-08
9.7E-06
1.4E-05
1.6E-06
1.6E-05
6.1E-05
5.1E-06
n/a
n/a
4.9E-07
n/a
1.7E-06
6.6E-08
7.7E-07
1.2E-06
1.1E-06
7.2E-06
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
External
Exposure
-------
Table 4, cont.
Table 3b. Ranges for K^s for elements found at radioactively contaminated sites.
Element
Actinium
Americium
Carbon
Cobalt
Cerium
Cesium
Curium
Europium
Hydrogen
Iodine
Krypton
Manganese
Nickel
Protactinium
Plutonium
Radium
Ruthenium
Selenium (IV)
Strontium
Technitium
Thorium
Uranium
Symbol
Ac
Am
C
Co
Ce
Cs
Cm
Eu
H
I
Kr
Mi
Ni
Pa
Pu
Ra
Ru
Se
Sr
Tc
Th
U
Kd
Observed
Range
(ml/g)
1.0 - 47,230
0.2-3800
58-6000
10 - 52,000
93 - 51,900
0.2 - 10,000
48-1000
1.2 - 8.6
0.2 - 3300
0.003 - 0.28
2000 - 510,000
11-4400
Mean*
6.7
4.0
7.0
7.0
8.1
5.0
6.4
1.0
3.3
3.4
11.0
3.8
Std.
Dev.2
3.0
2.3
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.7
1.0
0.7
2.0
1.1
1.5
1.3
1. Mean of the logarithms of the observed values
2. Standard deviation of the logarithms of the observed values
Ref.: Baes and Sharp (1983).
59
-------
Table 4a. Summary of source, environmental, and receptor characteristics of NFL sites
Site Name Site Type Waste Form
Brookhaven Nat'l Lab
Denver Radium Site
Fernald Envir. Remediation Proj.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Hanford (100 Area)
Hartford (1100 Area)
Hanford (200 Area)
Hanford (300 Area)
Himco, Inc., Dump
Homestake Mining Co.
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler)
Kerr-McGee (Res. Area)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage IF)
Lansdowne Rad. Site
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL (Site 300)
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disp.
Maywood Chemical Co.
Montclair Radium Site
Monticello Mill Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound Plant
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa Radiation Area
Pantex Plant
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River Site
Shpack Landfill
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium Corp.
United Nuclear Corp.
Uravan Uranium
Wayne Interim Storage
Weldon Springs Former Army OW
Weldon Springs Quarry/Plant/Pits
Westlake Landfill
research
radium
defense
landfill
radium
defense
defense
defense
defense
landfill
mill
defense
radium
mill
mill
mill
mill
radium
mill
defense
defense
radium
LLW disposal
radium
radium
mill
mill
defense
defense
radium
defense
radium
radium
defense
defense
landfill
mill
manufacture
radium
mill
mill
mill
defense
defense
landfill
landfill
pile, unlined landfill, burial, asphalt
tanks, piles, drums, cans, burial
burial, drums
burial
unlined ponds, burial, cribs
unlined ponds, unlined tank
unlined ponds, burial, cribs
unlined ponds, burial, tanks
unlined landfill
piles
unlined ponds, injection well, burial, drums
landfills, unlined ponds, surf, water, injection well
surface water
landfill, burial
landfill, burial
landfill, burial, tank (?), piles
burial
surface water, burial
unlined ponds
lined ponds, landfills
burial
landfills
burial, pond
burial
piles, unlined ponds
aggregate, burial, piles
unlined(?) landfill, burial
surface water, landfill, unlined ponds
burial
burial, landfill, surface water
unlined ponds, landfill, surface water, burial, piles
burial, asphalt
underground tanks, burial, landfill, lined ponds
piles, unlined(?) ponds, surface water, tanks
landfill, piles
burial, drums, piles
unlined ponds
burial
piles
piles, unlined ponds
lined pile, soil
unlined ponds, burial
burial
unlined landfill
60
-------
Table 4a. (NPL sites), cont.
Site Name
Quantity of Contam. Mat'l.
Representative
Concentration
Avg. Precip.
(cm)
Brookhaven
Denver Radium
FEMP
Forest Glen
Glen Ridge
Hartford 100 Area
Hartford 1100 Area
Hartford 200 Area
Hartford 300 Area
HimcoDump
Homestake Mining
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
K-M (Kress Creek)
K-M (Reed-Keppler)
K-M (Res. Area)
K-M (Sewage TP)
Lansdowne
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL Site 300
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello/Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa
Pantex
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River
Shpack
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium
United Nuclear
Uravan
Wayne Int. Storage
Weldon ( Army)
Weldon Quarry
Westlake Landfill
29,000m3 soil
600,000m3 soil
230,000m3 soil
-SE+OerrPsoil
-700 E+06m3 soil
-21E+06m3soil
unknown
20E+06MTsoil
15.7 MT soil
18,000 MT soil
-30,000 to 40,000 m3 soil
15,000m3 soil
-6,600 m3 soil
5,000m3 soil
none
unknown
unknown
140,000 to 230,000m3 soil
340,000yd3 soil
230,000m3 soil
800,000 MT soil
5850 kgU
110 Ci
unknown
unknown
1450 MT soil
3.2 E+06 MT soil
unknown
92,000m3 soil
39,000 m3 soil
480,000m3 soil
39,000 MT soil
unknown
unknown
3300pCi/gU,Th
unknown
3300pCi/gU,Th
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
110
41
99
82.8
117
16
16
16
16
87.4
30
22
138.4
84.9
84.9
84.9
84.9
112
33
26.8
26.8
117
112
117
117
16
16
95
135
76
44.5
156.5
112
38
119
114.6
85.9
224.2
117
30
10
122
85
85
85.9
61
-------
Table 4a. (NPL sites), cont.
Site Name
Air
Water
Depth (m) to
Water Table
DRASTIC
Index
Brookhaven
Denver Radium
FEMP
Forest Glen
Glen Ridge
Hanford 100 Area
Hanford 1100 Area
Hanford 200 Area
Hanford 300 Area
HimcoDump
Homestake Mining
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
K-M (Kress Creek)
K-M (Reed-Keppler)
K-M (Res. Area)
K-M (Sewage TP)
Lansdowne
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL Site 300
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello /Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa
Pantex
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River
Shpack
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium
United Nuclear
Uravan
Wayne Interim Stor.
Weldon ( Army)
Weldon Quarry
Westlake Landfill
not applic.
gas
par tic. /gas
not applic.
gas
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
partic./gas
gas
not applic.
gas
gas
gas
gas
partic.
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
not applic.
gas
gas
partic./gas
gas
partic.
partic./gas
gas
partic.
gas
gas
partic.
partic./gas
not applic.
gas
not applic.
gas
partic./gas
gas
gas
not applic.
gas
not applic.
ps,l
not applic.
is,ps
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps,f w wetland
is, ps
ps,is, floodplain
ps, estuary
ps
ps
ps
ps
not applic.
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps, fw wetland
ps
ps
ps
not applic.
ps
ps,fw wetland
ps
is,fw wetland
ps,estuary
not applic.
is,l
ps
ps,fw wetland
ps
ps
ps
is,ps
is,ps
ps,l
ps,l
ps,l
ps
5 to 15
3
15 to 18
1
15
OtoSO
20 to 40
40 to 100
OtoSO
2
2
11
8 to 43
30 to 130
0
2to4
15
21
30
12
5
142
1
4
8
19
0
4
unknown
21
0
127,53
83
127
156
93
105
105
105
105
93
88
156
218
93
93
93
93
106
83
74
74
93
196
93
93
162
162
127
105
93
109
218
127
83
53,106
103
105, 156
106
93
88
162
93
105, 156
105, 156
105, 156
62
-------
Table 4a. (NPL sites), cont.
Site Name
Subsurface Hydrogeologic Setting
Regional Local
Brookhaven
Denver Radium
FEMP
Forest Glen
Glen Ridge
Hanford 100 Area
Hanford 1100 Area
Hanford 200 Area
Hanford 300 Area
HimeoDump
Homestake Mining
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
K-M (Kress Creek)
K-M (Reed-Keppler)
K-M (Res. Area)
K-M (Sewage Treat-
ment Plant)
Lansdowne
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL Site 300
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello /Tailings
Monticello RCP
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Outwash
Westerm Mountain Ranges - Mountain
Flanks - East
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Outwash
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Columbia River Plateau - Not Connected
Columbia River Plateau - Not Connected
Columbia River Plateau - Not Connected
Columbia River Plateau - Not Connected
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin -
Resistant Ridges
Columbia River Plateau - Connected
Southeast Coastal Plain - Solution
Limestone
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
N.E. and Superior Uplands - Mountain
Flanks
Western Mountain Ranges - Mountain
Flanks - East
Alluvial Basins - Mountain Slopes
Alluvial Basins - Mountain Slopes
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Nonglaciated Central Region - Solution
Limestone
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin -
River Alluvium
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin -
River Alluvium
unconsolidated sand and gravel
alluvial valley fill /Miocene to
Mississippian sandstones
alluvial valley fill - Miami River
Silurian and Devonian consolidated
aquifer
Newark Basin - consolidated/confined
river and lake sediments over basalt
river and lake sediments over basalt
river and lake sediments over basalt
river and lake sediments over basalt
unconsolidated - high yield
no local groundwater
Snake River Plain aquifer
unconf ined /consolidated
unconsolidated /consolidated - high yield
unconsolidated /consolidated - high yield
unconsolidated /consolidated - high yield
unconsolidated /consolidated - high yield
no local groundwater
alluvial valley fill - Arkansas River
valley fill over Tertiary non-marine
sandstone
valley fill over Tertiary non-marine
sandstone
Newark Basin - consolidated /confined
>100 m subhorizontal shales and sandstone
Newark Basin - consolidated/confined
Newark Basin - consolidated/confined
Cambrian to Tertiary sedimentary rocks -
low yield
Cambrian to Tertiary sedimentary rocks -
low yield
63
-------
Table 4a. (NFL sites), cont.
Site Name
Subsurface Hydrogeologic Setting (cont)
Regional Local
Mound
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa
Pantex
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River
Shpfck
&
St. Louis Airpfert
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium
United Nuclear
Uravan
Wayne Interim Stor.
Weldon ( Army)
Weldon Quarry
Westlake Landfill
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Outwash
Nonglaciated Central Region - Mountain
Flanks
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
High Plains - Ogallala
Southeast Coastal Plain - Solution
Limestone
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Outwash
Western Mountain Ranges - Mountain
Flanks - East
Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plain - Conf.
Region Aquif.
N.E. and Superior Uplands - Mountain
Flanks
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
Western Mountain Ranges - Mountain
Flanks - West
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin -
Resistant Ridges
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin -
River Alluvium
Glaciated Central Region - Till over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
Glaciated Central Region - Outwash over
Sedimentary Rocks
alluvial valley fill - Miami River
consolidated /confined
alluvial valley fill /consolidated aquifer •
high yield
Ogallala aquifer
unconfined/consolidated
no local groundwater
river alluvium over claystone and
sandstone units - low yield
alluvial valley fill, confined un-
/consolidated
unconsolidated sand and gravel
alluvial valley fill - Mississippi River
alluvial valley fill - Willamette River
Newark Basin - consolidated /confined
no local groundwater
no local groundwater
Newark Basin - consolidated/confined
alluvial valley fill - Missouri River
alluvial valley fill - Missouri River
alluvial valley fill - Mississippi River
64
-------
Table 4a. (NFL sites), cont.
Site Name
Other, including
sensitive environments
Popul'n.
County
Density (/km2)
5km
Land Use
Type
Brookhaven
Denver Radium
FEMP
Forest Glen
Glen Ridge
Hanford 100 Area
Hanford 1100 Area
Hanford 200 Area
Hanford 300 Area
HimcoDump
Homestake Mining
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
K-M (Kress Creek)
K-M (Reed-Keppler)
K-M (Res. Area)
K-M (Sewage T P)
Lansdowne
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL Site 300
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello /Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa
Pantex
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River
Shpack
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium
United Nuclear
Uravan
Wayne Interim Stor.
Weldon ( Army)
Weldon Quarry
Westlake Landfill
fw wetland
fw wetland; vole, terr.; sens. hab.
volcanic terrain; sens. hab.
volcanic terrain; sens. hab.
fw wetland; vole, terr.; sens. hab.
fw wetland
floodplain
karst terrain, fw wetland
crystalline bedrock
karst terrain, fractured bedrock
karst, atmos. invvfw wetland
playa
karst terrain
perched aquifer
swamp,crystalline bedrock
karst terrain
karst terrain
521
67
840
172
2621
17
17
17
17
108
3.1
12
283
646
646
646
646
1242
6.6
575
.36
1451
20
1451
2621
0.8
0.8
494
71
37
40
130
7020
155
14
323
743
14
2621
3.5
3.5
910
81
81
743
200
172
3700
250
20 (1.7 km)
250
250
250
250
1250 (1.7 km)
17
380
3700 (1.7 km)
170
170
215
380
3100
45 (8.3 km)
40
510
450
250
3900
1
0
65
65
suburban,res/agric.
urban,res/ind
suburban,agric.
suburban,res
urban,res
rural,agric/res/rec
rural,agric/res/rec
rural,agric/res/rec
rural,agric/res/rec
suburban
unpopulated,open
rural
suburban,ind
suburban^es
suburban,res/rec
suburbanites
suburban,res/open
urban,res
unpopulated,open
suburban^es/ind/agr
rural, agric.
urban^es/ind/comm
rural,agric.
urban,res/ind/comm
urban,res
unpopulated,ind
unpopulated,res/ind
suburban,res
rural,res/agric.
rural,res/rec
rural,agric.
suburban,ind
urban,res/ind/comm
suburb,res/ag/rec/com'l
rural
suburban,open/res
suburban,ind/res
rural,res
urban,res/ind
unpopulated,open
unpopulated,open
suburban/res/agr/comm
rural
rural
rural,agric.
65
-------
Table 4a. (NPL sites), cont.
Site Name
Water Use.Type
Population Served
by Groundwater
Brookhaven
Denver Radium
FEMP
Forest Glen
Glen Ridge
Hanford 100 Area
Hanford 1100 Area
Hanford 200 Area
Hanford 300 Area
HimooDump
Homestake Mining
INEL
Jacksonville NAS
K-M (Kress Creek)
K-M (Reed-Keppler)
K-M (Res. Area)
K-M (Sewage TP)
Lansdowne
Lincoln Park
LLNL
LLNL Site 300
Lodi Municpal Well
Maxey Flats
Maywood
Montclair
Monticello/Tailings
Monticello RCP
Mound
Oak Ridge Res.
Ottawa
Pantex
Pensacola NAS
Radium Chemical
Rocky Flats Plant
Savannah River
Shpack
St. Louis Airport
Teledyne Wah Chang
U.S. Radium
United Nuclear
Uravan
Wayne Interim Stor.
Weldon ( Army)
Weldon Quarry
Westlake Landfill
drinking (sole source)/ agriculture
not applicable
drinking/ agric/ recreation (sole source)
not applicable
not applicable
drinking/ agric/ recreation
drinking/ agric/ recreation
drinking/ agric/ recreation
drinking/ agric/ recreation
drinking (sole source)
not applicable
drinking/ agriculture (sole source)
drinking/ recreation
drinking
drinking
drinking
drinking
not applicable
drinking
drinking/ agriculture
drinking/ agriculture
drinking
drinking
not applicable (see Lodi)
not applicable
drinking
not applicable
drinking/ recreation
drinking
not applicable
drinking/ agriculture
drinking/ recreation
not applicable
not applicable
drinking/ agriculture
drinking
not applicable
agriculture/ recreation
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
drinking/ agriculture/ recreation
drinking
drinking
drinking/ agriculture/ recreation
15400
not applicable
1100
not applicable
not applicable
70000
70000
70000
70000
20000
not applicable
3000
300
20000
20000
20000
20000
not applicable
?
10,000
300
24000
100
not applicable
not applicable
1900
not applicable
17000
43200
not applicable
160000
45000
not applicable
not applicable
3200
130
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
51000
46000
58000
60
66
-------
Table 4b. Summary of source, environmental, and
Site Name Site Type
receptor characteristics of NRC SDMP sites
Waste Form
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Allied Signal (2 sites)
Amax, Inc.
Babcock and Wilcox (Apollo)
Babcock and Wilcox (Parks)
BP Chemicals
The Budd Co.
Cabot Corp. (Boyertown)
Cabot Corp. (Reading)
Cabot Corp. (Revere)
Chemetron (Best Ave.)
Chemetron (Harvard Ave.)
Dow Chemical Co. (3 sites)
Fansteel, Inc.
GSA Watertown Arsenal Site (2 sites)
Gulf United Nuclear Fuels Corp.
Heritage Minerals
Kawkawlin Landfill
Kerr-McGee Cimmaron Plants
Kerr-McGee Gushing Plant
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Molycorp, Inc. (Washington)
Molycorp, Inc. (York)
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
Permagrain Products
Pesses Co. (METCOA)
Process Technology of NJ, Inc.
Remington Arms Co., Inc.
Safety Light Corp.
Schott Glass Technologies
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (NJ)
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (OH)
Texas Instruments, Inc.
UNC Recovery Systems
West Lake Landfill
Westinghouse Electric (Waltz Mill)
Whittaker Corp.
Wyman-Gordon Co.
defense
manufacture
fuel processing
fuel processing
manufacture
manufacture
mill
mill
mill
fuel processing
fuel processing
manufacture
mill
defense
research
mill
landfill
fuel processing
fuel processing
mill
mill
mill
manufacture
research
scrap
manufacture
defense
manufacture
manufacture
mill
mill
fuel processing
scrap
landfill
research
manufacture
manufacture
soil
drums, soil
soil, rubble (engineered cell)
buildings, soil
buildings, burial
drums, ponds, buildings, soil
contained (hot cell)
vaults, ponds
pile
piles
piles
soil
pile, landfill, pond
ponds, buildings
piles, soil, concrete
buildings, soil
piles
landfill
buildings, soil
soil, tanks, burial, buildings
ponds
ponds, pile, soil
soil, drums
unlined pond
buildings, tanks
drums, piles
pond, soil, burial
soil
buildings, soil, pond, pile
landfill
piles
piles
landfill, burial
buildings, soil
landfill, soil
buildings, soil, pond
piles
burial
67
-------
Table 4b. (NRC sites), cont.
Site Name
Quantity of Contain. Mat'l.
Representative
Concentration
Avg. Precip.
(cm)
Aberdeen
Allied Signal ( 2 sites)
Amax
B and W (1)
B and W (2)
BP Chemicals
Budd
Cabot (1)
Cabot (2)
Cabot (3)
Chemetron (1)
Chemetron (2)
Dow (3 sites)
Fansteel
GSA
Gulf
Heritage
Kawkawlin
KM - Cimmaron
KM - Gushing
Magnesium E
Molycorp (1)
Molycorp (2)
Nuclear Metals
Permagrain
Pesses (METCOA)
PTI
Remington
Safety Light
Schott Glass
Shieldalloy (1)
Shieldalloy (2)
TI
UNC
West Lake
Westinghouse
Whittaker
Wyman-Gordon
7.0 E+04 kg fired rounds
15-20 drums
4.54 E+04 kg soil
5664m3 soil
>2832 m3
2.75 E+04 m3 solid, liquid
0.3 Ci Co-60
unknown
545 MT slag
trace source material
3115 m3 solid waste
2 acres
3.98 E+05 m3 solid waste
8.2 E+04 kg sediment
unknown
unknown
113 MT solid waste
unknown
>5664 m3 soil
unknown
2451 MT/yr sludge
unknown
unknown
1.13 E+05 kg source
material
<15 mCi Sr-90
382m3 soil
unknown
9.63 E+04 m3 soil
unknown
7646m3 soil
3.54 E+05 MT slag
unknown
unknown
none
9.91 E+04 m3 soil
unknown
2.97 E+04 m3 slag
2.27 E+04 kg solid waste
unknown
0.7-25.4 pCi/gm (Th)
(low, Th and U)
100pCi/g(U)
<30 pCi/g (U, Th)
>35 pCi/g (U in drums)
<1% by weight (U, Th)
0.16% Th, 0.04% (U)
>100 pCi/g (U, Th)
1000 pCi/g (Th-232)
240 pCi/gm (U)
91pCi/g(Pu)
0.074-0.585% (U, Th)
64-96 pCi/g (Th-232/228)
30-100 pCi/g (Th)
10-90 pCi/g (Th,Ra, U)
0.37% (U, Th)
>10 pCi/g (Th)
250 pCi/g (Th)
<2400 pCi/g (Th)
3.5 pCi/g (Sr-90 in soil)
2 pCi/g (Th)
2-4 pCi/g (Th)
366-516 pCi/g (Th)
1.35 pCi/g - 0.225 uCi/g (U)
90 pCi/g (Ra-226)
<300 pCi/1 (Sr-90)
detect-6779 pCi/g (Th)
118.60
120.80
103.30
116.00
116.00
89.90
105.20
108.40
108.40
108.40
89.90
89.90
73.00
101.60
115.40
102.00
121.10
73.00
78.80
86.20
118.50
92.30
96.30
115.20
116.10
92.20
129.40
74.30
101.70
107.00
113.90
98.80
122.00
123.20
85.90
116.00
97.10
120.6
68
-------
Table 4b. (NRC sites), cont.
Site Name
Subsurface Hydrogeologic Setting
Regional Local
Aberdeen
Allied Signal ( 2 sites)
Amax
B and W (1)
B and W (2)
BP Chemicals
Budd
Cabot (1)
Cabot (2)
Cabot (3)
Chemetron (1)
Chemetron (2)
Dow (3 sites)
Fansteel
GSA
Gulf
Heritage
Kawkawlin
KM - Cimmaron
KM -Gushing
Magnesium E
Molycorp (1)
Molycorp (2)
Nuclear Metals
Permagrain
Pesses (METCOA)
PTI
Remington
Safety Light
Schott Glass
Shieldalloy (1)
Shieldalloy (2)
TI
UNC
West Lake
Westinghouse
Whittaker
Wyman-Gordon
N.E. and Superior Uplands
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Glaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
N.E. and Superior Uplands
N.E. and Superior Uplands
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Glaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
N.E. and Superior Uplands
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Nonglaciated Central Region
N.E. and Superior Uplands
N.E. and Superior Uplands
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Nonglaciated Central Region
Glaciated Central Region
coastal plain sand and gravel K to T unconsolidated
Newark basin consolidated/confined no local
unconsolidated
alluvial valley fill - Ohio River
consolidated rock aquifer
consolidated rock aquifer
high yield valley fill
sand and gravel - coastal plain
consolidated rock aquifers - limestone and sandstone
consolidated rock aquifers - limestone and sandstone
consolidated rock aquifers - limestone and sandstone
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
buried alluvial valley
no local groundwater
alluvial valley fill - consolidated carbonate aquifers
coastal plain sand and gravel - K to T unconsolidated
Lake Huron
buried alluvial valley
buried alluvial valley
Newark Basin sandstone - consolidated/confined
no local groundwater
consolidated rock aquifers - limestone and dolomite
no detail
sand and gravel - coastal plain
consolidated/unconfined aquifer - Ohio River
no local groundwater
alluvial valley fill over P to 1 P confined
alluvial valley fill - Susquehanna River
alluvial valley fill - Susquehanna River
coastal plain sand and gravel - K to T unconsolidated
no local groundwater
no detail
no detail
Mississippi River, outwash and alluvial valley fill
P to 1 P consolidated aquifer
consolidated /unconsolidated
no detail
69
-------
Table 4b. (NRC sites), cont.
Site Name
Water
Other, including
Sensitive Environ.
Pop. Density
Cnty (/km2>
Land Use
Type
Water Use
Type
Aberdeen
Allied Signal ( 2 sites)
Amax
B and W (1)
B and W (2)
BP Chemicals
Budd
Cabot (1)
Cabot (2)
Cabot (3)
Chemetron (1)
Chemetron (2)
Dow (3 sites)
Fansteel
GSA
Gulf
Heritage
Kawkawlin
KM - Cimmaron
KM - Gushing
Magnesium E
Molycorp (1)
Molycorp (2)
Nuclear Metals
Permagrain
Pesses (METCOA)
PTI
Remington
Safety Light
Schott Glass
Shieldalloy (1)
Shieldalloy (2)
TI
UNC
West Lake
Westinghouse
Whittaker
Wyman-Gordon
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps,l
fw
ps
1
ps
ps
ps
ps
ps
marsh /game area
gw for irrigation
game preserve
reservoirs
floodplain
open wetlands
no local groundwater
signif. municipal gw use
13651
1363.41
96.79
46.92
46.92
105.34
4664.15
52.76
52.76
2216.79
1215.84
1215.84
53.25
33.30
642.09
123.37
236.48
99.16
20.69
36.26
87.19
95.63
139.18
336.12
1176.35
171.09
344.29
402.15
48.70
143.48
249.73
29.73
336.12
117.45
757.86
142.44
71.01
1131.69
suburban
urban
rural
rural, res/comm
rural
suburban, ind
urban
rural
rural, ind
urban
urban, ind
urban, ind
rural
rural
suburban
suburban
suburban
rural, res
rural
rural
rural
rural
suburban
suburban, res/ind
urban, non-res
suburban, res/agr
suburban
suburban, res/agr
rural, res
suburban, ind
suburban
rural
suburban
suburban
suburban
suburban
rural
urban
drinking
not applic.
recreation
drinking
irrigation
not applic.
drinking
not applic.
recreation
none
none
not applic.
drinking
70
-------
Table 4b. (NRC sites), cont.
Footnotes:
Air: -where applicable, form of air contamination of concern.
Water: significant surface water bodies.
ps - perennial stream is - intermittant stream
fw wetland - freshwater wetland 1 - lake
Sens. Hab.: sensitive wildlife habitat
DRASTIC Index: numerical value arrived at by the application of the DRASTIC system of evaluating
groundwater pollution potential (Aller et al., 1985).
Other: special characteristics of the site which may impact on transport processes.
Population density, 5km: local popluation density based on NPL site descriptions. Some other distance
standards were used as noted in parentheses.
See report text for descriptions of other columns.
References:
Hydrogeologic regions: Heath (1984); Aller et al (1985).
County population density: CCDB (1977).
71
-------
References
10 CFR 61. 1981. Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations. Chapter 61. Licensing requirements for land
disposal facilities for radioactive wastes.
40 CFR Part 300. Federal Register 55(241):51532-51667, December 14,1990.
Aller, L., T. Bennet, J.H. Laher, and R.J. Betty. 1985. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating
ground water pollution potential using hydrologic settings. National Water Well Association for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Ada, OK, EPA
600-285-018.
Archibald, J.K. 1989. Supplemental data collected along the railroad tracks at Operable Unit IV/V
(Denver Radium Site). Memo to J. Brink, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, March
20,1989.
Arthur, W.J. and O.D. Markham. 1983. Small mammal soil burrowing as a radionuclide transport
vector at a radioactive waste disposal area in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Environmental
Quality 12(1):117-122.
Arya, A., T.A. Hewett, R.G. Larson, and L.W. Lake. 1988. Dispersion and reservoir hetrogeneity. SPE
Reservoir Engineering 3(1):139-148.
Baas Becking, L.G.M., I.R. Kaplan, and D. Moore. 1960. Limits of the natural environment in terms of
pH and oxidation-reduction potential. Journal of Geology 68:243-256.
Back, W. and R.A. Freeze. 1983. Chemical Hydrology: Benchmark Papers in Geology, Vol. 73.
Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.
Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. New York: American Elsevier, 764 pp. Reprinted
by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1988.
Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. New York: McGraw-Hill, 569 pp.
Bluck, W.V. 1986. Remedial investigation report, Kerr-McGee Radiation Sites, West Chicago, IL.
WA No. 82-5L94.0, September 29,1986.
Bogli, A. 1980. Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 284 pp.
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 480 pp.
Bredehoeft, J.D. 1978. Geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste: earth-science perspectives.
United States Geological Survey Circular 779, pp. 13-15.
Brookins, D.G. 1978. Eh-pH diagrams for elements from Z=40 to Z=52: Application to the Oklo natural
reactor. Chemical Geology 23:324-342.
Brookins, D.G. 1979. Thermodynamic considerations underlying the migration of radionuclides in
geomedia: Oklo and other examples. In: G.J. McCarthy, ed., Basis for nuclear managment, v. 1, pp.
355-366. New York: The Scientific Plenum Press.
Brookins, D.G. 1984. Geochemical aspects of radioactive waste disposal. New York: Springer-Verlag,
347pp.
72
-------
Buddemeir, R.W., and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of colloidal contaminants in groundwater:
radionuclide migration at the Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry 3:535-548.
Card, T.R., and G. Jansen, 1975. Solubility of elements in U.S. western desert groundwater and
comparison with chemical and radiological concentration limits for drinking water. U. S. E. R. D.
A., BNWL-B-378.
Carfagno, D.G. and B.M. Farmer. 1990. Environmental monitoring at Mound: 1989 report. EG&G Mound
Applied Technologies, Miamisburg, Ohio.
Costain, D.B., ed. 1989. Rocky Flats Plant site environmental report for 1989. EG&G Rocky Flats, Inc.,
Golden Colorado.
CRC. 1990. Handbook of chemistry and physics, Robert C. Weast, ed. Chemical Rubber Company, CRC
Press: Cleveland, Ohio.
Cummins, C.L., D.K.Martin, and J.L. Todd. 1990. Savannah River Site environmental report for 1989.
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.
Daum, M.L., G.A. Goldstein, and P.D. Moskowitz. 1991. SAFFIRE: Superfund and Federal Facilities
Information System for Risk Evaluation. BNL 46247, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
New York.
Davis, S.N., and R.J.M. DeWiest. 1966. Hydrogeology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 463 pp.
De Laguna, W. 1963. Studies of sites for nuclear energy facilities — Brookhaven National Laboratory.
United States Geological Survey Bulletin, 1156 A-E., v. 1-5.
de Marsily, G. 1985. Flow and transport in fractured rocks: connectivity and scale effect. IAH
International Symposium on the Hydrogeology of Rocks of Low Permeability, January 7-12, Tucson,
Arizona.
deMarsily, G. 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 440 pp.
Dennison, D.I., D.R. Sherwood, and J.S. Young. Status report on remedial investigation of the 300 Area
process ponds. PNL-6442, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Department of
Energy, September 1989.
DeWiest, R.J.M. 1965. Geohydrology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 366 pp.
Diem, K., and C. Lentner, eds.. 1975. Documenta GEIGY: Scientific tables, 7th ed. Ardsley, New York:
Geigy Pharmaceuticals, 810 pp.
DOE. 1987a. Annual environmental monitoring report, Weldon Spring, MO - Calendar Year 1987. U. S.
Department of Energy, Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project.
DOE. 1987b. Draft environmental impact statement, remedial action at the Weldon Spring Site. U. S.
Department of Energy/EIS-0117D, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Remedial Action and
Waste Technology, February 1987.
DOE. 1987c. Draft environmental impact statement: remedial action at the Weldon Spring Site. U.S.
Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0117D.
73
-------
DOE. 1987d. Environmental survey preliminary report, Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald,
OH. U. S. Department of Energy/EH/-, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety
and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, March 1987.
DOE. 1987e. Environmental survey preliminary report, Hartford Site, Richland, WA. U.S.
Department of Energy/EH/OEV-05-P, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety
and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington, DC, August 1987.
DOE. 1987f. Environmental survey preliminary report, Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado. U.S.
Department of Energy/EH/OEV-03-P, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety
and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington, DC, June, 1987.
DOE- 1987g. Environmental survey preliminary report, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, TN. U.S. Department
of Energy/EH/OEV-07-P, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Office of Environmental Audit, November, 1987.
DOE. 1987h. Weldon Springs Site (WSS) environmental monitoring report. Prepared by MK-Ferguson
Company and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., for the U. S. Department of Energy.
DOE. 1988a. Environmental survey preliminary report, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, ID and Component Development and Integration Facility, Butte, MT. U.S. Department of
Energy/EH/OEV-22-P, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Office of Environmental Audit, September 1988.
DOE. 1988b. Environmental survey preliminary report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10), Oak
Ridge, TN. U. S. Department of Energy/EH/OEV-31-P, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington, DC, July, 1988.
DOE. 1988c. Environmental survey preliminary summary report of the Defense Production Facilities.
U. S. Department of Energy/EH-0072, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety
and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, September 1988.
DOE. 1988d. Environmental survey preliminary summary report of the Defense Production Facilities.
U.S. Department of Energy, Environment, Safety and Health Office of Environmental Audit,
DOE/EH-0072.
DOE. 1988e. Integrated Data Base for 1988: Spent fuel and radioactive waste inventories, projections,
and characteristics. U. S. Department of Energy/RW-0006, Rev. 4, Washington, DC, September,
1988.
DOE. 1989a. Environmental restoration and waste management five-y ear plan, U.S. Department of
Energy/S-0070, Washington, DC, August 1989.
DOE. 1989b. Environmental restoration and waste management five-year plan for the Hanford Site
(predecisional draft). U.S. Department of Energy/RL 89-10, U. S. Department of Energy,
Environmental Division, Richland, WA, April 1989.
DOE. 1990a. Draft appendix report - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. NUS Corporation for
the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE. 1990b. Draft appendix reports for environmental survey summary report. U. S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington,
DC. (Draft, not for distribution).
74
-------
DOE. 1990c. Environmental monitoring report on the U.S. Department of Energy's Inactive Millsite
Facility, Monticello, Utah, for Calendar Year 1989. U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction
Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado.
DOE. 1990d. Environmental restoration and waste management five-year plan, Fiscal Years 1992-1996.
U. S. Department of Energy /S-0708P, Washington, DC, June 1990.
DOI. 1977. Ground Water Manual. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Dosch, R.G. 1979. Assessment of potential radionuclide transport in site-specific geologic formations.
Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND-79-2468.
Drever, J.I. 1982. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
388pp.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson Division, 1089 pp.
Dugan, T.A., G.L. Gels, J.S. Oberjohn, and L.K. Rogers, eds. 1990. Feed Matreials Production Center
snnual rnvironmental teport for Calendar Year 1989. Westinghouse Materials Co. of Ohio,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Duguid, J.O., and P.C.Y. Lee. 1977. Flow in ractured porous media. Water Resources Research 13558-
566.
Dykyslen, R.C. 1987. Transport of solutes through unsaturated fractured media. Wafer Research
12:1531-1539.
Eisenbud, M. 1963. Environmental radioactivity. New York: McGraw Hill.
Eisenbud, M. 1990. An overview of sites contaminated by radioactivity. In: Health and ecological
implications of radioactively contaminated environments: Proceedings of the 26th Annual
Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, No. 12, Washington,
D.C., pp. 5-19.
Endo, H.K., J.C.S. Long, C.R. Wilson, and P.A. Withespoon,. 1984. A model for investigating transport
in fracture networks. Water Resources Research 20:1390-1400.
EPA. 1982a. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Denver Radium Site, Denver, CO, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 12,1982.
EPA. 1982b. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for United Nuclear Corporation, Churchrock, NM, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 12,1982.
EPA. 1982c. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for U.S. Radium Corporation, Orange, NJ, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 23,1982.
EPA. 1983a. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Kerr-McGee (Residential Areas), West
Chicago/DuPage County, IL. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U2-2-92, November 3,
1983.
EPA. 1983b. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Plant), West Chicago,
IL. Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Plant), NPL-U2-2-93, November 14,1983.
EPA. 1984a. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West Branch of DuPage
River), DuPage County, IL. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U2-2-90, June 15,1984.
75
-------
EPA. 1984b. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties,
Monticello, UT. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U2-2-183, May 17,1984.
EPA. 1984c. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Weldon Spring Quarry, St. Charles County, MO, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-02-2-168, May 22,1984.
EPA. 1984d. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Glen Ridge Radium Site, Glen Ridge, NJ. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U2-2-12, June 15,1984.
EPA. 1986a. Denver Radium Site, Record of Decision; Remedial Alternative Selection, Operable Units
IV & V (Robinson Brick Company and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad "ROBCO"), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, September 30,1986.
EPA. 1986b. Draft Interim Report of Existing Information, U.S. Radium Corporation Site, Orange, NJ.
Chapter 4.0, Radiation Hazard Assessment. Attachment to memo from S. Meyers, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs, to P. Giardina, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region II, July 2,1986.
EPA. 1987a. Denver Radium Site, Declaration for the Record of Decision, Operable Unit III (1000 West
Louisiana Properties), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29,1987.
EPA. 1987b. Ground water handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Report No. EPA/625/6-87/016,230 pp.
EPA. 1988a. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, OH. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U9-2-22, May 31,1988.
EPA. 1988b. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Hartford 300-Area, Benton County, WA. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U7-2-232, June 9,1988.
EPA. 1988c. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U9-2-16, January 12,1988.
EPA. 1988d. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Monticello Mill Tailings Site, Monticello UT. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U9-1-29, August 8,1988; Adjusted Final Narrative NPL-
U9-2-29.
EPA. 1988e. Superfund fact sheet: radium investigation in Ottawa, IL. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January 1988.
EPA. 1989a. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision, Niagara Falls,
NY. NPL-UHW-2-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, November, 1989.
EPA. 1989b. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Radium Chemical Co., Inc., New York City, NY. NPL-
UHW-2-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1989.
EPA. 1989c. Seminar on site characterization for subsurface remediations, Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Reserach Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma and
the Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, CERI-89-224.
EPA. 1989d. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for W.R. Grace & Co., Inc./Wayne Interim Storage Site
(U. S. Department of Energy), Wayne Township, NJ. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March, 1989.
76
-------
EPA. 1990a. Assessment of technologies for the remediation of radiologically contaminated Superfund
sites. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/540/2-90/001, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, DC, January, 1990.
EPA. 1990b. National Priority List Technical Data Files. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(dBASE HI® format data base computer file).
EPA. 1990c. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Himco Dump, Elkhart, IN. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, NPL-U7-2-128(?), February 1990.
EPA. 1990d. NPL HRS ranking work sheets for Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works, St.
Charles County, MO. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL-U9-2-27, February, 1990.
EPA. 1990e. Site characterization for subsurface remediations, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma and the Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA. 1991. Health effects assessment summary tables: FY-1991 Annual. OERR 9200.6-303(91-1), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
EPA. n.d. Special study waste summary, Monticello Mill Site, Monticello, UT, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, NPL-U9-2-29A.
EPA/DOE. 1990. Feed Materials Production Center Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/U. S. Department of Energy, Administrative Docket Number V-
W-90-C-057, April, 1990.
EPA/DOE/CO. n.d. Rocky Flats Plant Federal Facility Agreement. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/U.S. Department of Energy/State of Colorado.
EPA/UT/DOE. 1988. Monticello Site (Monticello Vicinity Properties NPL site and Monticello
Millsite) Federal Facilities Agreement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/State of Utah
Department of Health/U.S. Department of Energy, December, 1988.
Evans, D., and T. Nicholson, eds. 1987. Flow and transport through unsaturated fractured rock.
Geophysical Monograph 42, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Evans, J.C., R.W. Bryce and D.R. Sherwood. 1989. Hartford Site ground-water monitoring for January
through June 1988. PNL-6886 (UC-11,41), prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, May 1989.
Faure, G. 1977. Principles of isotope geology. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Faure, G. 1991. Principles and Applications of Inorganic Geochemistry. New York: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 626 pp.
Federal Register. 1991. National primary drinking water regulations, radionuclides. proposed
rulemaking 56 (138), Thursday, July 18, pp. 33050-33127.
Fetter, C.W. 1988. Applied Hydrogeology, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 592
pp.
77
-------
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.,
604pp.
Freeze, R.A., and W. Back. 1983. Physical Hydrogeology - Benchmark Papers in Geology, Vol. 72.
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.
Fried, J.J. 1975. Ground Water Pollution: Theory, Methodolgy, Modeling, and Practical Rules.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 330 pp.
Carrels, R.M. and C.G. Christ, C.G. 1965. Solutions, Minerals and Equilibria. New York: Harper and
Row.
GE, 1989. Chart of the nuclides, 14th ed. San Jose, California: General Electric Company.
Geological Survey Open File Rep. 86-488.
Geological Survey, Bulletin, 1156-C, pp. 123-124.
Gera, F. 1975. Geochemical behavior of long-lived radioactive wastes. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Report ORNL-TM-4481, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Glass, J. and P. Musa, eds. 1989. 1989 Guide to Superfund sites. Pasha Publications, 829 pp.
Green, W.H. and C.A. Ampt. 1911. Studies on soil physics, I: Flow of air and water through soils.
Journal of Agricultural Science 4:1-24.
Greenkom, R.A. 1983. Flow Phenomena in Porous Media: Fundamentals and Applications in Petroleum,
Water and Food Production. New York: Marcel Dekker, 550 pp.
Grisak, G.E. and J.F. Pickens. 1980. Solute transport through fractured media. Water Resources
Research 16:719-730.
Hakonson, T.E. and J.L. Martinez. 1981. Disturbance of a low-level waste site cover by pocket gophers.
Health Physics 42(6):868-872.
Hantush, M.S. 1964. Hydraulics of wells. Advances in Hydroscience 1:. 281-432.
Heath, R.C. 1984. Ground water regions of the United States. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 2242, 78 pp.
Heath, R.C. and F.W. Trainer. 1968. Introduction to Groundwater Hydrology. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 284 pp.
Hem, J.D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3rd edition.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 pp.
HEW. 1970. Radiological health handbook. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Radiological
Hillel, D. 1971. Soil and Water: Physical Principles and Processes. New York: Academic Press.
IT Corporation. 1989. Assessment of radiation fose and cancer risk for emissions from 1951 through 1984,
Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, OH. Report on Project No. 303063, submitted to the
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, TN, August 1989.
78
-------
Jaquish, R.E., and R.W. Bryce, eds. 1990. Hanford Site environmental report for Calendar Year 1989.
Pacific Norethwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Johnson, R.L., C.D. Palmer, and W. Fish. 1989. Subsurface chemical processes. In: Transport and Fate
of Contaminants in the Subsurface. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Keely, J.F., M.D. Piwoni, and J.T. Wilson. 1986. Evolving concepts of subsurface contaminant transport.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, May, 1986, pp. 349-357.
Keller, C. 1971. The chemistry of the transuranium elements. Kernchemie in Einzeldarstellungen,
Verlag Chemie Gmbh., v. 3.
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Plant)
Kleeschuite, M.J., L.F. Emmett, and J.H. Barks, J.H. 1986. Hydrologic data for the Weldon Spring
radioactive waste-disposal sites, St. Charles County, Missouri. U.S.
Krauskopf, K.B. 1979. Introduction to Geochemistry, 2nded. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Layne. 1986. Groundwater hydrology investigation, Weldon Spring, Missouri. Layne Western
Company, Inc., Hydrology Division, Kansas City, Kansas, v. 1.
Leichtweis, C.P., J.A. Liberatore, and T.M. Dravecky. 1987. Characterization report for the Sears
Property, Maywood, New Jersey. U. S. Department of Energy/OR/20722-140, Bechtel National,
Inc., Oak Ridge, TN, May 1987.
Lindberg, R.D. and D.D. Runnells. 1984. Ground water redox reactions: an analysis of equilibrium state
applied to Eh measurements and geochemical modeling. Science 225:926.
Lloyd, J.W. and J.A. Heathcote. 1985. Natural Inorganic Hydrochemistry in Relation to Groundwater.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 296 pp.
Logan, M.P. 1988. Status assessment for Superfund sites with radiological contamination. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, RPM, Waste Management Division, Region V, letter of October
18,1988 to Jennifer Haley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Lohman, S.W. 1972. Ground-water hydraulics. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C..
Mason & Hanger. 1991. Pantex Plant site environmental report for Calendar Year 1990. Mason &
Hanger - Silas Mason Co., Inc., Amarillo, Texas.
Matthess, G. 1982. The Properties of Groundwater. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
McLennan, S.M. and S.R. Taylor. 1979. Rare earth elements mobility associated with uranium
mineralization. Nature 282:247-249.
Millington, R.J. 1959. Gas diffusion in porous media. Sciencel30:100-102.
Miltenberger, R.P., B.A. Royce, S.S.Chalasani, D. Morganelli, and J.R.Naidu. 1990. Brookhaven
National Laboratory site environmental report for Calendar Year 1989. Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York.
Mitre Corporation. 1988. Memo to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from The MITRE
Corporation, Civil Systems Division, McLean, VA, 21 July 1988.
79
-------
Moody, J.B. 1982. Radionuclide migration/retardation: research and development technology status
report. Battelle Mem. Inst. Report ONWI-321, Columbus, Ohio.
Murphy, R.E. 1966. The American city: an urban geography. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
n/a. 1988. Maxey Hats remedial investigation draft report, August 22,1988.
Nielsen, D.R., R.D. Jackson, J.W. Gary, and D.E. Evans. 1972. Soil Water. Madison, Wisconsin:
American Society of Agronomy.
Nielson, K.K., V.C. Rogers, and G.W. Gee. 1984. Diffusion of radon through soils. Soi7 Science Society
of America Journal 48:482-487.
NRC. 1981. Radiological survey of Kress Creek. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUS. 1989-1990. Record of Assumptions, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Survey, Revision 3,
NUS Corporation.
NUS. 1990a. Draft appendix report - Brookhaven National Laboratory. NUS Corporation for the U.
S. Department of Energy.
NUS. 1990b. Draft appendix report - Feed Materials Center. NUS Corporation for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
NUS. 1990c. Draft appendix report - Hanford Reservation. NUS Corporation for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, p.C.
NUS. 1990d. Draft appendix report - Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. NUS Corporation for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
NUS. 1990e. Draft appendix report - Savannah River Site. NUS Corporation for the U.S. Department
of Energy.
NUS. 1990f. Draft appendix report - Oak Ridge National Laboratory. NUS Corporation for the U.S.
Department of Energy, January 1990.
O'Farrell, T.P. and R.O. Gilbert, 1975. Transport of radioactive materials by jackrabbits on the
Hanford Reservation. Helath Physics 29:9-15.
ORNL. 1980. Radiological surveys at inactive uranium-mill sites. Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Reports ORNL/TM-5251 and ORNL-5447-ORNL-5465.
Polzer, W.L. 1971. Solubility of Pu in soil/water environments: A theoretical study. In: Proc. Rocky
Hats Sym. Safety in Pu Handling, p. 412^29. ORNL, AEC Report Conf. 710401.
Rice,R.E. 1988. Chemistry of Groundwater. Lewis Publishers.
Schulz, W.W. 1976. The chemistry of Americium. ORNL, ERDA Report TID 26971, pp. 47-121.
Schumm, R.H., D.D. Wagman, S. Bailey, W.H. Evans, and V.B. Parker. 1973. Selected values of
chemical thermodynamic properties: tables for the lanthanide (rare earth) elements. National
Bureau of Standards Technical Notes 270-7.
80
-------
Sims, J.M., K.A. Surano, K.C. Lamson, and M.G. Brown, eds. 1989. Environmental report for 1989:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, livermore,
California.
Smedes, H.W. 1980. Rationale for geologic isolation of high-level radioactive waste, and assessment
of the suitability of crystalline rocks. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 80-1065,
pp. 51-57.
Smith, D.D. 1977. Review of grazing studies on plutonium-contaminated rangelands. In: M.G. White
and P.B. Dunaway, eds., Transuranics in natural environments, NVO-178, Energy Research and
Development Administration, NTIS.
Stenner, R.D., K.H. Cramer, K.A. Higley, S.J. Jette, D.A. Lamar, T.J. McLaughlin, D.R. Sherwood, and
N.C. Van Houten. 1988. Hazard Ranking System evaluation of CERCLA inactive waste sites at
Hanford. Vol. 2 - Engineered-facility sites (HISS data base). PNL-6456 Vol. 2, prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, October 1988.
Stought, R.L., D.A. Edling, and D.G. Draper. The Mound Site survey project for the characterization of
radioactive materials in site soils. MLM-3517, prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation,
Miamisburg, OH, for the U.S. Department of Energy, May 16,1988.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, second edition. New York: Wiley.
Szalay, A. 1967. The role of humic acids in the geochemistry of uranium and their possible role in the
geochemistry of other cations. In: Vinogradov, ed. Chemistry of the Earth's crust, Israel Prog, of
Sci. Transl., Jerusalem, pp. 456-471.
Tkachyk, J.W., K.C Wright, and R.N. Wilhelmsen, eds. 1990. Annual report -1989 environmental
monitoring for EG&G Idaho facilities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. EG&G
Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 535 pp.
Topp, S.V., ed. 1982. The scientific basis for nuclear waste management, v. IV. New York: Elsevier.
UNC Geotech. 1987a. Addendum to Denver Radium Site supplemental radiological data for Operable
Unit IV/V. UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, December 4,1987.
UNC Geotech. 1987b. Denver Radium Site supplemental radiological data for Operable Unit IV/V.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Department of Energy by UNC
Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, November 6,1987.
UNC Geotech. 1988a. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit I. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech,
Grand Junction, CO, December 1988.
UNC Geotech. 1988b. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit II. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech,
Grand Junction, CO, December 1988.
UNC Geotech. 1988c. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit III. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech,
Grand Junction, CO, December 1988.
81
-------
UNC Geotech. 1988d. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit X. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech,
Grand Junction, CO, Februaryl988.
UNC Geotech. 1988e. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for PSCO Property Operable
Unit VI/IX/XI. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of
Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, December, 1988.
UNC Geotech. 1989a. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for a Part of Operable Unit VI
(Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, February 1989.
UNC Geotech. 1989b. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit IX (for
International House of Pancakes, Larry's Trading Post, and East Side Amusement Center).
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by
UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, February 1989.
UNC Geotech. 1989c. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit VI (Denver
Water U. S. Department). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, January 1989.
UNC Geotech. 1989d. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit VI (for CSSR
and 230115th Street). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, May 1989.
UNC Geotech. 1989e. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Operable Unit XI (Thomas
Real Estate Corporation). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, February 1989.
UNC Geotech. 1989f. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for Part of Operable Unit VI
(Brannan Sand and Gravel). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, January
UNC Geotech. 1989g. Denver Radium Site supplemental data release for the Alley Under the 6th
Avenue Overpass (Part of Operable Unit VI). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy by UNC Geotech, Grand Junction, CO, February 1989.
USGS. 1976. Geology and hydrology of radioactive solid waste burial grounds at the Hartford
Reservation, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 075-625.
Verruijt, A. 1970. Theory of Groundwater Flow. New York: Gordon and Breach Sciences Publishers, 190
pp.
WA/EPA/DOE. 1989. Hartford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Washington State
Department of Ecology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of
Energy, May 1989.
Warren, M.A., De Laguna, W., and Luscznski, N.J., 1968. Hydrology of Brookhaven National
Laboratory and vicinity, Suffolk County, New York. United States
Waiters, R.L., T.E. Hakonson, and L.J. Lane. 1983. The behavior of actinides in the environment.
Radiochimica Acta 32:89-103.
82
-------
Westinghouse Hanford. 1989. Preliminary Operable Units sesignation project. WHC-EP-0216,
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA,
February 1989.
Weston-Sper. 1988. Site assessment for Ottawa Radiation Sites, Ottawa, IL. TAT-52-G2-28, TDD# 5-
8711-10, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, Chicago, IL, July 1988.
Wilson, J.T., and J.F. McNabb. 1983. Biological transformation of organic pollutants in groundwater.
EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union 64(33):505.
Winsor, T.F. and F.W. Whicker, 1980. Effects of pocket gopher activity on soil plutonium distribution
at Rocky Hats, Colorado. Health Physics 39:257-262.
Wood, W.W. and Signer. 1975. Geochemical factors affecting artificial recharge in the unsaturated
zone. Water Resources Research 9(2):486-488.
f-'"*-
83
-------
Acknowledgment
This project is coordinated by the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C. and jointly funded by the following organizations:
EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste management (EM)
NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (ONMSS)
The project Steering Committee for this effort includes:
EPA
Beverly Irla, EPA/ORIA Work Assignment Manager
Lynn Deering, EPA/OSWER
Kung-Wei Yeh, EPA/ORIA
DOE
Ann Tallman, DOE/EM
Paul Beam, DOE/EM
NRC
Harvey Spiro, NRC/ONMSS
Contractors
Paul D. Moskowitz, Brookhaven National Laboratory
John Mauro, S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
Consultants
Jim Rumbaugh, III, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
David Back, Hyrogeologic, Inc.
We acknowledge the technical and editorial support provided by these organizations and
individuals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J) 84
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 402-R-93-011
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
March 1993
Environmental Characteristics of EPA, NRC, and DoE Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Substances
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPOR1
ING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PER
U.S.
ffice of Radiation and Indoor Air (6603J)
401 M St., SW
ashington, OC 20460
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Wash. DC 20460
U.S. Department of Energy-Wash., DC 20585
.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Wash., DC 20555
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
The U.S. EPA offices of Radiation and Indoor Air and Solid Waste and Emergency Res-
ponse, the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards initiated preliminary efforts to promote the more appropriate and consistent
use of computer models in remediating sites contaminated by radioactive substances and
managed by the participating federal agencies. As a baseline for these efforts, the
nature and types of problems present at these sites must be understood. This report
responds to this need. It presents in textual, tabular, and graphical formats: a
list of the 45 EPA National Priorities List Superfund sites and the 38 NRC Site
Decommissioning Management Plan sites, containing radioactive waste materials, the types
of waste found at each site, a description of the physical form of the waste, physical
characteristics of the site, and demographic characteristics of the region surrounding
the site. The summary information in the report will support other programs to identify
benchmark type sites and problems for computer model selection and evaluation purposes.
Similarly, the report provides a braoad overview of the general and unique problems at
radioactively contaminated sites.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field,Group
radionuclides, modeling, computer, ground
water, Superfund, environmental, characterist
EPA, NRC, DOE, demographic, contamination^
sites, remediation
cs
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (Tins Report/
Unclassified
92
20 SECURITY CLASS (This pa
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION i s OBSOLETE
------- |