United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
          Office of Radiation Programs
          (ANR-459)
EPA/520/1-89-025
September 1989
&EPA
An Evaluation of Techniques
for Ocean Disposal of Soils
Containing Naturally
Occurring Radionuclides
(FUSRAP Wastes)

-------
                                    EPA 520/1-89-025
    AN EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL
OF SOILS CONTAINING NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES
                      (FUSRAP WASTES)
               Mark Fuhrmann and Peter Colombo
             NUCLEAR WASTE RESEARCH GROUP
             DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
            BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
               ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
           UPTON, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11973
                       September 1989
          This report was prepared as an account of work
    sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
          under Interagency Agreement No. 89930696-01-5

                       Project Officer
                       Robert S. Dyer
                 Analysis  and Support Division
                  Office of Radiation Programs
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                             FOREWORD

      In 1972 the Congress enacted Public Law 92-532, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, which authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate any future ocean
disposal of waste materials, including low-level radioactive wastes (LLW).
      Thus, since 1974, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) has
conducted studies to determine effects from previous U.S. ocean disposals
of LLW, and to develop criteria for regulating any future disposals.
      In recent years the oceans have been considered as a disposal option
for soils, containing very low levels of naturally occurring radionuclides,
from  the Department of Energy's (DOE)  Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP).   This report discusses and evaluates five
potential techniques or methods, as proposed by the DOE, for ocean
disposal of FUSRAP wastes.
      The Agency invites all readers of this report to send comments or
suggestions to Mr. Martin P. Halper, Director, Analysis and Support
Division (ANR-461), Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC  20460.
                                Richard J. Guimond, Director
                                Office of Radiation Programs

                                  iii

-------
                               SUMMARY

      This report presents and discusses five alternatives (techniques) for
 ocean disposal of soils, containing very low levels of naturally occurring
 radionulcides, from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Formerly Utilized
 Sites Remedial Action  Program (FUSRAP). These five techniques  include:
 (1) disposal of unsolidified wastes in a closed barge; (2) disposal of
 unsolidified wastes in closed containers; (3) disposal of solidified wastes in
 a closed barge; (4) disposal of solidified wastes in closed containers; and,
 (5) disposal of solidified wastes without containerization.
      Each  technique is evaluated with respect to how it conforms to
 eleven waste package performance criteria  for ocean disposal of LLW.
 The criteria, proposed  in 1988,  and specifications are listed in Section 2 of
 this report  The results of evaluating techniques and criteria are
 discussed in Section 4. Two of the five disposal techniques conform to all
 of the draft packaging  criteria,  namely: disposal of solidified wastes in a
 closed barge, and disposal of solidified wastes in  closed containers.
      The report further states  that the waste package performance
 criteria, proposed for ocean disposal of LLW, are actually inappropriate
 for FUSRAP and other long-lived radionuclide wastes.  Thus, it is
 recommended that a new set of criteria should be developed for ocean
 disposal of FUSRAP, and other wastes, where  solidification  or
containerization provides no reduction of long-term risk(s).

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                    Page
 FOREWORD                                                           iii
 SUMMARY                                                            v
 LIST OF TABLES                                                       ix
 LIST OF FIGURES                                                     xi

 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND                                  1
      1.1. Waste Characterization                                         4

 2, PROPOSED WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
      FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE        13
      2.1  Assumptions                                                 13
      22  Waste Package Performance Criteria and Specifications               14

 3. OCEAN DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES FOR FUSRAP WASTE                  17
      3.1  Unsolidified Waste in a Closed Barge                              17
           3.1.1 Description                                            17
           3.1.2 Evaluation                                             18
      3.2  Unsolidified Waste in Closed Containers                           20
           3.2.1 Description                                            20
           3.2.2 Evaluation                                             20
      33  Solidified Waste in a Closed Barge                                22
           33.1 Description                                            22
           33.2 Evaluation                                             24
      3.4  Solidified Waste in Closed Containers                              24
           3.4.1 Description                                            24
           3.4.2 Evaluation                                             26
      3.5  Solidified Waste without a Container                              26
           3.5.1 Description                                            26
           3.5.2 Evaluation                                             26

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                          28
      4.1  Summary of Results                                            28
      4.2  Discussion                                                   30
           4.2.1 Containers                                             30
           4.2.2 Solidification                                           31
           4.23 Leaching                                              31

5. CONCLUSIONS                                                     32

REFERENCES                                                         34

                                  vii

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES
                                                                         Page
Table 1
       Disposal/Stabilization Alternatives
            for FUSRAP Waste
Table 2
       Radioisotopes in FUSRAP Waste                                        8
Table 3
       Mean Concentrations of Trace Metals
            in Middlesex FUSRAP Waste                                       8
Table 4
       Projected Quantities and Characteristics
            of Wastes Collected by FUSRAP Activities
Table 5
       Evaluation of Ocean Disposal of FUSRAP Waste
            for Conformance with Proposed Waste
            Package Performance Criteria                                     29

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES






                                                                            Page




Figure 1    Locations of FUSRAP Sites                                          2






Figure 2    The Uranium-238 Decay Series                                       7






Figure 3    The Thorium-232 Decay Series                                       7






Figure 4    Disposal of Unsolidified Waste In A Closed Barge                    19






Figure 5    Disposal of Unsolidified Waste In Closed Containers                  21






Figure 6    Disposal of Solidified Waste In A Closed Barge                       23






Figure 7    Disposal of Solidified Waste In Closed Containers                    25






Figure 8    Disposal of Solidified Waste Without A Container                    27

-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

      The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) is a program to identify, characterize and remediate sites
that were used in the past for processing, research, development and storage of
uranium and thorium ores, concentrates and residues [1].  There are 29 sites requiring
remedial action in 12 states and one radiological surveillance site, as shown in Figure 1
[2].  The sites are locations that were used by the  Manhattan Engineering District of
the former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) from the early 1940's  to the early
1960's.  Estimated total volumes of FUSRAP waste are 1.2 x lO6 m3 [2].

      A variety of options have been considered for disposal of FUSRAP  waste. They
have been described by Gilbert, et al, [3] and are shown in Table 1. The  ocean
disposal option presents several advantages in cases where on-site disposal is not
practicable. Long-term risks are minimized by this option  since there is no need for
concern about on-site intruders or groundwater contamination. Moreover, long-term
institutional control and alternate land-use policy questions become moot The ocean
disposal option does, however, have the  associated  risk of food-chain contamination due
to the potential for dispersion of wastes, both during disposal operations and after
disposal on the seafloor.  To minimize the potential for such food-chain contamination,
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended  a minimum depth
of 4,000 m for ocean disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) materials.

      In 1986 the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP) reported on two studies pertaining to ocean disposal  of FUSRAP
wastes from the Middlesex, NJ, FUSRAP site [4, 5].

-------
N>
            Ml  ACIO/PUf BLO CANYON. LOS ALAMOS. NM
            Ml  ALBANY RESEARCH CENTER. ALBANY. Oil
            Ml  ASHLAND OIL II. TONAWANDA. NV
            104  BAVO CANYON. LOS ALAMOS. NM
            Mi  CHUPADEMA MESA. WHITE SANDS
                MISSILE HANOI. NM
            Ml  DUPONT Ir COMPANY. OEEPWATER. NJ
            IM  W R. CRACK * COMPANY. CURTIS BAY. MO
            114  KEUEX/PIERPONT. JERSEY CITY. NJ
            IM  NIAGARA FALLS STOHAOf SITE (VICINITY
                PROP, l LEWISTON. NV
            Itt  MALLINCKROOT. INC.. ST. LOUIS. MO
            III  MIDDLESEX LANDFILL. MIDDLESEX. NJ
            IU  MIDDLESEX SAMPLING PLANT.
                MIDDLESEX. NJ
            IM  NATIONAL OUARO ARMORY. CNKAQO. a
            ttl  PALOS PARK FOREST PRESERVE. COOK
                COUNTY, II
            Ul  SEAWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK. TONAWANDA. NV
            W  SHPACK LANDFILL. NORTON. MA
US  UNIVERSAL CYCLOPS. AUQUIPPA. PA         13}
U?  VINTRON, BEVERLY. MA                   US
US  LINDE AIR PRODUCTS. TONAWANOA. NY       US
IM  UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. BERKELEY. CA     140
Ul  UNIVERSITY Of CHICAGO. CHICAGO. IL        141
1«  ASHLANO OH. CO. 42. TONAWANOA. NV        141
IM  ST. LOUIS AIRPORT BIT! IVtONITY PROP.I.      1S3
    ST. LOUIS. MO
                 WAVNE/PEOUANNOCK. NJ
                 MAYWOOO. NJ
                 COLONIE. NY
                 HAZELWOOOILATTV A VENUE I, MO
                 GENERAL MOTORS. ADRIAN. Ml
                 SEYMOUR SPECIALTY WIRE. SEYMOUR. CT
                 ST. LOUIS AIRPORT SITE. ST. LOUIS. MO
                          O REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNED
                          $ REMEDIAL ACTION PARTIALLY COMPLETED
REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETED
RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING ONLY
                                Figure 1.  Locations for Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Sites

-------
    Table 1.   Disposal/Stabilization Alternatives 1 for FUSRAP Wastes
             A.  No Action

             B.  Onsite Containment
             B.I.  Containment without future disposal
                   B.La.   Above-surface containment
                   B.l.b.   Near-surface containment
             B.2.  Containment with monitored  future disposal
                   B.2.a.  Institutional controls only
                   B.2.b.  In-situ stabilization
                   B.2.c.  Above-surface containment
                   B.2.d.   Near-surface containment

             C.  Offsite Containment
             C.I.   Containment without future disposal
                   C.l.a.   Above-surface containment
                   C.l.b.  Near-surface containment
                   C.l.c.   Intermediate-depth  containment
             C.2.   Containment with monitored future disposal
                   C.2.a.   Above-surface containment
                   C.2.b.   Construction use
                   C.2.C.   Near-surface containment
                   C.2.b.  Intermediate-depth containment
             C3.   Containment with unmonitored future disposal
                   C3.a.   Containerized ocean disposal
                   C3.b.  Land disposal in deep geological structures

             D.  Offsite Immediate Disposal
             D.I.   Ocean Disposal
             D.2.   Land Disposal
    1  No action = site released for unrestricted use.
Institutional controls only = regulatory-controlled access/use only; no physical action.
In-situ stabilization = in place waste stabilization.
Above-surface containment = above ground emplacement in an engineered structure.
Near-surface containment = land disposal in/within upper 15-20 m of earth's surface.
Intermediate-depth containment = land disposal in/within 20-100 m of earth's surface.

-------
      This report presents and discusses five proposed techniques for ocean disposal of
FUSRAP waste.  Each technique is based on preventing waste dispersal during disposal
so that large quantities of the material will not remain in the water column. All five
techniques are evaluated with respect to proposed waste package performance criteria
for deepsea disposal of LLW [6].

1.1   Waste Characterization

      Most FUSRAP waste is by-product material, which is defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 [Public Law 703, Aug. 30, 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2014 Section II(e)(l)] as
"any radioactive material (except special nuclear  material) yielded in or made
radioactive by exposure to the radiation incident  to the process of producing or
utilizing special nuclear material" [2],  While by-product material is excluded from the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as defined in He(2), there is some question
regarding standards for disposal of by-product wastes that are mixed  with non-
radioactive hazardous materials. Guidance is being prepared by an interagency
working group for the disposal of mixed IIe(2) by-product waste [2].

      FUSRAP wastes have been characterized in the draft Environmental Impact
Statements applicable to the various sites.  These types of wastes most often consist of
soil and building rubble that is contaminated by ore or residue from  ore processing.
Contamination frequently  occurs when wind and  water borne  particles, from outdoor
piles of higher activity material, are mixed into soil.  On  occasion, transportation by
moving water, or deliberate removal of the material for construction fill, has scattered
wastes to many "vicinity properties" surrounding  the original storage  site.

-------
       Most of the radionuclide contaminants consist of U-238 and the products in its
decay series. At some sites, Th-232 and its decay products are also of
concern.  The decay chains for U-238 and Th-232 series radionuclides are shown in
Figures 2 and 3, respectively [7].  An example (Middlesex, NJ site) of radionuclide
concentrations  in FUSRAP wastes is given in Table 2. FUSRAP soil wastes also
contain metallic substances, as shown in Table 3.

       For FUSRAP wastes in general the prinicpal hazard is from Ra-226 and its
short-lived decay products (see Figure 2) [7].  Because this waste (at least as
determined at the Middlesex, NJ site) [8] is in secular equilibrium, the hazard will
exist as long as the U-238 is present  Average concentrations range from 20 to 200
pCi/g for U-238, and from 50 to 500 pCi/g for Th-230 and Ra-226.  Localized
concentrations, however may exceed these values by factors of 10 to 100 [9],
Nevertheless, in at least some cases, the overall activity of FUSRAP wastes is
sufficiently low that  the wastes are classified as nonradioactive for transportation
purposes  [9].

       Table 4 indicates that much of the waste is in the form of soil, typically having
a significant percentage of very fine grained material. For example, waste from the
Niagara Falls site are 37 percent sand-size, 26 percent silt, and 37 percent clay [9].
Other sites have much larger average grain sizes  since the bulk of the waste is building
rubble. In some cases, the wastes contain  significant amounts of wood or leaf litter.

       Radiological impacts from ocean disposal of FUSRAP waste would be small, as
can be seen by comparing the amount of activity  naturally present at a disposal site
with the amount of activity in the FUSRAP waste. The sediment characteristic and
radioactivity data that follows  are from the Atlantic Ocean 3800 m disposal site.

-------
      A site having an area of 2500 km2 has been assumed.  Only the sediment to a
depth of S cm has been included because it is in contact with the sediment/seawater
interface through bioturbation.  Density of the sediment is taken to be 1.1 g/cm3.  The
activity of *»U is 14 pCi/g [11], which is in the midrange of oceanic sediments (0.1 to
27  pCi/g) [10], and was determined as the average of 12 samples analyzed at
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the Atlantic 3800 meter site. Activity of
**Ra in this sediment was 0.56 pCi/g [11], with the range for oceanic  sediment being
0.3 to 39 pCi/g [10].

      Using these values and the data presented earlier for FUSRAP  waste, a
comparison can be made.  The activity in the surOcial sediment of the entire site  is
190 Ci and 7.8 Ci for ««U and »Ra respectively. If the entire inventory of FUSRAP
waste (1.2 x 10" m3) is dumped at this site, an event that will not occur, the activity
deposited will be between 0.55 and 5.5 Ci of "«U. This is between 1 and 3 percent of
the **U activity naturally present at the site.  The activity of '"Ra that will be
deposited from the waste is between 1.4 and 14 Ci, bracketing the amount naturally
present at the site with the maximum FUSRAP  deposition being about double the
natural activity.

-------
     80-
Figure 2.  The U-238 decay series, showing the half-life of each isotope [7].
      90 -
       85
       80
                                               'Th. RdTh    212
                                              '91
                                                 "»Ac.M.Th,
                 Th, Th
                 1.41 X 1010 v
                                           "Ra. ThX
                                         J
                                     "°Rn, Tn
                                     .  55.6 s
                     "'Po.ThCT        tT
                     0.3 ia JT 64%   2I«Po. ThA
                     . '"Bi/ThC   /. 0.1S«
                   t^60.6min\t^
                  'fe, fc/36*  ...p,,.ThB
             t/ o Decay
             K^ 0 Decay
              if Denotes major branch
               125
                            130
135
 N
                                                      140
                                                                    145
Figure 3.  The Th-232 decay series, showing the half-life of each isotope [7].

-------
                 Table 2.  Radioisotoues* in FUSRAP Waste F81
                       Isotope                  Mean
                                           Concentration (pCi/g)

                       »«U                     142
                       ^Th                    108
                       »»Ra                    108-
                       *«Pb                    102
                                                95
                                                7'
                                                6
                                                S
                                                5"
                       "Tl                      4-

  When analyses were below detection limit, the limit was halved to compute the mean.
    Table 3. Mean Concentrations of Trace Metals' in Middlesex FUSRAP Waste [81

                       Element                Mean (ppm)

                         As                     29
                         Ag                     <6
                         Be                      5*
                         Cd                     
-------
                                                                   TABLE 4
PROJECTED QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTES COLLECTED BY FUSRAP ACTIVITIES"
State and site
California
Oilman Hall, Univ. of
California, Berkeley
Connecticut
Seymour Specialty Wire
Illinois
Pa I os Park Forest Preserve
Cook County
Laboratories at Univ. of
Chicago, Chicago
National Guard Amory
Site area
(ha)
MDb
ND
7.7
3.8
ND
Estimated
waste, vo I Line
on
23C
33
d
57*
38
Principal constituents
Floor tile, piping
Rubble, metal
Soil, rubble
Building masonry, floor
tile, wood, glass,
carpet
Building masonry and
Identified contaminants
Alpha, 137Cs
238u
m 23J{, ^V 13V
155Eu, ^Sr, ^Co
238U, alpha, beta-game
238u
                                                                                    rubble
                                                                                   material, floor tile.
        Subtotal
                         95
Maryland
  U.K. Grace and Company
   Curtis Bay

Massachusetts
  Shpack Landfill, Norton
  Ventron, Beverly
 3.2
ND
                     27,526
  306'
3,823
                       Soil
Soil, concrete, metal,
  rubble

Soil, concrete, rubble,
  metal, and building
  material
238U.
. 210Pb
         Subtotal
                       4,129

-------
                                                    TABLE 4
PROJECTED QUANTITIES AN1
Site area
State and site (ha)
Missouri
St. Louis Airport 8.8
St. Louis Airport (vicinity 1
properties). St. Louis
Latty Avenue, Hazeluood 4.7
Naltinckrodt, Inc. NO

Subtotal
Michigan
General Motors, Adrian NO

New Jersey
E.I. du Pont de Nemours 283
and Co., Deepuater
Kellex Research Facility, 6.2
Jersey City
Middlesex Municipal 1.2
Landfill, Middlesex
Middlesex Sampling Plant, 3.9
Middlesex
W.R. Grace/Sheffield NO
Brook/other properties,
Wayne and Peojuamock
Stepan Chemical Co., Bailed MO
property and private
properties on Latham St.
and Davison Ave., Maywood
D CHARACTERISTICS
Estimated
waste. volume

107,034
15,290

68,807*
53,522

244,653

153


5,350
k
134"
*
25,232*
• _
43,560*

91,740k

206.4221



! OF WASTES COLLECTED BY 1
Principal constituents

Soil
Soil

Soil, rubble
Soil, building Materials,
rubble


Soil, building Material,
and metal

Soil, building Material,
rubble, road Material
Soil

Soil

Soil, building material.
rubble
Soil, rubble

Soil, rubble



7USRAP ACnvrnES (COD.L)
Identified contaminants

238JJ 230Th 226Ra
238U, 226Ra

gju, *£.,. ^AC.
238^'230pa* 226Ra


tto
238U

*v>o *yvy fy£. 11 A
•bJQ|| &J(*m, *****& m DK

T~TJ, ^la, ^Th, 230Th,
Pb
238U

23o, 3T3Tk 22oDA
£j£\nf Ka

232Th 228Th 226Ra 23^

232.., 226 235..
-V»»™»..A Ra» "•
238U, ^K


Subtotal
372,458

-------
                                                  TABLE 4
PROJECTED QUANTITIES
Site area
State and site (ha)
New Mexico
Acid/Pueblo/Los Alamos 51.6
Canyons, Los Alamos
Bayo Canyon, Los Alamos 137
Chupadera Mesa, White Sands MD
Subtotal
Hew York
Linde Air Products Div., 22.2
Tonawanda
NL Bearings Plant and ND
private properties on
Central, Paltter, and
Yardboro Avenues,
Albany, Cotonfe
Niagara Falls Storage Site 525
(vicinity properties),
Lewis ton
Ashland Oil Co. (Mo. 1) 3
Tonawanda
Ashland Oil Co. (Ho. 2) 1
Tonawanda
Seaway Industrial Park, 4.8
Tonawanda
AND CHARACTERISTICS
Estimated
waste. volume
(•O
298m
1,163°
NO0
1,461
19,727
22,938p
36.69711
64.226
36,701
37,007
OF WASTES COLLECTED BY
Principal constituents
Soil
Soil, building material,
rubble
Soil

Soil, building material.
equipment
Soil, building material,
equipment, rubble
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
FUSRAP ACTIVITIES (cont.)
Identified contaminants
O-JQ 1X1
^«Pu, Mi^ fission
Fission products

•Oty
»V. »«. "Si
23& 7*1 226.
^u, ^^h, ^^la
226Ra
Subtotal
217,296

-------
                                    	                           TABLE 4
               PROJECTED QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTES COLLECTED BY FUSRAP ACTTVmES (com.)
                                                         Estimated
                                                         waste volume
                                                            00
State and site
Site area
   (ha)
                      Principal  constituents
                                                                                                                 Identified contaminants
Oregon
  Albany Metallurgical
   Research Center, Albany
Pennsylvania
  Universal Cyclops,  Inc.,
   Aliquippa
   NO
    0.3V
2,294
   23
                                                                                 Soil, building material,
                                                                                   plumbing
                                                                                 Soil, concrete, metal
                                                                                     alpha,  beta-
        Total (all sites)
                        870,144
*Taken from Reference 1.
bMot determined.
Remedial action completed; 25 m3 of waste sent to LLW burial ground  at NTS.
dAuthoHzed for radiological surveillance only.  Estimated 15,830 m3  of stabilized waste entombed onsite being monitored.
Remedial action completed; 57 m3 of waste sent to ECU, Idaho Falls,  for disposal.
Remedial action partially complete; <1 m3 of waste generated.
'Remedial action partially complete; 10,322 •  of offsite property waste transferred to Interim storage onsite.
Remedial action completed; 134 m3 of waste sent to LLW burial ground at Barnwell, SC.
Itemedial action partially complete; 11,469 •  of  waste transferred'to Middlesex Sampling Plant for Interim storage.
'Remedial action partially complete; 26,763 m  of  offsite property waste transferred  to  Interim storage onsite.
Remedial action partially complete; 2,675 m  of waste transferred to Interim storage onsite.
ntemedial action partially complete; 30,589 m  of  offsite property waste transferred  to  Interim storage onsite.
""Remedial action completed;  298 m3  of waste to LLW burial ground at LAML.
"Remedial action completed; In-situ stabilization of 1,162 m3 of waste.
°Remedial action not required.
^Remedial action partially complete; 612  m  of offiste property waste transferred to Interim storage onsite.
Remedial action partially complete; 34,816 m  of offsite property waste transferred to Interim storage onsite.
rTotal floor area that was surveyed; only isolated patches  of radioactive contamination were found.

-------
2. PROPOSED WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR DEEPSEA
DISPOSAL OF LLW
     Performance criteria have been developed for ocean disposal of LLW packages,
containers and waste forms [6].  For each criterion in this report, an associated
specification is recommended that gives a value or condition to be met for a waste
package to be acceptable for ocean disposal*  The specifications, therefore, provide
values against which waste packages (or their components) can be evaluated or from
which information gaps can be identified. The  performance criteria were developed
based on the  following assumptions  [6].

2.1  Assumptions

     •Existing Federal regulations govern the interim storage, transportation and
      disposal of radioactive wastes. Waste packages intended for ocean disposal
      should meet all minimum Federal  requirements, including relevant United
      States  international treaty commitments.

     •Only LLW, as defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy  Act (PL
      96-573), is considered for ocean disposal.

     •The disposal  site has an average water depth greater than 4,000 meters.

     •Package performance criteria  are based upon a multiple barrier concept which
      considers  the contributions of engineered barriers (waste form, container) and
      natural barriers (water column, physical and geochemical properties of the
      sediment).
                                       13

-------
2.2  Waste Package Performance Criteria and Specifications
     1.  Criterion:
          Specification;
The package should have adequate density to ensure sinking
to the seabed.
The specific gravity of the package should not be less than
1.2 to ensure sinking to the seabed.
     2.  Criterion;
          Specification;
The package should be designed to remain intact upon
impact with the sea surface and the seabed.
The package should be designed to maintain its
integrity upon impact with the sea surface and the
ocean floor at a minimum calculated and/or measured
velocity of 10 m/s.
      3.  Criterion;
          Specification:
The container should be capable of maintaining its contents
until all radionuclides have decayed to acceptable limits, as
determined by appropriate regulatory authorities.
The container should have an expected lifetime in the
deepsea environment of 200 years or 10 half-lives of
the longest lived radionuclide, whichever is less.
      4.  Criterion:
          Specification:
Liquid radioactive waste should be immobilized by suitable
solidification agents.
Liquid wastes should be solidified to form a homogeneous,
monolithic, free-standing solid containing no more than 0.5
percent of free or unbound liquid by volume of the waste
form.
                                        14

-------
  5.   Criterion;
      Specification;
 Buoyant material should be excluded or treated to preclude
 its movement or separation from the waste form during and
 after disposal.
 Buoyant materials should be treated to form a homogeneous
 free-standing monolithic solid having a specific gravity of
 not less than  1.2.
 6.  Criterion;
     Specification;
The package should be able to withstand the hydrostatic
pressure encountered during and after descent to the seabed.
The triaxial compressive strength of a package should be 25
percent greater than the pressure encountered at the
disposal depth.  Uniaxial compressive strength of a package
may be measured (triaxial strength is taken to be 4 times
the uniaxial compressive strength). Pressure equalization
devices that allow only ingress of water can be used.
7.  Criterion:
    Specification;
8.   Criterion;
    Specification;
The leach rate of the waste form should be as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The leach rate for Cs-137, Sr-90 and Co-60, as well as other
radionuclides of concern in the waste, should be no greater
than regulatory guidelines as measured by the ANS 16.1
Leach Test for leaching in seawater.

Particulate wastes should be rendered nondispersible.
Paniculate wastes, such as ashes, powders and other
dispersible materials should be immobilized by a suitable
solidification agent to form a homogeneous, monolithic, free-
standing solid.
               15

-------
     9.  Criterion;    Free radioactive gaseous wastes should be prohibited from
                      ocean disposal.
         Specification: No radioactive gaseous wastes should be accepted for ocean
                      disposal unless they have been immobilized into stable waste
                      forms such that the pressure in the waste package does not
                      exceed atmospheric pressure.

     10. Criterion:    Mixed wastes, which contain hazardous constituents, should not
                      be disposed of at a LLW ocean disposal site.
         Specification: Wastes  that contain constituents prohibited, as other than con-
                      taminants in 40 CFR, Subchapter H, Subpart B, part 227,6
                      should not be disposed of at a LLW ocean disposal site.

     11. Criterion;    The waste should be physically and chemically compatible with
                      the solidification agent
         Specification; Waste forms  should retain their structural stability after
                      immersion in seawater for 180 days.

     In view of recent EPA/ORP bioeffects studies, an additional consideration is that
LLW should be present in quantities to ensure that no localized, adverse effects would
occur, as determined by using bioassay/bioeffects testing procedures, should the waste
package rupture.  Further, any  dose to a sensitive, benthic species for the radionuclides
under consideration should be at or below the lowest observable effects-levels (LOEL's)
measured by laboratory exposure procedures. This concept will presumably supercede
proposed criterion number 3, above, which  requires a container lifetime of sufficient
length that the contents will have decayed to innocuous levels before the container fails.
However, uncertainties of the exact activities allowed and how the dose to biota should
be determined, based on  any given failure scenario, preclude the use of this concept in
evaluating the disposal techniques presented later in this report.
                                        16

-------
  3.    TECHNIQUES FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL OF FUSRAP WASTES

       Five techniques or methods have been developed for ocean disposal of FUSRAP
  waste. An alternative (technique) in which "as is" or untreated FUSRAP waste, without
  containerization, is dumped into the ocean was not considered because of the dispersive
  nature of the waste [3]. Each technique is presented with a level of detail that allows
  for a comparison of relative merit  Each was also evaluated in terms of the proposed
  waste package performance criteria described in Section 2.  A listing of advantages and
  disadvantages is provided.

 3.1   Technique #1 -  Disposal of Unsolidified Waste in a Closed Barge

      3.1.1  Description.  Untreated waste is transported by dump truck to a dock
 where it is transferred to a barge.  The barge conveys the waste to the disposal site and
 serves as the disposal container. After being towed to the disposal site the barge is
 sunk by flooding it with water.  Consequently, the barge must be constructed in such a
 way that it can be easily loaded and then sealed to ensure that waste  cannot be
 released during disposal.  Pressure equalization devices  are necessary  to maintain the
 integrity of the barge during descent Technique #1 is illustrated in Figure 4.

      Note that two sequences of events are possible after the barge is sunk. In the
 first situation, the barge remains intact after its descent to the seafloor.  Since the
 barge was flooded, the waste is already in contact with water. However, the harge is
 intact and the waste is contained until the barge corrodes to the point of failure.
While releases of contaminants that have leached into the water in the barge will occur
with time, the waste will not be dispersed until corrosion destroys much of the hull.
                                        17

-------
      The lifetime of the barge's hull is a function of corrosion rate (the general
 corrosion rate of mild steel in the deep Atlantic is about 0.08 mrn/yr, although pitting
 may be much faster) and metal thickness. Assuming a typical hull thickness of 10mm,
 a maximum period of barge integrity ("lifetime") would be approximately 120 years.

      In the second possibility, a barge could break-up during descent or impact with
 the seafloor; allowing the wastes to disperse and come into contact with marine life.

      3.1.2 Evaluation. Technique #1 does not meet proposed waste package
 performance criterion 8 which requires that participate wastes be rendered non-
 dispersible by solidification.  Because a barge is used as  the waste container, there are
 questions regarding the ability of a heavily laden barge to survive the descent and
 impact on the seafloor, without breaching, as illustrated in Figure 4.  Some means of
 ensuring that the barge fully floods during descent is necessary.  In addition, one way
 valves would be required to let water enter during descent so that pressure inside and
 outside the hull are equalized, thus minimizing the chances of rupture.

     Generalized advantages and disadvantages associated with using technique #1 are
listed below.  The advantages are precluded by the failure of this disposal method to
satisfy proposed waste package performance criterion # 8 because waste solidification
is not employed in this technique.

         Advantages                               Disadvantages

   •  No solidification costs                  .  Waste is dispersible
  •  No volume increase                     .  May require specially designed
  •  Reduced transportation costs               barges
                                            •  Requires large number of barges
                                            18

-------
        OCEAN   DISPOSAL    OF    FUSRAP   WASTE

                  Technique # 1   Unsolidified Waste/Closed Barge

-------
3.2   Technique #2 - Disposal of Unsolidified Waste in Closed Containers

      3.2.1  Descrption.  Untreated waste is loaded into containers at the storage site.
These containers may be of any size.  It is envisioned, for convenience, that 55-gaIlon
drums would be used; but large, steel, 210 ft3 liners or some other configuration would
also be appropriate.  The sealed containers are transported by truck to a dock where
they are loaded onto a ship. The ship transports the containers to the site where they
are dumped overboard.  The act of disposal may actually be via a ramp to minimize
impact  between the container and the sea surface.  Each disposal container would
require a pressure  equalization device to allow water to enter, but not to escape,
thereby equalizing the hydrostatic pressure on the container during its descent to the
seafloor.  Once disposed in the ocean, the containers will be subject to the  effects of
corrosion. Thus, the wastes will eventually be exposed and subject to physical and/or
biological transport and dispersion. Technique #2 is depicted in  Figure 5.

      3.2.2  Evaluation.  Technique #2, as was the case for Technique #1, does not
meet criterion 8 which requires solidification of dispersible waste.  Pressure
equalization devices would be required since loose, soil-like waste  cannot support
containers against the hydrostatic pressure of the deep ocean.  Thin-walled containers,
such as 55-gallon mild steel drums, cannot be expected to survive more than 10 to 20
years. However, thicker steel  containers or other materials, such as some polymers,
may last significantly longer.  There is a degree of uncertainty as  to how many, or what
percentage,  of these smaller (than barge-sized) containers would remain intact after
impact on the ocean bottom.  It is likely, however,  that the percentage of smaller
containers subject to such damage  would be less than expected with the barges used in
Technique #1.
                                         20

-------
OCEAN   DISPOSAL   OF  FUSRAP   WASTE

       Technique  # 2  Unsolidified Waste/Closed Containers
LOAD WASTE
   INTO
CONTAINERS
TRANSPORT
 TO DOCK
TRANSFER
SHIP
TO
                                     DUMP
                                    WASTE
                                  PACKAGES
                                    PACKAGES
                                     CONTACT
                                  OCEAN BOTTOM
                                  CONTAINERS
                                   CORRODE
                                   CONTENTS
                                     LEACH
  STEAU TO
DISPOSAL SITE
                Figure 5.  Disposal of Unsolidified Wastes in Closed Containers

-------
         Advantages                               Disadvantages

  •   No solidification costs
  •   No volume increase                     •  Cost of containers
  •   Minimized dispersion during
     handling, transportation and             •  Increased transportation costs
     disposal
  •   Control over distribution of waste
      packages on ocean floor

33   Technique #3 - Disposal of Solidified Waste in a Closed Barge

     33.1  Description.  As stated in waste package performance criterion 8, the waste
materials should be  immobilized with a solidification agent before disposal, to
minimize their dispersion after disposal.  This technique, as do techniques 4 and 5
which follow, uses hydraulic cement as the solidification agent, but other materials may
also be suitable for this purpose. These three techniques only differ in when or where
the waste is solidified, and in the method used for disposal.

     In technique #3 (see Figure 6), the waste is transported to a barge-loading dock
where it is mixed with hydraulic cement (e.g., Portland cement) and water.  The wet
mixture is  then poured or pumped  into a barge and allowed to set  (harden).
Afterward,  the barge is sealed, towed  to a disposal site and flooded for sinking.  With
time on the seafloor, as with smaller containers,  the barge will eventually corrode to
the point of failure.  The solidified  waste would then be subject to disintegration by the
action of currents and biota, but the  radionuclides in that waste would be released for
dispersal at a slower rate than would unsolidified wastes from a corroded barge.
                                         22

-------
OCEAN   DISPOSAL    OF    FUSRAP   WASTE

           Technique # 3   Solidified Waste/Closed Barge
 LOAD WASTE
 ON  TRUCKS
TRANSPORT
 TO DOCK
                      SCUTTLE
                       BARGE
                        BARGE
                       CONTACTS
                         OCEAN
                        BOTTOM
                         BARGE
                       CORRODES
                       CONTENTS
                         LEACH
MIX WASTE
   WITH
  CEMENT
                      TOW BARGE
                     TO DISPOSAL
                         SITE
   PUMP
  MIXTURE
INTO BARGE
                     ALLOW TIME
                     FOR CEMENT
                     TO HARDEN
                  Figure 6.  Disposal of Solidified Wastes in A Closed Barge

-------
     33.2  Evaluation.  Technique #3 appears to meet all of the waste package
performance criteria, with the exception of the container lifetime criterion (#3).  One
unknown factor is the ability of a barge to survive descent and impact on the ocean
floor without breaching*  The mass of solidified waste may improve survivability of the
barge by making  it more rigid, and more  stable during descent, as compared to a
barge containing  loose waste.

         Advantages                               Disadvantages

  •  Reduced transportation cost from        •  Dispersible waste transported and
     site of origin to dock                      handled at dock
  •  Waste rendered non-disperstble          •  Solidification costs
                                            •  Volume increase
                                            •  May require specially designed
                                               barges
                                            •  Requires large number of barges
3.4  Technique #4 • Disposal of Solidified Waste in Closed Containers

     3.4.1  Description.  The waste is mixed with water and hydraulic cement at the
storage site.  This can be done in large mixers and subsequently poured into
containers.  After allowing time for the mixture to harden, the drums are transported
to the  dock and loaded onto a ship. The waste containers are then transported to the
disposal  site where they are dumped. To eliminate damage from the effects of
hydrostatic pressure during descent to the seafloor, the containers will need pressure
equalization devices.  The containers will eventually corrode, ultimately exposing the
solidified waste to seawater.  This technique is illustrated in Figure 7.
                                        24

-------
OCEAN    DISPOSAL    OF   FUSRAP  WASTE
         Technique # 4 Solidified Waste/Closed Containers
 MIX WASTE
    WITH
  CEMENT
           POUR
          MIXTURE
           INTO
         CONTAINER
   DUMP
   WASTE
 PACKAGES
C3
STEAM TO
DISPOSAL
   SITE
  PACKAGES
  CONTACT
   OCEAN
   BOTTOM
 CONTAINERS
  CORRODE
  CONTENTS
   LEACH
                     ALLOW TIME
                    FOR  CEMENT
                     TO HARDEN
LOAD WASTE
  ON SHIP
                    LOAD WASTE
                    ON TRUCKS
TRANSPORT
 TO  DOCK
                Figure 7.  Disposal of Solidified Wastes in Closed Containers

-------
     3.4.2  Evaluation.  Technique #4 is much the same as technique #3 in that it
passes all of the proposed waste package performance criteria, except for container
lifetime. There is less uncertainty about the ability of small containers to survive
descent and impact on the bottom when they have been filled with solidified waste,
than there is about larger containers (e.g. barges) filled with unsolidified waste.

         Advantages                           Disadvantages

  •  Waste is rendered  non-dispersible        •   Solidification costs
     at site of origin                         •  Volume increase
  •  Control over distribution of waste        •  Cost of containers
     packages on ocean floor                  •  Increased transportation costs
3.5  Technique #5 - Disposal of Solidified Waste without a Container

     3.5.1  Description.  This technique (see Figure 8) takes advantage of the low
activity of the FUSRAP waste by eliminating containers.  At the storage site, the waste
is  mixed with hydraulic cement and water and cast into block-molds where it hardens.
For larger waste forms, some reinforcement and lifting eyes may be included in the
casting.  After hardening, the molds are removed and the waste (in block waste forms)
is  transported to a dock and loaded onto the disposal ship. After dumping the waste
blocks at the disposal site, leaching starts immediately.

     3.S.2  Evaluation.  This concept is significantly different than those previously
described because no container is used. Consequently, it does not meet proposed waste
package performance criterion # 3. However, the waste is not dispersible at any time
after the blocks are produced as long as they are not damaged during loading and
transport.
                                        26

-------
OCEAN   DISPOSAL    OF   FUSRAP   WASTE
            Technique # 5   Uncontained Solidified Waste
  MIX WASTE
     WITH
 SOLIDIFICATION
    AGENT
 STEAM  TO
 DISPOSAL
    SITE
   DUMP
   WASTE
   FORMS
   CAST
  MIXTURE
    INTO
   MOLDS
LOAD WASTE
  ON SHIP
                       WASTE FORMS
                         CONTACT
                          OCEAN
                         BOTTOM
                         WASTE
                         FORMS
                         LEACH
ALLOW TIME
FOR CEMENT
TO HARDEN
TRANSPORT
 TO DOCK
   REMOVE
WASTE FORM
FROM HOLDS
LOAD WASTE
ON TRUCKS
                  Figure 8.  Disposal of Solidified Wastes Without Container(s)

-------
          Advantages
      No Container costs
      Waste rendered non-dispersible
       at site of origin

4.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1   Summary of Results
   Disadvantages
Solidification costs
Volume increase
Increased transportation costs
     Table 5 summarizes the results from evaluating disposal techniques and proposed
waste package performance criteria.

     Criterion # 7 (teachability), is not addressed in this discussion because it is site
dependent It's applicability should be determined/evaluated by site-specfic monitoring
and modeling.

     The question of mixed (hazardous and radioactive) waste has yet to be resolved
for FUSRAP wastes. It was not evaluated herein since this report focuses on packaging
criteria.

     Waste package performance criterion # 3 is not specific about how long a
container must last because the container lifetime is based on the half-lives of whatever
radionuclides are in the waste. FUSRAP waste loses its hazardous constituents
(primarily Ra-226) at a rate governed by the half-life of U-238, which is 4.47 x 10*
years.  Obviously, this is  longer than any container could last,  so none of the disposal
techniques in this report  meet that criterion.

     It is important to note that a lowest observable effects level (LOEL) criterion
may be promulgated for ocean disposal of LLW.  In that event, proposed waste package
                                       28

-------
 performance criterion # 3 (container lifetime) would be superceded and the amount of

 activity in each container would become important  Additional information, about

 acceptable doses to biota, waste package release models and near-field dispersion rates,
 is needed to apply the LOEL concept to regulating ocean disposal of LLW.
Criterion

1. Density

2. Impact

3. Container

4. Liquids
Conformance with Proposed Waste Package Performance Criteria
1
Yes
?
No
Yes
[aterial Yes
c Pressure Yes
Disi
2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
josal Technique
3
Yes
•
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Number
4
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
5
Yes
*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
7. Leachability          *

8. Dispersibiliry         No

9. Gases                Yes

10. Mixed Waste         ?

11. Compatibility         NA

NOTES TO TABLE
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                                   NA
Yes
           Yes = Fulfills Criterion
           No = Does Not Fulfill Criterion
           ?   = Unknown For Criterion
           *   = Leach Rate Unspecified
           NA = Not Applicable
Yes
Yes
                                     29

-------
 4.2   Discussion

       In evaluating the five techniques/methods presented in this report, it is apparent
 that disposal of FUSRAP wastes presents certain problems relative to the proposed
 waste package performance criteria. This is a result of the very long half-lives of the
 major contaminants in FUSRAP waste.  These issues are discussed below.

       4.2.1  Containers.  Most FUSRAP wastes are "byproduct" wastes, having a
 different radionuclide content than the types of LLW considered when the proposed
 waste package performance criteria were developed. Because the long-lived FUSRAP
 "byproduct" wastes were not considered at that time, a discrepancy exists between the
 proposed container lifetime criterion (# 3) and its 200-yr expected lifetime
 specification.  This container lifetime specification becomes irrelevant for such long-
 lived FUSRAP radionuclides as U-238. For very long-lived radionuclides, the only
 reasonable argument for requiring a container is to keep the waste from dispersing
 during disposal, allowing it to arrive at its intended location on the ocean bottom.
 Therefore, the entire concept of using containers to retain FUSRAP wastes long enough
 for radioactivity to decay to "acceptable limits" is inappropriate.

             In addition, if the question  of container lifetime is ignored and if it is
 acknowledged that a container is desirable to minimize dispersion, another practical
 matter arises.  That is the large number  of containers that would be required for ocean
 disposal of all FUSRAP wastes.  If barges with a capacity of 2600 m* each, see [3], are
 used for unsolidified waste, more than 450 barges are  required. If 55-gallon drums are
 used, then 5.8 x 10« drums will be needed.  If the waste is to be solidified, these
numbers double.  Thus, as shown above, there are at least two reasons to question the
use of containers  for ocean disposal of FUSRAP wastes.
                                        30

-------
        Introduction of the LOEL concept to this discussion would eliminate the need to
 provide a guaranteed lifetime for the containers.  Instead, it sets limits (unknown at
 this tune) on the amount of activity allowed in any one container. Significant
 questions arise when one takes a target dose to biota and works backward to obtain an
 allowable total activity per container.  The geochemistry of the elements of concern will
 be important in determining how releases occur from the waste and at what rate.  In
 the case of uranium, releases will be particularly sensitive to the oxidation-reduction
 environment  This is also the case when discussing corrosion rates of containers that
 are partially embedded in the sediment The near-field dispersion of dissolved
 radionuclides and their interaction with the sediment and nepheloid materials will also
 significantly impact dose calculations.  It is doubtful that enough  is known about these
 processes  in the deepsea to derive any  useful dose values.

       4.2.2  Solidification. Disposal techniques 3, 4, and 5 use the concept of solidi-
 fication to minimize dispersibility of the waste in accordance with  criterion #8, which
 states that "particulate wastes shall  be  rendered nondispersible." A key issue that
 arises here, then, is whether there is any rationale for minimizing  dispersion of
 FUSRAP wastes after disposal.

       No  solidification agent can last long enough to have any impact on doses  caused
 by ingestion  of this  waste.  For example, waste solidified by cement will be reduced to
 participates long before even a small part of the U-238 half-life has passed.  Thus, as
with containerization, solidification of FUSRAP wastes will provide no long-term
benefit

       4.23 Leaching.  Proposed criterion #  7 requires  that the leach rate of a waste
be "as low as reasonably achievable11 and that leach rates will be no greater than
                                        31

-------
regulatory guidelines as measured by the ANS 16.1 test method.  The concept of
leaching is connected with solidification of waste in the ANS 16.1 test methodology. In
the same way that solidification of FUSRAP waste provides  no long-term benefits, leach
rate limits do nothing to minimize long-term doses. Even very low leach rates will
ultimately result in the release of all soluble contaminants because of the very long
half-lives.

      In the long-term, the amounts of U-238, Th-232 and their decay products
present  in seawater as a result of FUSRAP  disposal will be controlled by the
geochemical behavior of these elements in seawater, and the nature of the marine
environment in which they are dumped.  Thorium, for example, associates itself with
particles very readily.  Consequently, its  residence time in seawater is short; about 100
years  or less [13]. Uranium, in oxic seawater, is stable in the U*6 state as UO2(CO3V
and has a mean residence time of 400,000 years [13].  If, however, the environment is
not oxidizing, but reducing, uranium is present as U+4 which reacts to form  lower
solubility compounds and is, therefore, much less mobile than the oxidized form [14].
Radium is  more soluble than its parent element and much of the radium in seawater
is released  from sediment where  it is produced [10].  Radium-226 concentrations in
Atlantic Ocean  bottom water are typically about 0.1 pCi/1.  Disposal of FUSRAP wastes
from the Niagara Falls storage site into an  area of approximately 2.6 km in diameter
and 7 cm thick, would lead to an increase in Ra-226 concentration of 0.002 pCi/1 in a
oue-meter-thick layer of water moving over  the waste  [15].

5.  CONCLUSIONS

      Disposal techniques 3 and 4, described  in this report, meet the proposed waste
package performance criteria in that the wastes are both contained and solidified.
                                       32

-------
        Solidification, however, will approximately double the volume of waste for
 disposal.  In addition, solidification (e.g^ using portland cement) also would require
 containers.  If barges, with capacities of 2600 m* each, are used as containers,
 approximately 900 would be needed.  If 55-gallon drums are used, almost 12 x 10*
 would be needed.

       From the previous discussions, it is evident that the proposed waste package
 performance criteria for LLW are inappropriate for regulating by-product materials
 containing long-lived  istopes (e.g. FUSRAP wastes). In proposing these criteria [6], it
 is made clear that they were intended for regulating LLW containing  radionuclides
 such as Cs-137, Sr-90 and Cb-60. These are short half-life radionuclides (compared to
 the isotopes in FUSRAP waste) which would pass through many half-lives during the
 required 200-year container lifetime. The long half-lives of the contaminants in
 FUSRAP waste (which are naturally occurring), the very low activity and the large
 volume all make solidification and containerization unfeasible.

      If the  LOEL concept is to be applied to this type of waste, significant questions
 regarding geochemistry and near-field dispersion remain to be answered before
 reasonable limits can  be defined for either FUSRAP (by-product) waste or for LLW.

      Thus, the proposed LLW package performance criteria bear little useful
 relationship to FUSRAP waste.  It is recommended that a new set of criteria be written
for disposal of wastes, such as the FUSRAP materials, which could also be applicable
to other waste types, where solidification or containerization provide, no reduction of
long-term risk.

-------
                                REFERENCES
[1]    U.S. Department of Energy, Integrated Data Base for 1986: Spent Fuel
      and Radioactive Waste Inventories. Projections and Characteristics.
      DOE/RW-0006 Rev. 2, September 1986.
[2]    Fiore, J. and G. Turi, "Progress and Problems in FUSRAP and SFMP
      Programs," in Waste Management >88. pp. 357-362, University of Arizona,
      Tucson, Arizona, 1988.
[3]    Gilbert, T.L, et al, "Alternatives for Management of Wastes Generated
      by the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program," ANL/EIS-20,
      Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, March 1983.
[4]    Hunt, Carlton D., "Fate and Bioaccumulation of Soil-Associated Low-
      Level Naturally Occurring  Radioactivity Following Disposal into a
      Marine Ecosystem," EPA 520/1-86-017, Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1986.
[5]    Bonner, J.S., et al, "Prediction of Vertical Transport of Low-Level
      Radioactive Middlesex Soil at a Deep Ocean Disposal Site,1*       EPA
      520/1-86-016, Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1986.
[6]    Colombo, P. and Fuhrmann, M., "Waste Package Performance Criteria for
      Deepsea Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes," EPA-520/1-88-009,
      Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D.C., July 1988.
[7]    Friedlander, G., et al, Nuclear and Radiochemistrv. Third Edition, John
      Wiley and Sons, N.Y., 684 pages, 1981.
                                      34

-------
                            REFERENCES (Continued)
 [8]    Kupferman, S.L., et al, "Ocean FUSRAP: Feasibility of Ocean Disposal of
       Materials from the Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program
       (FUSRAP)," in Waste Management '82. Volume H, pp. 471-485, University
       of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1982.
 [9]    U.S. Department of Energy, "Long-Term Management of the Existing
       Radioactive Wastes and Residues at the Niagara Falls Storage Site, Draft
       Environmental Impact Statement," DOE/EIS-0109D, August 1984.
 [10]   Fail-bridge, R.W., The Encyclopedia of Oceanography, Reinhold Publishing
       Corporation, N.Y.,  1021 pp., 1966.


 [11]   Fuhnnann, M. and Colombo, P., "Sedimentology ahd Geochemistry of Cores
       from the 3800 Meter Atlantic Radioactive Waste Disposal Site," BNL-37838,
       Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
       D.C, 1983.
[12]  Di Gregori, J.S. and Fraser, J.P., "Corrosion Tests in the Gulf Floor," in
      Corrosion in Natural Environments. ASTM TP 558, American Society for
      Testing and Materials, pp. 185-208,1974.
[13]  Cochran, J. Kirk, et al, The Geochemistry of Uranium and Thorium in Coastal
      Marine Sediments and Sediment Pore Waters, Geochimica et Cosmochimica
      Acta. Volume 50, pp. 663-680, 1986.
[14]   Cowart, J.B., "The Relationship of Uranium Isotopes to Oxidation/Reduction in
      the Edwards Carbonate Aquifer of Texas," Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
      Volume 48, pp. 277-283, 1980.
[15]   Stall, EA. and Meny-Libbey, P., "Comparison of Land and Ocean Disposal
      Alternatives for Bulk Wastes Containing Naturally Occurring Radionucltes," in
      Waste Management *85. Volume H, pp. 137-140, University of Arizona, Tucson,
      Arizona, 1985.

                                      35

-------