United States  ]
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office of
           Radiation Programs
           Washington DC 20460
Technical Note
ORP/TAD-79-2
xvEPA
           Radiation
On Board Corrosion Analysis
of a  Recovered Nuclear
        Container

-------

-------
                                              TECHNICAL NOTE
                                              ORP/TAD-79-2
ON BOARD CORROSION ANALYSIS OF A RECOVERED
         NUCLEAR WASTE CONTAINER
            Stephen C. Dexter
           Assistant Professor
           of Ocean Engineering
          and Materials Science
        College of Marine Studies
          University of Delaware
               August 1979
This report was prepared as an account of
   work sponsored by the United States
     Environmental Protection Agency
    Under Contract No.  WA-6-99-2767-J
             Project Officer
              Robert S.  Dyer
     Radiation Source Analysis  Branch
      Technology Assessment Division
       Office :of Radiation Programs
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington,  D.C.   20460

-------
                               EPA REVIEW NOTICE


     This report has been reviewed by the Office of Radiation Programs,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and approved for publication.   Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the EPA.  Neither the United States nor the EPA makes any warranty,
expressed or implied,' or assumes any legal liability or responsibility  for any
information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its
use would not infringe privately owned rights.

-------
                           EPA TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS


     Publications of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP) are available in paper copy, as long as the EPA/ORP
supply is available, or from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161.  |                            ;

     The following reports are part of the EPA/ORP 1976 Ocean Disposal Report
Series:                         ;

ORP/TAD-79-1  Materials for Containment of Low-Level Nuclear Waste in the Deep
              Ocean             i

ORP/TAD-79-2  On Board Corrosion; Analysis of a Recovered Drum from the
              Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site

ORP/TAD-79-3  Analysis and Evaluation of a Radioactive Waste Package Retrieved
              from the Atlantic 2800 Meter Disposal Site

ORP/HKD-79-H  Reports of Infaunal Analyses Conducted on Biota Collected at the
              Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site

ORP/TAD-79-5  Geologic Observations of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Radioactive
              Waste Dumpsite

ORP/TAD-79-6  Sediment Geochemistry of the 2800 Meter Atlantic Radioactive
              Waste Disposal Site                           j
                                ' i
ORP/TAD-79-7  Ocean Current Measurements at the Atlantic 2800 Meter
              Radioactive Waste Disposal Site               i

ORP/TAD-79-8  Survey Coordination and Operations -Report - EPA Atlantic 2800
              Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Survey

ORP/TAD-79-9  1976 Site Specific Survey of the Atlantic 2800 Meter Deepwater
              Radioactive Waste Dumpsite:   Radiochemistry   ;

ORP/TAD-79-10 Sediment Characteristics of the 2800 Meter Atlantic Nuclear
              Waste Disposal Site

-------

-------
                                     FOREWORD              i


      The  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  (EPA), was given a Congressional
 mandate to  develop  criteria,  standards, and regulations governing the ocean
 disposal  of all  forms of wastes  pursuant  to Public Law 92-532, the Marine
 Protection,  Research and Sanctuaries Act  of 1972.  Within this Congressional
 mandate,  EPA has initiated  a  specific program to develop regulations and
 criteria  to control the ocean disposal of radioactive wastes-

      EPA  has taken  an active  role  both domestically and within the
 international nuclear regulatory arena to develop the effective controls
 necessary to protect the health  and  safety of man and the marine environment.
 The EPA Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) initiated feasibility studies to
 determine whether current technologies could be applied toward determining the
 fate  of radioactive wastes  dumped  in the  past.  After successfully locating
 actual radioactive  waste containers  in three of the primary radioactive waste
 disposal  sites used by  the  United  States  in the past, ORP developed an
 intensive program of dumpsite Characterization studies to investigate the
 following:  (a) the  biological, chemical and physical parameters, (b) the
 presence  and distribution of  radionuclides within these sites, and (c) the
 performance  of past packaging techniques and materials.   \

      These  studies  have provided needed information and data on the past and
 present nuclear  waste disposal activities concomitant with the growing
 national  and international  coiicern for the long-term effects of this low-level
 waste disposal option.        i                            :

      ORP  has now completed  the fifth in a series of Pacific and Atlantic Ocean
 dumpsite  surveys which  began  in  1974.  This survey of the Atlantic 2800 meter
 deep-sea  radioactive waste  disposal  site, which is centered at coordinates
 38030IN,  72°06'W and located  approximately 120 miles east of the
 Maryland-Delaware coast, was  conducted in June 1976.       ;

      A major objective  of this 1976 Atlantic survey was the first recovery of
 a steel and  concrete container from any deep-sea dumpsite.   In conjunction
 with  the  survey,  EPA/ORP initiated a contract study to evaluate,  prior to
 extensive laboratory analysis, the chemical,  biological and corrosion status
 of the exterior  of  the  container immediately upon recovery.   The following
 report presents  this evaluation.                           I

      Readers of  this report are  encouraged to inform the Director,  Technology
 Assessment Division (ANR-459),: Office of Radiation Programs,  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.  20460,  of any errors,
omissions, or other comments.  '                            :
                             David S.  Smith
                             Director, Technology Assessment Division
                             Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-459)

-------

-------
                             .',-       Abstract



     During the  1976 Atlantic;2800m  radioactive waste  dumpsite  survey,  an


80-gallon  low-level radioactive waste  container was  recovered.  Within  the  two


hour interval between the time the container first emerged  from the ocean


until it was encapsulated, the exterior condition of the drum,  including the
                              j

appearance of corrosion product films  and attached biological growths, was


extensively documented photographically.  In this report,'representative


photographs, as well as the results of limited chemical and biological


analyses performed by University of Delaware personnel during the above two


hour interval,  are presented. ; These results are discussed in light of


previously published deep ocean corrosion data, and recommendations on


improving shipboard sampling and analytical procedures are given.

-------

-------
 1.0  INTRODUCTION             ;



      On July 31,  1976,  an 80-gallon nuclear  waste  container was recovered by

 the Environmental Protection  Agency from a depth of 2783 meters in the

 Northwestern Atlantic Ocean at a  point  approximately  120 miles east of the

 Delaware-Maryland border.  The container was hoisted  aboard the research

 vessel,  Cape Henlopen,  where  it was photographed,  and samples were immediately

 taken of corrosion products and attached biological growths.  The container
                               I                           :
 was then encapsulated in  a jet; engine shipping container which was flushed

 thoroughly with argon to  minimize any further corrosion.  The elapsed time

 from when the container first  broke the  surface of the water to the start of

 the argon flushing process was two  hours.



      The purpose  of this  report is  to describe the photographic,  chemical, and

 biological analyses performed  on board the ship by University of Delaware

 personnel during  those  two hours and to  present the results of those analyses.
                               i                           :"


 2.0   EXPERIMENTAL  METHODS      ;'                           :



      Both the surface condition of  the container as it came on board the ship,

 and  the  recovery operation itself, were documented photographically.

 Thirty-five mm color slides of  the container were  taken as!soon as it broke

 the  surface in order to record;the volume and distribution•of corrosion

 products  before any changes due to decreasing pressure and increasing

 temperature took place.   After : the container was secured to  the deck  of the

 ship, photographs were taken in a systematic way so that they could be related

to the correct position on the ; exterior of the drum upon subsequent laboratory

 examination.                    i

-------
                                       2




Close-up photographs were taken of all interesting features including



biological growths.  Close-up photographs were located with respect to the



container by taking photo pairs.  First, an overall picture was taken of the



container with a cut-out cardboard frame held over the feature of interest.



The camera was then repositioned and a close-up photograph was taken of the



area within the frame.  The photographs presented in this report were printed



from color plates made from selected original color slides.








     The pH of the corrosion products and the mud layer, where it was still



clinging to the drum, was spot checked at several locations while the drum




surface was still wet.  Readings were taken with pH indicator papers and




recorded for each location.








     Samples of the  corrosion product were taken both from the outer layers




(reddish orange) and from the layer immediately adjacent to the bare metal



surface  (greenish black) at a location  just above the mudline on the



cylindrical surface  near the metal end  and were examined for bacterial



activity.  The examination was  done both  immediately on board the ship as well



as  subsequently ashore in the laboratory.  A Unitron BPH phase contrast




microscope was used  for all observations.  The samples observed on board were




examined directly  at 600X by spreading  the moist sample on a glass slide.



These  observations were very difficult  due to ship  roll and vibration.  The



samples  to be observed in the laboratory  were diluted with seawater  that had



been passed  through  a 0.22 urn membrane  filter  (Millipore)  and encapsulated  in



glass  vials  to prevent them  from drying.   In the  laboratory, these samples



were spread  between  a glass  slide and coverslip and examined in phase  contrast

-------
                                    .   3


at 1500X using an oil immersion lens.  No special measures were taken to avoid



bacterial contamination of the sample nor were aseptic techniques used in


preparing the filtered seawater.






3.0  RESULTS                  ;:
                              !                            '





  3.1  Photographic Analysis






     Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the container showing the locations



from which each of the photographs in Figures 2 through 9 were taken.  Figures



2 through 9 show the general condition of the container immediately upon


recovery.  Note that the container as it sat on the deck was upside down


compared to its position on the sea floor.


                              i



     Figure 2a shows the concrete end of the drum seconds after it first broke


the surface of the water.   The,identifying markings on the concrete end are



legible in Figure 2b and include such information as the package number (28),


the volume of the waste-matrix:mixture (9.0 cubic feet), the weight of the


package (1682 pounds), the most hazardous isotope present in the package


(cobalt-60) and the dose rate at the surface of the drum at the time of


packaging (3 millirads/hour).  ^Information not clearly visible in Figure 2(b)


indicated that the radioactive!waste package was prepared in 1961.   Prior to


the start of recovery operations the drum sat partially embedded in the bottom


sediments.   The sediment line is clearly visible in Figure 2,  the black


portion of the concrete end having been in the mud.

-------
                                       4




     Figures 3a and 3b show the surface condition of the container after




hoisting out of the water but before securing on deck.   There was a



10 to 15 minute interlude here while the radioactivity level of the drum  was



being measured.  As seen in the photographs, the container is in remarkably



good condition after 14-15 years of immersion.  The mud line can again be seen




in Figure 3b between the two arrows.  Note that the upper half of the drum,



which was below the mud line, is less corroded than the lower half which  was



exposed to the water column.  The view in Figure 3a, for instance, shows  most



of the area that was in the mud, and there is very little corrosion visible.



Identical areas on the drum surface are labeled "A" and "B" on Figures 3a and



3b.  On seventy-five percent of the metallic surface area of the drum (and on



considerably more of the area below the mud line) the original black enamel




finish was still intact.







     Several of the more interesting areas of the container surface were



photographed in detail after the container was secured on deck.  These are



shown in Figures 4 through 9.  Figure 4 shows the surface above and below the



mud line on the left portion of the cylindrical surface of the drum as seen in



Figure 3b.  The large area of bare metal surface showing there as well as the



bare metal showing on the raised ribs of the  drum in Figures 3a and 3b were



probably scraped clean as the drum was  dragged along the bottom during the




initial part of the hoist precedure.  There is little doubt that  this



happened, as the track of the drum where it was  dragged along was clearly



visible from the deep submersible,  Alvin, upon subsequent inspection of  the




site.

-------
                                        5                 ;

      Figure 5 shows the heavy concentration of corrosion products  just  to the

 lower right of the letter "A" in Figure 3b.   By the  time this  picture was

 taken,  some of the corrosion product  had been scraped  off into sample

 bottles.   Other portions of it had rubbed off against  the nylon webbing,

 visible in Figure 5,  which had been installed as an  additional aid to handling

 shortly after the picture in Figure 3b  was taken.  There was no attempt made

 at this time to scrape  all the way through the corrosion product layer to

 determine the condition of the underlying metal as this  was planned for
                              • i
 subsequent laboratory operations.



      The  outer steel  container-; was in the worst condition around the rim at

 the concrete end  as shown in Figure 6.   There  was no marked difference in the

 condition of the  rim  above as opposed to below the mud line.   A sample of the

 corroded  edge of  the  metal was  clipped  off with metal shears for later

 examination  at the Brookhaven National  Laboratory.        ;



      When the container  first arrived at  the surface, it was apparent that

 there was a  perforation  in the metal  drum as a  stream of  seawater was observed

 coming  out as if  under pressure.   The stream can be seen  just below the letter
                               i
 "B" in  both  Figures 3a and 3b.; The area  from which the stream came was below

 the mud line  and  is shown  close up  in Figure 7.  By the time this photograph

was taken, the pressure had nearly equalized and the remaining liquid was

seeping out as shown.   Some of this liquid was collected by  the EPA Project

Officer for  subsequent laboratory analysis.  Upon further examination with a

probe, it became apparent that:the perforation was not  due:to  corrosion  but

was a recent  puncture.  It is suspected that this occurred as  the drum was

being dragged along the bottom,.as related above.          :

-------
                                       6



     Figures 8a and 8b show the condition of the metallic end of  the  drum.



The mud line runs between the two arrows from upper right to lower left of



Figure 8a, the portion to the upper left having been buried in the bottom



sediments.  The corroded area in the center of the metallic end is shown in



Figure 8b.  This appearance is typical of a painted steel surface in  the early



stages of seawater corrosion.  The small white streaks near the lower rim of



the metallic end as seen in Figure 8a were the only macroscopic biological



growths that were found attached to the drum.  They were sampled and



identified as polychaete tubes under separate contract by Dr. Donald  Reish of




California State University.







     There was very little corrosion below the mud line.  Where corrosion did



take place, it appeared to be highly localized as in Figure 9.  Instead of



being spread uniformly over  the surface, the corrosion took place in the form



of broad  shallow pitting  (see arrows).  It is estimated that the depth of



attack was 0.2 to 0.5 mm.  As there were no  corrosion products associated with



these pits upon recovery  of  the drum, one can only assume that the products



were scraped off as the drum dragged along  the  bottom.  This is a reasonable



assumption as this portion of the  drum  was  below the mud line prior to




recovery.







   3.2   Chemical Analysis







      The pH of the corrosion products  was measured with pH indicating paper at



 several locations  both above and below the mud line.   The  pH was  generally

-------
                              :          7                 ';



 found to be between 6 and 8.   There was one notable exception.   The pH of  the



 water bubbling from the puncture described in connection with Figures  3 and 7



 was between 13.0 and 13-5.                                •








   3-3  Microbiological Analysis                          ;








      Despite the fact that aseptic  techniques were  not  used'in  sampling the



 corrosion products,  no microorganisms  could be positively identified



 microscopically as  being present in the corrosion products.   Both the



 red-orange outer layer and  the  greenish-black inner layer adjacent  to  the bare



 metal surface were  examined.  Since the shipboard observations  were very



 difficult due to vibration  problems, observations were  also made in the



 laboratory.   The same negative  result  was  obtained.       •







 4.0   DISCUSSION              :








      The  overall condition  of ,the container  that was recovered was much better



 than  might have  been  expected >given the duration of exposure in the deep ocean



 (probably in  excess of  14 years).  The  often  localized nature of the corrosion



 that  did  take place was also somewhat surprising as one normally expects steel



 structures to be  corroded uniformly over the exposed surface.  Before drawing



 any conclusions about the significance of the good condition of the drum to



 future ocean dumping, however,i two things must be considered: first, this is



only a single data point; second, this single point is purposely biased.  Many



of the containers observed by the submersible, Alvin, were in worse condition



than the one recovered.  This particular drum was selected for recovery



because it appeared to be in good enough condition to survive the trip  to the



surface and yet provide meaningful information on past packaging performance.

-------
                                       8



     The corrosion rate of uncoated plain carbon steel in aerated  quiescent



seawater is normally as high as 0.25 to 0.40 mm/year (10  to 16  thousandths of


                                                             123
an inch per year ["MPY]) for the first few months of immersion '  'J.



Gradually, as the fouling and corrosion product layer builds up,  the above



rate decreases2 to 0.03 to 0.13 mm/year (1 to 5 MPY).  In addition,  this



rate depends directly on the concentration of dissolved oxygen present in the



seawater4 and on the pH of the seawater4.  Within the range of pH 4  to 10



the corrosion rate of steel is independent of pH and depends only on how



rapidly oxygen can be supplied to the steel surface.  As the pH becomes more



basic than 10, however, steel becomes passive in seawater and the corrosion



rate drops rapidly to a negligible value4.






     The well known corrosion behavior of steel in seawater described above
           i

may partially account  for  the good condition of the  recovered nuclear waste



container.  Although dissolved oxygen measurements were not made at the drum



recovery  site, it .is.generally found that the dissolved oxygen in the deep



ocean decreases rapidly with depth from 7 ppm at the surface to a minimum of



about 0.5  ppm at 750 meters, then rising again  typically  to 2 or  3 ppm at



great depth.  Occasionally the dissolved oxygen at  great  depth may rise again



to a value as high as  that at  the  surface or even higher.






     Given the good condition  of the recovered  drum, it  can be speculated that



the  dissolved oxygen in both the water and  the  sediments at the drum recovery



site was  low (perhaps  1 to 2 ppm).   This, coupled with the low temperature  to



be expected  at great depth,  would  account  for  the  relatively  low  corrosion



rates  observed.   In addition,  the  concrete  inside  the drum was saturated with

-------
                              ,1         9

seawater, and its pH was reported in the results section to be between 13 and


13-5.  This is consistent with other measurements reported for the pH of


seawater in concrete .  The corrosion rate of the steel on the inner surface


of the container should, therefore, have been negligible and corrosion should


have proceeded from the outside only.  The difference that this can make is


illustrated by the fact that the steel container was in the worst condition


around the rim at the concrete end where the steel extending beyond the


concrete by about two centimeters was exposed to ambient pH seawater on both


sides.  The perforated condition of the steel in that area, was shown in

Figure 6.




     The corrosion rate of steel in seawater is not usually influenced


significantly by the presence (or absence) of microorganisms.   The one


noticeable exception to this is in anaerobic bottom sediments where the


corrosion rate of steel normally is negligible.   If sulfate reducing bacteria


are present, however,  they allow the formation of a loosely adherent FeS scale


on the steel which is cathodia to the bare metal surface1*'^.   This produces


a galvanic couple which accelerates the corrosion of the steel and is


accompanied by hydrogen evolution.   The excellent condition of the portions of


the recovered drum that were buried in the sediments testifies that sulfate


reducing bacteria were probably not active in sediments in1 the recovery area.


This view is also supported by; the negative result of the microscopic
                                                          i

investigations reported in the, results section.   If sulfate reducing bacteria


had been active,  we should have been able to detect them in the corrosion


products.                                                 :

-------
                                       10



5.0  RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS







     It is not possible based on the one container that was recovered to make



any definitive conclusions about the suitability, from a corrosion viewpoint,



of this method of packaging nuclear wastes for ocean disposal.  It is possible



to say that at least one of the many containers dumped 16 to 20 years ago



survived its stay on the bottom with the exterior in reasonably good condition.







     It is also possible to make recommendations for increasing the value of



future work of this type:







     1.  Determine the dissolved oxygen concentration both in the water column



within about ten meters of the bottom and in the upper one meter of the



sediments at the dumpsite.  This should be done both several months before and



again several months after, as well as at the time of the survey (total of



three measurements with at least six months from the first to the last), in



order to detect if there is any variability.  This type of data, which was not



available for the work reported here, would have allowed a more meaningful



corrosion analysis.  The expected corrosion rate could have been estimated



more accurately and related directly to other published deep-sea corrosion



data.







     2.  Retain the services of a qualified marine microbiologist to test the



sediment samples for the presence of microorganisms.  The sulfate reducing



bacteria are particularly  important for evaluating the corrosion behavior.



Also have this person arrange to test the corrosion products  for bacterial



activity by culturing techniques as well as by microscopy.

-------
                              :         n           •      ;
                              I                            J
     The above recommendations should be extended to include not only research

on the effects of past dumping,  but also research on sites that may be under

consideration for future dumping.  In this way it will be possible to detect

and eliminate sites whose characteristics might accelerate deterioration of

the container by corrosion.    ;

-------
                                       12

6.0  REFERENCES

1.   P.M. Reinhart "Corrosion of Materials in Hydrospace - Part I.  Irons,
     Steels, Cast Irons and Steel Products," U.S. Naval Civil Engineering
     Laboratory, Technical Note N-900, July 1967.

2.   F.W. Fink and W.K. Boyd, "The Corrosion of Metals in Marine
     Environments," DMIC Report 245, May 1970, p. 9-22.

3.   Marine Corrosion, F.L. LaQue, Wiley-Interscience, 1975, p.95.

4.   Corrosion and Corrosion Control, H.H. Uhlig, second edition, John Wiley,
     1971, P-92.

5.   D.R. Lankard, "Cement and Concrete Technology for the Corrosion
     Engineer," Materials Performance, 15_, August 1976, p.24.

6.   Microbial Aspects of Metallurgy, J.D.A. Miller, editor, American
     Elsevier, 1970.

-------
   t
  Q
  01
  <
  O
  00
  cc
  o ——J\.
 ro .—-/
a
o_
O V O
f™ o o
   03 tZZ
   T3 ^
      to
                                                                            .S +-
                                                                             § 8
                                                                            5 .-e
                                                                            T3
£
                                                                               § 2
                                                                               O
     13 >m
        "O
                                                                            TO CM -D JD

                                                                            5> «» '3 E
                                                                            CQ O On Q)

                                                                            "O 3    

                                                                            o .2».S2 2
                                                                            "S t «• *
        §
                                                                           W
                                                                            E-g. S  «
                                                                            i> u TJ  <2
                                                                           E«  g|E

-------
Figure 2.  Nuclear waste container,  a) a few seconds after
breaking surface of water, b) identification marks on con-
crete end.

-------
                                                                   (b)
4-* +- v, i'u Nuclear waste container showing:  a) portion of surface
that had been- buried  in the sediments, and b) the mud  line between
cU-JjOWS •

-------
Figure 4.  Left end of cylindrical surface of nuclear waste
container as seen in Figure 3(b) after securing on deck.

-------
Figure 5.  Heavily corroded portion of cylindrical surface
of container just to the lower right of letter "A" in
Figure 3(b).

-------
Figure 6.  Corrosion around the rim of the concrete end of the
container.

-------
Figure 7-  Water oozing out of perforation' on cylinearical  surface
of container.  location of the perforation is just below the letter
"B" in Figure 3(a) and  (b).                         j

-------
                                (a)
Figure 8.  Metallic end of nuclear waste container:  a) mud line is
shown between arrows, b) close up of corroded portion.

-------
Figure 9.  Localized corrosive attack  (see arrows) on cylindrical
surface below the sediment line.                     :

-------

-------