-------
Using the 20-year projection with an assumed ash utilization rate of about 30 percent
(EPAS8), the total ash volume that could be put into productive use is about 600 million MT.
It should be noted that this estimate is subject to some variation. For example, past data
have indicated that ash utilization rates have typically varied by 10 to 20 percent from year
to year. Table B.4-5 presents actual coal ash utilization, rates from 1966 to 1987 and
projected rates from 1990 to 2010. If the past trend holds true, it is anticipated that by 1990
the utilization rate could be over 30 percent and possibly exceed 40 percent by the turn of the
century. These projections assume that the status quo will be maintained while following
a moderate growth rate. The utility industry and the American Coal Ash Association
(ACA88, EPR88, EEI88) are, however, forecasting higher utilization rates assuming that coal
ash will be used more widely in the near future. For example, the American Coal Ash
Association is estimating that the use of fly ash as a substitute in concrete could readily be
doubled by targeting large construction projects (ACA88, ACA86a). In terms of new
applications, fly ash (combined with lime) could be used to stabilize hazardous wastes. Other
potential applications involve construction projects or activities while assuming higher
utilization rates. Such applications include using ash as a base for road and highway
construction, as structural fills, and for land reclamation and soil amendments. Given the
potential range of applications which could readily be implemented, the American Coal
Association's ultimate objective is to reverse the current disposal (80 percent) and utilization
(20 percent) distribution to 80 percent utilization and 20 percent disposal (BOR89). It should
be noted that such a high utilization rate is technically achievable since in Europe high
utilization rates (70 percent) are not uncommon (ACA84c). On a local basis, some utilities
can achieve utilization rates as high as 80 percent, but such demands are typically met by
stockpiling ash over several years in anticipation of future needs or even "mining" closed ash
impoundment or landfill sites (ACA84d, BOR89, NOV89b).
The EPA, in its 1988 Report to Congress, concluded that a utilization rate of about 30
percent is realistic (EPA88). The EPA has also indicated that it encourages the utilization
of coal combustion wastes as one method to reduce the amount of waste which would
otherwise require disposal. Given current practices, the Agency also acknowledges that
existing utilization practices appear to be done in an environmentally safe manner.
Furthermore, it also noted that coal combustion waste streams generally do not exhibit
hazardous characteristics under RCRA regulations. The Agency also indicated that it did not
B-4-15
-------
Table B.4-5. Actual and projected yearly ash utilization rate.
Year of Production
Utilization Rate
Actual(a) Proiected(b) Percent of Production
1966 12.1
1967 13.5
1968 17.6
1969 15.3
1970 13.0
1971 20.1
1972 16.3
1973 16.3
1974 14.6
1975 16.4
1976 20.0
1977 20.7
1978 24.1
1979 21.0
1980 18.7
1981 24.0
1982 20.7
1983 20.0
1984 23.1
1985 27.4
1986 21.7
1987 26.5
1990 21-33
1995 23-36
2000 25-39
2005 27-43
2010 29-46
(a) Based on American Coal Ash Association yearly data sheets from 1966 to 1987 for
fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slags.
(b) Projected rates are based on past trends (1966 to 1987) using linear regression.
Range is based on a fluctuation of 22% (or one standard deviation) from year to
year over the period of 1966 to 1987. All values are rounded off.
B-4-16
-------
intend to regulate, under RCRA Subtitle C, the disposal of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization wastes.
The EPA position, which encourages the utilization of coal combustion wastes, would
tend to promote the recycling of such materials in greater quantities and in more diverse
applications. Nevertheless, utilities, distributors, and other potential users are concerned
that fly ash and its use could become regulated in the near future. Conceivably, legislation
or regulations could be enacted which might severely limit the use of coal ash for commercial
applications. Such regulations could also leave users open to future litigations. In this
context, facilities or sites in which coal ash was once introduced could now be subject to
reclamation and clean up requirements (BOY89). Given these competing factors, it is difficult
to predict, with any accuracy, future trends in coal ash utilization. Some factors may cause
new markets and applications to appear while others may become suppressed or even
disappear. These factors, taken together, tend to favor the status quo and maintain a
limited, but relatively stable range of applications which tend to throttle high or spurious
growth rates (BOY89, CAI89). In view of these uncertainties, a 30 percent utilization factor
is assumed for this report.
4.4
4.4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations
Coal contains naturally-occurring uranium and thorium, as well as their radioactive
decay products. The radioactivity of coal is known to vary over two orders of magnitude
depending upon the type of coal and the region from which it has been mined (EPA84, EIS87,
BED70, UNS82). The concentrations of U-238 and Th-232 in coal can range from 0.08 to 14
pCi/g and 0.08 to 9 pCi/g, respectively (UNS82). In a review of 800 coal samples
characterizing U-238 concentrations, Wagner and Greiner noted that only 0.5 percent of the
samples exceeded an activity of 10 pCi/g (WAG82). Beck conducted an evaluation of nearly
1,000 U.S. coal samples and reported average (arithmetic) U-238 and Th-232 concentrations
of 0.6 and 0.5 pCi/g, respectively (BEC80, BEC89). The frequency distribution of measured
B-4-17
-------
U and Th contents in coal, however, indicates that concentre ions (based on geometric mean)
are in fact predominantly lower. For example, the reported nean geometric concentrations
of U-238 and Th-232 are 0.34 and 0.26 pCi/g, respectively ( EC80).
The concentration of U-235 in coal is much lower tl an the concentration of U-238.
The natural abundance of the U-235 isotope in natural urai .um is 0.72 percent. Assuming
that the relative abundance of U-235 to U-238 in coal h: ; this same value, and taking
account of the differences in decay rate between U-235 and '-238, for each 1 pCi/g of U-238
in coal there should be about 0.05 pCi/g of U-235.
The radionuclide distributions and concentrations in :oal ash are also known to vary
significantly (UNS82, BED70, EPA85, EPA83, GRE87). F >r example, U-238 and Th-232
concentrations have been noted to range from 1.5 to 8 i pCi/g and 0.4 to 7.5 pCi/g,
respectively (BEC89, BEC80). Average concentrations of I 238 and Th-232 in fly ash are
reported to be about 5.4 and 1.9 pCi/g, respectively (UNS82 The radioactivity of fly ash is,
therefore, typically higher than that of coal. This enrichme t is dependent upon the type of
coal used, its ash content, and the type of boiler in whi .1 coal is used (UNS82). The
enrichment ratio also varies depending upon the elements form of the radionuclide. For
example, enrichment ratios of about 1.3 and 1.4 have been eported for U-238 and Th-232,
respectively (UNS82). For other nuclides, much higher enrichment ratios have been
observed; up to 2 for Ra-226 and between 5 to 11 for Po-21' and Pb-210. Typically, higher
ratios characterize escaping fly ash rather than collected fl ash.
Because of the disparate nature of the data regarding the presence and concentration
of radionuclides in ash materials, a simplified approach as used in this assessment to
estimate ash concentrations for uranium and thorium, indu ing their decay products. First
a limited review of the published literature was conductec to identify commonly reported
radionuclides and their respective concentrations (EPA79, E 'A83, EPA89b, BEC80, GRE83,
GRE87, RAD88, RAD82, STY80, TEK79, UNS82, WAG82, ^ AG80). Secondly, radionuclide
distributions and concentrations were grouped in two cate ones, fly ash and bottom ash,
whenever reported. Thirdly, it was assumed that ash maten Is were comprised of 80 percent
fly ash and 20 percent bottom ash which includes be ler slags. Fourth, coal ash
concentrations for each radionuclide were weighted with ic distribution noted above to
account for the difference in specific activity between fly : ih and bottom ash. Fifth, the
B-4-18
-------
radioactivity in sludges was assumed to be essentially identical to that of ash. Finally, the
small amount (less than 5 percent) of fly ash which passes through particulate emission
systems and becomes airborne was ignored since such ash is not collected or disposed with
the other ash materials. For this report, the weighted (80 percent fly ash and 20 percent
bottom ash and slag) average radionudide concentrations are as follows:
Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
Po-210 7.00
Pb-210 6.80
Ra-226 3.70
Th-228 3.20
Ra-228 1.80
Th-230 2.30
Th-232 2.10
U-234 3.30
U-238 3.30
U-235 0.16
4.4.2 Radon Flux Rates
Several important factors govern the exhalation rate of radon, including mineral form,
material density and porosity, particle size distribution, and moisture content. Changing
meteorological conditions, such as atmospheric pressure, surface wind velocity, and
differences between soil and air temperatures, are known to have pronounced effects on radon
emanation rates (NCR85, NCR87). The estimated radon-222 emanation rate is based on the
relationship of radium-226 concentration in the soil (pCi/g) to the area! exhalation rate
(pCi/m2-s). Given the varied properties of coal ash and factors governing radon emanation,
some simplifying assumptions were made in this assessment. Radon-220 (Rn-220) emissions
from the Th-232 decay chain are ignored in this report because the dose associated with this
noble gas is one or more orders of magnitude lower than that due to Rn-222 (UNS82).
The National Council for Radiation Protection notes that for typical soils, the average
radon emanation rate is about 0.5 pCi/m2-s per pCi/g (NCR85). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission cites radon emanation rates for tailings and soils with varying moisture contents
based on work conducted by Tanner and Schiager (NRC80). The reported rates for wet,
B-4-19
-------
moist, and dry materials are 0.35, 0.65, and 1.2 pi/m2-s per pCi/g, respectively. Schiager
suggests a radon emanation rate of 1.6 pCi/m2-s for dry tailings (SCH74) based on the
assumption of an infinitely thick, dry tailings bed. Typically, about 90 percent of the source
term originates from the first 2 m of material.
Coal ash is generally believed to have a lower exhalation rate than soil since the ash
is vitrified (BEC80, WAG81). Radon is thought to be generated and to decay within the
particle in which Ra-226 is trapped. Beck reports that fly ash typically has a lower
exhalation rate th?" soil. For example, it is noted that the ratio of the emanation rate to the
production rate is about 15 percent for soil, but only about 2 percent for fly and bottom ash
(BEC89). Weathering may increase the exhalation rate. If ash particles are subjected to
weathering, it is conceivable that the radon exhalation rate would increase over time and
reach levels typical to those observed from natural soils (WAG81). Given that coal ash may
be disposed in settling ponds, water saturated areas, or be even capped with soil covers,
radon exhalation rates may in fact be lower than for soil.
Kalkwarf reports radon emanation coefficients ranging from 0.7 to 9.8 percent for
three sets of ash samples (15 measurements) and 1.8 percent for an ash sample from the
National Bureau of Standards (KAL85). The results reveal that smaller particles release
radon at a greater rate than larger ones. For example, the emanation coefficient for particles
less then 0.5 micrometers was about two times higher than that of particles in the range of
11 to 15 micrometers (um). If the 11 to 15 urn particle size range were used as the cutoff
point for characterizing radon emanation rates between large and small particles, the radon
emanation coefficient may be assumed to be about 3 percent for particles greater than 11 um
and 4.3 percent for particles less than 11 um. Ratioing these values to the soil radon
emanation coefficient rate of 15 percent and soil exhalation rate of 0.5 pCi/m2-s, a coal ash
exhalation rate of 0.13 pCi/m2-s per pCi/g is derived for the purpose of this analysis. This
exhalation rate is weighted to reflect the partitioning factor between fly ash (80 percent) and
bottom ash and boiler slag (20 percent). A radon emanation coefficient of 4 percent is used
in this report.
B-4-20
-------
4,4.3 Ex .ernyl Radiation Exposure Rates
N empirical information could be found which characterizes the radiation exposure
rates ass ciated with the disposal of coal ash. The EPA has conducted a study to estimate
potential loses and risks associated with environmental releases from coal and coal ash piles
at utility md industrial facilities with coal-fired boilers (EPA89a). The purpose of this study
was to p: )vide background information to consider exempting coal and coal ash piles from
theCER< LA importable quantity (RQ) notification requirements. Conservative models were
used to e timate potential radiation doses and resulting health risks to workers standing on
the piles md next to the piles (10 m away) and to a nearby resident assumed to reside 100
meters fi >m the piles. The exposure scenarios evaluated in the study were:
Direct radiation exposure
Airborne releases of radon and fugitive dusts
Pile leachate migration to groundwater
Pile surface water runoff to a nearby stream.
For direc radiation and airborne exposures, the potential doses and risks were analyzed for
both the >nsite workers and the nearby resident. Potential doses and risks from exposure
to contar inated groundwater and to surface water runoff were only analyzed for the nearby
resident.
Tl e dose and risk results from postulated exposures to the coal ash pile are
summari ed in Table B.4-6. The maximum lifetime risk of fatal cancer to a worker standing
on an as! pile for eight hours a day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year for 47 years was
estimate- to be 4.3 x 10*4; the maximum lifetime risk to a worker standing next to the ash
pile (10 i . away) for the same period was estimated to be 1.8 x 10"4. To put these risks in
perspecti e, a lifetime risk of 4.3 x 10*4 corresponds to an annual dose of 33 mrem and an
annual r sk of 9.2 x 10"6 for fatal cancers. This annual risk is an order of magnitude lower
than the bserved risk of job-related accidental death (1.1 x 10"4) for workers in all industries
in the U 5. in 1985. An annual exposure rate of 33 mrem/yr is at the low end of reported
exposure rates from natural background radiation in the U.S. For nearby residents, the
estimate! lifetime health risks, which are calculated to be in the range from 1.6 x 10"5 to
B-4-21
-------
Table B.4-6. Estimated doses and risks from exposures to a coal ash
pile (Source: EPA89a).
Yearly Dose Lifetime
Exposure Parameter (mrem) Riska
Worker
Direct radiation standing on pile 3.3 x 10+1 4.3 x 1CT4
Direct radiation standing near pile 1.4 x 10+1 1.8 x 1CT4
Particulate emissions 7.3 x 10"3 1.1 x 10*7
Radon emissions 5.2 x 10"3 4.3 x 10"6
Nearby Resident
Direct radiation 6.1 x 10'1 1.6 x 10'5
Particulate emissions 2.2 x 10'2 3.4 x 10*7
Radon emissions 2.8 x KT3 1.6 x 10'5
Groundwater 0.0 0.0
Surface water 7.3 x 10'1 4.6 x lO"6
(a) For workers, the lifetime risks are for fatal cancers based on exposures starting at
age 18 and ending at 65 years of age.
For the nearby resident, the lifetime risks are for fatal cancers based on a 70-year
life span.
B-4-22
-------
3.4 x 10'7, are well within the general range of health risks, 10"4 to 10'7, routinely considered
to be acceptable within the Super-fund program (EPA89a).
4.5 COAL ASH NORM SECTOR SUMMARY
4.5.1 Generic Coal Ash Disposal Site
The reference disposal site is assumed to be located in the Northeast because of the
higher population density and coal and ash utilization rates. The quantity of ash disposed
on site is representative of overall practices at utility coal-fired plants. The use of coal within
the industrial sector, to a certain extent, is also assumed to be implicitly addressed since the
quantity of coal consumption and ash generation in this analysis also reflects disposal
practices of industrial boilers. Accordingly, it is assumed that by evaluating utilities, the
results will also envelope, other things being equal, industrial facilities which are typically
much smaller in capacity or size.
The impoundment site is assumed to include all areas where ash is being handled as
part of the overall waste management activities, including disposal, grading, capping, etc.
During disposal activities, some utilities periodically cover exposed disposal cells with soil
caps to reduce wind erosion and minimize fugitive dust emissions. In this assessment, no
credit is taken for features or practices which tend to reduce such offsite releases.
The ash contained at the site is assumed to be disposed in a 25-hectare facility
totalling 1.3 million MT of ash materials. The ash impoundment is assumed to be square in
shape with dimensions of about 500 by 500 meters with a depth of nearly 5 meters, based on
an average ash density of 1.2 g/cc (EPR88, EPR87). The ash pile is not capped with a soil
cover. The effectively exposed area is about 250,000 m2. Depending upon the size of a power
plant and the ash content of the coal used, this volume may, in fact, represent more than one
year's worth of ash generation.
B-4-23
-------
4.5.2 Population Exposure
The population density near and around the site is estimated to be 780 persons per
square mile since the site is assumed to be located near a large urban population center.
This population density is based on the average population distribution of four Northeastern
States; namely, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (BOC87).
4.5.3 Radionuclide Concentrations
Because of the disparate nature of the data regarding the presence and concentration
of radionuclides in ash materials, a simplified approach is used to estimate ash
concentrations for uranium and thorium and their decay products. Radionuclide distributions
and concentrations were grouped in two categories, fly ash and bottom ash. It was assumed
that ash materials were comprised of 80 percent fly ash and 20 percent bottom ash which
includes boiler slags. The coal ash concentrations for each radionuclide were weighted with
the distribution noted above to account for the difference in specific activity between fly ash
and bottom ash. For the purpose of this report, weighted (80 percent fly ash and 20 percent
bottom and slag) average radionuclide concentrations was derived for conducting the risk
assessment. The radionuclide concentrations used in the coal ash risk assessment of Chapter
D are given in Section 4.4.1.
B-4-24
-------
B.4 REFERENCES
ACA83 American Coal Ash Association, $2.1 Million Mine Subsidence Control Project
Initiated in Fairmont, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 15, 1983, No. 2.
ACA84a American Coal Ash Association, 40 Highway Departments Utilize Power Plant
Ash on Road Construction & Maintenance Projects, Ash at Work, Newsletter,
Vol. 16,1984, No. 1.
ACA84b American Coal Ash Association, Iowa Coal Land Being Reclaimed With Class
- C Ash, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 16, 1984, No. 5.
ACA84c American Coal Ash Association, NAA Message Board by Mr. Tobias Anthony,
Executive Vice President, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 16, 1984, No. 1.
ACA84d American Coal Ash Association, Northern States Power Has Remarkable Ash
Sales Record, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 16, 1984, No. 4.
ACA86a Coal Ash Book, American Coal Ash Association, 1986.
ACA86b American Coal Ash Association, Fly Ash Can Be Effective For Soil
Amendment, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 18, 1986, No. 2.
ACA87a American Coal Ash Association, Coal Combustion By-product - Production and
Consumption, Data sheets compiled by the ACAA, data set from 1966 to 1987.
ACASTb American Coal Ash Association, 1987 Coal Ash Symposium: The Road to
Improved Ash Utilization, Ash at Work, Newsletter, Vol. 19, 1987, No. 1.
ACA88 American Coal Ash Association 1988-1989 Business Plan, Washington, DC,
1988.
BEC80 Beck, H.L., et.al., Perturbations on the Natural Radiation Environment Due
to the Utilization of Coal as an Energy Source, Natural Radiation
Environment, CONF-780422, Vol. 2, pp. 1521-1558, 1980.
BEC89 Letter Transmittal - Paper titled: Some Radiological Aspects of Coal
Combustion, Harold L. Beck and Kevin M. Miller, Jan. 13, 1989.
BED70 Bedrosian, P.H., et al, "Radiological Survey Around Power Plants Using Fossil
Fuel", EERL 71-3, Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1970.
BOC87 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 108th Edition, U.S. Department of
Commerce, December 1987.
B-4-R-1
-------
BOR89 Telephone conversation with Mr. Erast Borissoff, Executive Director, American
Coal Ash Association, Washington DC, August 16, 1989.
BOY89 Telephone conversation with Mr. Dave Boyenga, JTM Industries, Atlanta,
Georgia, August 14, 1989.
CAI89 Telephone conversation with Mr. Gregg Cain, American Fly Ash Company, Des
Plaines, Illinois, August 14, 1989.
EEI88 Edison Electric Institute, Ashes and Scrubber Sludges-Fossil Fuel Combustion
By-Products: Origin, Properties, Use, and Disposal, Publication No. 48-88-05,
May 1988.
EEI89 Letter from Mr. John J. Novak, Edison Electric Institute, to Ms. Barbara
Hostage, USEPA/ERD, dated November 15,1989.
EIA88 Annual Outlook For U.S. Electric Power 1988 - Projections Through 2000, U.S.
DOE Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0474(88), August 24,1988.
EIS87 Eisenbud, Menil, Environmental Radioactivity, Third Edition, Academic
Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1987.
EPA73 Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment of Potential Radiological Health
Effects from Radon in Natural Gas, EPA 520/1-73-004, November 1973.
EPA79 Environmental Protection Agency, Radiological Impact Caused by Emissions
of Radionuclides into the Air in the United States, Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 520/7-79-006, Draft, August 1979.
EPA83 Environmental Protection Agency, Survey of Five Utility Boilers for
Radionuclide Emissions, Prepared by CGA Corporation under EPA Contract
68-02-3168, December 1983.
EPA84 Environmental Protection Agency, Radionuclides Background Information
Document for Final Rule, Volume II, EPA 520/1-84-022-2, Washington, D.C.,
October 1984.
EPA85 Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Exposures and Health Risks
Associated with Alternative Methods of Land Disposal of Natural and
Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM) (DRAFT), Prepared by
PEI Associates, Inc., and Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. under EPA
Contract 68-02-3878, October 1985.
EPA88 Environmental Protection Agency, Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by
Electric Utility Power Plants, Report to Congress, EPA/530-SW-88-002,
February 1988.
B-4-R-2
-------
EPA89a Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Background Supplement in
Support of Rulemaking Adjustment Activities for Reportable Quantities (RQ)
of Radionuclides, prepared by SC&A, Inc. under EPA Contract 68-02-4375,
March 1989.
X
EPA89b Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed NESHAPS for Radionuclides - Background Information Document,
Vol. H, EPA/520-1-89-006, February 1989.
EPR87 Electric Power Research Institute, Classification of Fly Ash for Use in Cement
and Concrete, EPRI CS-5116, Final Report, April 1987.
EPR88 Electric Power Research Institute, High Volume Fly Ash Utilization Projects
in the United States and Canada, EPRI CS-4446, 2nd Edition, March 1988.
GRE83 Greiner, N.R., Williams, M.D., Wagner, P., Estimation of Radionuclide Releases
From Specific Large Coal-Fired Industrial and Utility Boilers, LA-9845-MS,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, August 1983.
GRE87 Greiner, N.R., Wagner, P., Natural Radioactivity in Lignites and Lignite Ash:
Final Report, LA-10942-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, April 1987.
KAL85 Kalkwarf, D.R., Emanation Coefficients for Rn in Sized Coal Fly Ash, Health
Physics Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 429-436, April 1985.
MEL89 Telephone conversation with Mr. Mike Miller, Electric Power Research
Institute, Coal Combustion System Division, Palo Alto, California, August 17,
1989.
NCR77 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Radiation
Exposure from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources, NCRP Report
No. 56, 1977.
NCR85 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Evaluation of
Occupational and Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon Daughters
in the United States, NCRP Report No. 78, May 1985.
NCR87 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Exposure of the
Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background
Radiation, NCRP Report No. 94, December 1987.
NER87 Electricity Supply and Demand for 1987-1996, North American Electric
Reliability Council, November 1987.
NOV89a Telephone conversation with Mr. John Novak, Director, Water and Solid Waste
Activities, Edison Electric Institute, Washington D.C., January 25, 1989.
NOV89b Telephone conversation with Mr. John Novak, Edison Director, Water and
Solid Waste Activities Electric Institute, Washington D.C., August 15, 1989.
B-4-R-3
-------
NRC80 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0706, Vol. Ill, September 1980.
RAD82 Radian Corporation, A Radiochemical Survey of U.S. Coals and Coal
Combustion By-Products, Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute,
Research Project 1620, Final Report, Austin, Texas, September 1982.
RAD88 Radian Corporation, Assessment of NORM Concentrations in Coal Ash and
Exposure to Workers and Members of the Public, Prepared for the Edison
Electric Institute (USAWG), Austin, Texas, June 1988.
SCH74 Schiager, K.J., Analysis of Radiation Exposures on or Near Uranium Mill
Tailings Piles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Data and
Reports, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 411-425, July 1974.
STY80 Styron, C.E., An Assessment of Natural Radionuclides in the Coal Fuel Cycle,
Natural Radiation Environment, CONF-780422, Vol. 2, pp. 1511-1520, 1980.
TEK79 Teknekron Research, Inc., Information Base (Including Sources and Emission
Rates) for the Evaluation and Control of Radioactive Materials to Ambient Air,
Task 2, Vol. 1, Prepared for the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1979.
UNS82 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 1982 report to the General
Assembly, United Nations, New York, 1982.
WAG80 Wagner, P., and Greiner, N.R., Second Annual Report - Radioactive Emissions
from Coal Production and Utilization, October 1, 1979 - September 30, 1980,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8825-PR, July 1981.
WAG81 Wagner, P., and Greiner, N.R., Proceedings of the Workshop on Radioactivity
Associated with Coal Use, Held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, September 15-17,
1981, Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-9106-C, December, 1981.
WAG82 Wagner, P., and Greiner, N.R., "Third Annual Report - Radioactive Emissions
from Coal Production and Utilization, October 1,1980 - September 30, 1981,"
Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-9359-PR, June 1982.
B-4-R-4
-------
B.5 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION SCALE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Both uranium and thorium and their progeny are known to be present in varying
concentrations in underground geological formations from which oil and gas are produced
(BEL60, JOH73, PIE55). The presence of these naturally occurring radionuclides in
petroleum reservoirs has been recognized since the early 1930*3 and has been used as one of
the methods for finding hydrocarbons beneath the earth's surface (MAR87). Uranium and
thorium are highly insoluble and, as oil and gas are brought to the surface, remain mostly
in place in the underground reservoir. However, radium and the radium daughters are
slightly soluble, and under some conditions may become mobilized by the liquid phases in the
formation. When brought to the surface with liquid production streams, radium and its
daughters may remain dissolved at dilute levels, or they may precipitate because of chemical
changes and reduced pressure and temperature. Since radium concentrations in the original
formation are highly variable, the concentrations that precipitate out on the surfaces of oil
and gas production and processing equipment are also variable and may exhibit elevated
radioactivity levels. Scales and sludges that accumulate in surface equipment may vary from
background levels of NORM to elevated levels as high as tens of nanocuries per gram
depending on the radioactivity and chemistry of the geologic formation from which oil and
gas are produced and on the characteristics of the production process.
Since the radioactivity in oil and gas production and processing equipment is generally
low and of natural origin, its accumulation and significance were not noted and studied until
recently. The problem is now known to be widespread, occurring in oil and gas production
facilities throughout the world, and has become a subject of attention in the United States
and in other countries. In response to this concern, facilities in the U.S. and in Europe have
been characterizing the nature and extent of NORM in pipe scale, evaluating the potential
for exposures to workers, and developing methods for properly managing these low specific
activity wastes (EPF87, MCA88, MIL87, MIL88).
B-5-1
-------
In 1982, radium and thorium in measurable quantities were found in mineral scales
on British oil and gas production facilities in the North Sea. Because large quantities of
materials were being handled in the confined working area of offshore platforms, operators
developed special work procedures for protection against possible harmful effects of
radioactivity. After a review of the situation, the British government and oil industry
representatives issued guidelines governing worker safety, material handling, and waste
disposal (UK85).
In the U.S., the presence of naturally occurring radioactivity in mineral scale deposits
came to the attention of industry and government in the spring of 1986 when, during a
routine workover of a well in Mississippi, barium sulfate scale deposited in production tubing
was found to contain radium and thorium. Assays of this scale showed 6,000 pCi/g of
radium-226 and 1,000 pCi/g of thorium-232 coprecipitated in a barium sulfate matrix
(MAR87, MCA88). Because of the concern that some of the contaminated pipes, which had
been removed to nearby pipe cleaning facilities, may have contaminated the environment,
radiological surveys were conducted by the EPA's Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility.
These surveys showed some equipment with elevated external radiation levels and soil
contamination.
Both the oil and gas industry and state regulatory bodies, as well as the EPA, are
currently examining the problem of identifying and regulating NORM in oil and gas
production facilities and equipment. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has sponsored
studies to characterize accumulations of naturally occurring radioactivity in oil field
equipment and to determine safe methods for its disposal (API89, API90). The API has also
formed an Ad Hoc Committee on Low Specific Activity (LSA) Scale which has prepared a
draft measurement protocol for identifying producing areas where NORM scale exists
(API87). The Part N subcommittee of the National Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors has been working since 1983 to develop model state regulations (PartN of
Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation) for the control of NORM (CPD87).
These model regulations are intended to help individual states develop their regulations in
a uniform way such that the regulations are consistent from state to state and with Federal
regulations. For example, the state of Texas has proposed NORM regulations that are very
similar to the Part N regulations, and Louisiana has regulations for NORM in scales and
sludges from oil and gas production. While the regulations are intended to apply generally
B-5-2
-------
to all NORM-containing materials, several parts would apply specifically to the oil and gas
industry pipe scale problem.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has conducted an industry-wide survey of
radiation exposure levels associated with NORM in oil production and gas processing
equipment (API89). The purposes of the study were (1) to identify the geographic areas of
petroleum producing and gas processing facilities having the greatest occurrence of NORM,
and (2) to identify items of equipment at these facilities which have the highest NORM
activity levels. Over 36,000 individual observations were made in 20 states and two offshore
areas by participating petroleum companies using similar equipment and data collection
protocols. Radiation exposure levels were measured in units of urem/hr, and the results were
reported on survey data sheets provided to all participants. Background radiation levels were
also measured and reported for each site in order to differentiate the background effects from
contamination effects. The results of this study are summarized in section 5.4.3 of this
chapter.
Radium and radium daughters are also known to be present in elevated concentrations
in produced waters from oil production operations. In general, these produced waters are
reinjected into deep wells or are discharged into non-potable coastal waters. The impacts of
elevated concentrations of radionuclides in produced waters are not considered in this risk
assessment.
Volumes of NORM scales and sludges from offshore operations are also not included
in the inventories presented in this chapter nor in the impacts evaluation of Chapter D.
Radiation exposures to workers and to other individuals from offshore operations will be
similar to or less than exposures from onshore operations. However, total population impacts
might increase slightly if offshore operations were considered in this assessment.
This assessment is limited to NORM in oil and gas production equipment. NORM in
gas plant processing equipment is described but is not included in the risk assessment for
this sector category because the NORM is generally in the form of Pb-210 surface
contamination on the gas plant equipment. Consequently, it does not have a strong radon
or gamma emission component. Furthermore, the CPG and collective population effects from
B-5-3
-------
the production equipment are an upper bound to any health impacts from the gas plant
equipment.
In the following sections, descriptions are given of th6 oil and gas production industry,
and of the properties of oil and gas scale and sludge waste from production equipment. Also
provided are actual and projected amounts of scale and sludge produced by this NORM
sector, using the oil and gas production information. This information is used to assess
potential exposures and health impacts to members of the general public and critical
population groups. A radiological risk assessment is performed (see Chapter D) assuming
that both exposed populations reside near a generic site.
52 OVERVIEW OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
U.S. crude oil production for the years 1970 through 1987 is shown in Table B.5-1.
The highest oil production rate occurred in 1970 at almost 9.64 million barrels per day.
Crude oil production has since declined to only about 8.35 million barrels per day in 1987.
The production of crude oil in the U.S. is closely tied to the price of crude oil which is
determined on a world-wide scale by OPEC countries, and to world demand for crude oil.
Thus U.S. oil production is subject to fluctuations that depend on world-wide political and
economic conditions as well as on U.S. needs for crude oil.
U.S. production of natural gas for the years 1970 through 1987 is shown in Table
B.5-2. Production of natural gas peaked in 1973, and has been declining since that year. In
1987, marketed production of natural gas was about 76 percent of the volume generated in
1973. This decline in marketed production is due both to the more efficient use of natural
gas for home heating and to the modernization and improvements in efficiency of industrial
furnaces.
Oil and gas production occurs throughout the U.S. and in offshore coastal areas. Table
B.5-3 lists the number of operating crude oil production wells in each state and the amount
of crude oil obtained from these wells in 1987 (PET88). Table B.5-4 lists the number of
B-5-4
-------
Table B.5-1. U.S. crude oil production. (Source: PET88)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Million bbls/dav"
9.637
9.463
9.441
9.208
8.774
8.375
8.132
8.245
8.707
8.552
8.597
8.572
8.649
8.688
8.879
8.971
8.680
8.349
a A barrel of oil has a capacity of 42 gallons.
B-5-5
-------
Table B.5-2. U.S. natural gas production. (Source: PET88)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Billion Cubic Feet
21,921
22,493
22,532
22,648
21,601
20,109
19,952
20,025
19,974
20,471
20,180
19,956
18,520
16,822
18,230
17,198
16,791
17,150
B-5-6
-------
Table B.5-3. Crude oil production for 1987 by state. (Source: PET88)
State-Wide Rank
State
United States11
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Number of
Producing
Wells
620,181
875
1,216
23
8,398
45,694
5,642
122
32,307
7,449
48,051
22,974
29,758
4,996
2,143
200
4,050
1,852
35
18,401
4,428
3,474
30,013
101,745
14,271
Tfif^iaand
Barrels
3,629,553
26,447
717,415
131
14,960
400,808
33,182
9,365
23,980
3,738
67,914
6,838
538,468
30,352
28,833
110
25,789
6,091
3,112
86,928
710
44,271
12,153
168,688
3,302
Number of
Producing
Wells
24
23
31
13
4
15
28
5
14
3
8
7
16
20
26
18
21
29
9
17
19
6
2
11
Total
Production
14
2
29
17
4
11
19
16
23
8
20
3
12
13
30
15
21
25
7
27
9
18
5
24
B-5-7
-------
Table B.5-3. (continued)
State
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Number of
Producing
Wells
149
648
198,163
1,785
29
15,850
10,953
Thousand
Barrels
1,644
614
898,237
40,168
17
5,390
134,612
State-Wide
t
Number of
Producing
Wells
27
25
1
22
30
10
12
Rank
Total
Production
26
28
1
10
31
22
6
a Includes 4,487 wells and 295,286 thousand barrels at unspecified locations.
B-5-8
-------
Table B.5-4. Natural gas production for 1987 by state. (Source: PET88)
State-Wide Rank
State
United States'1
Alflbama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Number of
Producing
Wells
253,856
1,000
87
2,847
1,293
3,948
0
238
808
11,280
10,493
16,647
670
749
2,100
b
23,413
5,180
103
33,369
26,595
26,000
52
790
45,552
Billion
Cubic Feet
17,155,162
117,227
1,966
131,821
427,935
162,506
8,430
2,975
500
394,906
88,500
5,096,369
161,629
137,890
46,330
1,900
818,453
36,200
62,857
191,990
1,987,261
171,500
2,900
4,500
6,060,960
Number of
Producing
Wells
16
25
12
15
11
27
23
17
8
9
7
21
19
14
___b
6
10
24
3
4
5
26
18
1
Total
Production
14
26
13
6
10
22
24
28
7
17
2
11
12
19
27
4
20
18
8
3
9
25
23
1
B-5-9
-------
Table B.5-4. (continued)
State-Wide Rank
State
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Number of
Producing
Wells
497
685
33,950
2,104
Billion
Cubic Feet
93,106
23,225
115,856
440,583
t
Number of
Producing
Wells
22
20
2
13
Total
Production
16
21
15
5
a Includes 3,306 wells and 364,887 billion cubic feet at unspecified locations.
b Not specified.
B-5-10
-------
operating natural gas wells in each state and the marketed production of natural gas from
these wells in 1987.
Almost one-third of the operating crude oil production wells in the U.S. are located in
the state of Texas which also ranked first in crude oil production in 1987. Five states (Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, California, and Louisiana) account for two-thirds of the total number of
operating crude oil production wells and also produced almost 60 percent of the crude oil in
1987. Alaska, which ranks 24th in the number of producing wells, ranked second in crude
oil production in 1987, producing 24 percent of the total barrels of crude oil. There are
extensive oil producing areas in the humid coastal regions of Texas, Louisiana, and
California, the north slope of Alaska, and some arid regions of northern Texas, Oklahoma,
and Kansas. The states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia rank high
in the number of producing wells, with 16 percent of the wells, but low in total production,
with only about one percent of production. The wells in these states are mostly stripper wells
for the removal of small amounts after the easily recoverable oil has been taken from the
reservoirs. Stripper wells do not necessarily result in less of a NORM problem than other
producing wells, and may, in fact, result in a greater problem. Stripper wells will produce
more water and, therefore, may bring more radium to the surface.
The state of Texas ranks first in the number of producing natural gas wells and also
ranked first in marketed production of natural gas in 1987, with 35 percent of the total
marketed production. Three states - Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma - have 35 percent of
the producing natural gas wells, and produced more *h«« three-fourths of the natural gas
marketed in the U.S. in 1987.
5.3 OIL AND GAS srAT.R AND SLUDGE WASTE PRODUCTION
5.3.1 Origin and Nature of NORM in Oil and Gas Scale and Sludge
The initial production of oil and gas from a reservoir is usually dry. However, as the
natural pressure within the petroleum bearing formation falls, groundwater present in the
B-5-11
-------
reservoir will also be produced with the oil and gas. This formation water contains dissolved
mineral salts, a very small proportion of which may be radioactive because of the presence
of uranium and thorium and their decay products in the underground formation. Thus, the
amount of NORM material from a producing field generally increases with the increases in
the amount of water pumped from the formation. The uranium and thorium are relatively
insoluble and remain mostly in place. However, radium (Ra-226 and Ra-228 from the
uranium and thorium decay chains) is much more soluble and, under some conditions,
becomes mobilized by the liquid phases in the reservoir.
The natural formation water will undergo changes in temperature and pressure as it
is brought to the surface with the oil and gas and may, under certain conditions, deposit scale
and sludge within the oil production system. This scale consists principally of barium,
calcium, and strontium compounds (sulfates, silicates, and carbonates). Because the
chemistry of radium is similar to that of barium, calcium, and strontium (all are Group IIA
elements), radium may also precipitate to form complex sulfates or carbonates.
Deposits in production equipment are generally in the form of thick and hard scale,
loose material, or oily sludge. The scale in these chemical matrices is very hard and
relatively insoluble. It may vary in thickness from a few millimeters to more than an inch.
Scale deposits in production equipment may at times become very thick, and some
accumulations have been known to completely block the flow in pipes as large as 4 inches in
diameter. Sludge often contains silica compounds, but may also hold significant amounts of
barium. Dried sludge which is low in oil content is similar to soil in appearance and
consistency, while some sludge remains very oily.
A basic flow diagram for oil and gas production is shown in Figure B.5-1. The oil and
gas production stream is processed in a separator where the oil, gas and water are divided
into separate streams based on their different fluid densities. Most of the solids in the
original fluid stream are removed in the separator and accumulate there. The production
stream may be further treated using a heater/treater to separate oil from water and sludge.
Most of the NORM precipitates or settles out of the production stream and remains in the
piping, separators, heater/treaters, and other production equipment. The produced water
flows from the separators into storage tanks from which it is injected down disposal wells or
recovery wells.
B-5-12
-------
V
t-«
CO
DRY GAS
V) METER
OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION
WELL
GAS
DEHYDRATOR
OIL AND GAS
SEPARATOR
1
PRODUCED
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
WATER
SEDIMENT
EMERGENCY PIT
OIL
STORAGE
TANK
METER
TO OIL
PIPELINE,
BARGE,
OR TRUCK
SEDIMENT
ENHANCED
RECOVERY OR
DISPOSAL
INJECTION
WELL
RAE-103341
RESERVOIR
Figure 0.5-1. Typical production operation, showing separation of oil, gas, and water.
-------
The NORM accumulated in production equipment scales typically contains radium
copreripitated in barium sulfate (BaSO4). Sludges are dominated by silicates or carbonates,
but also incorporate trace radium by copredpitation. Ra-226 is generally present in scales
and sludges in higher concentrations than Ra-228. The nominal activity ratio appears to be
about three times as much Ra-226 as Ra-228. Typically, Ra-226 is in equilibrium with its
decay products, but Ra-228 is not in equilibrium with its decay products. Reduced
concentrations of Ra-228 daughters are due to the occurrence in the thorium series decay
chain of two radium nuclides (Ra-228 and Ra-224) separated by Th-228 with a 1.9-year
half-life. Thus radium mobilized from the formation initially becomes depleted in Ra-224
(half-life = 3.6 days) until more is generated by Ra-228 decay through Th-228.
For the sake of simplicity, the term radium is used in this section to refer to the
combination of Ra-226 and Ra-228. Long-term radiological concern in waste disposal is
dominated by the daughter products of Ra-226 rather than Ra-228 due to the much longer
half-life of Ra-226 (1,600 years versus 5.75 years for Ra-228). Both are usually considered
together in waste disposal decisions, however, since they are not distinguished by simple field
measurements.
NORM radionuclides may also accumulate in gas plant equipment from Rn-222
(radon) gas decay, even though the gas is removed from its Ra-226 parent. The more mobile
radon gas mostly originates in underground formations and becomes dissolved in the organic
petroleum fractions in the gas plant Once in surface equipment, it is partitioned mainly into
the propane and ethane fractions by its solubility. Gas-plant deposits differ from oil
production scales and sludges, typically consisting of an invisible plate-out of radon daughters
on the interior surfaces of pipes, valves, and other gas plant equipment. These deposits
accumulate from radon daughters at natural levels from the very large volumes of gas
passing through the system. Since radon decays with a 3.8-day half-life, the only
radionuclide remaining in gas plant equipment that affects its disposal is Pb-210, which has
a 22-year half-life. Lead-210 decays by beta emission, with only low-intensity, low-energy
gamma rays.
B-5-14
-------
5.3.2 Oil and Gas Scale and Sludge Production Rates
The volume of NORM scale and sludge that is produced annually is uncertain, but
recent estimates suggest that as many as one-third of domestic oil and gas wells may produce
some radium-contaminated scale. It appears that the geological location of the oil reserve
and the type of production operation strongly influences the prevalence of NORM
accumulations. A review of surveys conducted in 13 states revealed that the number of
facilities reporting NORM in production wells ranged from 90 percent in Mississippi to none
or only a few in Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming (MCA88). However, 20 to 100 percent
of the facilities in every state identified NORM in heater/treaters. A separate estimate based
on Mississippi data indicates that one-half of the wells do produce NORM scale and ten
percent of these have scale with elevated radium concentrations (BLI88).
An analysis performed in the U.K. estimated that a typical well of 10,000 feet with
a 5.5-inch diameter pipe will produce 2 tons of scale per year for a well supplying 3,000
barrels of oil per day. In the U.K. oil producing area, there are approximately 850 production
wells (compared to nearly 2 million wells in the U.S.). Based on this data, the U.K.
estimated that their petroleum production wells would generate one thousand tons of scale
per year (SCA88). Applying the relationship for the U.K. wells of 2 tons of scale per 3,000
barrels of oil to the U.S., which produces about 8.3 million barrels of oil per day (EIA88), the
volume of scale produced in the U.S. is estimated to be about 6,000 MT per year.
For this report, a reference oil and gas production facility consisting often production
wells is assumed, and the NORM waste associated with this facility is estimated from data
developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and based on the results of laboratory
and field work. The API has developed a database for oil and gas production wells
throughout the U.S. and for equipment present at representative facilities. This database
includes information on the estimated quantities of scale and sludge in production equipment
derived from radiation measurements at facilities throughout the U.S. (API89).
Estimated quantities of scale and sludge for the representative 10-well production
facility, based on observations and field measurements at several facilities, are shown in
Table B.5-5. In defining the equipment, the API industry-wide survey headings were used.
The typical facility is assumed to consist of ten production wells with an average life of 30
B-5-15
-------
Table B.6-6. Equipment listing and characteristics of a 10-well production facility.**
Total
o>
Equipment Description
Production Facilities
Field Piping
Oil Line Piping
Valves
Manifold
Hesden/Manifolds
Piping
Meter
Meten. Screens. Filters
Pump
Oil Lease Pumps
Teat/Production Separators
Free Water Knockouts (FWKO)
Gun Band (Wash Tanks)
Sunk
Oil Stock Tanks
VRU (Vapor Recovery Unit)
Suction Scrubbers
WINJ
Injection Wells
Injection Pumps
Well and Well Head
Production Wells (Tubing)
Christmas Trees
H/T
Healer Troalcra
Sump
Pig Traps
PiU
Unit
ft.
ea.
M.
ft.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ft.
ea.
ft.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Total
No. of
Unite
46.000
26
6
300
6
2
2
1
1
2
1
6.000
1
13.800
1
1
3
3
Gross Dimensions
rio6'Dis.(4'NOM.)
1- to 6' Dia.
3" Dia. 151
3" Dia.
2* Dia. > 2'
6hp(2'*2'>2>)
3' Dia. * IV
4' Dia. * Iff
(400 bbl.) 12* Dia. 1 20*
(600 bbl.) 16* Dia. « 20*
10" Dia. > 4*
3' Tubing
(150hp)6>i6*i6>l
2- Dia.
0
4' i 26'
10- Dia. > 3'
(65 Gal) 22' Dia. x 3'
Wall
Thickness
(Inches)
0.36
1.00
0.30
0.30
060
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.26
0.26
100
0.26
1.00
0.26
100
0.26
0.60
008
NOBM NORM
Seals Sludge
Thickness Thickness
(Inches) (Inches)
0.08
0.30
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10 4.00
0.10 2.00
0.10 8.00
0.10 16.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
007
002
0 25 12.00
0.10
0 10 12.00
Disposal
Volume
As Is
(en. ft.)
16,395
B
5
16
1
16
141
ISO
2.260
7.070
314
1.000
125
1.204
460
314
6
30
Scale Sludge
Volume Volume
(cu.lt) (eu.n.)
1.227.74
2.60
0.60
1.2
0.20
1.81 4.71
1.26 2.09
8.17 0.62
21.67 441.79
2.33
131.00
126
161.38
2.00
7.08 12.67
026
0.68 7.92
Equipment
Volume
(cu.fl.)
5.652.00
8.33
1.78
6.00
2.00
18.08
7.50
20.42
64.17
23.33
327.50
12.60
602.17
100.00
7.08
1.25
0.47
-------
Table B.5-5. (continued)
Equipment Deacrlptlon
WL1NE
Water Lines
Valves
WTANK
Water Storage Tank*
Total
No. of
Unit Unlta
Groaa Dlmenalona
NORM
Wall Scale
Thlckneaa TblekneM
(Inchea)
-------
years. It is further assumed that tubing and some of the pipe in the wells will be replaced
about every seven years giving a total of 3 replacements of the original tubing during the
30-year facility life. Sludge is assumed to be emptied from tanks and heater/treaters about
every three years. Thus the quantities of NORM waste shown in Table B.5-5 only reflect
short-term (i.e., less than 10 years) accumulations.
A review of Table B.5-5 indicates that the majority of the waste volume originates
from the disposal of piping and valves, stock tanks, water storage tanks, wash tanks, and
water lines and piping. Based on these values and the additional quantities of sludge
generated during periodic cleaning of tanks, it is estimated that over 250 m3 (9,000 ft3) of
scale and sludge are produced during a 30-year life cycle of the characteristic oil and gas
production facility. It should be noted that it is difficult to translate the disposal volume into
a weight because the waste volume is comprised of equipment characterized with large
internal void spaces. In addition, the scale or sludge is trapped or internally coated in the
equipment. Relatively speaking, the scale or sludge in such components usually makes up
a small fraction of the total weight.
5.3.3 Oil and Gas Scale Handling and Disposal
In the past, when scale in oil and gas piping became a problem, the pipes were sent
off-site to companies that would either clean out the scale or recycle the pipes. Pipes are
cleaned by a process called rattling in which the scale is reamed out using a bit on a long
shaft which is rotated inside the pipe. As the scale was not known to be radioactive it was
stored on the ground at pipe cleaning yards or washed into the nearest pond or drainage
basin (BAI88). Sludge from tanks was placed in pits or lagoons. Some piping containing
scale was given to schools for use in playground equipment and as material for vocational
welding classes (FUE88).
Because of concern that some of the contaminated pipes which were removed to nearby
pipe cleaning facilities may have contaminated the environment, EPA's Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility conducted environmental radiological surveys. Their
results showed some equipment and locations with external radiation levels above 2 mR/hr
and soil contamination above 1,000 pCi/g of radium-226. Some contamination had been
B-5-18
-------
washed into a nearby pond and drainage ditch at one site, as well as into an agricultural field
with subsequent uptake of radium by vegetation (POR87).
Now that most companies in the petroleum industry are aware that pipe scale may
be radioactive, pipes are usually measured for radioactivity. Piping and equipment
containing NORM is generally being retained in controlled storage pending the promulgation
of disposal regulations (CRC88, TDH89, DEQ89). Scale and sludge that is removed from
piping and equipment is placed in drums and stored for later disposal.
Improper disposal of radioactive scale might lead to ground and surface water
contamination, even though the scale is very insoluble. In addition, direct exposures can
occur to individuals working or residing near the disposal site. Homes built over areas where
scale has been disposed could have higher indoor radiation exposure levels and radon
concentrations. There is probably little likelihood that radioactive scale would be used in
building materials because of its physical properties. Since the yearly generation rates
involve minimal volume of wastes, it is also unlikely that a commercial outlet would accept
scale for incorporation in building materials.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has recently sponsored a study to
characterize accumulations of naturally-occurring radioactivity in oil field equipment, and to
determine safe methods for their disposal. An analysis of disposal alternatives has been
prepared (API90) which employs computer models to evaluate the risks from radiation
exposures via seven different environmental pathways including radon inhalation, external
gamma exposure, groundwater ingestion, surface water ingestion, dust inhalation, food
ingestion, and skin beta exposure from NORM particles. Twelve waste disposal alternatives,
ranging from landspreading to disposal in underground formations were evaluated. The
disposal alternatives were evaluated in both humid and arid permeable geohydrological
settings due to their differences in environmental transport of radioactivity. Analyses of a
humid impermeable site were intermediate. Maximum NORM concentrations were computed
corresponding to the greatest concentrations of NORM nuclides that could utilize a given
disposal alternative without exceeding defined radiation exposure limits via a given exposure
pathway.
B-5-19
-------
5.3.4 Twenty-Year Oil and Gas Scale and Sludge Volume Est mates
For this assessment, the 20-year volume of NORM scale and; ludge from oil and gas
production equipment is estimated based on the number of crude oil jroduting wells shown
in Table B.5-3 and the waste volume data characterizing a represents ive 10-well production
facility shown in Table B.5-5. As described in Section 5.3.2, the -epresentative facility
consists of 10 production wells with an average life of 30 years. Piping and tubing is replaced
about every seven years. Sludge is emptied from tanks and heater/tre .ters about every three
years. Assuming that the NORM waste volumes shown in Table B. -5 are volumes at the
time piping is replaced or sludge is removed, the volume of NORM aste generated at the
10-well facility over a 20-year period is estimated to be about 250 m (9,000 ft3).
The total 20-year volume of NORM scale and sludge from all atilities in the U.S. is
estimated on the assumption that the number of producing wells shown in Table B.5-3
(approximately 620,000 wells) will not change significantly during the lext 20 years. Because
U.S. oil production is based not only on U.S. demand but also on w -rid-wide political and
economic conditions, this assumption is subject to large uncertain ies. The API-NORM
database used to derive the waste volume information in Table B.£ 5 was also applied to
estimate the amount of equipment contaminated with scale and si dge from different oil
producing regions. This was done by fitting the data to a log-normal distribution using the
maximum and minimum measurements and the total number of measurements. It is
estimated that about 30 percent of the producing wells in the U 3. contain equipment
contaminated with NORM scale and sludge. The total volume of c ntaminated scale and
sludge generated over a 20-year period is estimated to be about 4.6 ir Uion m3. The mass of
this material is estimated to be 8.3 million MT, using a waste densi / of 1.8 MT/m3.
B-5-20
-------
5.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF OIL AND GAS SCALE AND SLUDGE
5-4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations
Naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) is present in the earth in varying
concentrations in the geological formations from which oil and gas are extracted. Elevated
NORM concentrations in oil and gas production equipment result when Ra-226 and Ra-228
and their decay products co-precipitate with mineral scales, such as BaSO4, that form
deposits on the insides of field production equipment. Concentrations of NORM radionuclides
in scale and sludge of petroleum production equipment can vary from essentially background
(about 1 pCi/g) to tens of thousands of picocuries per gram. Factors which can affect the
magnitudes of NORM concentrations in oil and gas production equipment include the location
of the production facility, the type of equipment, how long the production well has been in
operation, and changes in temperature and pressure that take place during extraction of the
petroleum from the underground formation.
As discussed in Section 5.4.3, an American Petroleum Institute (API) industry-wide
survey of radiation exposure levels of NORM in oil and gas production equipment (API89)
showed a wide variation in NORM activity levels depending on the geographic origin of the
equipment. The geographic areas with the highest equipment readings were northern Texas
and the gulf coast crescent from southern Louisiana and Mississippi to the Florida
panhandle. Very low levels of NORM activity were measured in equipment from California,
Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and northern Kansas.
The highest concentrations of radium appear to occur in the wellhead piping and in
production piping near the wellhead. The concentration of radium deposited in separators
is about a factor of ten less than that found in wellhead systems. There is a further
reduction of up to an order of magnitude in radium concentration in heater/treaters and in
sludge holding tanks. Concentrations of radium in scale deposited in production tubing near
wellheads can range up to tens of thousands of picocuries per gram. The concentrations in
more granular deposits, found in separators, range from one to about one thousand picocuries
per gram. Higher concentrations are associated with hard scale deposits, apparently
B-5-21
-------
associated with precipitation from the water phase. NORM concentrations in sludge deposits
in heater/treaters and tanks are generally around 50 pCi/g.
The quantity and concentration of NORM waste in oil and gas production equipment
also changes with time as the relative quantities of gas, oil, and water in the producing
geological formation change. The trend is for the relative quantity of NORM to increase as
the well ages and as gas and oil resources are depleted.
In addition to the previously cited API study (API89) which provides data on radiation
exposure levels from NORM in petroleum production equipment, several other studies, both
in the U.S. and in other countries, have been made to evaluate NORM concentrations in oil
and gas scale. A British study of Ra-226 concentrations in oil and gas scale in production
facilities in the United Kingdom revealed concentrations in scale ranging from 10 to over
100,000 pCi/g (MCA88). The highest radium concentrations were reported in downhole
tubing and valves and ranged from 1,000 to 410,000 pCi/g. The measurements targeted scale
with suspected elevated Ra-226 activities. Accordingly, these results probably represent a
biased estimate of the Ra-226 concentration in scale.
One survey of U.S. facilities included the analysis (for Ra-226) of 125 scale samples
collected from areas of elevated external gamma readings. The Ra-226 concentration in these
samples ranged from 50 pCi/g to as high as 30,000 pCi/g, with an average of 5,484 pCi/g
(MIL88). Since the study was done on scale with suspected high levels of radium, these
concentrations probably also represent a biased estimate.
A survey of 25 facilities, performed by the E&P Forum, revealed Ra-226 concentrations
ranging from less than 27 pCi/g to over 27,000 pCi/g (EPF87). Exxon Corporation has
speculated that levels of 800 to 900 pCi/g may be common in the U.S., with some regional
trending. Chevron speculates that levels of 20 to 25 pCi/g may be more common; however,
taTilc bottoms may have concentrations as high as 100 pCi/g, and heater/treater units and
separators may be characterized by scale with concentrations as high as 600 pCi/g (BLI88).
A more realistic estimate of the average Ra-226 concentration in oil and gas scale and
sludge may be derived from 6,274 external gamma readings taken throughout several U.S.
production facilities (SCA88). Based on these readings, and using a conversion factor of 1 to
B-5-22
-------
5 pCi/g per uR/hr above background (MIL87), the following distribution of Ra-226
concentrations in production equipment were estimated:
Median: 6 pCi/g
Average: 125 pCi/g
90 percentile: 250 pCi/g
99 percentile: 2,615 pCi/g
Maximum: 37,500 pCi/g
In view of the wide distribution of the reported data, it is difficult to define a generic
set of radionuclide concentrations. It is also believed that the reported data favor equipment
with elevated concentrations, while those that are low are often ignored or not reported. For
the purpose of this report, the nominal concentration of radium in oil and gas scale is
estimated using an approach with the following assumptions:
The amount of scale and sludge in equipment of the generic facility is as
shown in Table B.5-5.
Average radiation exposure rates for specific types of equipment are taken
from the API data base.
Conversion of external gamma exposure rates to radium concentrations in
different types of equipment are based on a conversion of 1 to 5 pCi/g per
uR/hr above background.
Since the instrument response for Ra-226 and Ra-228 and their decay products is
similar, the estimated concentration is based on total radium. The weighted radium
concentration, in scale and sludge from oil and gas production equipment, is estimated to be
210 pCi/g. The Ra-226 and Ra-228 concentrations are 155 pCi/g and 55 pCi/g, respectively.
The weighting factor includes the presence of different amounts of scale and sludge in
equipment (see Table B.5-5) and the relative measurements on the different types of
equipment. It is assumed that the decay products of radium are in equilibrium. In
summary, the radionuclides and their respective concentrations used in this assessment are
as follows:
B-5-23
-------
Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
Po-210 155
Pb-210 155
Ra-226 155
Th-228 55
Ra-228 55
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-235
U-238
5.4.2 Radon Flux Rates
No readily available information was found characterizing radon emanation rates from
oil and gas scale waste. As was discussed earlier, it is difficult to characterize radon
emanation or flux and disposal or storage methods. For example, particle grain size and the
thickness of the scale deposits may govern the radon emanation rates. Similarly, the
presence of oil or other petroleum products associated with the scale or sludge may reduce
radon flux rates. Finally, since much of this waste is held within equipment (internally
deposited), it may be difficult or even impractical to characterize radon emanation rates from
internal surfaces. As was noted earlier, the presence and concentration of Ra-226 will govern
radon emanation and diffusion properties from scale and sludge. For the purpose of this
report, it is assumed that a radon emanation coefficient 0.1 would best characterize oil and
gas scale and sludge waste (RAE88). This is somewhat lower than background radon
emanation coefficients which are known to vary from about 0.2 to 0.4 in soils (NCR87).
5.4.3 External Radiation Exposures Rates
The results of a statistical evaluation of the exposure level data from the API
industry-wide survey (API89) are shown in Table B.5-6. The table shows the results on a
national basis in terms of difference over background by facility and type of equipment. The
abbreviations used to specify equipment type are shown in Table B.5-7.
B-5-24
-------
TaDM &A-O. aiaiuncai anatyau 01 raaiaaon expamrv IOVBIB 1111 mmn win nvnro u> «» |>rwu««.»««u
and gaa proceeding equipment - national eammary. (Soaree: API89)
DlfTerence Above Background (urem/hr)
Eouloment
~~ - -* Hit
Fadlitiee
WOTHER
WPROD
METER
PUMP
OTHER
STANK
MANIFOLD
SUMP
SEP
H/T
WTANK
VRU
WINJ
WUNE
FUNE
Gam Producing
Facilities
COMPRESSOR
DEHYDRATOR
SWEETENER
INLET SCRUB
METER
CRYO UNIT
OTANK
OTHER
FRAC TOWER
REFRIGER
BOTTOMS PUMP
PTANK
OPUMP
PPUMP
Number of
Otaeivatlona
24
2324
306
1393
2397
7006
2537
454
7887
2962
3431
116
102
341
1748
648
244
234
693
101
60
423
430
272
143
40
124
232
71
Number of
Above
Background
5
777
72
424
1007
26B6
895
253
3816
1495
2140
25
50
176
419
119
72
30
156
32
20
140
165
123
66
30
90
114
63
Minimum
1.2
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
OJ
1.0
OJ
0.1
OJ
OJ
OJ
0.1
OJ
1.0
OJ
OJ
OJ
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.1
25th
Pereentile
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2X1
2.0
3X1
2.0
4.0
8.0
7.0
1.0
US
1.0
1.0
1.15
2X1
2.0
2X1
1J5
2.0
3.0
7J
6.8
9.5
Median
2X1
2J
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
7.0
7.8
8.0
8.0
17.0
20.0
34.6
42.0
2.0
3.0
3.46
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
9.6
16.0
17.0
25.0
27.76
31.0
76th
Pereentile
3.75
7.9
6.76
14.0
15.0
14.0
65.0
26.5
40.0
47.0
35.0
207.5
56.25
100.0
112.0
3.0
6.65
19.5
19.0
51.0
21.9
30.0
23.0
33J
68.75
45.25
65.75
98.26
97 JS
Maximum
5.5
1487.0
92.0
986.0
3786.0
2476.0
2996.0
793.0
4491.0
3490.0
3786.0
1287.0
886.0
2790.0
2991.0
490.0
529.0
220.5
701.0
695.0
2985.0
383.0
995.0
395.0
596.0
220.0
680.0
1391.0
1041.0
B-5-25
-------
Table &S4. (continued)
Difference Above Background (prem/hr)
Number of
Obeervationa
Nambcrof Above 26th 75th
Equipment Obeervationa Background Minimum PereenHle Median Pereentlle Ma»lmnm
PBOOLJNE 146 82 0.1 13.75 36.0 11O5 1080.0
PUMP 3 2 34) 3.0 38.0 73.0 73.0
REFLUX PUMP 110 96 OJ ISA 76.0 291.0 2986.0
I 6.0 7.0 9.0
B-5-26
-------
Table B.5-7. Abbreviations used to designate equipment types in oil
production and gas processing facilities.
Abbreviation
Description
Oil Production
Equipment
FUNE
H/T
MANIFOLD
OTHER
PUMP
SEP
STANK
SUMP
VRU
WINJ
WOTHER
WPROD
WLINE
WTANK
Flow lines to include all valves and elbows
Heater treater
Manifold/header piping, valves, chokes, etc.
All other measurements on service equipment
All pumps
Separators of all types
Stock tanks
Sumps to include pits, pigtraps, ponds, etc.
Vapor recovery units
Injection wellhead
Other wellheads except injection and production wellheads
Production wellhead
Water lines to include all valves and elbows
Water tanks
Gas Processing
Equipment
BOTTOMS PUMP
COMPRESSOR
CRYO UNIT
DEHYDRATOR
FRAG TOWER
INLET SCRUB
METER
OPUMP
OTANK
Pumps transferring liquids from the bottoms of towers
Compressors and associated equipment
All cryogenic process equipment
Dehydration equipment to include Glycol, EG, TEC
systems, etc.
All process towers and columns
Inlet scrubbers, separators, etc.
All metering equipment to include meters, meter runs,
strainers, etc.
All other pumps
All other tanks
B-5-27
-------
Table B.5-7. (continued)
Abbreviation Description
t
OTHER All other gas processing equipment
PPUMP Propane pump
PTANK Propane tank
PROD LINE All product lines
REFLUX PUMP All reflux pumps
REFRIGER All propane refrigeration system equipment
SWEETENER All gas sweetening equipment
B-5-28
-------
These exposure level data represent the most comprehensive and consistent set of
NORM data available for petroleum operations. However, much of the data were collected
at sites suspected of exhibiting some degree of radioactivity. The data were not collected in
a statistically designed sampling plan. The number of observations from oil and gas
equipment for a given geographic area may not be proportional to the actual amount of
operational equipment in that area. Hence, the data may not be typical of a randomly chosen
site and may tend to overstate the magnitude of the NORM occurrence.
NORM activity levels showed wide variability, both geographically and between items
of equipment in the same geographic area. Approximately 64 percent of the gas producing
equipment and 57 percent of the oil production equipment surveyed showed "zero" activity
values relative to background. The geographic areas with the highest equipment readings
are the entire gulf coast crescent (Brownsville, Texas to the Florida panhandle), northeast
Texas, southeast Illinois, and a few counties in southern Kansas. The eastern gulf coast from
Mississippi to the Florida panhandle had the highest consistent NORM activity levels
surveyed in the entire United States.
NORM activity levels tend to be highest in specific types of equipment. Oil production
equipment with the highest NORM activity levels is typically the water handling equipment.
Median exposure levels for this equipment were measured to be in the 30 urem/hr to
40 urem/hr range (about 5 times background). Gas processing equipment with the highest
levels includes the reflux pumps, propane pumps and tanlca, other pumps, and product lines.
Median radiation exposure levels for this equipment were measured to be in the 30 urem/hr
to 70 urem/hr range. For both oil production and gas processing equipment, a few
measurements were made of radiation exposure levels in excess of 1 mrem/hr.
B-5-29
-------
5.5 SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS NORM SECTOR
The generic oil and gas scale site is assumed to be located in the state of Texas. The
state of Texas is known to have the highest number of oil and gas production wells. Although
much of the oil and gas production equipment containing NORM is presently stored in
controlled areas, some companies are now cleaning the equipment and proposing to dispose
of the NORM at disposal sites. Therefore, the risk assessment for this sector is based on the
disposal of oil and gas scale, and sludge waste at a disposal site. It is assumed that there
are six (6) regional disposal facilities, based on the volumes of waste and wide distribution
of the oil and gas production industry. The regional disposal facility is assumed to contain
767,000 cubic meters of such wastes. The facility is assumed to have a designated waste
disposal area of 160,000 square meters, with a depth of 4.8 m. It is also assumed that the
site is located near surface stream and that the region is underlain by an aquifer.
5.5.2 Population Exposure
The population density near and around the site is assumed to be the average for the
state of Texas, at 64 persons per square mile (BOC87).
5.53 Radionuclide Concentrations
Elevated concentrations of uranium and thorium and their radioactive daughter
products are often present in petroleum bearing geological formations. The uranium and
thorium are highly insoluble and, as oil and gas are brought to the surface, remain mostly
in place in the underground reservoir. However, radium is slightly soluble and may be
transported with liquid phases to the surface where it is deposited with scale and sludge on
the inside surfaces of oil and gas production piping and equipment. The concentration of
radium in scale and sludge depends on its concentration in the underground petroleum
B-5-30
-------
formation, on th : physical and chemical characteristics of the formation, and on changes in
temperature an< pressure as the liquid phase is brought to the surface.
The high 3t concentrations of radium are typically found in hard scale deposits that
form on the insi es of pipes and valves. The radium concentration in the scale is associated
with the direct ] reripitation of minerals from the liquid phase and can range up to several
thousand pioocu ies per gram of scale material. Median concentrations in scale are much
lower, in the ra ge of tens or hundreds of picocuries per gram. Radium concentrations in
granular deposii . and sludge are also much lower than concentrations in pipe scale, for the
purpose of *>»» ; ssessment, an average total radium concentration of 210 pCi/g is assumed
(155 pCi/g for R -226 and 55 pCi/g for Ra-228).
B-5-31
-------
B.5 REFERENCES
API90 Management and Disposal Alternatives for JORM Wastes in Oil Production
and Gas Plant Equipment, RAE-8837/2-2, pi spared by Rogers and Associates
Engineering Corporation for American Petn te,um Institute, May 1990.
API89 Otto, G.H., A National Survey on Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM) in Petroleum Producing and Gas Processing Facilities, American
Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, July 19* ).
API87 Measurement Protocol for the Occurren« j of LSA Material, American
Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, March 1 >87.
BAI88 Bailey, E., Texas Department of Health, Au -tin, TX, telephone conversation,
March 10, 1988.
BEL60 Bell, K.G., 1960, Uranium and Other Trace 1 lements in Petroleums and Rock
Asphalts, U.S. Geological Survey, Profession u Paper 356-B.
BLISS Buss, W.A., (EPA, Las Vegas) Memoran um to Mr. M. Mardis, (EPA,
Washington, D.C.), February 3, 1988.
BOC87 Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of le United States - 1988, 108th
Edition, Department of Commerce, Washing .on, D.C. 1987.
CPD87 Conference of Radiation Control Program Di ectors, Regulation and Licensing
of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material , Part N of SSRCR, Draft 5, May
1987.
CRC88 Conference of Radiation Control Program Di ectors, Regulation and Licensing
of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Mat rials (NORM), June 6, 1988,
Frankfort, KY.
DEQ89 Louisiana Department of Environmental Qu iity, Regulation and Licensing of
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (1 ORM), Title 33, Part XV, Nuclear
Energy, Adoption of Permanent Rule for N< RM, September 20, 1989, Baton
Rouge, LA.
EIA88 Energy Information Agency, Petroleum Marl 3ting Annual -1987, Department
of Energy, DOE/EIA-0487(87), Washington, 3.C., October 1988.
EPF87 E&P Forum, Low Specific Activity Scale Ori, in, Treatment and Disposal E&P
Forum, U.K., London Report No. 6 March 1 87.
FUE88 Fuentes, E.S., State Department of H alth, Jackson, MI, telephone
conversation, February 19, 1988.
B-5-R-1
-------
JOH73 Johnson, R.H., D.E. Bernhardt, N.S. Nelson, H.W. Calley, Assessment of
Potential Radiological Health Effects from Radon in Natural Gas,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 520/1-73-004, Washington, D.C., 1973.
NCR87 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Exposure of the
Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background
Radiation, Report No. 94, Bethesda, MD, December 1987.
MAR87 Martin, J.C., Regulation and Licensing of Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM) in Oil and Gas Exploration and Producing Activities,
Proceedings of Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Annual
Meeting, Boise, Idaho, May 21, 1987, American Petroleum Institute, Dallas,
Texas, June 1987.
MCA88 McArthur, A., Development and Operation of a NORM Processing and Disposal
Facility for the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry, published in CRCPD Publication
88-2,19th Annual National Conference on Radiation Control, May 18-21,1987,
Boise, Idaho, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Frankfort,
KY, 1988.
MIL88 Miller, H.T., Disposition of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material in Crude
Oil Production Equipment, Chevron Corp., San Francisco, CA, presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Boston, MA, July 4-8, 1988.
MIL87 Miller, H.T., Radiation Exposures in Crude Oil Production Chevron Corp., San
Francisco, CA, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society,
July 5-9, 1987, Salt Lake City, Utah.
PET88 Petroleum Independent, published by Petroleum Independent Publishers, Inc.,
Washington, D.C. September 1988.
PIE55 Pierce, A.P., J.W. Mytton, and G.B. Gott, Radioactive Elements and Their
Daughter Products in the Texas Panhandle and Other Oil and Gas Fields in
the United States, Geology of Uranium and Thorium, International Conference,
1955.
Porter, C.R., (EPA, EERFL), letter to Mr. E.S. Fuentes, State Department of
Health, Jackson, MI, January, 1987.
Safety Analysis for the Disposal of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials
in Texas, Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation report to the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, Report RAE-8818-1, Salt
Lake City, Utah, October 1988.
SCA88 SC&A, Inc., Technical Supplements for the Preliminary Risk Assessment of
Diffuse NORM wastes - Phase I, prepared by SC&A, Inc. for the
Environmental Protection Agency, under contract No. 68-02-4375, October
1988.
POR87
RAE88
B-5-R-2
-------
TDH89 Texas Department of Health, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material in Pipe
Scale, Interim Policy, Austin, TX, August 9,1989, Draft.
UK85 Guidelines for Operators on Naturally Occurring Radioactive Substances on
Offshore Installations, U.K. Offshore Operators Association Limited, Series
No. 5, July 1985.
B-5-R-3
-------
B.6 WATER TREATMENT SLUDGES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Using 1985 water consumption rates, typically 400 billion gallons per day were
withdrawn for use in land irrigation, distribution in public supply systems, industrial
applications, and electric power generation (BOC87). About 40 billion gallons per day were
used in public water supply and distribution systems alone. Assuming a U.S. population of
241 million, the daily consumption rate per individual is nearly 170 gallons. Since water
comes from streams, lakes, reservoirs, and aquifers, it contains varying levels of
naturally-occurring radioactivity. Radioactivity is leached into ground or surface water since
it is always in contact with uranium and thorium bearing geological deposits before being
withdrawn. The predominant radionuclides found in water include radium, uranium, and
radon, as well as their radioactive decay products.
For reasons of public health, water is generally treated to ensure its safety for public
consumption. Water treatment includes passing the water through various types of niters and
devices which rely on chemical processes to remove impurities and organisms. If water with
elevated radioactivity is treated by such systems, there exists the possibility of generating
potentially radioactive wastes even if the treatment system was not originally intended to
remove radioactivity. Such wastes include filter sludges, ion-exchange resins, granular
activated carbon, and reject water from filter backwash.
Many municipal and private supply systems process water containing elevated
radionuclide concentrations, most commonly radium and uranium (GIL84). 'While some
treatment plants apply processes directed at specifically removing certain radionuclides from
water, radium is most commonly removed by cation-exchange resins and a lime-softening
process (HAH88). As a result of these processes, sludge may contain elevated radionuclides
concentrations, thereby creating a potential source of NORM wastes.
The purpose of this section is to characterize the concentration and inventory of
naturally-occurring radionuclides in water treatment sludge and the methods used to dispose
B-6-1
-------
of such sludge. The description also pres nts data and information on the types and volumes
of sludge, physical properties, disposal n luirements, and current and projected use of sludge
in agricultural applications. These dat i are used in Chapter D of this report to assess
potential radiation exposures to member . of the general public and critical population group.
6.2 OVERVIEW OF WATER SUP1 LY SYSTEMS
6.2.1 Areas of Elevated Water Radi nuclide Concentrations
There are about 60,000 public w; ;er supply systems serving the entire population of
the United States and about 47,700 relj on ground water sources (LON87, HES85, GIL84).
More than 90 percent of the ground wai ;r supply and distribution systems serve less 3,300
people (HES85). Since the majority of le municipal water supply systems in the United
States rely on ground water sources, tl a presence and distribution of naturally occurring
radionuclides in water have been the su >ject of several studies. The results of these studies
have shown that certain regions
-------
f om 0.1 to 0.5 pCi/L (HES85). The Ra-226 population weighted average concentration in
c immunity drinking water supplies is estimated to range from 0.3 to 0.8 pCi/L for Ra-226.
1 ie results of the National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) indicate a higher
v sighted average of 0.905 pCi/L (LON87). Five states were noted to have still higher average
c ncentrations ranging from 1.27 to 5.29 pCi/L (LON87). These states are Georgia, Illinois,
I innesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
There is less definitive information and data on the presence of Ra-228 in ground
\ ater. Typically, Ra-228 concentration is noted as the ratio of Ra-228 to Ra-226 activity. The
I a-228 to Ra-226 ratio has been reported to vary from 0.2 to 5, but a ratio of 1.2 is generally
t .ought to be representative of average conditions (EPA86a, HES85). The major reason for
t .e higher Ra-228 concentration is that the average crustal thorium and uranium activity
r itio is about 1.2 to 1.5. Natural geochemistry enrichment or depletion processes may either
i crease or decrease this ratio. Accordingly, the Ra-228 ground water concentration is, on the
i rerage, believed to be slightly higher than Ra-226. The Ra-228 to Ra-226 ratio of 1.2 is also
I ilieved to characterize the distribution of these two radionuclides in surface waters (HES85).
1 he Ra-228 population weighted average concentration in community drinking water supplies
1 estimated to range from 0.4 to 1.0 pCi/L (HES85, EPA86a). The results of the NIRS survey
i .dicate a higher weighted average concentration of 1.41 pCi/L. Three states were noted to
} we higher averages ranging from 1.82 to 4.24 pCi/L (LON87), these states are Illinois,
T .innesota, and Wisconsin.
Uranium is known to be present in both surface and ground water sources. Natural
v ranium is comprised of U-238 (99.27 percent natural abundance), U-235 (0.72 percent), and
I -234 (0.006 percent). Uranium activity as high as 652 pCi/L was observed in both surface
i id ground water samples with a few supply systems exceeding 50 pCi/L (EPA86a, COT83).
1 lie average uranium concentrations in surface and ground water are believed to be about
3 and 3 pCi/L, respectively (COT83). The isotopic ratio of U-234 to U-238 is known to vary,
\ ith notably higher concentrations of U-234 in both surface and ground waters. The higher
I -234 concentration is due to the alpha recoil process which enhances the mobilization and
£ ilubility of the decay product (U-234) when compared to the parent (U-238). Ratios as high
i 3 28 have noted, but most often the ratios are found within a narrower range of 1 to 3
( IES85). The population weighted average uranium concentration in community drinking
^ ater supplies is estimated to range from 0.3 to 2.0 pCi/L (HES85, EPA86a).
B-6-3
-------
The presence of radon in ground water is known to vary significantly, sometimes over
six orders of magnitude that of Ra-226. The geometric mean of ground water radon
concentration is nearly 1,000 pCi/L (HES85, LOW88). For radon, the population weighted
average is believed to range from 194 to 780 pCi/L (LON87, COT87).
i
In geological terms, the United States may be divided into 11 regions. Based on the
results of an extensive water sampling and analyses program, two such regions, the North
Central and the Coastal Plain, have been identified with elevated radionuclide (primarily
Ra-226 and Ra-228) concentrations in drinking water supplies (COT83, COT84, HES85,
LOW88). The results of this study indicate that elevated radionuclide concentrations above
5 pCi/L were most often (75 percent of the instances) noted in two regions, the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain Provinces and North Central Region. The 5 pCi/L guideline for the combined
presence of Ra-226 and Ra-228 has been established by the EPA for drinking water under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (EPA76). By focusing on geological formations and aquifers with
elevated radionuclide concentrations, it is possible to identify regions which would result in
the production of significant volumes of water treatment sludge.
North Central Region - The North Central Region contains portions of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. It is estimated that there are 355 public water supply
systems in this region exceeding 5 pCi/L for both Ra-226 and Ra-228 (HES85).
Piedmont and Coastal PI"'" Provinces - The Piedmont and Coastal Plain
Provinces include portions of New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It
is estimated that about 200 public water supply system in this region exceed the 5 pCi/L, as
defined above (HES85).
Other Areas - Other areas reported to have radium concentrations in excess of 5
pCi/L include portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, and
Massachusetts. The distribution of groundwater sources containing elevated levels of
naturally- occurring radionuclides tend to be located in regional clusters, dependent on the
presence of smaller geological formations. The estimated number of public water supply
systems exceeding 5 pCi/L is approximately 80 (HES85).
B-6-4
-------
It has been estimated that at least 500 water supply systems are known or suspected
to exceed the 5 pCi/L concentration guidelines (EPA86a, HES85). For the regions and areas
characterized above, it is estimated that 635 systems exceed the EPA limit. It is also
suspected that there might be some undetected systems which have elevated water
concentrations (HES85). For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that about 10 percent,
or 64 systems, have yet to be identified. Accordingly, it is assumed that 699 (rounded off to
700) water supply systems exceed the EPA concentration standards.
6.2.2 Water Treatment Technology
A summary of the number and size of public water supply systems is presented in
Table B.6-1 for the United States (EPA86b). Many of these systems employ a variety of water
treatment processes to improve water quality. Undesirable tastes and odors are removed by
aeration. Bacteria are destroyed by the addition of a few ppm of chlorine and excessive
hardness is reduced by the use of ion- exchange resins and lime. Table B.6-2 presents a
summary of water treatment systems which have been found to be effective in removing
radioactivity (EPA88).
Lome softening is used on larger supply systems to soften water by the addition of
calcium hydroxide. The calcium hydroxide raises the pH which causes the calcium and
magnesium to precipitate. The precipitate, along with suspended solids, are removed by
sedimentation and nitration. During this process, 80 percent to 90 percent of the radium in
the water is also removed (HAH88). This process typically produces about 4 cubic yards (3.1
m3) of dewatered sludge per million gallons of processed water. Prior to dewatering, the
sludge is about 2 to 5 percent solids. After dewatering, the sludge is about 50 percent solids
(EPA86b, PAR88).
Ion-exchange resins are used on smaller water supply systems to soften water by
replacing Ca and Mg ions with Na ions. In the process, about 95 percent of the radium is also
removed (HAH88). However, the resins are usually backwashed for reuse rather than being
disposed. The backwash water, which contains the radium, is typically discharged to storm
sewers, underground injection wells or septic tanks, or is backwashed to another
ion-exchange column for the selective removal of radium. As can be noted, wastes from water
B-6-5
-------
Table B.6-1 Numbers of public water system* and populations served
by sources and size category«(a)
Surface Water
Ground Water
System
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Population
per System
(000)
25-100
101-500
501-1K
1K-3.3K
3.3K-10K
10K-25K
25K-50K
50K-75K
75K-100K
>100K
Total:
Total Pop.
(000)
243
880
1,506
4,673
10,628
12,697
16,086
10,310
10,254
89,960
157,281
No. of
System;
4,596
3,544
1,770
2,425
1,841
879
500
220
139
278
16,192
Total Pop.
(000)
5,020
11,424
12,118
12,836
15,517
13,684
10,090
5,566
1,720
12,552
101,427
No. of
Systems
130,091
48,004
14,599
7,119
2,801
891
313
92
21
60
203,991
(a) From Regulatory Impact Analysis for Drinking A rater Regulations, EPA Office of
Drinking Water (EPA86a).
B-6-6
-------
Table I .6-2. Summary of treatment technologies for removal of
naturally-occurring radionuclides from water.(a)
Treatment
Technology
Cation
exchange
Anion
exchange
Lome
softening
pitation with
BaSo4
Selective
sorbents
Activated
alumina
Granular
activated
carbon
Aeration
Contaminant
Removed
Radium
Uranium
Radium
Uranium
Radium
Uranium
Radon
Uranium
Radium
Radon
Removal
Efficiency
85-97%
95%
90%
85-90%(b)
Wastes
Produced
Reverse
osmosis
Electro-
dialysis
Greensand
Copreti-
Radium
Uranium
Radium
Uranium
Radium
Radium
90%
90%
56%(c)
95%
90+%
90+%
96%
95%
Rinse & backwash water, brine
regenerant solution
(50-3, 500 pCi/L Ra)
Rinse & backwash water, brine
regenerant solution (25 mg/L U)
Sludge from tanks (6-9 pCi/g Ra; 1-10
pCi/g U), filter backwash (6-50 pCi/L
Ra), supernate (21-24 pCi/L Ra) from
setding or concentrating sludge &
filter backwash
Reject water (7-38 pCi/L Ra)
Reject water
Solids & supernate from filtration
backwash (21-106 pCi/L Ra)
Sludge from tanks, filter backwash,
supernate from settling or
concentrating sludge & filter
backwash
Selective sorbent with high levels of
radium (110,000 pCi/g)
Rinse & backwash water, regenerant
solution
Granular activated containing radon
decay products, uranium, & possibly
radium
Radon released to air
(a) Data ex racted from EPA82, EPA86b, and REI85.
(b) May be ncreased to 99% by the presence or addition of magnesium carbonate to the
water.
(c) May be ncreased to 90% by passing the water through a detention tank after the
addition of potassium permanganate prior to filtration.
B-6-7
-------
treatment systems may contain elevated radionuclide concentrations, at times exceeding
2,000 pCi/g for Ra-226.
The other systems (such as reverse osmosis) listed 'in Table B.6-2 are either not in
widespread use or generate a liquid waste product rather than sludges. Systems designed
specifically for the removal of radium are available but are currently not in widespread use.
Other types of water treatment processes are also known to remove radioactivity, but these
methods have not been widely evaluated. For example, flocculation and coagulation when
combined with nitration are believed to be effective in removing radionuclides with higher
valences (DYK86). Such systems are widely used and, consequently, there is a potential that
significant quantities sludge may be generated by this treatment process.
Table B.6-3 presents a summary of water treatment systems most often used by 211
water utilities (AWA87). The results shown are based on a 1985 survey conducted by the
American Water Works Association. A total of 184 utilities reported the use of 20 different
water treatment techniques and noted that two or more treatment methods were typically
used at the same time. Furthermore, 27 utilities (13 percent) reported using no treatment
methods at all. Four types of treatment methods most often (85 percent) used, included
chemical treatment, filtration, coagulation and flocculation (as one), and sedimentation.
Among these treatment methods or systems, all but two are especially relevant to the NORM
issue because they are widely used, generate sludge, and are known to remove radioactivity
from water (HAH88, PAR88, REI85, SOR88, DYK86). The two remaining treatment methods,
aeration and chemical treatment, generate little or no sludge at all (PAR89, LOW87).
6.3 WATER TREATMENT WASTE GENERATION
6.3.1 Water Treatment Waste Generation
As was noted earlier, there are many factors which govern how much waste a water
utility may generate. The major factors include water quality, water use, and type of water
treatment system. For the purpose of this assessment, waste or sludge generation rates will
B-6-8
-------
Table B.6-3. Distribution of water treatment systems reported in use
by 211 water utilities surveyed in 1985.(a)
Tvue of Svstem
Chemical
Filtration
Coagulation and flocculation
Sedimentation
Lime and soda lime
Aeration and volatilization
Ion exchange and activated charcoal
Note
1
2
3
4
Total(b):
Cited Use
253
111
86
76
34
33
25
618
Percent of Total
40.9
18.0
13.9
12.3
5.5
5.3
4.1
100.0
(a) Based on 184 utilities reporting the use of 20 water treatment techniques. A total of
27 utilities (13%) reported using no treatment methods at all. Information and data
extracted from the 1985 Water Utility Operating Data (AWA87).
(b) Utilities typically use several treatment methods at the same time, hence the total
number of systems cited exceeds the total number of utilities responding to the survey.
Notes:
1. Includes ozone, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloramine, and fluoridation.
2. Consists of direct, slow and rapid sand, and pressurized filtration.
3. Conventional aeration for taste and odor and aeration for removal of volatile organic
4.
Includes ion-exchange softening, resin beds for organics, and granulated and
pulverized activated charcoal for filtration and removal of organic contaminants.
B-6-9
-------
be based on the results of two surveys conducted by the American Water Works Association
(AWWA), which conducts periodic surveys of the largest water utilities.
A summary of the 1984 and 1985 surveys results 'are shown in Table B.6-4. The
survey results for 1984 encompass 430 water utilities which served 104 million people
(AWA87). The 1985 survey results reflect a more modest population of 11 million people and
211 utilities (AWA87). The water consumption rates per capita were nearly identical for both
years, 176 and 163 gallons in 1984 and 1985, respectively. The total amount of water
processed in each year was reported to be 25.3 billion m3 in 1984 and 2.4 billion m3 in 1985.
The total amount of sludge generated between both years is expected to be different since
only half as many utilities responded in the 1985 survey and only a fraction of those
generated sludge. A breakdown is also given for six types of sludge disposal methods. As can
be noted, the largest quantities of sludge are disposed in lagoons, landfills, and by land
application. The last method listed as "Return to head of treatment plant/supply" is really not
a disposal method, but rather a recycling method. Only the settling sludge is disposed of
while the decanted water is recycled. The sludge content is about 3 percent by weight.
In general, the results show a degree of internal consistency between both survey even
though the number of utilities surveyed in 1984 served about ten times as many people. The
only exception being that, on the average, the amount of sludge generated per utility is
different only by a factor of three rather than ten. The discrepancy may be due to a difference
in the distribution of utilities surveyed in 1984 and 1985.
Within the context of this assessment, two parameters are thought to provide better
indices to estimate, in the aggregate, the potential sludge generation rates for all utilities.
These are: 1) the sludge generation rate per capita, and 2) sludge generated per unit volume
of processed water. The average of both years is used, see Table B.6-4. It is assumed that the
total U.S. population is 241 million and that water consumption by public supply systems is
55.2 billion m3 per year (BOC87). Given the above, the yearly sludge generation rates are
estimated to be:
Based on
sludge/capita: 13 kg 241 million 3.1 million MT
B-6-10
-------
Table B.6-4. Summary of water utilities operating characteristics for
1984 and 1985(a)
Parameter
Utilities Surveyed Response
(No7%):
Population Served:
Water Production (in billion m3)
Total:
Ground:
Surface:
Purchased:
Average water use per capita:
Sludge Disposal (in thousand MT)
Sewer:
Lagoon:
3rd Party Landfill:
Utility T.and fill-
Land Application:
Return to head of plant/supply:
Total:
No. of utilities producing sludge:
Calculated Parameters
Sludge per capita:
Sludge per utility:
Sludge per unit of processed water:
1984 Data 1985 Data
600
430/72
600
211/35
104 million 11 million
25.3
6.3
16.8
2.2
2.4
0.7
1.4
0.3
176 gal/day 163 gal/day
32
180
42
100
100
550
1,100
253
11 Kg
4,300 MT
44g/m3
4.3
100
20
20
13
2.5
160
109
15 Kg
1,500 MT
67g/m3
(a) Parameters and data taken from the 1984 and 1985 Water Utility Operating Data
(AWA86, AWA87). Numbers may not add up to total because of the rounding off
process.
B-6-11
-------
Based on
sludge/m3 of
water processed: 56 g/m3 55.2 billion m3 3.1 million MT
/
These results indicate that about 3 million metric tons (MT) of sludge are generated yearly
in the United States from all utilities. In attempting to cap the maximum yearly sludge
generation rate from all sources, the higher values shown in Table B.6-4 are used instead.
These are 15 Kg of sludge per capita and 67 g of sludge per m3 of processed water. Applying
these new parameters indicates that, other things being equal, 3.7 million MT of sludge are
produced yearly. Accordingly, the total amount of sludge which could be considered a
potential NORM waste is probably much less than 3.7 million MT since not all utilities
process water with elevated naturally-occurring radioactivity. As noted earlier, it was
assumed that only 700 water utilities are suspected of generating NORM wastes.
6.3.2 Water
The AWWA 1984 survey results are used to characterize the sludge disposal practices
of utilities in 29 selected states. The 29 states were chosen based on information which
indicates that several utilities in such states are known or suspected to process water with
elevated radionuclide concentrations. The selection of these states is based on a review of
studies and surveys conducted by Longtin, Hess, and Cothern (LOW88, LON87, HES85,
COT83, and COT84). The states are identified in Table B.6-5. The sludge generation rates
were taken from the 1984 AWWA survey since it captured a greater number of utilities than
the one of 1985. The results are summarized in Table B.6-5.
A review of Table B.6-5 indicates that although 54 percent of the sludge that is
returned to the head of the water treatment plant, only 3.5 percent of this amount is sludge
that requires disposal. For the remaining methods, 42 percent of the sludge is disposed in
lagoons, and 29 percent is disposed in utility and third party landfills. About 20 and 5
percent of the sludges are disposed, respectively, by application on agricultural land and into
sewers. A total of 831,000 metric tons was generated by 183 utilities and 392,000 metric tons
of sludge was disposed in the true sense. On the average, each state and utility disposed
13,500 and 2,140 metric tons, respectively.
B-6-12
-------
Table B.6-5. Sludge disposal practices and quantities for 183 utilities
in 29 selected states.(a>
Disposal Method(b) Quantity (MT) Percent of Total
Return to head of
plant/supply*0*
Total: (452,000)
Sludge Only: 13,600
Lagoon: 163,000
Land Application: 80,000
Utility Landfill: 74,000
Third Party Landfill: 40,900
Sewer: 20,800
Total Amount: 831,000
Total Disposed: 392,300
(54.5)
3.5
41.6
20.4
18.8
10.4
5.3
100.0
CALCULATED DATA
Average per state:
Average per utility:
Generation (MT)
29,000
4,600
Disposal (MT)
13,500
2,140
(a) Data extracted from the 1984 Water Utility Operating Data (AWA86). Numbers are
rounded off.
(b) Data characterizing disposal practices of 183 utilities located in 29 states. The states
include: AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, IO, KA, MA, MN, MI, MO, NB, NE, NH, NJ,
NY, NC, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, and WY.
(c) Only 2 to 5% of the total amount is actually sludge, the balance is decanted water.
Three percent is assumed here in estimating the sludge volume destined for disposal.
B-6-13
-------
Three methods are used to estimate the amount of sludge which may be categorized
as a NORM waste. The first method simply assumes that all 700 utilities generate sludge at
2,140 MT per year. This yields a total yearly disposal rate' of 1.5 million MT. This amount
is believed to be too high since it represents 50 percent .of the total amount of sludge
generated by all sources. This estimate is also unrealistic since it assumes that all utilities
generate NORM wastes regardless of the source of water and type of treatment systems.
In the second method, if one were to assume that the disposal rate per state (13,500
MT) is representative of overall practices, then the corresponding amount requiring disposal
is nearly 400,000 MT, based on the 29 selected states. This amount of sludge is lower, but
is also too high since it assumes that all utilities generate NORM wastes regardless of the
source of water and type of treatment systems.
The third approach involves using the average water utility sludge generation rate
based on the 1984 survey data and adjusting it to reflect specific factors which characterize
this NORM sector. The average sludge generation rate is adjusted for the fact that: 1) about
80 percent of the water supply systems rely on ground water, 2) about 90 percent of the users
do not need finished or potable water, and 3) that about 28 percent of the utilities use water
treatment systems which may remove naturally-occurring radioactivity. It is assumed that
such treatment systems include filtration (18 percent), lime and soda lime (6 percent), and
ion-exchange and activated charcoal (4 percent) (see Table B.6-3 for details). An overall
removal efficiency of 85 percent is assumed-for these systems based on the data given in
Table B.6-2. An average sludge generation rate of 2,140 MT was previously estimated, see
Table B.6-5. Accordingly, it is estimated that, on the average, about 314 MT of sludge and
52 MT of spent resin and charcoal beds will be generated yearly by such a utility. Since it
was assumed that there are 700 suspect water utilities in the continental U.S., the total
yearly NORM waste generation is estimated to be 256,000 MT, which is rounded off to
260,000 MT.
In view of these broad assumptions, it can be noted that the total amount of sludge
and spent resins and charcoals beds which may be classified as a NORM waste is perhaps
on the order of 260,000 MT, and possibly less. The earlier estimate of 1.5 million metric tons
is believed to be much too high since it does not reflect some of the important characteristics
B-6-14
-------
of this NORM sec- jr. As noted earlier, there are water treatment systems which have not
been considered ii this estimate, but which are believed to generate sludge as a potential
NORM waste. For example, flocculation and coagulation when combined with filtration are
thought to be an e ective process to remove radionuclides of higher valences (DYK86). Such
systems are widel: used and, consequently, there is a potential that significant quantities of
sludge may be g< aerated by this treatment process. Finally, it is suspected that the
characteristics oft ich NORM wastes, including spent resin and charcoal beds, fall within a
spectrum ranging from wastes with very low to those with very high radionuclide
concentrations.
Given that these estimates are based on data for a single year and lack any
information chara< arizing disposal practices over longer time periods, this range is assumed
to bracket the am ants of sludge which could be considered a potential NORM waste. It is
also not clear from past survey data what is the total number of utilities which have passed
the EPA drinking /ater standards for finished water, but still may result in the generation
of water treatmen sludges at concentrations which may still be of concern in the context of
this assessment. / Ithough the resulting radionuclide concentrations may be relatively low
when compared tc instances with elevated levels, however, it is most likely that such type
of wastes are bein; generated in much larger quantities. For the purpose of this assessment,
it is assumed thi : 260,000 metric tons of sludges and spent resins and charcoals are
generated yearly 1 / this NORM sector.
6.3.3 Utilization of Water Treatment wastes
About 20 F :rcent of the total amount of sludge generated yearly is put into useful
application, e.g., le id spreading and injection into agricultural fields. Other disposal methods,
which include the Dlacement of sludge in landfills (29 percent) and in lagoons (42 percent),
are not considers as utilization practices. It could, however, be argued, that given the
nutrient propertie of sludge it is conceivable that areas which were once disposal landfills
or lagoons could 1 a later used for agricultural production. Accordingly, this assessment
considers both dis josal into landfills and agricultural applications.
B-6-15
-------
Potentially contaminated waste byproducts of drinking water treatment may include
lime sludge, backflush water, spent ion-exchange media, and sand filter elements. Very little
or only patch work regulatory guidance exists controlling the disposal of such NORM wastes.
However, future disposal practices may rely to a greater extent on discharging backwash
waters to lagoons or ponds. Such practices will result in the accumulation of radium in
bottom sediments which may represent an additional source of NORM wastes. The ponds
may have to be periodically dredged and the bottom sediments may require proper and
permanent disposal.
Storm Sewer - Material discharged into a typical storm sewer is routed to a natural
water body, in which sludge may accumulate in aquatic sediments depending upon the flow
rate of the water body and addition of natural waters. Liquid effluent standards applicable
to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) licensees have been established under Title 10,
Part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20):
CRa-226/3° * cRa-228/3° are less than 1, where;
CRa-226 = concentration of soluble Ra-226 in the discharge water (pCi/L),
and
CRa-228 = concentration of soluble Ra-228 in the discharge water (pCi/L).
The radium concentrations can only be averaged over a period of one year (NRC88). State
agencies adopting the federal standards have adopted the NRG limits (HAH88).
Sanitary Rawer . Sludge and other waste water residues discharged into sanitary
sewer systems are ultimately treated at a sewage treatment plant. For releases into sanitary
sewers, the NRG regulations include the following criteria under 10 CFR 20:
1. The material must be readily soluble or dispersible in water,
2. The quantity of radium released into the system by the licensee in one
day does not exceed either:
a. The quantity which if diluted by the average daily quantity of
sewage released into the sewer by the licensee, will result in an
average concentration equal to 4 x 10"7 uCi/mL radium-226 and
8 x 107 uCi/mL radium-228, or
B-6-16
-------
b. 0.1 znicrocuries radium-226.
3. The quantity of radium released into the system by the licensee in any
one month, if diluted by the average monthly quantity of water released
by the licensee, will not result in an average concentration exceeding 4
x 10'7 uCi/mL radium-226 and 8 x 10'7 uCi/mL radium-228; and
4. The gross quantity of licensed and other radioactive material, excluding
carbon-14 and tritium, released into the sewerage system by the
licensee does not exceed one curie per year.
The state of Wisconsin has implemented standards for sanitary sewer discharge in the
form (WIS85):
CRa-226/40° * cRa-228/80° are less than 1, where;
CRa-226 = concentration of soluble Ra-226 in the waste water (pCi/L), and
CRa-228 = concentration of soluble Ra-228 in the waste water (pCi/L).
The radium concentrations derived above may not be averaged over a period greater than one
month. In addition the total amount of radionuclide discharge in one year must not exceed
1 curie. As mentioned for storm sewer discharge, state agencies adopting these standards for
permitted facilities may enforce them.
Agricultural - Residual lime sludge from a water treatment plant is sometimes
dewatered and provided to farmers for free or a nominal fee. The sludge is spread onto a field
in a similar manner as other fertilizers, and tilled into the soil. Currently, only Wisconsin
and Illinois have regulatory programs that require testing of sludges and fields prior to
dispersal (HAH88, WIS88). Frequent application of sludges over an extended period of time,
or stockpiling may create significant accumulations of radionuclides. Because of .this concern,
some states are imposing limits on the amounts of radioactivity which may be introduced in
fields. For example, the state of Illinois authorizes the disposal of sludge in agricultural lands
provided that the combined concentration of sludge and soil will not increase the Ra-226 soil
concentration by more than 0.1 pCi/g (HAH88).
Landfill - The disposal of sludge at municipal landfills is not regulated by states other
Wisconsin and Illinois. At landfills, contaminated material is typically covered and
B-6-17
-------
compacted on a daily basis. Disposal site design features, such as a c ay lining or isolation
from useable aquifers, limit the transport of radionuclides out of the la idfill. Other features,
such as compacted clay layers placed above radium-contaminated ; ludges reduce water
infiltration and radon emissions. The radionuclides are, therefore, not likely to be available
for movement into the environment unless radionuclide teaching and tr msport are enhanced
by hydrogeological and meteorological conditions. Similarly, if former landfill sites were to
be subsequently used for residential housing or commercial dev lopment, then that
population could become exposed to higher radiation levels.
Deep-well Injection - Deep-well injection involves the pumping f sludge into a stable
geologic formation. The stability and immobility of the injected w; ste are governed by
parameters, such as the absence of fractures, minimal water infill -ation, and chemical
conditions which may alter the solubility of the radionuclides. Deep-v all injection is not in
common use and is specifically prohibited in Wisconsin and Illinois (H \H88). The EPA also
discourages this practices because of its potential detrimental imp ict on ground water
aquifers.
Non-Sewered Disposal - Non-sewered disposal typically involve.' the disposal of waste
water in private septic systems. Failure of these systems can ^ad to transport of
contaminants through certain geologic media. However, the scalt and environmental
consequences are estimated to be minimal.
With the current information, it is not possible to characterize < isposal practices and
waste inventories among storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and unsewere i releases, and those
that involve deep-well injection. It is also recognized that for the otk ;r identified disposal
practices there exists some uncertainty as to their representativeness 01 national level. Given
these varied disposal practices and information based on the surve; results of a limited
number of utilities, there exists a need to further characterize water tr atment methods and
disposal practices on a larger scale. Additional data correlating input w; ter volumes to output
waste concentrations would be useful in determining waste generation -ates on a nationwide
basis for a particular type of treatment process. The data would m ad to be based on a
representative number of water treatment plants utilizing a specific .reatment technique.
Studies of actual disposal methods in use by water utilities are also n eded to establish the
basis to form population risk models. It is understood that the An erican Water Works
B-6-18
-------
Association will initiate in late 1989 another survey of water utilities (AWA89). The survey
will target the 1,000 largest water utility in the United States. The results of this survey
should, in part, help resolve some of the questions raised above.
6.3*4 Twenty-Year Sludge Generation Estimates
For the purpose of estimating the 20-year inventory of NORM wastes, it is assumed
that 260,000 metric tons of sludge are generated yearly (see above discussion for more
details). The growth in water use is keyed primarily to population increase rather than other
indices, such as economic growth. It is also recognized that other factors may influence water
usage and the number and distribution of water utilities. For example, small water utilities
may go out of business, but the service must continue since the demand and population
remains. The service is usually taken over by a new or perhaps larger utility.
Similarly, as water demand increases, new demand may be placed on existing systems
and a greater emphasis may be placed on recycling water rather than increasing water
withdrawal rate from existing aquifers. A larger fraction of the water supply may also come
from surface water bodies. Because of the presence of organic contaminants in surface
streams and lakes, utilities may be forced to adopt improved water treatment technologies
to meet more stringent regulatory requirements. The current water treatment technology
may also improve over time such that new treatment systems would extract more impurities
and generate more sludge. These factors would result in the generation of greater quantities
of sludge than current rates. Within the context of this study, it is not possible to estimate
the impact of improved technology and regulatory requirements on future waste generation
rates. Given that the yearly generation rate is already based on an upper estimate, no further
corrections are made other than for an increase in population growth.
The anmml U.S. population growth rate has been estimated to decrease over the next
20 years; from 0.99 percent for the ten- year period ending in 1990, to 0.71 percent from 1990
to 2000, and finally to 0.57 percent beyond the turn of the century (BOC87). An average
population growth rate of 0.76 percent is used here given these trends. Compounded over the
next 20 years, the population growth factor is 1.16. Accordingly, the total 20-year inventory,
B-6-19
-------
assuming a yearly sludge generation rate of 260,000 metric tons, is estimated to be 6 million
metric tons.
6A RADIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF TREATMENT SLUDGE
6.4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations
As was noted earlier, the predominant radionuclides found in water include radium,
uranium, and radon, as well as their radioactive decay products. For example, radium-226
concentration in surface water is known to vary from 0.01 to 1 pCi/L and from 0.5 to 25 pCi/L
in ground water (LOW88, HES85, COT84, COT83, REI85). Occasionally, these radionuclides
are found at still higher concentrations. For example, radium concentrations as high as 200
pCi/L have been reported, while in most instances the concentration is seldom above 50 pCi/L
(HES85). States with large numbers of water treatment plants processing raw water in
excess of 5 pCi/L are located in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia (LON87, HES85, COT84, COT83).
In general, the concentration of radium in sludge will depend on water quality, the
aquifer from which the water is withdrawn, water quality, water use, and the type of
treatment systems. More specifically, the following major factors will govern the
characteristics of sludge:
1. Presence of naturally-occurring radioactivity and radionuclide
concentrations in the water supply,
2. Radionuclide removal efficiency for a given water treatment system,
and
3. The amount of sludge produced per unit volume of water processed.
Assuming an overall average Ra-226 concentration of about 1 pCi/L, a radium removal
efficiency of 90 percent, and a sludge generation rate of 3.1 m3 per million gallons of water
treated (HAH88), the average concentration of Ra-226 in sludge is estimated to be about 1
B-6-20
-------
pCi/g. Correcting for the fact that dewatered sludge is about 50 percent water, the average
concentration of Ra-226 in dry sludge is about 2 pCi/g. This calculation yields a useful rule
of thumb, that is, about 1 to 2 pCi/g sludge is produced per pCi/L of Ra-226 in the water
supply. This estimate does compare favorably with measured values reported in the literature
(EPA76, HAH88). For example:
- Ra-226 Concentration -
Raw Water Lome Sludge
Location (oCi/L) (oCi/g dry)
Elgin, IL 5.6 6.1
Peru, IL 5.8 9.0
Wisconsin 1.0-5.3 2.1-32.8
Using the above calculational approach, it is concluded that the average Ra-226
concentration in sludge is comparable to that in soil (NCR87). However, this conclusion is
speculative and may need to be verified by a field survey and sampling program.
Although the average Ra-226 concentration in sludge is typically low, public water
treatment facilities which process water supplies with elevated Ra-226 concentrations are
expected to generate sludge with elevated levels of Ra-226. Based on data reported by states
exceeding the 5 pCi/L standards, the combined radium concentrations were noted to range
from 5 pCi/L to about 25 pCi/L, with an average of about 10 pCi/L (HES85). Since the ratio
of Ra-228 to Ra-226 is about 1.2 (HES85), the average Ra-226 concentration in water supplies
which exceed the current standards is about 4 pCi/L. Using the rule of thumb described
above, sludge from these systems may be expected to contain an average Ra-226
concentration of 4 to 8 pCi/g.
Radium selective resins, on the other hand, do generate wastes at much higher
concentrations, but in much smaller quantities. The radionuclide concentration in these
wastes is dependent upon the type of resins used, the amount of regenerant used, and how
frequently the resins are regenerated. The radionuclide concentration in resins and
regeneration wastes are known to vary. Field data indicates that radium concentrations
between 320 to 3,500 pCi/L were noted in the column rinse and brine. Average and peak
concentrations of 23 and 158 pCi/L, respectively, have been noted in regenerant wastes
(EPA88). Radium build-up in cation-exchange resins has been observed to average at about
B-6-21
-------
9 pCi/g, with peak concentrations ranging from 25 to 40 pCi/g. Given the broad variability
of ground and surface water concentrations, the uncertainty with the type and number of
water treatment systems being used, and their effective radionuclide removal efficiency, a
simple approach is used to estimate radionuclide concentration in sludge.
0
It has been shown that an approximate "rule of thumb" relationship for radium
concentration in sludge is given by two times the influent radium concentration in water.
Sludge concentrations of U-238, Th-230, Th-232, Th-228, and U-235 were calculated using
thia method, even though it has been shown that certain water treatment processes do not
remove uranium as efficiently as radium (REI85, EPA86a). The Pb-210 and Po-210 sludge
concentrations were estimated by assuming a radon emanation coefficient of 40 percent for
moist sludge. The average sludge radionuclide concentration is as follows:
Influent Resultant
Water - pCi/L Sludge - pCi/g
U-238 - 2.0 4.0
U-234 - 2.0 4.0
Th-230 - 0.1 0.2
Ra-226 - 8.0 16.0
Th-232 - 0.1 0.2
Ra-228 - 10.0 20.0
Th-228 - 0.1 0.2
U-235 - 0.014 0.03
Pb-210 - 4.8 10.0
Po-210 - 4.8 10.0
These influent concentrations represent radionuclide concentrations in excess of those
experienced by most water treatment plants. The variation of influent radionuclide
concentrations to the water treatment plant is based on solubility and chemical properties
of certain elements in the ground water. Such properties include the relatively low solubilities
of thorium ions, desorption of radium from certain geologic formations based on the ionic
strength of the groundwater, and the transport of uranyl ions (GIL84, SOR88).
B-6-22
-------
6.4.2 Radon Fh«
No readily available information was identified characterizing radon emanation rates
from such wastes. Radon emanation rates from sludge (including spent resins and charcoal
beds) are assumed to be nearly identical to that of typical soil?. For example, the NCRP notes
that for typical soils, an average radon emanation rate is about 0.5 pCi/m2-s per pCi/g
(NCR87). For an assumed Ra-226 concentration of 16.0 pCi/g (see above), the corresponding
radon flux rate is about 8 pCi/m2-s, other things being equal.
Radiation exposure rates associated with the disposal of sludge are expected to be
relatively low when compared to ambient background levels. For spent resin and charcoals
beds, exposure rates may, however, be much higher. For example, exposure levels as high as
several mR/h have been observed on charcoal and resin beds (LOW88). Depending upon the
source of radioactivity (radium vs. radon and its decay products), the radiation levels may
quickly decay with time. Given the disposal method and the mode of exposure, radionuclides,
and source to receptor geometry, it can be assumed that the resulting radiation doses may
be scaled up based on empirically derived exposure rate conversion factors for environmental
conditions. The conversion factors represent exposure rates for typical soils and include the
effects of gamma ray scatter, build-up, and self-absorption (NCR87). For example, the
conversion factors for the uranium and thorium decay series are 1.82 and 2.82 uR/h per
pCi/g, respectively. Assuming a Ra-226 (for U-238) and Ra-228 (for Th-232) concentration of
16 and 20 pCi/g, respectively, the total incremental exposure rate is estimated to be about
86 uR/h. The exposure rate would in fact be less since the decay series would not have had
the time to achieve secular equilibrium. In the United States, ambient exposure rates due
to terrestrial radiation are known to range from 3 to 16 uR/h (NCR87).
B-6-23
-------
6.5 GENERIC SITE PA 'JVMETERS AND SE 7TOR SUMMARY
This section presents a summary of the d£ :a and parameters which are used to
perform the risk assessmen of this NORM sector The radiological assessment model is
described in Chapter D. This :hapter also introduces parameters and assumptions which are
both generic and specific tc each NORM sector. ' 'his information is not presented nor
repeated here.
6.5.1 Generic Water Trea tnent Site
The generic water tre tment plant is assume i to be located in Illinois. This state has
been shown to have consist* itly elevated concentr. tions of Ra-226 and Ra-228 in ground
water (GIL84, HES85, LOI 87), it has a large a ricultural base, and is more densely
populated. Two scenarios are developed for this NOI M sector: 1) agricultural uses of sludge,
and 2) landfill disposal of sh ige. Due to the limite< information on non-sewer wastewater
discharge and deep-well injet ion, these disposal pat .ways will not be addressed here for the
purpose of this risk assessmt at It is assumed that alatively few water treatment facilities
dispose of sludge in this mac xer. Sanitary sewer slv Ige is typically treated at a wastewater
treatment plant Storm sewe disposal will not be di? :ussed due to limited information about
the practice and data charac erizing the mobility a.< d availability of radium in this kind of
aquatic environment. For tht purpose of this assessj lent, the two remaining options include
agricultural application or k idfill disposal.
Sludge is commonly ai plied or spread into agi cultural fields using methods which are
similar to those used for fe: ;ilizers. For sanitary : masons and to minimize surface water
runoff, states typically recon mend that the sludge -e injected or plowed under at the time
of application (WIS75, WIS8.' WIS88). For the purpt se of this assessment, it is assumed that
the sludge is either plowed nder or injected to a i x>t zone depth of 15 cm. The sludge is
assumed to be introduced ov ;r the entire acreage a id applied at rate of about 4.5 tons per
acre every other year for 20: ears (WIS75). The mod ;1 site for this scenario is assumed to be
B-6-24
-------
an average Illinois farm of 340 acres (BOC87). It is assumed that the field is bordered on one
side by a nearby stream and the region is underlain by an aquifer. The size of the field is
assumed to be square with dimensions of 1,200 m by 1,200 m. Given the application rate and
acreage, 1,390 MT of sludge is introduced during each application and a total of 13,900 MT
is disposed over a 20-year period. These quantities are simply rounded off to 1,400 and 14,000
MT, respectively.
MunicipalLandfillDisQosal
This scenario addresses the disposal of radium contaminated sludge into a typical
municipal landfill serving a large community. Since the water utility supplies water to a
small community, the utility is assumed to be using a third-party landfill rather than its own.
It is assumed that the landfill accepting the sludge is used for other purposes as well. A
12-inch cover material is placed over the sludge on a daily basis (WIS88). Since the landfill
was opened some years ago, it is assumed that the no special requirements were imposed on
the site regarding the installation of a leachate containment system. At closure, a 1 ft layer
of topsoil is placed over the fill area. Credit is taken only for the surface layer of the soil
cover. The landfill is assumed to be 40 acres (16 hectares). It is assumed that the field is
bordered on one side by a nearby stream and the region is underlain by an aquifer. The size
of the field is assumed to be square with dimensions of 400 m by 400 m. The sludges are
disposed by a water treatment plant creating 366 MT of sludge per year, based on the earlier
estimates. The total amount of sludge disposed over a 20-year time period is assumed to be
7,320 MT.
6.5.2 Population Exposure
The model site for this scenario is assumed to be located in a rural Illinois. The
population density is assumed to be that of the state of Illinois, at 210 people per square mile
(BOC87).
B-6-25
-------
6.5.3 Radionuclide Concentrations
The presence of radium in sludge depends upon the initial water Ra-226 and Ra-228
concentrations. In regions where water supplies exhibit elevated radioactivity levels, sludge
from, water treatment systems are expected to have higher radionuclide concentrations.
However, it has been shown that raw water with less than 5 pCi/L of total radium, when
processed, may produce a significant accumulation of radium in sludge. Given the broad
variability of ground and surface water concentrations, the uncertainty with the type and
number of water treatment systems being used, and their effective radionuclide removal
efficiency, a simple approach was used to estimate radionuclide concentration in sludge. A
rule of thumb was applied with which to convert influent water concentration to resultant
sludge concentration. The selected radionuclide concentrations (see Section 6.4.1) assumed
that the water (and consequently the sludge) originates from areas which are traditionally
high in naturally-occurring radioactivity.
B-6-26
-------
B.6 RE1 ERENCES
AWA89 Telephone Communication wit i Mr. Kurt Keely, September 27,1989, A aerican
Water Works Association, Dei ver, CO.
AWA87 American Water Works Ass< nation, 1985 Water Utility Operatic ; Data,
Denver, CO, 1987.
AWA86 American Water Works Ass< nation, 1984 Water Utility Operatic : Data,
Denver, CO, 1986.
BOC87 Department of Commerce, St itistical Abstract of the United States - 1988,
108th Edition, Bureau of Gen us, 1987.
COT83 Cothern, C.R., Lappenbusch,A r.L., Occurrence of Uranium in Drinkin ; Water
in the U.S., Health Physics J< irnal, Vol. 45X1), July 1983.
COT84 Cothern, C.R., Lappenbusch, W.L., Compliance Data for the Occur ence of
Radium and Gross Alpha-Par -de Activity in Drinking Water Supplit ; in the
United States, Health Physic: Journal, Vol. 46(3), March 1984.
DYK86 Dyksen, J.E., et al., The Capa >ilities of Standard Water Treatment P ocesses
to Meet Revised Drinking W iter Regulations, AWWA, Annual Co, ference
Proceedings, June 22-26, 198< , pp. 951-965, Denver, CO.
EPA76 Environmental Protection i gency, Determination of Radium } emoval
Efficiencies in Illinois Wate Supply Treatment Processes, Dlin< s EPA
prepared for the U.S. EPA, O Ice of Radiation Programs, May 1976.
EPA82 Environmental Protection Age icy, Disposal of Radium-Barium Sulfat Sludge
From a Water Treatment 'lant in Midland, South Dakota, T chnical
Assistance Program Report pi 3pared by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc for the
U.S. EPA, Region VIII, Decen her 1982.
EPA86a Environmental Protection A: ency, 40 CFR 141 Water Pollution Control;
National Primary Drinking W ter Regulations; Radionuclides: Advanc : Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, Fedt -al Register Notice, Vol. 51, No. 189, Se tember
20, 1986.
EPA86b Environmental Protection Ag ncy, Technology and Costs for Treatir ;nt and
Disposal of Waste byproducts by Water Treatment for Removal of Ii organic
and Radioactive Contaminant;, September 1986.
EPA88 Environmental Protection Ag ncy, Suggested Guidelines for the Dit x>sal of
Naturally Occurring Radiom elides Generated by Drinking Water Plants,
Waste Disposal Work Group, )ffice of Drinking Water, June 1988.
B-3-R-1
-------
GIL84
HAH88
HES85
LON87
LOW88
LOW87
NCR87
NRC88
PAR89
PAR88
REI85
SOR88
WIS75
WIS85
WIS88
Gilkeson, R. H., et f .., Isotopic Studies of the Natural Sources of Radium in
Groundwate in Illir >is, University of Illinois Water Resources Center, report
UILU-WRC- 34-183 j repared for the United States Department of the Interior,
April 1984.
Hahn, N. A. Jr., Dis osal of Radium Removed Prom Drinking Water, AWWA
Journal, Jul 1988.
Hess, C. T. e . al., Th Occurrence of Radioactivity in Public Water Supplies in
the United £ cates, I ialth Physics Journal, Vol. 48 (5), May 1985.
Longtin, J.F , Radoi . Radium, and Uranium Occurrence in Drinking Water
from Grouni water £ mrces, AWWA Journal, June 14, 1987.
Lowry, J.D. and S. B. Lowry, Radionuclides in Drinking Water, AWWA
Journal, Jul 1988.
Lowry, J.D. at al., 1 oint of Entry Removal of Radon from Drinking Water,
AWWA Joui lal, Ap: .1 1987.
National Co- ncil on ladiation Protection and Measurements, Exposure to the
Population a the Jnited States and Canada from Natural Background
Radiation, * CRP R< x>rt No. 94, December 1987.
Standards fc r Protec ion Against Radiation, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 10, Pai : 20, Ja \uary 1988, as amended.
Telephone C
:ation with Mr. Marc Parrotta, Environmental Protection
Agency, Offi :e of Dr airing Water, Washington, DC, September 27, 1989.
Telephone C
ration with Mr. Marc Parrotta, Environmental Protection
Agency, Offi :e of Dr along Water, Washington, DC, September 14, 1988.
Reid, G. W. it al., T eatment, Waste Management and Cost of Radioactivity
Removal fro a Drinl ng Water, Health Physics Journal, Vol. 48, May 1985.
Sorg, T.J., : lethods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water, AWWA
Journal, Jul r 1988.
Guidelines f >r the A >plication of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land in
Wisconsin, 3epartr ent of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No.88,
Madison, W~ sconsin 1975.
Municipal SI idge M: oagement, Chapter NR 204, Bureau of Natural Resources,
Register, M: rch 19E >, No. 351, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985.
Interim Gui lelines or the Disposal of Liquid and Solid Waste Containing
Radium froi i Wisco -.sin Water Treatment Plants, Prepared by the State of
Wisconsin, E ureau o Solid Waste Management, Drafts of August and October
1988.
B-6-R-2
-------
B.7 METAL MINING AND PROCESSING WASTE
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The mining and processing of ores for the production of metals generates large
quantities of residual bulk solids and wastes. Because the minerals of value comprise only
a very small fraction of the ore, most of this bulk material has no direct use. It has been
estimated that the mining and processing of ores and minerals, other than uranium and
phosphate, has resulted in 41 billion metric tons (MT) of mine waste and tailings from 1910
to 1981 (EPA85). This industry typically generates about 1 billion MT of waste per year,
including waste rock and overburden, ore tailings, and smelter slag. The quantity of waste
materials and their physical and radiological characteristics differ widely among the various
metal mining and processing industries. In addition, depending on the processing methods
employed, some of the processing residues can contain elevated concentrations of
naturally-occurring radionuclides. Mineral residues stockpiled at any one site are not always
necessarily waste. Some tailings are in fact additional resources which may be subjected to
further processing to extract additional minerals. Smelter slag may be processed for the
extraction of additional minerals or it may be used as an additive in a variety of applications.
Because of the paucity of data, the waste generated by this sector is poorly understood.
The literature contains only a few studies on the metal mining industry and in most cases,
a few specific sites were evaluated for each type of metals. In addition, the characterization
of some of the metal mining industries was based on very limited field sampling and analysis
programs.
In July, 1990, the EPA published a document titled "Report to Congress Special
Wastes from Mineral Processing" (EPA90). This report provides information on waste
volumes, radionuclide concentrations, and commercial uses of processing wastes (slag and
leachate) from the smelting and refining of mineral ores to produce primary metals.
Information is included on wastes from the production of aluminum, copper, ferrous metals
(iron and steel), lead, titanium, and zinc. Only very limited data are provided on NORM
concentrations in these wastes. The EPA used screening criteria of 5 pCi/g of Ra-226 and
B-7-1
-------
10 pCi/g of U-238 or Th-232 to define radionuclide concentrations in waste or leachate
samples that could endanger human health.
Radionuclide concentrations in waste samples from the production of aluminum and
titanium are reported in EPA90 that exceed these criteria. In slag samples from processing
copper ores, Ra-226 concentrations are reported to be less than 5 pCi/g. No data on
radionuclide concentrations in waste samples from the production of ferrous metals, lead, or
zinc are given in the report.
It is generally believed by geologists that the presence of naturally-occurring
radioactivity is more dependent upon the geological formation or region than on a particular
type of mineral ore. It will also be apparent from reading the remainder of this section that
ores often contain many different minerals. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that the
radionuclide content of one type of ore and its associated waste will be representative of a
metal industry.
There have been reports that some of the more uncommon metals have highly
radioactive waste products. Also, some of the processes associated with metal extraction
appear to concentrate radionuclides and enhance their environmental mobility. Some
published information and data to support these arguments have been presented, but in most
cases it is suggested that further studies be conducted prior to reaching any conclusions.
The processes associated with aluminum, copper, zinc, tin, titanium, zirconium,
, ferrous metals (iron and steel), and lead are discussed in this section. Elemental
phosphorous is described in Section B.2. The minerals and metals described in this section
were not really selected, but rather included because the availability of information and data.
Some of the other metals, such as gold and silver, may be found in copper ore, and may also
exist in other types of geological settings and at different abundances. No information was
available for ores processed primarily for gold, silver, or molybdenum. However, it is
generally recognized that pitchblende ore with high uranium content has been found in old
precious metal mines or mine waste. Therefore, it is not reasonable to dismiss these or any
other metal industries as being free of NORM waste based only from the available
information.
B-7-2
-------
In the sections that follow, an overview is provided of metal mining followed by a
discussion of a number of metal mining and processing industries. A description of the
properties of such mining waste and its potential to generate enhanced sources of
naturally-occurring radioactive materials is also presented. Estimates of the actual and
projected waste generation rates are also given for this NO£M sector. This information is
used to assess potential exposures to members of the general public and critical population
groups. A radiological risk assessment is performed (see Chapter D) assuming that the
exposed population is residing near a generic site.
7.2 OVERVIEW OF THE METAL MINING INDUSTRY
Mineral ores are mined by both surface and underground mining methods. In many
respects, the "lining methods characterizing the uranium mining industry also apply to metal
mining (see Section B.I for details). For the sake of simplicity and to avoid some redundancy,
the radiological characteristics of each metal mining segment are included in this Subsection.
Section 7.4 provides a summary and highlights the radiological data presented in the
following subsections.
7.2.1 Metal Mining and Waste Production
The bulk of residual material from metal Dining and processing is the soil or rock that
mining operations generate during the process of gaining access to an ore or mineral body.
This material includes the overburden from surface mines, underground mine development
rock, and other waste rock, including rock and ore. In 1986, the total solid material handled
at all surface and underground mines in the U.S. was 2,385 million metric tons (MT). Of this,
metal mines handled 989 million MT (DOI87). The mine piles cover areas ranging from 2 to
240 hectares, with an average area of 51 hectares. Some of this bulk material may be
considered waste, while other portions of it have economic value as low grade ore or for use
in other applications.
B-7-3
-------
After the ore is mined, it undergoes benefication where the crushed ores are
concentrated to free the valuable mineral and metal particles (termed values) from the matrix
of less valuable rock (called gangue). Benefidation processes also include physical and
chemical separation techniques such as gravity concentration, magnetic separation,
electrostatic separation, flotation, ion exchange, solvent extraction, electrowinning,
precipitation, and amalgamation. The choice of beneficiation process depends upon the
properties of the metal or mineral ore and the gangue, the properties of other minerals or
metals in the same ore, and the relative costs of alternative methods. Almost all processes
generate tailings, which may be considered waste material or may have economic value for
subsequent mineral extraction.
Tailings are the materials remaining after physical or chemical beneficiation removes
the valuable constituents from the ore. Tailings generally leave the mill as a slurry
consisting of 50 to 70 percent (by weight) liquid mill effluent and 30 to 50 percent solids (clay,
silt, and sand-sized particles). Significant quantities of slag and sand may also be generated
from some high temperature extraction processes.
More than half of the mill tailings are disposed in tailings ponds, which also serve as
the primary method to treat wastewater in the metal mining industry. Settling ponds are
also used at several mineral mining processing sites for the management of liquid waste.
Pond size and design vary by industry segment and mine location. Some copper tailings
ponds in the southwest cover 240 to 400 hectares (one exceeds 2,000 hectares), while some
small lead/zinc tailings ponds cover less than 1 hectare. Based on a Bureau of Mines survey
of 145 tailings ponds in the copper, lead, zinc, gold, and silver industries, the average size of
these ponds is approximately 200 hectares. Many facilities use several ponds in series to
improve the treatment process. Multiple-pond systems offer other advantages as well, as the
tailings themselves are often used to construct dams and dikes.
Technological advances have made it economically feasible to beneficiate ores taken
from lower-grade ore deposits (i.e., those with much higher waste-to-ore ratios). For example,
froth flotation beneficiation processes have had a significant impact on mine production and
upon waste generation. Not only have these advances increased mining production, but the
volume of waste generated also has risen dramatically. The tailings from froth flotation
operations are generally alkaline because the process is more efficient at higher pH levels.
B-7-4
-------
The metals in the alkaline tailings solids are believed to be immobile, unless chemical
conditions change over time.
Dump leaching, heap leaching and in situ leaching are other processes used to extract
metals from low-grade ore. In dump leaching, the material to be leached is placed directly on
the ground. Acid is applied, generally by spraying, although many sulfide ores will generate
acid during wetting. As the liquid percolates through the ore, it leaches out metals. The
leachate, "pregnant" with the valuable metals, is collected at the base of the pile and
subjected to further processing to recover the metal. Dump leach piles often cover hundreds
of hectares, rise to 60 meters or more, and contain tens of millions of metric tons of low-grade
ore, which becomes waste after leaching.
Bauxite and Aluminum
Bauxite is an ore containing hydrated aluminum oxide minerals, such as gibbsite,
boehmite, or diaspora and is formed by the weathering processes on aluminum bearing rocks.
Impurities in bauxite consist of Fe2O3, SiO2, and TiO2 (CRC81). Most bauxite is imported
from countries in Africa and South America and from Jamaica. In 1986, only 522 thousand
MT were mined in the United States while the amount used was 6,978 thousand MT
(DOI87). Two surface mines in Arkansas have been responsible for all recent bauxite mining
in the United States.
The only ore benefitiation operations performed at these mines include crushing and
grinding. Water used for dust suppression, mine dewatering, and surface runoff results in the
generation of a small volume of waste water. This water is neutralized by lime and discharged
into nearby streams (EPA78a).
Bauxite refineries produce alumina (A^O-j) which is used as a feedstock for the
aluminum reduction industry. By late 1989, five facilities in the United States were active
for domestic alumina production (EPA90). The locations and ore sources for these facilities
are shown in Table B.7-1. The total annual production capacity for the domestic bauxite
refining industry, as reported by these facilities, is approximately 4.9 million MT. The total
reported 1988 production of alumina was 4.086 million MT.
B-7-5
-------
Table B.7-1. Bauxite refineries.
(Source: EPA90)
Owner Location . Ore Source (1982)
ALCOA Bauxite, AR U.S. (Bauxite, AR)
ALCOA Point Comfort, TX Confidential
Kaiser Gramercy, LA Jamaica
ORMET Burnside, LA Sierra Leone, Brazil,
Guyana
Reynolds Gregory, TX Australia, Jamaica, Brazil,
Guinea
B-7-6
-------
Bauxite ore is processed at an alumina plant using the Bayer or a modified Bayer
process. Dried bauxite is mixed with a caustic liquor in slurry tanks, transferred to heated
digesters where additional caustic is added to dissolve the7alumina from the bauxite. The
liquor is then pumped through settling tanks to remove the bauxite residue. This spent
bauxite residue, called "red mud", is placed in a tailings impoundment near the plant. Red
mud in some plants is processed to remove sodium aluminum silicate in the form of pure
chemical grade alumina hydrates. The waste product is called "brown mud". Hydrated
aluminum oxide is precipitated from the liquor and heated in rotary kilns to drive off water
to produce aluminum oxide. The alumina can be further processed, transferred, or sold to
another facility.
The refinery muds contain significant amounts of iron, aluminum, calcium, and
sodium. They may also contain trace amounts of elements such as barium, boron, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, gallium, lead, scandium, and vanadium, as well as radionuclides. The
types and concentrations of minerals present in the muds depend on the composition of the
ore and the operating conditions in the digesters. The material is caustic and no use has
been made of impounded muds. However, muds might be used for land reclamation, for the
construction of site dams or embankments, or as a feed material for other extraction
processes because of the iron content.
A study conducted by the EPA (EPA82a, EPA78a) indicates that the refinery process
generates about one ton of solid waste during the production of one ton of aluminum. This
includes a small amount of waste rock, the red and brown muds, and a small amount of scrap
and solid wastes coming from the smelter. The red and brown muds are precipitated from
a caustic suspension of sodium aluminate in a slurry and routed to large on-site surface
impoundments. In these impoundments, the muds settle to the bottom and the water is
removed, treated, and either discharged or reused. The muds dry to a solid of very fine
particle size (sometimes less than 1 um). In aggregate, the industry-wide generation of red
and brown muds by the five domestic bauxite refineries, shown in Table B.7-1, was
approximately 2.8 million MT in 1988 (EPA90).
The impoundments that receive the muds typically have surface areas between 44.6
and 105.3 hectares, although one impoundment is only 10.1 hectares and another is almost
B-7-7
-------
1,300 hectares. The depth of the impoundments range from 1 to 16 meters, with an average
impoundment depth of 7 meters. As of 1988, the quantity of muds accumulated onsite at the
five faciHties ranged from 500,000 to 22 million MT per facility, with an average of 9.7
million MT per facility.
In order to characterize the radiological properties of such wastes, the EPA conducted
a radiological evaluation of a mine and associated aluminum processing plant (EPA82a). The
selected site was a surface mine with several open pits ranging in size from 0.3 to 3 hectares.
The overburden and waste and rock were placed into previously mined pits. The bauxite ore
was found to be elevated in both U-238 and Th-232, with concentrations of 6.8 and 5.5 pCi/g.
The Ra-226 concentration was noted to be higher than that of U-238, at 7.4 pCi/g. Po-210 and
Pb-210 concentrations were higher still, at 10 and 9.1 pCi/g, respectively.
The concentrations of these radionuclides in red mud were noted to be about the same
as that of bauxite. In brown mud, the concentrations were notably lower, except for thorium
which was higher than either bauxite or red mud. Table B.7-2 presents radionuclide
concentrations measured in bauxite ore and alumina samples. Data on radionuclide
concentrations in refinery muds are also available from industry responses to a RCRA §3007
request in 1989 and from a 1985 sampling and analysis effort by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) (EPA90). Data on three mud samples gave a median Ra-226 concentration of 14.1
pCi/1 and a median U-238 concentration of 8.75 pCi/1.
Radon-222 flux measurements were made using charcoal canister on ore bodies,
overburden materials, spoil areas, and in open pits. The measurement results indicated
varying radon surface flux rates, ranging from a low 2.6 to as high as 62 pCi/m2-s. The local
background radon flux rate was reported to be 0.38 pCi/m2-s. Table B.7-3 presents individual
and average radon flux rates for different locations at the mining site.
7.2.3 Copper
The copper industry is primarily located in the arid western United States. In 1986,
there were a total of 18 operating mines which moved a total of 468 million MT of ore
(DOI87). The amount of marketable copper is small compared with the material handled.
B-7-8
-------
Table B.7-2. Radionuclide concentrations in alumina plant process samples.
(EPA82a)
Radioactivity Concentrations (pCl/e)*
Sample
Bauxite
Ore
Blended
Bauxite
Alumina
Kiln
Feed
Alumina
Product
RC-64
Alumina
Red Mud
Filter
Cake
Prepared
Sinter
Mud
Sinter
Brown
Mudb
U-238
6.8*0.7
4.0*0.5
0.05*0.03
0.28*0.10
0.31*0.09
7.5*1.2
4.8*0.5
6.4*0.8
5.5*0.4
U-234
6.9*0.7
4.0*0.5
0.07*0.03
0.28*0.10
0.35*0.10
7.5*1.2
4.7*0.5
6.6*0.9
5.6*0.5
Th-230 Ra-226
6.4*1.1 7.4*2.2
3.5*0.3 4.4*1.3
<0.05 0.08*0.05
<1 0.23*0.07
<0.6 0.19*0.06
5.1*1.3 6.5*2.0
-
4.2*1.1 3.9*1.2
6.5*1.6 3.9*1.2
8.0*2.7 5.6*1.2
Pb-210 . Po-210
9.1*1.1 10.0*1
5.3*0.4 4.2*0.5
0.20*0.15 0.00*0.20
<1.4 <0.6
<1.3 <0.6
7.6*0.4 7.7*1.7
6.8*0.4 4.6*0.5
3.6*0.4 3.2*1.2
5.7*0.8 5.4*0.7
Th-232
5.5*1.0
5.2*1.2
<0.05
<0.2
<0.2
6.0*1.5
5.0*1.3
9.2*2.1
12.5*4
Th-228
5.5*1.0
5.6*1.2
<0.05
<0.2
<0.2
6.3*1.5
5.5*1.4
8.6*2.0
12.5*4
a Picocuries (10-12 curies) per gram plus or minus twice the standard deviation based on counting statistics.
b Hie results are derived Tram duplicate samples.
B-7-9
-------
Table B.7-3. Bauxite open-pit radon surface flux rates.8
Location Radon Surface Flux Rateb
Top of ore body 35
Top of ore body 62
Top of ore body 39
Average 45
Top of overburden - topsoil removed 5.9
Overburden sidewall, 5 ft. below top 13
Overburden sluffage berm, midway between 2.6
surface and top of ore
Average 7.2
Spoils area 4.9
Spoils area 12
Average 8.5
Pit background, undisturbed soil 27
Pit background, undisturbed soil 9.6
Pit background, undisturbed soil 16
Pit background, undisturbed soil 35
Average 22
a Data extracted from EPA82a.
b Units are in picocuries per square meter per second. There are 10"1Z curies in one
picocurie.
B-7-10
-------
Over 300 MT of ore must be handled for each metric ton of copper metal produced. Thus the
waste quantities are very large. Because of the large quantities of waste, the processing
facilities are usually located near the copper mines.
The vast quantities of ore, overburden, and rock are segregated, at the mine site
where the rock is hauled by truck to the rock dump. The ore is then crushed and mixed with
other low-grade ore and is chemically leached to remove the copper. The higher grade ore is
further milled and the end product is concentrated by physical separation, such as a flotation
process. The tailings are pumped to the tailings pile and the copper concentrate is
transported to a nearby smelter.
The locations of ten primary copper processing facilities that, as of September 1989,
were active in the smelting and refining of copper concentrate are shown in Table B.7-4.
During the early 1980s, production of copper in the U.S. declined as a result of a drop
in copper prices. However, primary production of copper in the U.S. increased throughout
the late 1980s. Between 1986 and 1989, production from domestic and imported raw
materials increased by 38 percent. Imports of refined copper for consumption decreased by
40 percent (from 502,000 MT to 300,000 MT), while exports increased 833 percent (from
12,000 MT to 100,000 MT) (EPA90). Most smelting and refining facilities have recently
undergone modernization. The total annual primary copper smelting production capacity
currently stands at about 1.27 million MT per year of anode copper; the primary copper
refining capacity is about 1.33 million MT per year of refined copper.
The demand for copper is closely tied to the overall economy, and demand remained
relatively flat through the late 1980s. Total apparent consumption of copper in the U.S. rose
slightly from 2.136 million MT in 1986 to 2.250 million MT in 1989. Future demand depends
upon the health of the economy. Almost 40 percent of the 1988 U.S. consumption of copper
went to the building and construction industries, while about 23 percent was used by the
electrical and electronic industries. Industrial machinery and equipment, the power
generation industry, and the transportation industry together consumed 38 percent of the
copper produced in the U.S. in 1988 (EPA90).
B-7-11
-------
Table B.7-4. Primary copper processing facilities.
(Source: EPA90)
Tvt»e of Operation
Owner
ASARCO
ASARCO
ASARCO
Kennecott
Copper Range
Cyprus
Magma
Phelps Dodge
Phelps Dodge
Phelps Dodge
Location
Amarillo, TX
El Paso, TX
Hayden, AZ
Garfield, in-
White Pine, MI
Claypool, AZ
San Manuel, AZ
El Paso, TX
Hurley, NM
Playas, NM
Smelter and
Converter
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Anode
Furnace
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Electrolytic
Refinery
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
B-7-12
-------
In 1986, there were 172 million MT of crude ore handled from copper mines in the
United States. In addition, 295 million MT of waste were processed for disposal. Only 5
percent of this material came from underground mines (DOI87). Note that this is significantly
less than the 723 million MT of waste handled at copper mines in 1980 (EPA85). For copper
mines (1980 data), approximately 33 percent of the waste i? tailings, 28 percent are dump
and heap leach wastes, and 39 percent is comprised of waste rock and overburden. This
distribution is believed to still represent current practices.
Tailings piles vary in size, but may be as large as 400 hectares for copper mines in the
southwest. The waste rock and leach piles may also reach 400 hectares each. A study of 12
tailings piles (EPA85) revealed that no tailings pile liners were used and only two sites were
reported to monitor ground water. Such data is misleading in that New Mexico, Arizona,
Colorado, and California require ground water monitoring since these states already have a
large number of existing mill tailings piles. Some of the copper mine wastes have been put
to use, but on a limited scale. Mixtures of crushed waste rock, including waste rock from the
copper mines, have been used to construct embankments, fills, or pavement bases for
highways. Some bench scale studies have shown that copper tailings can be used in bricks
if pyrites are first removed (EPA85).
The three steps in copper smelting consist of roasting, smelting, and converting. The
copper ore concentrates are roasted or heated in an oxidizing atmosphere which partially
drives off some of the sulfur as sulfur dioxide. Where roasters are not employed, the ore is
dried by heating in a rotary dryer if the concentrate has a high moisture content.
The smelting stage consists of using a smelting furnace to melt and react copper
concentrates and/or calcine in the presence of silica and limestone flux to form two immiscible
layers. One of the layers is waste consisting of iron and silica compounds, which'is discarded
on the slag pile. The other layer called "matte copper" consists of copper and iron sulfide and
other metals.
The matte copper is placed in a converter where silica flux is added, and the resultant
mixture is air blown to produce a copper rich slag, which is returned to the crusher. The
remaining molten mass is then air blown to convert the copper sulfide to blister copper which
is transferred to an anode furnace for casting.
B-7-13
-------
The typical copper concentrations were noted to range from 0.5 to 1.0 percent in
copper ores used by a smelter evaluated by the EPA (EPA78a, EPA78b). All ores with an
abundance of 0.3 percent or less are rejected as waste rock. Since the concentrate feed rate
to the smelter is approximately 3 times that of the copper production rate, in a reverberatory
furnace (smelter) slag is produced at a rate which is about 75 percent that of the incoming
copper concentrate. The EPA's report to Congress on special wastes from mineral processing
(EPA90) indicates that 2.5 million MT of smelter slag and 1.5 million MT of slag tailings
were generated by copper smelting and refining facilities in the U.S. in 1988. The slag waste
volume from copper smelting and refining is very small compared to the overburden and
tailings waste volumes from mining and beneficiation operations.
At the eight active copper smelters (Table B.7-4) smelter slag is initially deposited on
waste piles. These slag piles range in surface area from about 1 to 30 hectares, and in height
from 3 to 45 meters. Slag accumulations in individual piles ranged from 0.5 to 21 million MT
as of 1988.
Three smelters (San Manuel, White Pine, and Garfield) subsequently process all their
smelter slag either in a conventional ore concentrator or in a stand-alone slag concentrator.
The slag tailings from these operations are co-managed at on-site tailings piles with the
tailings from ore beneficiation. Slag tailings ponds range from 142 to 2,270 hectares with an
average size of about 600 hectares. Depths range from about 16 to 61 meters with an
average depth of 46 meters. As of 1988, quantities of slag tailings in these ponds ranged
from 240,000 MT to 3.4 million MT, with an average of 1.8 million MT.
Copper slag may be used as a source of secondary metals and in various applications
in road and building construction. Research has been conducted on removing secondary
metals such as iron, nickel, and cobalt from copper slag, but commercial facilities for metals
recovery are not currently in operation. Copper slag has been used as an aggregate in
asphalt and seal coats in highway construction in Arizona and Utah, which are among the
top generators of copper slag. It can be used as a source of aggregate in portland cement
concrete. It has also been used for road cindering, as granules for roof shingles, as pipe
bedding, and in road beds when mixed with a sufficient quantity of road rock. Copper slag
was used in construction of a large portion of the Southern Pacific railroad roadbed from New
Orleans to San Francisco.
B-7-14
-------
Several EPA studies have reported uranium and thorium concentrations in various
copper mining and processing materials. Unfortunately, the primary goals of these studies
were not to perform a radiological characterization, and thus very little relevant data were
obtained. The locations of the study sites were not identified, but it is known that one of the
sites was in the Southwest (Arizona or New Mexico). Table B.7-5 summarizes the results of
these studies. The EPA's report to Congress on special wastes from mineral processing
(EPA90) reported Ra-226 concentrations in samples of copper slag to be less than 5 pCi/g.
From t>"'g information, it might be concluded that radionuclide concentrations, copper
mining, and processing wastes are at about the natural crustal abundance. However, a review
of available information for the State of Arizona, where much of the copper is produced,
might lead to a different conclusion.
Uranium has been found in many primary metals deposits in Arizona where it is
associated with copper and molybdenum in large porphyry copper ore bodies and in vein
deposits with copper, lead, and zinc sulfides. Uranium is also known to occur in significant
quantities in oxide and sulfide ores. Table B.7-6 presents a summary of uranium bearing
metalliferous deposits in selected Arizona mining sites. The following discussion highlights
some of the important findings noted at these sites.
The presence of uranium has been documented at the Esperanza mine, located in the
southeastern Sierritas about 25 miles SSW of Tucson and 10 miles SW of the community of
Sahuarita. Assay results of stockpiled ore indicate that U3O8 is present at 0.11 to 0.18
percent (PEI70).
The Twin Buttes mine lies roughly four miles northeast of Esperanza and about 23
miles south of Tucson. At Esperanza, uranium, as uraninite and secondary uranium
minerals, has been found with molybdenite and copper minerals. Whether or not these are
from oxide ores originating from early open pit operations (as at Twin Buttes) or from sulfide
ores, perhaps from earlier underground mining, is uncertain. Twin Buttes and Esperanza are
only two of a number of fairly large open-pit porphyry copper-molybdenum producers found
on the east side of the Sierrita Mountains, southwest of Tucson. Other mines, Pima-Mission,
and San Xavier are in fact closer to Tucson, about 16 miles away. The absence of uranium
B-7-15
-------
Table B.7-5. Radionuclide concentrations in copper materials.
EPA82a
Material EPA-79
Ore:
Surface mine
waste:
Ore 0.7(0.8)
concentrates:
Tailings:
Furnace slag: 3(5)
Leach material:
EPA-83b
0.8-1.78
0.02-1.48
1.19-2.99
Underground
0.79(0.62)
0.65(0.07)
0.82(0.24)
Ooen Pit
2.2(3.1)
1.4(1.1)
1.6(3.0)
a The results are for U-238, those in parenthesis are for Th-232.
b For plants located in Arizona or New Mexico and at other unspecified locations.
B-7-16
-------
Table B.7-6. Selected uranium bearing metalliferous deposits In Arizona.
Name
TwinBuUes
Esperanza
Bisbee
Morend
Copper Sqaw
to
^ Black Dike
King Mine
Gierno group
Miscellaneous near
Patagonia
Hillside
Miscellaneous
Cerbat Mountain
mines
Location
E Sierrita Mounlaina.
SW of Tucson
SE Sierrita Mounlaina,
SW of Tucson
Bisbee, AZ
Morend, AZ
Quyoloa
Papago Indian
Reservation
NW Sierrita Mounlaina,
W of Tucson
Northern Santa Rita
Mountains. S of Tucson
at Helvrta
Las Guyaa Mountains
SW of Tucson. SW of
Twin BuUes, Esperanza
Southern Santa Rita
Mountains close, N of
Nogales
Near Bagdad (3 miles
north)
Cerbal Mountains N of
King man
Mining
District County
PimaDiaL
PimaCo.
PimaDiaL
PimaCo.
Warren Dist
CochiseCo
Copper Mountain
Greenlee Co.
Qujjoloa DisL
PimaCo.
Papago DiaL
PimaCo.
Helvina DiaL
PimaCo.
Las Guyaa DisL
PimaCo.
Wrightston DisL
Santa Cruz Co.
Eunka Dist.
Yavapai Co.
Cerbal Mohave
Principal
Commodlty(le)
Copper
Copper.
molybdenum
Copper
Copper
Copper
Prospect
Silver, copper
Gold-silver
Silver-base
metala (lead)
Cold, silver, line,
lead
Base and precious
metals
Type of Mine
Open pit porphyry
copper
Open pit porphyry
copper
Open pit
Open pit porphyry
Old property vein
Shaft with dumps
Van; underground
old workings area
drilled out for
porphyry copper
(Old mining area)
veins
U-second-ariea
associated with
Galena (PBS)
Underground van
Old mines, vans
Th Association
Uranium in aide ore
Uranium with copper
and molybdenum
mineralization
Uraninite in tones in
sulfide or bodies,
hematite, quartz
Scattered uranium
mineralization
associated with copper
Uranium associated
with oxidized copper
andiron
PiUhblend with
MnOx. Cu Sulndes
and fluonte
PiUhblend with Fe
and Cu sulftdea
Uranium minerals
associated with copper
and iron
Uraninite and old
lead-silver and silver
base metal workings-
veins
Uranium secondary
minerals found on
dria walls.
PiUhblend also
reported with gold,
silver, base metals,
and (luonte
Uranium minerals
with quartz and base
metal sulfides
Assaya Reported
Unknown; produced
yellow cake 1980-1986
0.111-0.182%
eU,0,-old ore
Not given
Not given
0.76-1.4%
0.01 1-0. 16 to U
(»U,0.)
0.14-0.934
*A
0.124.30%
"A
0.024.07%
eU,0. with an assay of
2.3%
0.014.6%
Ref.
(Pdrce 70)
(Beard 89)
(Beard 89)
(Beard 89)
(Beard 89)
(McDonnd 89)
(Beard 89)
(Peiree 70)
(Beard 89)
(Peiree 70)
(USCS 63)
(Peiree 70)
(Peiree 70)
-------
at these mines does not preclude its presence as the geology and mineralogy is fairly similar
(BEA89).
Uranium is found in various base metal deposits in a band extending at least 10 miles
northwest from Twin Buttes and Esperanza, cutting across the Sierrita Mountains. This band
tentatively ends at the now non-producing Black Dike Mine located on the northwest side of
the Sierrita Mountains, some 27 miles SW of Tucson. At this site, uranium in abundance as
high as 0.16 percent has been found in a contact zone of U3O8 exposed by a shaft associated
with copper minerals and fluorite mining (PEI70). On the surface, dumps with copper oxides,
sulfides, and purple fluorite have been observed with anomalous radioactivity levels
(MCD89).
At the much smaller nearby Black Dike mine, uranium has been found in varying
amounts with sulfide base metals, mainly in vein like deposits (PEI70).
Elevated levels of uranium have also been observed in the Tucson region, outside of
the Sierritas. The King mine, an old silver and copper mine, is one of several in the area
where pitchblende occurs (with sulfides) with assay results ranging from 0.14 to 0.93 percent
U3O8 (PEI70). The mine is located on a contact zone exposed by underground mine workings.
It appears that this mine is one of several which have been developed under recent
exploration efforts (BEA89).
Other Arizona uriniferous-metallic occurrences are known to exist in or near other
large copper mines in Arizona. Uranium is present in sulfide ore bodies at Bisbee, where it
is associated with quartz and hematite (PEI70, USG63) and is found in trace amounts
scattered along with copper mineralization at Morenci (PEI70). No assay results were given
in any of the reviewed literature. The Morenci mine is a large open-pit porphyry copper mine
located in the eastern part of the state, northeast of Safford. Bisbee is also an open-pit copper
mine, located near the Mexican border, between Douglas, Sierra Vista, and Tombstone.
Uranium is found in trace amounts, at an average of 0.0055 percent U308, in porphyry
copper deposits in the Miami district, east of Phoenix (STI62). Uranium has also been found
in copper sulfide in schist veins near Globe (MCD89). It is not known if such deposits exist
B-7-18
-------
at the San Manuel, Ray, and Christmas mines, which are widely dispersed between the north
side of the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson and the Dripping Springs Mountain.
Uranium occurs in the Bagdad District, some 35 miles west of Prescott, with U3O8
concentrations being as high as 2.3 percent in the Hillside mine (USG55). The Hillside mine
is an old mine (gold - silver - zinc - lead) located on a fissure vein. The abundance of uranium
at this location is probably much less, perhaps closer to 0.1 percent U3O8 (PEI70).
The data on uranium occurrences in metalliferous deposits in Arizona, summarized
in Table B.7-6, probably reflects a biased sampling program. Still (STI62) has reported
results for 441 ore samples taken in the Miami district of Arizona for which he cited U308
concentrations as high as 0.018 percent, with a mean of 0.016 percent. While it is possible
to find copper mining wastes with uranium concentrations that are typical of pitchblende, it
is probable that large site averages are much less, being probably closer to 0.01 percent. This
corresponds to U-238 concentrations in the waste of about 34 pCi/g.
Based on this review, it is difficult to characterize the radiological properties of
overburden and tailings associated with the mining and processing of copper ores. The data
presented above do not indicate that radionuclides are concentrated in any of the waste
streams. However, elevated exposures may be associated with the use of materials from
waste rock piles, leach piles, furnace slag piles, and tailings piles. A more detailed survey
of wastes and tailings, especially from the copper mines and mills of Arizona and New mexico
is warranted to better characterize these potential NORM wastes.
7.2.4 Zinc
In 1987, approximately 50 percent of the production of zinc ore was from Tennessee,
with New York, Missouri, and 8 other states sharing the balance (DOI87). The 1987 ore
production was 216,981 MT (DOI89). In 1989, U.S. production of mined zinc rose to 300,000
MT (EPA 90). By 1991, U.S. mine production of zinc could double that of 1989, due primarily
to the large Red Dog, Alaska mine, which opened in November 1989 (BOM90). A major
factor leading to the increased production of mined zinc has been the strong demand from the
B-7-19
-------
automobile industry for galvanized sheet metal. Galv. nizing accounted for 45 percent of zinc
consumption in 1989.
Zinc processing facilities in the U.S. include OE i at Monaca, Pennsylvania which uses
pyrometallurgical (smelting) techniques and three ac ditional facilities that use electrolytic
production techniques. In 1988, the Monaca facility p oduced 99,800 MT of zinc and 157,000
MT of zinc slag.
At the Monaca facility, the furnace slag is or .bed and separated into four material
streams: zinc fines, reclaimed coke, processed slag, a .d ferrosilicon. The fines and coke are
recycled to benefication and processing operations a . the facility. The processed slag and
ferrosilicon are placed on slag piles. The processed slag pile covers an area of about 1.2
hectares and is roughly 7 m in height The ferrosilict i pile has a basal area of 8,000 square
meters and is also about 7 m high. In addition, slag h is been placed in a layer at the bottom
of the facility's flyash landfill that is approximately ( 3 m deep and covers an area of about
8 hectares. As of 1988, quantities of waste accumul .ted in the ferrosilicon pile, processed
slag pile, and the landfill were about 48,000, 63,500, and 45,400 MT, respectively.
Slag at the Monaca facility has been used as ravel on parking lots and other areas
of the plant site. It has also been used as railroad b Hast, as an aggregate in asphalt, and
as an anti-skid material.
The EPA has conducted a characterization stuc / of a large underground zinc mine and
mill (EPA82b). The study revealed that the presenc. of U-238 and Th-232 and their decay
products were found in ores, concentrates, and tailing at less than 20 percent of the average
crustal abundances. The EPA's report to Congress on perial wastes from mineral processing
does not include any information on U-238, Th-232, o. Ra-226 concentrations in zinc smelter
slag. Since concentrations of these nuclides were to )e included in measurements made to
characterize mineral processing wastes, it may be concluded that any measured
concentrations were below the EPA's screening criter a (10 pCi/g for U-238 and Th-232, and
5 pCi/g for Ra-226). It would, therefore, appear tha the overburden, subore, tailings, and
smelter slag associated with the zinc mining and p ocessing industry do not represent a
B-7-20
-------
significant source of NORM wastes. Considering their use as construction materials further
radiological characterizations of zinc mining and processing wastes may be warranted.
7.2.5 Tin
Competitive pressures and a world wide excess in tin inventory have caused many
mine closures in recent years. Only one U.S. mine, located in Alaska, produced ore
concentrates in 1986, but no specific production data were available. However, this mine is
reported to produce only a small fraction of the total U.S. consumption (DOI87). The other
domestic tin producer is Tex Tin Corp., located in Texas City, Texas. This facility processed
domestic and imported ores, primarily from Peru. In 1987, the U.S. imported 2,953 MT of
concentrates. Total smelter production has been reported to be 3,905 MT (DOI87).
Amang is a general term for the by-products obtained when tin tailings are processed
into concentrated ores. It includes minerals, such as monazite, zircon, ilmenite, rutile, and
garnet Hu reported analytical results for among coming from Malaysia, including monazite,
xenotime, zircon, and thorium cake (HU85). While it is not known how the levels of
radioactivity in amang compares with titanium concentrates, Ra-226 and Th-232 activities
in amang were reported to range from 430-480 pCi/g and 1,160-8,830 pCi/g, respectively.
Accordingly, tailings from these ores appear to have a significant potential to cause elevated
radiation exposures, if used indiscriminately.
Gamma survey measurements made at the Tex Tin smelter revealed uncorrected
radiation levels in slag storage areas ranging from 10 uR/h to 500 uR/h, with average levels
of less than 60 uR/h. Four samples taken from such areas revealed U-238 concentrations up
to 43 pCi/g and Th-232 concentrations up to 19 pCi/g (CRC81). The State of Texas has
conducted some measurements at the Texas City Site (GRA89). Two slag pile samples, taken
in August of 1988, showed Ra-226 concentrations of 7.3 and 55 pCi/g. Uranium concentrations
were noted to be 17 and 34 pCi/g, while those for Ac-228 (Th-232 series) were found to be
lower at 2.9 and 7 pCi/g. No information was available regarding past uses or possible
applications of the slag from this tin smelter. No information on tin slag is given in the
EPA's report to Congress on mineral processing wastes.
B-7-21
-------
7.2.6 Til
U.S. titanium ore and concentrate supplies are obtained primarily from Australia,
South Africa, and Canada. The concentrates are produced from rutile (Ti02), leucoxene
(TiOj), and ilxnenite (FeTi03), as well as from titanium slag. Titanium is also found with iron
ore (titaniferous) which is imported from Canada. Titanium ore and concentrates are
processed by chlorination in a fluidized-bed reactor in the presence of coke to produce
titanium tetrachloride which is used as a feedstock to two major processes, production of
titanium dioxide and titanium sponge. Titanium dioxide is used primarily as a pigment in
the paper and paint industries; titanium sponge is used primarily in aircraft engines and
airframes. Nine facilities, located across the U.S., that were active in 1989 in the production
of titanium tetrachloride are shown in Table B.7-7.
The production and consumption of titanium metal in the U.S. has generally been
increasing because of its demand in the aerospace industry, mainly aircraft engines and
airframes manufacturing. While aerospace applications make up 78 percent of the use of this
metal, other applications are common where high-strength toughness, heat resistance, and
high structural integrity are needed. The use of titanium in automotive engines is being
considered. The consumption of TiO2, e.g., as a paint pigment, is also increasing. In general,
the demand is greater than existing world supplies (DOI87). Titanium metal production in
the U.S. increased by 12 percent, from 21,000 MT to 24,000 MT, between 1985 and 1989
(EPA 90). Titanium oxide pigment production increased by 8 percent, from 927,000 MT to
1.007 million MT, during this same period.
The chlorination of tit-**"""" ores and concentrates to produce titanium tetrachloride
produces chloride process waste solids. These solids are typically generated in a slurry with
waste acids. The solids in the slurry are particles with a diameter less than 0.02 mm
(smaller than sand). The aggregate industry-wide generation of chloride process waste solids
was 414,000 MTin 1988. Waste solids are managed in surface impoundments and/or settling
ponds. The waste solids piles are typically small, covering 0.5 to 5 hectares, and are about
1 to 10 meters in height. Recycling of waste solids to recover additional titanium and other
metals such as columbium, tantalum, and zirconium is the primary management alternative
to the current practice of neutralization and surface impoundment/landfill disposal. While
laboratory tests have demonstrated the technical feasibility of recycling, no full-scale
B-7-22
-------
Table B.7-7. Domestic titanium tetrachloride producers.
(Source: EPA90)
Owner
Location
Ore Type
E.I. duPont
E.I. duPont
E.I. duPont
E.I. duPont
Kemira
Kerr-McGee
SCM
SCM
TIMET
Antioch, CA
Edgemoore, DE
New Johnsonville, TN
Pass Christian, MS
Savannah, GA
Hamilton, MS
Ashtabula, OH
Baltimore, MD
Henderson, NV
Rutile
Ilmenite
Ilmenite
Ilmenite
Rutile
Synthetic Rutile
Rutile, S. African Slag
Rutile, S. African Slag
Rutile
B-7-23
-------
applications are known to exist. No other uses of titanium waste solids are reported in the
EPA's report to Congress on mineral processing wastes.
Much of the ore from which titanium is obtained originates in beach and fluviatile
sands which also contain monazite. Impurities in monazite are present at high
*
concentrations, and include uranium and thorium and their decay products. The
concentration of these radionuclides is expected to vary from ore to ore (CRC81). Data
gathered by the EPA indicate that in rutile and leucoxene ores, uranium and thorium were
present at concentrations in the range of 5 to 20 pCi/g (CRC81). Radium in sludge from
titanium-chlorination process streams was observed in concentrations as high as 77 pCi/g.
Radionuclides in liquid waste streams were found to be similarly elevated.
Analyses of 12 samples of chloride process solid waste from one titanium tetrachloride
producer showed a median Ra-226 concentration of 8.0 pCi/g with a range of 3.9 to 24.5 pCi/g
(EPA 90). The median U-238 concentration for these 12 samples was 1.5 pCi/g with a range
of 0.07 to 42.7 pCi/g. The median Th-232 concentration was 1.1 pCi/g with a range of 0.12
to 88.9 pCi/g.
7.2.7 Zirconium and Hafnium
The ores containing zirconium and hafnium are obtained as a by-product of mining
and extracting titanium minerals, ilmenite and rutile. Zirconium and hafnium are found in
mineral ore, zircon, in a ratio of 50 to 1. While hafnium is used to manufacture nuclear
reactor fuel control rods, it has few other uses and the demand is relatively small. Zirconium,
in the form of zircon, however, is widely used in foundry sands, refractory paints, and in
other refractory materials. World resources are large when compared to current demands.
The ores are primarily produced in Australia and the Republic of South Africa, which
presently have over 40 percent of the worlds' zirconium mining capacity (DOI85). In 1984,
there were 39 locations in the U.S. where zirconium materials were produced, primarily in
the East. Zircon or zircon ores were processed in Cleveland, Ohio; Wilmington, Delaware; and
Green Cove Springs, Florida. Zircon mineral concentrates are produced in Florida by E.I.
duPont de Nemours & Co., and Associated Minerals Consolidated Inc.
B-7-24
-------
Zirconium oxide is produced directly from zircon by either plasma fusion or electric
arc techniques. For the electric arc technique, a clinker is eventually formed which
disintegrates into a powder. The powder is air classified, and the zirconate crystals are
treated with acids or other reagents to form oxides and salts. The plasma method heats the
finely divided zircon concentrate above its dissociation temperatures, forming zirconia
crystallites and glassy amorphous silica. The hot zirconium oxide is quenched rapidly and the
glassy silica is leached out with sodium hydroxide solution, leaving the insoluble zirconia
crystallites. There are several other more complex processes for producing this metal,
however, such methods are costly and are not widely used.
Zircon and monazite are non-conductive and are separated from the titanium ores
electrostatically. Monazite, which is slightly magnetic, can then be separated from zircon by
electromagnets. Uranium and thorium are known to occur in high concentrations in monazite.
The separation of U-238 and Th-232 from zircon (and monazite) has not always been
accomplished successfully. An instance was cited (DOI85) in which mineral wastes on the
property of a U.S. producer of zirconium metal contained more Ra-226 than could be legally
allowed under state laws.
In recent years, zircon sands have been chlorinated directly in a fluidized bed
containing carbon. This converts the zirconium content of zircon to tetrachloride. A potential
source of significant amounts of NORM waste are believed to occur during the conversion
process of baddelezite (ZrO2) concentrates originating from the Republic of South Africa
(CRC87). The baddelezite concentrate (97 percent ZrO2) is a co-product of copper, phosphate,
and iron operations. The material is fused in an electric furnace, then crushed, ground, and
classified. This product is applied as a thermal coating on refractory products. Measurements
reported by Hendricks indicate that Ra-226 concentrations in ore were approximately 200
pCi/g, while the product itself (as a fine powder) was much higher, at 1,900 pGi/g (CRC87).
Hendricks pointed out that the direct chlorination of zircon puts the radium in the highly
soluble radium chloride chemical form, which yields very high leachate concentrations in
liquid waste streams (CRC87). In one plant, with radium ore concentrations at 100 pCi/g, the
Ra-226 concentration in water under the chlorinator residue pile were noted to be 45,000
pCi/L. The high solubility and mobility of radium chloride presents an potential threat to the
environment.
B-7-25
-------
As with the other metals, there is insufficient information with which to reach any
conclusions about typical NORM concentrations, other than knowing that this segment does
sometimes produce wastes with elevated levels of naturally-occurring radioactivity. Additional
investigations are required in order to better characterize this segment of the metal mining
and processing industry. No information on zirconium processing waste is contained in the
EPA's report to Congress on mineral processing wastes.
7.2.8 Ferrous Metals (Iron and Carbon Steel)
Iron blast furnaces use benefitiated iron ore to produce molten iron that can be cast
into products, but is primarily used as the mineral feedstock for steel production. Steel
furnaces produce a molten steel that can be cast, forged, rolled, or alloyed in the production
of a variety of materials. On a tonnage basis, about nine-tenths of the metal consumed in
the U.S. is iron or steel. Iron and steel are used in the manufacture of transportation
vehicles, machinery, pipes and tanks, cans and containers, and the construction of buildings,
roadway superstructures, and bridges.
Iron and steel are produced at 28 active ferrous metal facilities located in 10 states
throughout the U.S. Twenty-one of these facilities are located in five states (Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) that are situated around the Great Lakes,
with access to lake transport of beneficiated iron ore. The locations and types of operations
at these facilities are shown in Table B.7-8. At 26 facilities, both iron and steel are produced.
One facility makes only iron and one makes only steel.
Iron is produced either by blast furnaces or by one of several direct reduction
processes; blast furnaces, however, account for over 98 percent of total domestic iron
production. The modern blast furnace consists of a refractory-lined steel shaft in which a
charge is continuously added to the top through a gas seal. The charge consists primarily
of iron ore, sinter, or pellets; coke; and limestone or dolomite. Iron and steel scrap may be
added in small amounts. Near the bottom of the furnace, preheated air is blown in. The
coke is combusted to produce carbon monoxide, the iron ore is reduced to iron by the carbon
monoxide, and the silica and alumina in the ore and coke ash is fluxed with limestone to form
a slag that absorbs much of the sulfur from the charge. Molten iron and slag are
B-7-26
-------
Table B.7-8. Domestic iron and steel producers.
(Source: EPA90)
Owner
Acme
Allegheny
Armco
Armco
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva
Gulf States Steel
Inland Steel
LTV
LTV
LTV
McLouth Steel
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
Sharon Steel
Shenango
US Steel
US Steel
US Steel
US Steel
US Steel
Warren Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Location
Riverdale, IL
Brackenridge, PA
Ashland, KY
Middletown, OH
Bethlehem, PA
Burns Harbor, IN
Sparrows Point, MD
Orem, UT
Gadsden, AL
E. Chicago, IN
E. Cleveland, OH
Indiana Harbor, IN
W. Cleveland, OH
Trenton, MI
Escore, MI
Granite City, IL
Dearborn, MI
Farrell, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Braddock, PA
Gary, IN
Fairfield, AL
Fairland Hills, PA
Lorain, OH
Warren, OH
Weirton, WV
Mingo Junction, OH
SteubenviUe, OH
Type of Operation
Iron; BOF Steela
BOF Steel
Iron, BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron, BOF, OHF Steelb
Iron; OHF Steel
Iron, BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron, BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron, BOF Steel
Iron, OHF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron, BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
Iron; BOF Steel
a BOF: Basic Oxygen Furnace
b OHF: Open Hearth Furnace
B-7-27
-------
intermittently tapped from the hearth at the bottom. The slag is drawn off and processed.
The product, pig iron, is removed, cooled, and transported to steel mills.
All contemporary steelmaking processes convert pig iron, scrap, or direct-reduced iron,
or mixtures of these, into steel by a refining process that lowers the carbon and silicon
content and removes impurities (mainly phosphorus and sulfur). Three major processes are
used for making steel, based on different furnace types: the open hearth furnace (OHF),
accounting for 2 to 4 percent of total domestic steel production; the basic oxygen furnace
(EOF), with 56 to 59 percent of the total; and the electric arc furnace (EAF) accounting for
the remainder. The latter predominantly uses scrap (i.e., non-mineral material) as feed and,
therefore, does not contribute to the wastes of interest in this NORM assessment. The open
hearth process was prevalent in the U.S. between 1908 and 1969, but its use has diminished.
The basic oxygen process has supplanted it as the predominant primary steel-making process.
During the open hearth process, a relatively shallow bath of metal is heated by a
flame that passes over the bath from the burners at one end of the furnace while the hot
gases resulting from combustion are pulled out the other end. The heat from the exhaust gas
is retained in the exhaust system's brick liners. Periodically the direction of the flame is
reversed, and air is drawn through what had been the exhaust system; the hot checker-bricks
preheat the air before it is used in the combustion in the furnace. Impurities are oxidized
during the process and fluxes form a slag which is drawn off and processed or discarded.
The basic oxygen process uses a jet of pure oxygen that is injected into the molten
metal by a lance of regulated height in a basic refractory-lined converter. Excess carbon,
silicon, and other reactive elements are oxidized during the controlled blows, and fluxes are
added to form a slag. This slag is drawn off and processed or discarded.
In all of the iron and steel making operations, as at other smelters, gases from the
furnace must be cleaned in order to meet air pollution control requirements. Facilities may
use dry collection or wet scrubbers or, as is most often practiced, both types of controls.
Large volumes of dust and scrubber sludge are collected and processed or disposed.
Overall primary production of pig iron was steady throughout the latter part of the
1980s, while production of raw steel experienced a steady increase. Between 1985 and 1989,
B-7-28
-------
primary production of pig iron averaged 46 million MT. Production of pig iron in 1989 was
49.1 million MT (68.1 percent of production capacity) (EPA90). Production of raw steel
increased from 74 million MT in 1985 to 91 million MT in 1989. The estimated 1988 average
capacity utilization rate was 69.5 percent for the basic oxygen furnace and 45.3 percent for
the open hearth furnace.
Quantities of slag and air pollution control (APC) dust/sludge generated in 1988 by
the 28 facilities listed in Table B.7-8 are summarized in Table B.7-9. The total quantity of
slag and APC dust/sludge waste generated by these facilities during 1988 was 34.6 million
MT (EPA90). Waste management practices for iron and steel slag include recycling,
processing (e.g., crushing and sizing) followed by sale for use as aggregate, and disposal
on-site. Waste management practices for APC dust/sludge include disposal on-site and return
of the material to the production process via the sinter plant operation.
As shown in Table B.7-9, in 1988 nearly 18.8 million MT of iron blast furnace slag was
generated by the processing facilities listed in Table B.7-8. Approximately 14.4 million MT
of slag was sold for use in other applications. Distribution of air cooled iron blast furnace
slag among its various applications is shown in Table B.7-10. The remaining slag was stored
on-site. As of 1988, on-site accumulation of iron blast furnace slag at iron producing facilities
totaled over 14.6 million MT, ranging from none to 10 million MT at the different facilities.
The facility which has accumulated 10 million MT of slag, Inland Steel in East Chicago, is
placing it in Lake Michigan to create land on which additional waste can be deposited.
As shown in Table B.7-9, in 1988 over 13.2 million MT of steel furnace slag was
generated by the steel producing facilities listed in Table B.7-8. In 1988, U.S. steel mills
recycled approximately 1.8 million MT of steel slag. Over 5.1 million MT was sold for other
uses. The remaining 6.3 million MT of steel furnace slag was presumably stockpiled at either
the generating facilities or at the slag processing facilities. The distribution of steel furnace
slag among its various applications in 1988 is shown in Table B.7-11.
No data on radionuclide concentrations in wastes from ferrous metals production
facilities are given in the EPA's report on wastes from mineral processing (EPA90). Using
available data on the compositions of slag and APC dust generated during iron and steel
production, the EPA determined that concentrations of Ra-226, U-238, and Th-232 in these
B-7-29
-------
Table B 7-9. Special wastes generated by ferrous metals facilities in 1988.
(Source: EPA90)
Waste Types Amount (million MT)
Iron >last furnace slag 18.8
Iron >last furnace AFC dust/sludge* 1.2
Stee furnace slag 13.2
Stee furnace AFC dust/sludgea 1-4
a APC: air oollution control.
B-7-30
-------
Table B.7-10. Distribution of air-cooled iron blast furnace slag
among its various applications in 1988.
(Source: EPA90)
Application Distribution
Road base 57%
Concrete aggregate 12%
Pill 10%
Asphaltic concrete aggregate 7%
Railroad ballast, mineral wool, concrete products, glass 14%
manufacture, sewage treatment, roofing, and soil conditioning
B-7-31
-------
Table B.7-11. Distribution of steel furnace slag among its various
applications in 1988.
(Source: EPA90)
Application Distribution
Road base 46%
Fill 25%
Asphaltic concrete aggregate 11%
Railroad ballast, ice control, and soil conditioning 18%
B-7-32
-------
wastes are below screening criteria (5 pCi/g for Ra-226, and 10 pCi/g for U-238 and Th-232).
Hence no tests of radionuclide concentrations in iron and steel production wastes are reported
in EPA90. Ferrous metals wastes, including mine wastes, tailings, and processing waste
constitute the second largest quantity of metal mining and processing wastes (behind wastes
from copper production) generated in the U.S. Available information, based on analyses of
the chemical compositions of iron ores, indicates that NORM concentrations in these wastes
may be very small. However, because precise quantitative information on NORM
concentrations in these wastes is lacking, additional investigations are required to better
characterize this segment of the metal mining and processing industry.
7.2.9 Lead
Refined lead is produced from ore that comes from mines in Alaska, Idaho, Montana,
and Missouri. Processing of this ore is performed at five facilities shown in Table B.7-12.
The primary domestic use of lead is in lead-acid storage batteries. Lead is also used
in containers and as an additive for gasoline, although these uses are rapidly declining. Lead
is also used to manufacture lead oxides which are used in the battery, ceramics, rubber, and
coatings industries. The U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated that after a sharp decline between
1985 and 1986, the quantity of refined lead produced in the U.S. has slowly increased from
370,000 MT in 1986 to 395,000 MT in 1989. The Bureau estimates that primary smelter
production will remain at about 400,000 MT in 1990 (EPA90).
Primary lead processing consists of both smelting (blast furnace and dross furnace
operations) and refining. In the smelting process sintered ore concentrate is introduced into
a blast furnace along with coke, limestone, and other fluxing materials. The lead is reduced,
and the resulting molten material separates into four layers: lead bullion (98 wt. percent
lead); "speiss" and "matte", two distinct layers of material that contain recoverable
concentrations of copper, zinc, and other metals; and blast furnace slag. The lead bullion is
then drossed (i.e., agitated in a dressing kettle and cooled to just above its freezing point) to
remove lead and other metal oxides which solidify and float on the molten lead bullion. The
speiss and matte are sold to copper smelters for the recovery of copper and precious metals.
The blast furnace slag is stored in piles and partially recycled or disposed.
B-7-33
-------
Table 1.7-12. Primary lead processing facilities in the U.S.
(Source: EPA90)
Operate -/Owner Location Type of Operation
ASARCO East Helena, MT Smelter
ASARCO Glover, MO Smelter and Refinery
ASARCO Omaha, NE Refinery
Doe Run/Fluo Corp. Boss, MO Smelter and Refinery
DoeRun/Fluo Corp. Herculaneum, MO Smelter and Refinery
B-7-34
-------
Lead refining operations continue the process of removing various saleable metals
from the lead bullion. In the final refining step the bullion is mixed with fluxes to remove
remaining calcium, magnesium, and oxide impurities. Reagents such as caustic soda or
nitrates may be added to the molten bullion, which is then cooled, causing the impurities to
rise to the surface for removal. This refinery residue is returned directly to the blast furnace
at the Missouri facilities which involve integrated smelter/refinery operations. The refinery
slag at the Nebraska facility is discarded as solid waste. The EPA estimates the long-term
annual waste generation rate to be about 469,000 MT per year from lead processing (EPA90).
The predominant waste management practice at the five lead facilities is to return a majority
of the furnace slag to the sinter plant and stockpile the remainder. The total volume of slag
accumulated on-site at the four lead smelting facilities is approximately 2.7 million MT, with
quantities ranging from 430,000 MT to 1.36 million MT at the four smelters. The Omaha
refinery sends its slag off-site to a landfill.
The slag piles at the four smelting facilities range in area from 20,200 square meters
to 48,500 square meters and in height from 6 to 18 meters. The average dimensions of the
slag piles are 30,300 square meters and 10.5 meters high.
Lead slag has been used as an aggregate in asphalt to resurface roads. The slag has
been shown to have desirable anti-skid and wear resistant properties. It was used as an
asphalt aggregate in eastern Missouri for a number of years in the 1970s. The Missouri
State Highway Commission also made limited use of lead slag in asphalt mixtures to patch
and seal roads in the winter. In Idaho, granulated lead slag was used as an aggregate in
asphalt to pave Interstate Route 90. The EPA, however, has found no information indicating
that lead slag is currently used as an aggregate in asphalt road paving (EPA90).
Several other potential uses of lead slag are described in the EPA's report on special
wastes from mineral processing. It has been shown that finely ground lead slag can be used
to replace up to 25 percent of the Portland cement in steam cured blocks without significant
loss in block strength. In Idaho, granulated slag from the Bunker Hill smelter in Kellogg,
Idaho (now closed) was used as a frost barrier under slabs of concrete and asphalt, as well
as bedding material for buried pipelines. Lead slag has been used as an air-blasting
B-7-35
-------
abrasive. Valley Materials Corporation in Midvale, Utah is proce jsing (sizing) lead slag for
use as a railroad ballast.
No information on radionuclide concentrations in lead slagi; given in the EPA's report
on special wastes from mineral processing.
7.3 MINERAL PROCESSING WASTE GENERATION
7.3.1 Mineral Processing Waste Production
The total solid material handled at all surface and underg ound mines in the U.S. in
1986 was 2,385 million metric tons (MT). Of this, metal mines handled 989 million MT
(DOI87). Table B.7-13 presents the approximate distribution o this solid bulk material
reported for 1980. The distribution shown in Table B.7-13 is believ- d also to be representative
of current mining wastes generation practices.
A review of the volumes of mine waste and tailings genera ion reveals that almost 90
percent of the bulk material is from copper and iron ore. The i intipal mining states for
copper and iron are Arizona and Minnesota, respectively. Sine waste management and
disposal are performed locally, the majority of the wastes and otb r bulk materials from the
metal mining and processing industry remain at the point of gener ition. However, depending
on the mineral, a significant portion of the residual material .e., the raw ore) may be
shipped for further processing or use at other locations, typically away from the mines.
Estimated slag volumes generated in 1988 from smeltin; and refining raw ores to
produce primary metals are shown in Table B.7-14, summari ed from the information
presented previously in this chapter. The total slag volume is a out a factor of 20 smaller
than the volume of mine wastes and tailings shown in Table 1 .7-13. Slag from ferrous
metals production represents about 80 percent of the total slag vo ame produced by smelting
and refining raw ores, and copper slag represents almost 10 pen mt of the total.
B-7-36
-------
Table B.7-13.
Estimated amount of waste generated by the
mining and beneficiation of metal ores in 1980.a
Quantity of Waste (million MT)
Mining Sector
Copper
Gold
Iron Ore
Lead
Molybdenum
Silver
Zinc
Other metals
Total:
Mine Wastes
282
25
200
1
15
10
1
24
558
Tailings
241
10
150
10
31
3
5
5
455
Total
523
35
350
11
46
13
6
29
1,013
a Data extracted from EPA85, Table 2-10.
b Includes antimony, bauxite, beryllium, magniferous ore, mercury, platinum, rare earths,
tin, tungsten, and vanadium.
B-7-37
-------
Table B.7-14.
Estimated slag volumes generated du ing 1988
from processing raw ores to produce primary
metals.*
Copper
Zinc
Titanium
Ferrous Metals
Lead
Other Metalsb
Total
Slag Volume (million M
2.8
4.0
0.2
0.4
34.6
0.5
1.0
43.5
a Summarized from information presented in this chapter.
b Estimate for other metals such as gold, silver, mercury, platim n, tin, tungsten,
zirconium, etc., for which information is not given in this report.
B-7-38
-------
Utilization and Disposal of Bulk Waste Materials
Mine wastes, such as tailings, and heap and dump leachate piles, are managed in a
variety of ways. Mining wastes may be used on or off site, disposed of in waste piles, or used
in leach operations to recover additional valuable constituents from the ore or tailings still
present after milling processes have been completed. A small portion of the waste (less than
10 percent) has been used as backfill or for some oflsite uses. Table B.7-15 presents a partial
summary of the offsite use of bulk waste material associated with the metal mining industry.
Ofisite uses of mine waste tailings include the manufacturing of wallboards, anti-skid
products, use in making various construction aggregates, and use as fill or road base. The
most common use includes the production of concrete and bituminous aggregates for road
construction, in which such wastes are incorporated as an additive. Other applications in
road construction include the use of these wastes in road bases, in embankments, and to
make anti-skid surfaces. Taconite tailings have proved to be useful when applied as thin
(less than 25 mm) road surface overlays because they greatly enhance skid resistance.
Approximately half of the zinc tailings generated in Tennessee are sold for aggregate
production. Tennessee zinc tailings are also used as a substitute for mortar or agriculture
limestone, with nearly 40 percent being sold for these purposes. Tailings from mills
processing ores in New York and the Rocky Mountain states are not suitable as soil
supplements because as they have lower concentrations of calcium carbonate and higher
concentrations of lead and cadmium. Similar concerns constrain the use of lead tailings in
Missouri.
Tailings from molybdenum mining operations have been used in asphalt mixes to
resurface roads and parking lots. Gold and silver tailings, in the form of sand and gravel,
have been mixed with cement to form concrete for road construction. Lead, zinc, and iron ore
tailings have been used for both concrete and bituminous aggregates. Mixtures of crushed
waste rock, including waste material from copper, iron ore, lead, gold, and silver mines, have
been used in embankments, as backfills, or as pavement bases for many highways.
Depending upon the final use, topsoil covers have been placed over fills and embankments
made with these materials to control erosion and permit vegetative growth.
B-7-39
-------
Table B.7-15. Uses of mine waste and tailings.8
Material
and Use
Son
supplement
Wall board
Brick and
block
Gold&
Conner Silver
1 1
Iron Ore
& Taconite
1
3
Lead Molybdenum
Zinc
1
Anti-skid
products
Embankments
General
aggregate
Filler
pavement
base
Asphalt
Concrete
aggregate
3
3
a Data extracted from SCA88.
b Application codes:
1. Bench-scale research project.
2. Full-scale demonstration project.
3. Full-scale, sporadically practiced.
3
3
3
3
B-7-40
-------
The use of tailings to produce bricks, blocks, and ceramic products is still at the
bench-scale research stage. Copper mill tailings can be used in brick production if pyrites are
first removed. Lightweight blocks made from taconite' tailings have good structural
characteristics, but have not been marketed. However, mining wastes are competitive only
when they can be marketed or used in the geographical area close to the point of generation.
The costs of handling, and of transportation over large distances, more than ofiset their low
cost and large supply. As a result, the use of such mining wastes does not and will not keep
pace with the 1 billion metric tons that are generated each year. Accordingly, a large portion
of mining wastes and tailings are disposed in impoundment facilities near the mines and
mills where they are produced.
Actual or potential uses of slag tailings generated from smelting and refining raw ores
to produce primary metals are shown in Table B.7-16, summarized from the information
presented previously in this chapter. Major uses include aggregate in the production of
asphalt and concrete, as railroad ballast, and as anti-skid material.
Twenty-Year Waste Generation Estimates
In 1986, metal mines generated approximately 1 billion MT of wastes, of which 300
million MT consisted of tailings. Over the last 20 years, the production of wastes from
mineral processing plants has increased somewhat, but this increase may not necessarily
reflect an industry-wide trend. For example, some segments of the industry may experience
growth while others may see a downturn. The net effect, in the aggregate, is that there may
not be any significant changes. Accordingly, a reasonable approach is one which assumes a
nearly constant waste production rate of about 1 billion MT per year, yielding a 20 billion MT
inventory for the next 20 years. This would result in a 20-year production of 6 billion MT of
tailings.
This estimate is somewhat speculative since the mineral mining industry is not fully
represented in this report and there is not enough information to completely characterize
those NORM waste sectors that are discussed. The extent to which additional sectors would
add to the proposed total 20-year inventory is unknown at this point. As with most U.S.
B-7-41
-------
Table B.7-16. Uses of mineral processing slag.1
Mineral
Use
Asphalt Aggregate
Concrete Aggregate
Fill
Railroad Ballast
Road Base
Anti-Skid Products
Brick and Block
Soil Supplement
Pipe Bedding
Air Blasting Abrasive
CoDDer
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous
Zinc Metals
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
a Summarized from information presented in this chapter.
B-7-42
-------
ndustry, the mineral mining and processing sector is also subject to competitive forces and
;he installation of additional productive capacity by foreign concerns. It is not known to what
jxtent the U.S. industry has attempted to adjust in response to foreign competitors. Finally,
-he use of mining waste in a variety of productive applications is not likely to impact future
vaste inventories since the development and implementation of new applications will not
ceep pace with the 1 billion metric tons that are generated each year.
1A RADIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES
7.4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations
From the limited amount of data available that characterize mineral tailings and
vastes, it appears that the ores, tailings, and residues from different metal mining and
processing industries possess widely different radiological properties. Except for tailings from
;he uranium and phosphate rock mining industries (which are discussed separately in
preceding sections), the concentrations of uranium and thorium, including their decay
products, in mineral processing wastes and tailings have not been widely evaluated. Based
3n limited data, it appears that ores and tailings of most of the metal processing industries
:ontain relatively low concentrations of radium-226, typically less than a few pCi/g. However,
it also appears that some metal ores may contain elevated levels of uranium and thorium
require further characterization.
This is particularly true for titanium and zirconium and its subsequent processing and
for copper ores. The tailings and residues of the industries that process rare earths, such as
oionazite (rare metals and thorium), zircon sands (zirconium), columbium and tantalum, and
the titanium ores of ilmenite, rutile and leucoxene have been known to have elevated levels
of Ra-226. It appears that these elevated radionuclide concentrations are a result of the
chemical beneficiation processes employed in these industries.
With the copper mining industry, on the other hand, the potential source of NORM
wastes resides in the remaining mining spoils and overburden which are known to be rich
B-7-43
-------
in uranium ores. The presence of U3O8 in such waste has been observed at relatively high
concentrations and, particularly in copper wastes from Arizona and New Mexico, on the same
order of magnitude as those traditionally found in uranium mines. No numerical data on the
radiological properties of tailings and wastes from mining' iron ores, which represent the
second largest volume of metal mining wastes (after copper wastes), could be found for
inclusion in this report.
The source term used to assess the risks from mineral processing NORM is shown in
Table B.7-17. This source term is representative of radionuclide concentrations reported in
this section for titanium and zirconium wastes, and may also be typical of radionuclide
concentrations in the tailings from copper mines in the southwestern U.S. The Pb-210 and
Po-210 concentrations were estimated by assuming a radon emanation coefficient of 0.3.
U-235 was assumed to be present at a concentration of 5 percent that of U-238.
7.4.2 Radon Flux Rates
Other than the information presented above, no readily available data were identified
characterizing radon emanation rates from such waste forms. Radon emanation rates may
be assumed to be nearly identical to that of typical soils. For example, the NCRP notes that
for typical soils, an average radon surface flux rate is about 0.5 pCi/m2-s per pCi/g (NCR87).
Given higher Ra-226 concentrations, e.g., 35 pCi/g (see above), the corresponding radon flux
rate is estimated be at least 18 pCi/m2-s, other things being equal. It should be noted that
this radon flux rate is a very speculative estimate given the varied distribution of these waste
forms and their associated physical and chemical properties.
7.4.3 External Radiation Exposure rates
Radiation exposure rates associated with mineral processing wastes are expected to
vary from relatively low to significantly higher levels for some of the waste forms known to
have elevated radionuclide concentrations. For example, exposure levels as high as several
hundred uR/h have been observed from monazite wastes. Depending upon the source of
radioactivity, radiation levels may vary significantly because many of the decay products may
B-7-44
-------
Table B.7-17. Radionuclide source term for mineral processing wastes.
Nuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
4
Po-210 25.0
Pb-210 25.0
Ra-226 35.0
Ra-228 10.0
Th-228 10.0
Th-230 35.0
Th-232 10.0
U-234 35.0
U-235 1.8
U-238 35.0
B-7-45
-------
nc longer be in secular equilibrium with uranium and thorium. This is especially true with
or concentrates which are subject to chemical extraction since the process may selectively
de )lete or enrich some of the decay products.
Given the disposal method and the mode of exposure, radionuclides, and source to
re eptor geometry, it can be assumed that the resulting radiation doses may be scaled up
be ed on empirically derived exposure rate conversion factors for environmental conditions.
Tl 3 conversion factors represent typical soils and include the effects of gamma ray scatter,
bt Id-up, and self-absorption (NCR87). This approach is valid for large quantities of waste,
w: ich for practical purposes may be assumed to represent an infinite plane or slab source.
Fc example, the conversion factors for the uranium and thorium decay series are 1.82 and
2.. 2 uR/h per pCi/g, respectively. Assuming a U-238 and Th-232 concentration of 35 and 10
p( 7g, respectively, the total incremental exposure rate is estimated to be about 90 uR/h. In
th United States, ambient exposure rates due to terrestrial radiation are known to range
fr« ai 3 to 16 uR/h (NCR87).
7.. GENERIC SITE PARAMETERS AND SECTOR SUMMARY
7. .1 Generic Mineral Processing Waste Site
The generic site for the metal mining and processing waste risk assessment represents
a irge mine and mineral processing plant. The generic mine and mill site are assumed to
be Located in southern Arizona where ore associated with copper, precious metals, and other
m lerals are believed to have elevated levels of uranium. The model site consists of a
co amingled waste rock, overburden, and a tailings pile of 50 hectares. The tailings have no
kr jwn value other than reprocessing for their mineral content. The site is located in an area
wi h an average population density. The pile is approximately squared with dimensions of
7C ) m by 700 m, with a height of 30 meters. Assuming a density of 2 g/cm3, this results in
a ile of 30 million MT of tailings, overburden, and wastes. The site is also assumed to be
lo< ated near a surface stream and the region is underlain with an aquifer.
B-7-46
-------
While there is evidence to believe that certain ores cont: in quantities of pitchblende,
the model mine is based on the assumption that during mining and milling this material is
diluted through mixing, with average U-238 and Th-232 (inc ading their decay products)
concentrations of 35 pCi/g and 10 pCi/g, respectively.' 1. is difficult to judge the
representativeness of these values, except that the data inc icate that a portion of the
overburden and tailings could contain such levels of naturally- >ccurring radioactivity.
The September 1989 draft assessment contained an ana. /sis of the risks from a small
waste pile with elevated U-238 and Th-232 concentrations as urned to be typical of a few
sites in the southwestern U.S. Only a few such sites may exist i i isolated locations, and they
are not considered representative of mineral processing wash sites. Therefore, the small
waste site with higher radionuclide concentrations was not inch ied in this updated analysis.
7.5.2 Population Distribution
The generic site is assumed to be located in a rural are: in Arizona. The population
density is assumed to be 46 persons per square mile (average jr Arizona) (BOC87).
7.5.3 Radionuclide Concentrations
The above discussions revealed that the overburden of o 33 mined in the U.S. and the
slag and tailings from processing these ores do not generally apj jar to contain elevated levels
of naturally-occurring radionuclides. However, some of the i isidues associated with the
processing of both domestic and imported ores, and some of thi overburden associated with
the copper mining industry, may contain elevated concentration of radionuclides which could
result in increased exposures to the general public. This is espec ally true for the tailings and
residues associated with the processing of minerals, such as m nazite, zircon, ilmenite, and
rutile. This is also the case for the production of tin, titaniu a, zirconium, and hafnium.
Furthermore, some of these wastes may become dispersed int< the environment since they
may be used in various applications, e.g., incorporation in roa Is and building materials or
dispersal in agricultural fields.
B-7-47
-------
For t*"« risk assessment the source term is based on a Ra-226 concentration of
35 pCi/g which is representative of radionuclide concentrations reported in this section for
tin, titanium, and zirconium wastes and for copper tailings from mines in the southwestern
U.S. The members of the U-238 and Th-232 decay series are assumed to be in equilibrium
with their uranium and thorium parent nuclides, and the radon emanation coefficient is
assumed to be 0.3.
B-7-48
-------
B.7 REFERENCES
BEA89 Richard Beard, Arizona Department of Mineral Resources, Tucson, AZ, 1989,
Personal Communication, Department of Mines and Mineral Resources,
Phoenix, AZ.
BOC87 Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States - 1988, 108th
Edition, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, December 1987.
BOM90 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Community Summaries, 1990 edition, p. 191.
CRC87 NORM in Mineral Processing, by Donald W. Hendricks, 19th Annual National
Conference on Radiation Control, May 18-21 1987. Boise, ID, February 1987,
Published by Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.,
Frankfort, KY.
CRC81 Natural Radioactivity Contamination Problems, Report No. 2, August 1981,
Published by Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.,
Frankfort, KY.
DOI89 Minerals and materials, A Bimonthly Survey, February - March 1989, Bureau
of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
DOI87 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. 1, Metals and Minerals, Bureau of Mines Department
of Interior, Washington, DC.
DOI85 Zirconium and Hafnium, A Chapter from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1985
Edition, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
EPA90 Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Processing,
EPA/530-SW-90-070C, July 1990, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D.C.
EPA85 Report to Congress: Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic
Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil
Shale, EPA 530-SW-85-033, December 1985, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
EPA83 Evaluation of Management Practices for Mine Solid Waste Storage, Disposal,
and Treatment, Vol I, Characterization of Mining Industry Wastes (Draft), U.S.
EPA, Resource Extraction and Handling Division, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA82a Emissions of Naturally-Occurring Radioactivity from Aluminum and Copper
Facilities, EPA 520/6-82-018, November 1982, Office of Radiation Programs,
Las Vegas Facility, Las Vegas, NV.
B-7-R-1
-------
EPA82b Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions of Naturally Occurrir j
Radioactivity. Underground Zinc Mine and Mill, EPA-520/6-82-020, Novemb(
1982, Office of Radiation Programs Las Vegas Facility, U.S. EPA, Las Vega ,
Nevada.
EPA79 Performance Evaluation of an Electrostatic Precipitator Installed on a Coppi r
Smelter Reverberatory Furnace, EPA 600/2-119, June 1979, Industri. 1
Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laborator ,
Cincinnati, OH.
EPA78a Environmental Assessment: Primary Aluminum, United States Environment. I
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnai ,
OH, Nov. 1, 1978 (pre-publication copy).
EPA78b Environmental Assessment: Primary Copper, Lead, and Zinc, United State ;
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Researc i
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, Nov. 1, 1978 (pre-publication copy).
GRA89 Roy GrosshofT, Private Communication, August 16,1989, Office of Infonnatio ,
Education, and Administration, Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texa:
HU85 Hu, S.J., Radium-226 and Thorium-232 Concentration in Amang, Healt i
Physics 49, No. 5, p. 1003, 1985.
MCD89 John McDonnell, Roy F. Weston, Inc., Albuquerque, NM, 1989, Person 1
experience and communication.
NCR87 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Exposure oft! J
United States Population and Canada from Natural Background Radiatio ,
NCRP Report No. 94, Bethesda, MD, December 1987.
PEI70 Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Helium, and Uranium in Arizona, by H. Wesley Peirc ,
S. B. Keith and J.C. Wilt, 1970 Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin 18 ,
Available through Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ.
SCA88 SC&A, Inc. Technical Supplements for the Preliminary Risk Assessment f
Diffuse NORM Wastes - Phase I, prepared under U.S. EPA contract N .
68-02-4375, October 1989.
STI62 Still, A.R., Uranium at Copper Cities and other Porphyry Copper Deposit ,
Miami District, Arizona (unpublished thesis), Harvard University, Cambridg ,
MA (1962).
USG63 Mineralogy, Internal Structural and Textural Characteristics, and Paragenes i
of Uranium-Bearing Veins in the Conterminous United States, by George \ .
Walker and John W. Adams, 1963, Geological Survey, Professional Papt r
455-D.
B-7-R-2
-------
USG55 Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bagdad Area, Yavapai County Arizona, by C.
A. Anderson, E. A. Scholz, and J.D. Strobell, Jr., 1955, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 278.
B-7-R-3
-------
B.8 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PRODUCTION WASTE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Geothermal energy can be defined as heat energy stored or produced in the earth.
This energy resource includes high-temperature crustal rocks, sediments, volcanic deposits,
water, steam, and other gases which occur at accessible depths from the earth's surface, and
from which heat can be economically extracted now or in the future. The earth's crust
represents an enormous reservoir of thermal energy. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates
that about 1.2 million quads (a quad is a unit of heat energy equal to one thousand trillion
- i.e., 1015 British Thermal Units) of geothermal energy resources exist in the uppermost
10 kilometers of the crust (EPA87).
Geothermal energy resource systems may be classified into four major categories:
Hot igneous systems - created by the buoyant rise of molten rock
(magma) from deep in the crust. In hot igneous systems, the rock is either
completely or partly molten (temperature greater than 650*C).
Hot dry rock systems heated impermeable rock that may or may not
have been molten at one time (temperature less than 650*C).
Geopressured systems - characterized by the presence of hot fluids under
high pressure, containing dissolved hydrocarbons, usually found in deep
sedimentary basins with a low level of compaction and a relatively
impermeable caprock. These systems reach moderately elevated
temperatures (temperature 90* to 200'C).
Hydrothermal systems - usually found in porous sedimentary rock or in
fractured rock systems, such as volcanic formations. The two classes are
vapor-dominated systems, which contain mostly steam (temperature 180*
to 200*C), and liquid-dominated systems (temperature 30* to 350"C).
The first three categories contain the most heat energy, but the technology does not
yet exist to exploit them. Current research is aimed at removing the technological barriers
that prevent the development of these resources.
B-8-1
-------
The technology exists to economically extract energy from the fourth category,
hydrothermal systems. Hydrothermal systems consist of high-temperature water and/or
steam trapped in porous and permeable rock reservoirs. The heat available in the
geothermal rock reservoirs is exploited by means of wells that bring hot water and/or steam
to the surface. Identified hydrothermal systems with temperatures greater than or equal to
90*C are located mostly in the western U.S. - primarily in the states of California, Oregon,
and Nevada.
The utilization of geothermal energy requires drillholes for the withdrawal of high
temperature fluids from the ground, surface utilization equipment (e.g., steam turbines or
heat exchangers and associated fluid handling equipment), and a fluid disposal system (e.g.,
percolation ponds or reinjection wells). At each stage of the geothermal utilization process,
the natural hydrothermal fluids, which may have been at thermal and chemical equilibrium
with the rocks and minerals in the geothermal reservoir, can experience substantial changes
in temperature, pressure, and pH values. These changes can affect the solubility of the
various dissolved minerals in the hydrothermal fluids, causing these minerals to precipitate
out and form scale or sludge on the inside surfaces of the equipment used to extract and
utilize the steam and briny liquids that constitute the geothermal resource.
As is the case for geological formations from which oil and natural gas are obtained
(see Section B.5), both uranium and thorium and their radioactive daughters may be present
in underground formations from which geothermal fluids are extracted. Uranium and
thorium are highly insoluble; however, radium is slightly soluble and may be brought to the
surface and deposited with the scale or sludge that coats the inside surfaces of geothermal
energy production systems. The concentrations of NORM in geothermal wastes will vary
with the nature and location of the geothermal resource and with the physical and chemical
changes that take place as this resource is extracted and utilized.
Geothermal energy currently makes a relatively minor contribution to total energy
production in the U.S. Most of the effort in characterizing the wastes from utilization of this
resource has been directed at identifying the chemical properties of these wastes, including
the chemical species, corrosivity, and chemical toxicity. Only very limited attention has been
paid to characterizing the radiological properties. Consequently, the radiological hazards are
not well understood, and only limited data on NORM concentrations are available. The EPA
B-8-2
-------
has published a report to Congress on the management of wastes from geothennal energy
(EPA87) which includes some information on radium concentrations in geothennal wastes.
An Environmental Impact Report prepared in support of an application for a monofill
disposal facility for wastes from a liquid-dominated system in California's Imperial Valley
(ERC90) includes some radium concentration data for these, wastes. Additional studies are
needed to adequately characterize the radioactive properties of geothennal wastes.
In the following sections, descriptions are provided of the geothennal energy industry
and of the properties of geothennal wastes. Also provided are projections of the quantities
of waste that might be produced by this NORM sector. This information is used to assess
potential exposures and health impacts to members of the general public and critical
population groups. A radiological risk assessment is performed (see Chapter D) assuming
that both exposed populations reside near a generic site.
8.2 OVERVIEW OF THE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY INDUSTRY
Geothennal energy is currently used in the U.S. in two commercial applications:
production of electrical power and as a direct source of heat. An indication of the extent of
geothermal resource development and use can be obtained by examining data on recent
geothermal well drilling operations. Table B.8-1 presents data on the locations of geothermal
drilling activities in the U.S. during the years 1981 through 1985 (WIL86). The numbers of
wells include both exploratory wells drilled to confirm the existence and determine the extent
of the geothennal resource, and wells drilled for development and use. Thermal gradient
holes, which are holes drilled to measure the temperature profile, are not included in the
tabulation. As shown in the table, California has, by far, the most geothermal development
activity. The Geysers, in Sonoma County in northern California, and the Imperial Valley in
southern California are the primary development sites.
B-8-3
-------
to 1985. (Source: WIL86)
Number of Wells
State
Alaska
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Louisiana
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Washington
1981
55
1
2
6
1
14
6
3
2
1982
4
67
~
1
-
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1983
47
-
3
1
4
3
-
1
1
1
-
1984 1985 Totals
>
4
88' 64 321
1
_ - 3
_. 9
1
_ 2
3 3 26
12
_ 1
-15
2
2-5
3
Totals
90
83
61
93
68
395
B-8-4
-------
8.2.1 Electrical Power Production
Economically viable methods exist for producing electrical power from either
vapor-dominated or liquid-dominated hydrothermal systems. In vapor-dominated systems
the high temperature steam can be used directly to turn a. turbine-generator and produce
electricity. In liquid-dominated systems, hot saline waters (the brine) can transfer heat to
a secondary working fluid or can be converted to steam by a flashing process.
In a vapor-dominated system, electrical power is generated using a conventional steam
cycle (Figure B.8-1). Typically, 10 to 14 wells are required for a 50-megawatt plant. The
production wells are connected to a gathering system (manifold), and steam from the wells
provides direct power to drive the turbine generator. A separator is located on the main
steam line to remove solids from the steam prior to entry into the turbine. The exhaust
steam from the turbine is condensed in a cooling tower which also acts as a concentrating
unit for dissolved solids in the condensate. Some condensate is re-used as a cooling medium.
Excess condensate is processed to remove suspended solids and is then injected back into the
geothermal reservoir. The sludge is dewatered and the resulting filter cake is stored or
disposed in accordance with applicable state regulations.
The Geysers is California is the largest vapor-dominated geothermal electrical
generating complex in the world. As of 1987, 24 plants were in operation with a combined
generating capacity of about 1,800 megawatts (EPA87).
Electricity is produced from liquid-dominated reservoirs by using either of two
processes: the flash process and the binary process. Schematics of these processes are shown
in Figures B.8-2 and B.8-3.
In the flash process, the geothermal brine is "flashed" to produce steam. The flash
process is the partial evaporation to steam of the hot liquid brine by the sudden reduction
of pressure in the system. The steam is fed directly to the turbine, with subsequent usage
and disposal as described above for vapor-dominated systems. Several power plants in
California's Imperial Valley that extract energy from liquid-dominated systems use a flashing
process to generate electricity.
B-8-5
-------
Turbine Generator
Cooling 'ower
\
Removal
Solids
Separator
Condenser
Manifold
Production Wells
Y
To
Injection
Wells
i-103353
Figure B.8-1. Schematic of electric power production from a vapor lominated system.
B-8-6
-------
Turbine Generator
Flash
Separator
To
Injection
Wells
From
Production
Wells
Gas
Removal
CP
Cooling Tower
Condenser
To
Injection
Wells
RAE-103355
Figure B.8-2. Schematic of flashed-steam process for producing electric
power from a liquid-dominated system.
B-8-7
-------
Turbine Generator
Heat
Exchanger
o
From
Production
Wells
To
Injection
Wells
Cooling Tower
To
Injection
Wells
Makeup
Water
RAE-103354
Figure B.8-3. Schematic of binary process for producing electric power
from a liquid-dominated system.
B-8-8
-------
In the binary process, the hot brine transfers heat to a working fluid whi< i then
expands through the turbine and drives the electric generator. The Heber Demon; .ration
Plant in California's Imperial Valley is the largest binary power plant in the worlc This
plant uses a binary conversion process consisting of three fluid loops: a geothermal loop, a
hydrocarbon working-fluid loop, and a cooling water loop. In the heat exchanger, tk i brine
and hydrocarbon are contained in separate closed loops, allowing no direct contact I :tween
loops. The hydrocarbon vapor expands through the turbine which drives the gei arator.
Spent brine is injected back into the geothermal reservoir. The brine temperature i ust be
maintained above 65*C to restrict precipitation of dissolved solids during injection.
Even though the total production of electrical power from geothermal source in the
U.S. remains small, a significant increase in geothermal power production occurra in the
decade between 1980 and 1990. At the close of 1986, 2,000 megawatts of geoi lermal
generating capacity were available in the U.S. (GEO87). At the close of 1989, tl 3 total
geothermal generating capacity had risen to 2,500 megawatts (GEO90). Table B.8-2 ists 29
geothermal power facility sites that were either operating or under construction in t .e U.S.
in 1987 (EPA87). These sites had a combined generating capacity of almost 2,600 meg .watts.
A "site" is defined as either a single power plant or a multiple operating unit. For e. ample,
power-generating facilities at The Geysers are shown as seven sites, although the e sites
contain more than 25 operating units, owned by different power companies.
Table B.8-2 shows that geothermal power plants are typically small, of the « rder of
a few tens of megawatts. In 1987, California had approximately 96 percent of tl a total
geothermal electrical capacity in the U.S. The remaining four percent was located : i other
western states and Hawaii. In 1987, approximately 85 percent of the total ger mating
capacity in the U.S. came from vapor-dominated facilities at The Geysers in n rthern
California.
8.2.2 Direct Use of Geothermal Energy
In some areas of the country it has been found efficient and economical to use
geothermal energy as a direct source of heat. Sites that have made direct use of geoi lermal
heat are widespread but are located mostly in the western U.S., in the states of Ca fornia,
B-8-9
-------
Table R8-2. Geothermal plants for electricity generation (Source: EPA87)
Name
East Mesa
East Mesa
East Mesa
Heber
Heber
Salton Sea
Salton Sea (Vulcan)
Coso
Wendell-Amedee
Wendell-Amedee
Mono Long Valley
The Geysers
The Geysers
The Geysers
The Geysers
The Geysers
The Geysers
The Geysers
Puna No. 1
Lighting Dock
Brady Hazen
Dixie Valley Oxbow
Fish Lake
Owner
Ormat
Ormat
Magma Power Co.
Heber Geothermal
Co.
SDG&E Binary
Demo
Unocal
Magma Power Co.
California Energy
Co.
Geoproducts
Wineagle Developer
Mammoth Pacific
Pacific Gas &
Electric
Sacramento
Municipal Utility
District
Northern California
Power
California
Department of
Water Resources
Freeport Macmoran
Santa Fe
Geothermal
Copa
Helco
Burgett Floral
Chevron
Oxbow Geothermal
Steam Reserve
State/
County
CA/Imperial
CIA/Imperial
CA/Imperial
CA/Imperial
CA/Imperial
CA/Imperial
CA/Imperial
CA/Inyo
CA/Lassen
CA/Lassen
CA/Mono
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
CA/Sonoma
Hi/Hawaii
Island
NM/Hidalgo
NV/Churchill
NV/Churchill
NV/Esmeralda
Process
Tvne
LPB
LPB
LPB
LPF
LPB
LPF
LPF
LPF
LPH
LPB
LPB
VPS
VPS
VPS
VPS
VPS
VPS
VPS
LPF
LPB
LPB
LPF
LPB
Electrical
Capacity
(MW)
12.0
24.0
12.5
47.0
45.0
15.0
34.5
25.0
20.0
0.6
7.0
1560.0
72.0
220.0
55.0
80.0
80.0
150.0
3.0
0.9
8.3
50.0
15.0
Status8
UC
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
UC
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
UC
OP
OP
OP
UC
UC
Corp.
B-8-10
-------
Table R8-2. (Continued)
Name
Beowawe
Wabuaka Hot Springs
Desert Peak
Steamboat Springs
Cove Fort -
Sulphurdale
Roosevelt Hot
Springs
Owner
Crescent Valley
Geothermal
Tad's Enterprises
Chevron/Sierra
Pacific Power Co.
Geothermal
Development
Association
CityofProvo
Utah Power &
Light
State/
County
NV/Lander-
Eureka
NV/Lyon
NV/Reno
NV/Washoe
UT/Beaver
UT/Beaver
Process
Type
LPP
LPB
LPP
LPB
LPB
LPP
Electrical
Capacity
(MW) Status*
17.0
0.6
9.0
5.4
4.7
20.0
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
a. Status as of 1987.
Key for Process Type
First Letter
V - Vapor
L - Liquid
Second Letter
Third Letter
P - Power Generation
Status
F - Flash Process
B - Binary Process
S - Conventional Steam
H - Hybrid
OP - Operating
UC - Construction
B-8-11
-------
^Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Geothermal heat has been used
for homes, offices, schools, commercial'buildings, pools, greenhouses, and fish farms. This
heat can be extracted from the condensate from an electrical generating facility or directly
from a geothermal production well.
The two most common ways of utilizing geothermal energy as a direct source of heat
are through downhole and surface heat exchangers. Some 400 to 500 shallow wells are used
for space heating in the Klamath Falls and Klamath Hills, Oregon, geothermal areas (LIE86).
These wells provide heat for about 500 homes, offices, commercial buildings, schools,
churches, and greenhouses. Typically, well temperatures range from 38*C to 110'C. Most
of the wells use downhole heat exchangers, which consist of one- or two-tube loops suspended
in the wellbore, in direct contact with the hydrothermal fluid. Downhole exchangers are
feasible only where reservoir depths are typically less than 500 feet. Usually, the water
inside the heat exchanger cycles thermally, eliminating the need for pumps or for fluid
disposal.
Surface exchange systems require extraction of the geothermal fluid from the reservoir
and, subsequently, some means of spent fluid or brine disposal. The Pagosa Springs
Geothermal District space heating system in Colorado has successfully used low temperature
(60"C) geothermal fluid in a surface exchange system to heat public buildings, schools,
residences, and commercial establishments at significantly lower cost than with conventional
fuels (GOE84).
8.3 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY WASTE
Geothermal energy wastes include wastes from exploration and development of
geothermal systems, wastes from electrical power production, and wastes from direct use of
geothermal energy.
B-8-12
-------
8.3.1 Exploration and Development Wastes
Well drilling activities from geothermal exploration and development generate large
quantities of wastes consisting of discarded drilling muds 'and residues from drilling mud
cleaning processes. Drilling mud is a formulation of clay and chemical additives, such as
caustic soda or other materials, in a water base. Solids are removed from used drilling muds
by circulation of the mud through equipment such as shale shakers, sand traps,
hydrocyclones, and centrifuges. After cleaning, the mud is recycled to the drilling operation
and the removed solids are disposed of as waste residue. When drilling is completed, the
used muds are discharged to reserve pits for storage or disposal.
8.3.2 Geothermal Power Plant Wastes
Wastes generated from geothermal power production include both liquids and solids.
Liquid wastes include excess steam condensate from vapor-dominated systems and spent
brines from liquid-dominated systems. In vapor-dominated systems, the exhaust steam from
the turbine is condensed and pumped to a cooling tower where it is cooled. Excess
condensate is processed to remove suspended solids and then injected back into the
geothermal reservoir. Spent brines from liquid-dominated systems are also processed to
remove solids and injected back into the geothermal reservoir.
Solid wastes include piping and flash tank scale, sludges from processing of steam
condensate to remove solids, separated solids from pre-injection treatment of spent brines,
and hydrogen sulfide abatement wastes. The bulk of solid wastes from geothermal power
production originate from the treatment of spent brines at liquid-dominated systems. The
vapor resources at The Geysers are characterized by a dissolved solids content as low as the
parts-per-million level; while the hot saline fluids of the Imperial Valley may have a dissolved
solids content approaching 30 wt percent (THO89).
During geothermal power production operations, scale forms in process lines, valves,
and turbines as the temperature and pressure are reduced and as the pH of the system
changes as a result of the release of carbon dioxide. The scale generally consists of barium,
calcium, and strontium salts (carbonates, sulfates, and silicates) and silica. The amount and
B-8-13
-------
composition of this scale depends upon the site's mineralogy and the process used for power
production. Especially at liquid-dominated facilities, the scale must be periodically removed
to ensure proper operation of the power production equipment. As is the case for oil and gas
production scale, geothermal scale may contain small amounts of radium and radium
daughters that are coprecipitated with the barium and calcium salts.
Brines produced at flash plants require treatment before injection because of their
very high dissolved solids content. One method of treating geothermal brine is to allow
precipitation of dissolved solids in spent-brine holding ponds. After sufficient time to allow
settling, the clarified liquid can be withdrawn from the end opposite the inlet and injected
into the producing reservoir. Solids accumulating in the pond are dredged, dried by
evaporation, and disposed of at a State-approved landfill.
Hydrogen sulfide abatement constituents include iron sulfide sludge and iron catalysts
used to precipitate hydrogen sulfide; emulsion waste from the froth tank, vanadium catalysts,
and elemental sulfur from the peroxide extraction process; and sulfur dioxide and sulfur
dioxide diluted with water. In California, these wastes are incinerated or placed in a
hazardous waste landfill.
Sufficient data are not available to accurately characterize either the volumes or the
NORM concentrations in solid wastes from geothermal energy production. Waste generation
information in the literature applies to only a few site-specific cases. Most of the available
information is from areas such as The Geysers and the Imperial Valley in California, which
have the most commercial activity. Since the characteristics of geothermal wastes relate
directly to the geology and mineralogy of a resource area, additional site-specific data are
required to more fully characterize geothermal industry wastes.
8.3.3 Waste Generation from Direct Users
The primary waste generated from using geothermal energy as a direct source of heat
is the spent geothermal fluid remaining after usable heat has been extracted. In most cases,
this fluid is considered to be of high enough quality to allow it to be discharged into nearby
B-8-14
-------
surface water bodies (EPA87). Significant amounts of solid wastes are not produced from
using geothermal energy as a direct source of heat.
8.3.4 Twenty-Year Waste Generation Estimate
The only significant NORM-contaminated wastes from utilization of geothermal energy
are the solid wastes from geothermal power production. These wastes are primarily piping
and flash te*nlc scale and the solid residues from brine treatment at liquid-dominated
facilities, such as those in California's Imperial Valley. Because of a scarcity of data, no
attempt is made in the EPA's report to Congress on management of wastes from geothermal
energy (EPA87) to quantify the solid waste produced at power generation facilities.
For thig assessment, the twenty-year waste generation estimate is based on a waste
generation rate identified in an Environmental Impact Report for a conditional use permit
for monofill disposal of geothermal wastes in Imperial County, California (ERC90). Power
rt
plants now operating in Imperial County are estimated to produce approximately 20,000 m
of geothermal filter cake annually. The assumption is made that waste generation, averaged
over the 20-year period, might double as additional plants are brought into operation.
Doubling this production rate and multiplying by 20 years results in an estimated 20-year
waste volume of 800,000 m3.
8.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY WASTES
8.4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations
This radiological assessment is concerned with the radionuclides in solid waste. The
principal solid waste materials of concern are the scale in piping and production equipment
and the filter cake produced from treatment of the spent geothermal fluid prior to its
reinjection into the producing formation.
B-8-15
-------
As is the case for geological formations from which oil and gas are produced, uranium
and thorium and their radioactive daughters may be present in formations from which
geothermal fluids are extracted. The available information indicates that significant
quantities of uranium and thorium are not dissolved or entrained in the geothermal fluids.
This is similar to oil and gas production where NORM appears to be associated primarily
with the production water, and radium is essentially the only non-gaseous NORM
radionuclide produced. The primary radionuclides that appear to be produced with the
geothermal fluids are Ra-226 and Ra-228, from the uranium and thorium decay chains,
respectively.
There is very little information available on the concentrations of NORM in
geothermal solid waste. In the late 1970s, work was done by the EPA/ORP Las Vegas office
and others on radon releases associated with geothermal resource use. However, there
apparently has been minimal similar work done on the radionuclides in solid wastes. The
only definitive information on concentrations of radionuclides in geothermal solid wastes
identified for this assessment is contained in an Environmental Impact Report for a
conditional use permit for a monofill in which to dispose of geothermal wastes in Imperial
County, California (ERC90). This Environmental Impact Report provides results of the
analysis of samples from four geothermal power plants in the Imperial Valley. The
concentrations of radium in samples of filter cake from these plants were:
Ra-226: 10 to 254 pCi/g
Ra-228: 9 to 193 pCi/g
The solids are generally separated from the fluid in clarifiers. The lower concentrations were
observed in the second clarifiers, when more than one clarifier was sampled. The average,
volume weighted, concentrations for the six samples (two samples from two of the plants)
were:
Ra-226: 160 pCi/g
Ra-228: 110 pCi/g
The concentrations of the decay products were lower than for the parent radionuclides,
indicating that the long half-life decay products were not produced with the geothermal fluid.
B-8-16
-------
The analytical results indicated a Ra-226 emanation coefficient of about 25 percent, Pb-210
and Po-210 concentrations of about 110 pCi/g, and a Th-228 concentration of about 30 pCi/g.
The concentrations of the decay products will increase with ingrowth time.
8.4.2 Radon Flux from Geothermal Wastes
The geothermal solid wastes are presumed to be disposed of in landfill type disposal
cells of about four hectares. The radon flux from the materials will be a function of the
Ra-226 concentration and emanating power, the moisture content of the material, and the
porosity. The radon flux was estimated using the RAE radon diffusion code (ROG84). The
radon flux from an open cell is estimated to be about 160 pCi/m2-sec, using parameters for
material properties from several of the geothermal power facility sites in the arid Imperial
Valley. Extensive watering for dust control and placement of a 6-in interim cover reduces
the flux to 80 pCi/m2-sec during the operating period. A permanent post-operational cover
of about 3 meters placed over the disposed geothermal wastes would reduce the radon flux
to less than 20 pCi/m2-sec.
8.4.3 External Radiation Exposure Rates
There will be external gamma exposure associated with both Ra-226 and Ra-228 decay
products. There is some exposure in the power plants, but the primary potential for exposure
is at the disposal site, prior to placing the cover. The exposures at the power plant sites are
controlled through minimizing the accumulation of material and by the geometry of
equipment which contains the geothermal waste.
B-8-17
-------
8.5 SUMMARY OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY NORM SECTOR
8.5.1 Generic Geothermal Solid Waste Disposal Site
The generic geothermal solid waste disposal site is assumed to be loca ad in an arid
area in southern California because 95 percent of geothermal electric generati ig capacity is
in the state of California. Most of the solid waste from geothermal power ^reduction is
produced from liquid-dominated systems located in the Imperial Valley anc surrounding
areas. Therefore, the risk assessment for this sector is based on the disposal of filter cake
from the pre-injection treatment of spent brine at a monofill facility in southe -n California.
The monofill facility is assumed to contain 400,00 m3 of geothermal sol 1 waste. The
designated disposal area occupies 100,000 square meters, with a depth of 4 meters. The
completed facility is assumed to incorporate a bottom composite liner consistir : of an 80-mil
thick high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner over 1 m of compacted clay wit a maximum
permeability of 10'7 cm/sec. The completed facility also has a composite :over system
consisting of 0.6 m of compacted clay topped by 2.0 m of topsoil. The cover it assumed not
to be put in place until the monofill is filled with waste. However, an interim c ver of 0.15 m
of clay is placed over the waste during operations, typically at the end of eac: week.
8.5.2 Population Exposure
The population density near and around the site is assumed to be the a erage for the
state of California, at 181 persons per square mile (BOC90). Since the likely >cation of the
disposal facility is a desert region in extreme southern California, the actx J population
density in the vicinity of the site may be much less than this.
8.5.3 Radiomiclide Concentrations
Elevated concentrations of uranium and thorium and their radioac ive daughter
products are sometimes present in hydrothermal systems from which geother aal fluids are
B-8-18
-------
extracted for use in the generation of electricity. The uranium and thorium are highly
insoluble and tend to remain in place in the underground reservoir. However, radium is
slightly soluble and may be transported to the surface with the geothermal fluids. As the
temperature, pressure, and pH of the fluid system change, ra'diuxn may coprecipitate with the
mineral salts that form a scale on the insides of pipes,, valves, and tanks, or it may
concentrate in the filter cake from processing the geothermal brine prior to injection back into
the reservoir. The concentration of radium in geothermal waste depends on its concentration
in the underground hydrothermal system and on the processes by which the geothermal fluid
is extracted and utilized in electric power production.
Little data are available to accurately characterize NORM concentrations in solid
wastes from geothermal energy production. Since the characteristics of geothermal wastes
relate directly to the geology and mineralogy of a resource area, significant variations in
radium concentrations may occur. Additional studies are needed to adequately characterize
the radioactive properties of this waste. For this risk assessment, radionuclide
concentrations in geothermal waste are based on information in an Environmental Impact
Statement for a proposed monofill for disposal of geothermal wastes in Imperial County,
California (ERC90). A Ra-226 concentration of 160 pCi/g and a Ra-228 concentration of
110 pCi/g are assumed, based on limited data from sampling filter cake from treating brine
extracted from liquid-dominated systems in the Imperial Valley. The Pb-210 and Po-210
concentrations are each assumed to be 110 pCi/g, and the Th-228 concentration is assumed
to be 30 pCi/g.
Although these values are based on limited information, they are similar to the
average concentrations of radium and radium decay products in solid waste from oil and gas
production. As previously noted, it appears the chemical and physical conditions for
mobilizing NORM in geothermal fluids are similar to that for oil and gas. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that the average radionuclide concentrations in geothermal waste solids
would be similar.
The GSX Laidlaw hazardous waste facility in Imperial County has applied for a
permit to construct sole use geothermal waste cells. In the permit application, GSX has
specified not to accept geothermal wastes with a radium concentration above 200 pCi/g.
Based on the stipulation of this operating condition, it would appear that the concentrations
B-8-19
-------
of 160 pCi/g of Ra-226 and 110 pCi/g of Ra-228 (total 270 pCi/g of radium) conservatively
reflect the concentrations of NORM that GSX expects may be present in the geothermal
wastes.
B-8-20
-------
REFERENCES
/
BOC90 Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States - 1990, 110th
Edition, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1990.
EPA87 Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Management of Wastes
from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas,
and Geothermal Energy, Volume 2 of 3, Geothermal Energy,
EPA/530-SW-88-003, Office of Solid Waste, December 1987.
ERC90 ERG Environmental Energy Services Co., Final Environmental Impact Report
for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Conditional Use Permit,
prepared for County of Imperial Planning Department, 1990.
GEO87 Wallace, R.H., Jr., and K.L. Schwartz, Geothermal Energy, Geotimes, Vol. 32,
No. 2, p. 28, February 1987.
GEO90 Reed, M.J., Geothermal Energy, Geotimes, Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 24, February 1990.
GOE84 Georing, S.W., et al., Direct Utilization of Geothermal Energy for Pagosa
Springs, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Geothermal and
Hydropower Technologies, 1984.
LJE86 Lienau, L.J., Status of Direct Heat Projects in the Western States, GHC
Bulletin, Fall 1986, pp. 3-7.
NCR75 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Natural
Background Radiation in the United States, NCRP Report No. 45, 1975.
ROG84 Rogers, V.C., K.K. Nielson, D.R. Kalkwarf, Radon Attenuation Handbook for
Uranium Mill Tailings Cover Design, NUREG/CR-3533, RAE-18-5, 1984.
THO89 Thomas, D.M., and J.S. Gudmundson, Advances in the Study of Solids
Deposition in Geothermal Systems, Geothermics, Vol. 18, No. 1/2, pp. 5-15,
1989.
WIL86 Williams, T. Department of Energy Comments on the Technical Report,
"Wastes from Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural
Gas, and Geothermal Energy: An Interim Report on Methodology for Data
Collection and Analysis," 1986.
B-8-R-1
-------
CHAPTER D
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR DIFFUSE NORM
D.I INTRODUCTION
The results of evaluations of possible health impacts from the storage or disposal of
diffuse NORM wastes are presented in this chapter. These evaluations are based on the
waste inventories, generic site parameters, and radiological properties of the NORM waste
sectors described in Chapter B. Health impacts from the storage or disposal of NORM wastes
are estimated for workers at the storage or disposal sites, for onsite individuals, for persons
belonging to the critical population group (CPG), and for the general population in the
vicinity of the disposal sites.
Workers at the storage and disposal sites include disposal pile workers and office
workers. The disposal pile worker is an adult employee who works 2,000 hours per year,
spending 80 percent of his time on the waste pile. It is assumed that the waste pile is not
covered or capped. The worker uses machinery such as a grader or bulldozer which places
him one meter above the pile surface and provides some shielding from direct gamma
radiation.
The office worker also works 2,000 hours per year in a building located at the disposal
site. While in the building, the worker is exposed via the indoor radon inhalation pathway.
Although an office building would likely be located at some distance from the disposal pile,
in estimating the indoor radon concentration it is assumed that the building is located on the
pile. This results in a conservatively high estimate of the radon dose received by the office
worker.
The onsite individual is assumed to live on a site which was formerly used for the
disposal of diffuse NORM wastes. Exposures received by this onsite individual include
inhalation of radon gas and direct exposure to gamma radiation. For indoor exposure to
radon, the exposure fraction (i.e., the fraction of a year the person is exposed) is 0.75. For
D-l-1
-------
direct exposure to gamma radiation the equivalent exposure fraction is 0.5 which takes into
account the time spent outside plus the time spent indoors at a reduced exposure level.
The CFG includes those individuals who might be exposed to the highest doses as a
result of normal daily activities. For this assessment of the risk from diffuse NORM, the
member of the CFG is assumed to be an adult who lives in a house located 100 m from the
disposal pile. The person obtains all of his water from a well adjacent to the house. Fifty
percent of his foodstuffs are assumed to be grown onsite. Exposure pathways for which
possible health impacts are evaluated include direct gamma exposure, downwind exposure
to radon gas, inhalation of contaminated dust, and ingestion of contaminated water and
foodstuffs.
Several exposure pathways are evaluated for the general population residing near the
disposal sites. Population exposures are evaluated for both ingestion and inhalation exposure
pathways.
Dose and risk calculations are performed for the following individual and population
exposure scenarios:
Worker
Direct gamma exposure.
Dust inhalation.
- Indoor radon inhalation.
Onsite Individual
- Direct gamma exposure.
Indoor radon inhalation.
Member of CPG
- Direct gamma exposure.
Inhalation of contaminated dust.
Downwind exposure to radon.
- Exposure to NORM in building materials.
- Ingestion of drinking water from a contaminated well.
Ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated by well water.
Ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated by dust deposition.
Ingestion of foodstuffs grown on repeatedly fertilized soil.
D-l-2
-------
- Downwind exposure to resuspended particulates.
Downwind exposure to radon.
- Ingestion of river water contaminated via the groundwater pathway.
. Ingestion of river water contaminated via surface runoff.
- Ingestion of foodstuffs grown on repeatedly fertilized soil.
The exposure scenarios evaluated for each of the NORM waste sectors described in Chapter
B are shown in Table D.l-1.
Health impacts from exposures to diffuse NORM wastes are expressed both in terms
of committed dose equivalent (hereafter referred to as dose) and the probability that a fatal
cancer might result from exposure. Because the actual duration of an individual's exposure
to NORM waste is unknown and may vary depending upon the exposure scenario, all dose
and risk calculations are based on one year of exposure. For ingestion and inhalation
exposures, the calculated doses are expressed in terms of the 50-year committed dose
equivalent (mrem) from one year of exposure. For direct gamma exposure, the dose is
expressed in terms of the annual committed whole body dose equivalent (mrem/yr). For all
of the exposure pathways, the health effects are expressed in terms of the lifetime (70-year)
risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
The dose calculations are based on the PATHRAE dose assessment methodology
(EPA87a) and utilize equations derived from the PATHRAE methodology. The PATHRAE
dose assessment model was developed for the EPA to estimate doses to individuals from
low-level radioactive wastes disposed in a variety of land disposal settings. Thus, the
methodology used for these dose calculations is generally consistent with established EPA
models. The exposure models, model assumptions, and input parameter values used for these
dose and risk calculations are summarized in Section D.2 of this chapter. The results of
these dose and risk calculations are presented in Section D.3.
D-l-3
-------
Table D.M. Expoaure cenarloa for diffuse NORM risk aaeeMment
Exposure Scenario
Worker
Direct Gamma Eipoaure
Dual Inhalation
Indoor Radon Inhalation
Uranium
Overburden
X
X
X
Pboephato
Waste
X
X
X
Phosphate
Fertiliser
X
X
CoalAah
X
X
X
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertiliser
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Landfill
Mineral
Prooeaalng
Waate
Oil* Gas
Scale/Sludge
Geotbermal
Waate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Onalte Individual
Direct Gamma Eipoaure
Indoor Radon Inhalation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Member of CPQ
Direct Gamma Exposure
Inhalation of Contaminated Dust
Downwind Exposure to Radon
NORM in Building Materials
Ingealion of Drinking Water from a
Contaminated Well
Ingestion of Foodatufls Contaminated
by Well Water
Ingestion of Foodstuffs Contaminated
by Dust Deposition
Ingeation of Foodatufls Grown on
Repeatedly Fertilited Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
General Population Near Disposal Sites
Downwind Exposure to Resuspended
Particulatea
Downwind Exposure to Radon
Ingeation of River Water
Contaminated Via the Groundwaler
Pathway
Ingeation of River Water
Contaminated by Surface Runoff
Ingeslion of Foodslufls Grown on
Repeatedly Fertilized Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
D.2 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS
In thiq section, the exposure scenarios and models used to evaluate health impacts
from the storage and disposal of diffuse NORM wastes are described. Assumptions made in
using the models to estimate individual and population doses and health effects are
discussed. Values of the input parameters used in the dose equations are presented. As
already noted, the dose calculations utilize equations derived from the PATHRAE dose
assessment methodology. The data used as input parameters comes, in part, from the
characterizations contained in Chapter B and from data expressly developed in this chapter.
2.1 THE PATHRAE DOSE ASSESSMENT MODEL
The PATHRAE performance assessment model (EPA87a) was initially developed as
an analytical tool to assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in developing standards
for low-level radioactive waste and below regulatory concern waste disposal. The PATHRAE
model provides estimates of health effects which could potentially occur if radioactive wastes
were disposed of in a near surface facility, sanitary landfill, or other geological setting.
PATHRAE has been used to calculate effective dose equivalents to members of the critical
population group from the disposal of radioactive wastes at sites located in diverse
hydrogeologic, climatic, and demographic settings. PATHRAE has also been modified to
consider population impacts from airborne exposures (ROG85).
An important advantage of the PATHRAE methodology is its simplicity while still
allowing a comprehensive set of radionuclides, disposal settings, and exposure pathways to
be analyzed. The effects of changes in disposal site and facility characteristics can be readily
investigated with relatively few parameters needed to define the problem.
The PATHRAE methodology models both off-site and on-site pathways through which
persons may come in contact with radioactivity from the waste. The off-site pathways include
groundwater transport to a well and to a river, surface water transport to a river, and
D-2-1
-------
atmospheric transport. On-site pathways include direct gamma exposure, dust inhalation,
and pathways by which post-closure reclaimers or intruders onto a site might become exposed
by such activities as building a house and living on a site.
2.2 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
The following subsections briefly describe each exposure scenario and present all
equations derived from PATHRAE methodology. More complete explanations and derivations
of the dose equations used in this analysis are contained in the references (EPA87a, ROG85).
2.2.1 Worker - Direct Gamma Exposure
This exposure pathway describes the external gamma radiation dose received by an
employee who works at the site where the diffuse NORM waste is being stored or disposed.
The employee works at the site 2,000 hours per year, spending 80 percent of his time on the
disposal pile. He uses machinery such as a grader or bulldozer which places him about 1
meter above the surface of the pile and provides some shielding from direct gamma radiation.
The equation used to calculate the radiation dose to this worker is:
D - 1 e -*« * -6 * fwex * fsh * DFG
A ^ pwtw J
where
D = Annual dose (mrem/yr)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
M = Mass of reference waste pile (g)
A = Plane area of waste pile (m2)
uc = Attenuation coefficient of cover over the waste (m'1)
tc = Thickness of cover over the waste (m)
= Attenuation coefficient of waste material (m"1)
D-2-2
-------
tw = Thickness of waste material (m)
fwex = Fraction of year the worker is exposed = (2000/8766)*0.8 = 0.1825
fgh = Shielding factor = 0.6
DFG = External gamma dose conversion factor (mrem/yr per pCi/m ).
Equation D-l takes into account both the attenuation of gamma radiation by the waste itself
and the attenuation provided by cover material (if any) placed over the waste. The fsh term
accounts for the reduction in exposure due to shielding provided by the grader or bulldozer
used by the worker. Equation D-l does not include dose buildup factors, because experience
with PATHRAE has shown that the use of buildup factors in this formalism overestimates
gamma doses.
Worker - Dust Inhalation
This exposure pathway describes the radiation dose from dust inhaled by the worker
at the diffuse NORM storage or disposal site. The equation used to calculate this dose is:
D = C * fds * dd » Ui * fwex * DFinh (D-2)
where
D = 50-year committed dose equivalent from one year's exposure (mrem)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
f^ = Soil dilution factor (dimensionless)
dd = Dust loading in air breathed (g/m3)
Ui = Volume of air breathed in a year (m3/yr)
fwex = Fraction of year the worker is exposed = (2000/8766)*0.8 = 0.1825
DFinh = Inhalation dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi).
D-2-3
-------
2.2.3 Worker - Indoor Radon Inhalation
This exposure pathway describes the health effects from indoor radon inhalation to
an office worker who works inside a building at the NORM storage or disposal site. Although
any office building would probably be located adjacent to the disposal pile, the assumption
is made that the building is located on top of the pile. This results in a conservatively high
estimate of the risk from indoor radon inhalation. The equation used to calculate the health
effects from inhalation of radon is:
R m CR*pw*E*fde> ^ ^X,DW g-VEDT't,,) , DFR (D.3)
h * Xh
where
R = Risk from radon inhalation (health effects)
CR = Radium concentration in the waste (pCi/g)
pw = Waste density (g/m3)
E = Radon emanation coefficient (dimensionless)
fdex = Fraction of year office worker is exposed = (2000/8766) = 0.23
h = Height of reference room
Xfc = Average air ventilation rate (room air changes per year)
X = Radon decay constant (yr*1)
Dw = Radon diffusion coefficient through waste (m2/yr)
D = Radon diffusion coefficient through building foundation (m /yr)
tb = Thickness of building foundation (m)
DFR = Radon risk coefficient (health effects per pCi/m3 of radon) ,
2.2.4 Onsite individual
This exposure pathway describes the external gamma radiation dose to an individual
who lives on an abandoned NORM waste storage or disposal site. The equation used to
calculate the dose to this individual is:
D-2-4
-------
uwt
DFG
(D-4)
w
Equation D-4 is identical to equation D-l except for the parameter foex which replaces
the product fwex * fsh. The parameter {on is the equivalent exposure fraction for outside
exposure. The value of fTOX = 0.50 takes into account both time spent outdoors directly on the
contaminated ground (assumed to be one-forth of the time) and time spent indoors where the
exposure is reduced due to shielding by the structure.
2.2J5 Onsite Individual - Indoor Radon Inhalation
This exposure pathway describes the health effects from indoor radon inhalation to
an individual who lives in a house located on an abandoned NORM waste storage or disposal
site. The equation used to calculate the health effects from radon inhalation is
cR*pw*E*fiex
R
h*xh
DFR
Equation D-5 is identical to equation D-3 except for the parameter fjex. The parameter
£ is the exposure fraction for indoor exposure and represents the fraction of time that the
individual spends inside the house.
2.2.6 Member of CPG - Direct Gamma Exposure
This exposure pathway describes the external gamma radiation dose received by an
individual who resides near a NORM waste storage or disposal site. The individual is
assumed to be located 100 m from the edge of the disposal pile. The equation used to
calculate the radiation dose to this individual is:
2*A
e
-
uwtw
* e
* foex * DFG
(D-6)
where
D
= Annual dose (mrem/yr)
D-2-5
-------
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
M = Mass of reference waste pile (g)
2 = Factor to correct for exposure at edge of waste pile
A = Plane area of waste pile (m2)
ue = Attenuation coefficient of cover material (m*1)
te = Thickness of cover material (m)
]i^ = Attenuation coefficient of waste material (m*1)
tw = Thickness of waste material (m)
a = Attenuation coefficient to correct for distance of member of CPG from edge
of waste pile (m*1)
x = Distance of member of CPG from edge of waste pile (100 m)
f = Equivalent exposure fraction for outside exposure (dimensionless)
DFG = External gamma dose conversion factor (mrem/yr per pCi/m )
As is the case for equation D-4, the factor {om in equation D-6 accounts for both the
time spent outdoors and the time spent indoors where shielding reduces the dose rate from
gamma radiation.
2J2.7 Member of CPG - Inhalation of Contaminated Dust
The downwind transport of resuspended particulates (fugitive dusts) containing
radionuclides can result in exposure to a member of the CPG via the inhalation of airborne
particulates and the ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated by dust deposition. Exposure to
direct radiation can also occur as a result of immersion of the individual in the radioactive
dust cloud or from deposited radioactivity. However, the direct radiation dose from fugitive
dusts is only a small fraction of either the inhalation or ingestion dose, and is not calculated.
The inhalation dose from fugitive dusts is described in this subsection and is given by
equation D-7. The ingestion dose is given by equation D-14 described in Subsection 2.2.12.
D-2-6
-------
A Gaussian plume technique is used to model the transport of resuspended material
and to trace the effects of airborne contaminants. The exposed individual is assumed to be
located 100 m downwind from the edge of the NORM storage or disposal site. The equation
used to calculate the dose to a member of the CPG from inhalation of contaminated dust is:
D = 2 qd * « * X' * lit * DFinh (D-7)
ai»Va
where
D = 50-year committed dose equivalent from one year's exposure (mrem)
qj = Atmospheric release rate (pCi/sec)
fw = Fraction of year wind blows in maximum direction (dimensionless)
foai = Equivalent exposure fraction for outdoor exposure (dimensionless)
aj = Atmospheric stability constant (dimensionless)
Va = Average wind speed (m/sec)
X1 = Virtual distance to exposed individual (m)
= 100 +L/2 + 2.5W, where L and W represent, respectively, the length and
width of the disposal site
U{ = Volume of air breathed in a year (m3/yr)
DFinh = Inhalation dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
Vd = Deposition velocity for particulates (m/sec).
The atmospheric release rate, q^, for radionuclides in the waste is given by the
equation
qd = Ew * A * C
where
Ew = Resuspension factor (g/m2 - sec)
A = Area of waste site (m2)
C = Waste/soil nuclide concentration (pCi/g).
D-2-7
-------
Using the methodology in NRG Regulatory Guide 3.59 (NRC87), a value for the
resuspension factor can be obtained from the equation
3.156E+07
w
p
8
0.5
where
R8 = The resuspension rate at wind speed S
F8 = The frequency of occurrence of wind speed S
fy = Respirable fraction of resuspended NORM.
The expression in Regulatory Guide 3.59 is modified by the respirable fraction f^.
Regulatory Guide 3.59 tabulates values of R, and Fa for a typical tailings site. Using these
tabulated values, the value of Ew is calculated to be f,. * 1.35E-05 g/m2-sec.
2.2.8 Member CPG - Downwind Exposure to Radon
The risk to an exposed member of the CPG is calculated for downwind exposure to
radon gas exhaled from waste piles containing radium-226. The exposed individual is
assumed to be located 100 m downwind from the edge of the pile. Radon emanation rates
from the waste piles are calculated based on average Ra-226 concentrations in the waste,
radon exhalation rates, and exposed waste pile areas.
Several important factors govern the exhalation rate of radon including mineral form,
material density and porosity, particle size distribution, and moisture content. Changing
meteorological conditions such as atmospheric pressure, surface wind velocity, and differences
between soil and air temperatures can also affect radon emanation rates. For this generic
evaluation, average radon exhalation rates are employed that are believed to be
representative of typical disposal sites where the waste would be disposed. These radon
exhalation rates are also representative of sites where there is no cover material over the
waste.
The equation for calculating the risk to a member of the CPG from downwind exposure
to radon is:
D-2-8
-------
R = 2qR * - ?! - _ * foex * DFR . (D.-8)
ai*Va*X12
where
R = Risk from radon inhalation (health effects)
*
qR = Atmospheric release rate for radon (pCi/sec)
f_ = Fraction of year wind blows in maximum direction (dimensionless)
aj = Atmospheric stability constant (dimensionless)
Va = Average wind speed (m/sec)
X» = Virtual distance to exposed individual (m)
= 100 +L/2 + 2.5W, where L and W represent, respectively, the length and
width of the disposal site
foex = Equivalent exposure fraction for outdoor exposure (dimensionless)
R
DF = Radon risk coefficient (health effects for one year's exposure to 1 pCi/m3
of radon).
The atmospheric release rate for radon is given by the expression
qR = CR * pw * E * A * yX Dw
where
CR = Radium-226 concentration in the waste (pCi/g)
pw = Waste density (g/m3)
E = Radon emanation coefficient (dimensionless)
A = Area of waste site (m2)
X = Radon decay constant (sec*1)
Dw = Radon diffusion coefficient through waste (m2/sec).
This expression is valid for radon diffusion at sites where the thickness of the waste is
greater than about one meter. For agricultural sites where the waste is used as fertilizer,
the above equation must be multiplied by tanh (/X/D * t) , where t is the thickness of the
till layer in meters (0.15 m).
D-2-9
-------
2.2.9 Member of CPG - Exposure to NORM in Building Materials
An estimate is made of exposures to individuals living in a house constructed of
building materials that incorporate NORM wastes. Examples are wallboard containing
phosphogypsum or coal ash. It is assumed that one part of NORM waste is mixed with two
parts of non-contaminated material. Only direct exposure to gamma radiation is considered
in this scenario.
The expression used to calculate the gamma dose to an individual from exposure to
NORM in building materials is a modification of the equation used to calculate the dose to
an individual from a large planar source (EPA87a). The large planar source equation is
modified to take into account multiple exposures from finite sources (the walls and ceiling
of the room). The building characteristics assumed in developing the equation are that the
house contains seven or more rooms and that a fraction of the dose comes from rooms other
that the one in which the person is standing. The average room size is taken to be 20 m ,
and the person is assumed to stand in the center of a room while being exposed.
The expression for the gamma dose to an exposed individual is:
D = C * pw * fiex * fb * 2 * I * (l*2.55e"0'5pi) * DFG (D-9)
2
where
D = Annual dose from gamma radiation (mrem/yr)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
pw = Density of wallboard material (g/m3)
f^ = Exposure fraction for indoor exposure (dimensionless)
fb = Fraction of NORM in building materials (dimensionless)
Uj = Gamma attenuation coefficient for building materials (cm2/g)
DFG = External gamma dose conversion factor (mrem/yr per pCi/m2).
The factor of 2 in the equation takes account of the fact that each wall has two sides.
The factor of one-half is a room size factor that takes account of the wall dimensions and the
distance of a person from the walls. The factor of 2.55e " ' Accounts for contributions to the
D-2-10
-------
total dose from radiation from walls in rooms other than the one in which the person is
standing.
2.2.10 Member of CPG - Ingestion of Drinking Water from a Contaminated Well
The ingestion dose is calculated for a member of the CPG assumed to be exposed by
drinking water from a well that becomes contaminated as a result of groundwater transport
of radionuclides from a NORM waste pile. The well is located 100 meters from the waste
pile. The radionuclides move downward through the unsaturated zone to an aquifer beneath
the waste site. In the aquifer, the waste components are transported by advection and
dispersion to a location where the contaminated water is withdrawn from a well.
The equation used to calculate the ingestion dose to an individual who drinks water
from a contaminated well is:
D _ C*M»XL«f0*Ud*DFing (D.10)
qw
where
D = 50-year committed dose equivalent from one year's exposure (mrem)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
M = Mass of reference waste pile (g)
XL = Fraction of each nuclide leached from inventory in a year (yr'1)
f = Fraction of nuclide inventory arriving at the well from transport through
*o
the aquifer (dimensionless)
Ud = Annual volume of water consumed by an individual (m /yr)
qw = Dilution volume for the well (m3/yr)
DFing = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
The expression used to calculate the fraction of each nuclide leached from inventory
in a year, XL, is:
D-2-11
-------
Kd*pw*tw*Kg
where
I = Annual water infiltration rate through the waste (m/yr)
Kd = Equilibrium distribution coefficient of 'the waste/soil matrix (m3/kg)
(Assumed to be the same as the Kd for the aquifer.)
pw = Density of the waste/soil matrix (kg/m3)
t^, = Thickness of the waste (m)
= Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the waste/soil matrix (m/yr).
The term I/Kg is the fraction of the year the waste is in contact with water. This
correction for unsaturated leaching is contained in the EPA's PRESTO model (EPASTb).
The annual water infiltration rate is taken to be one-half the annual rainfall. The
density of the waste/soil matrix is assumed to be the same as the density of the aquifer.
The expression used to calculate f0, the fraction of the nuclide inventory arriving at
the well from transport through the aquifer is:
f
0
L*R*XL
where
Vw = Horizontal velocity of aquifer (m/yr)
L = Length of waste site parallel to aquifer flow (m)
R = Retardation factor = 1 + (pa/p) * Kd
pa = Aquifer density (kg/m3)
p = Aquifer porosity (dimensionless)
Kd = Equilibrium distribution coefficient in the aquifer (m3/kg).
The dilution volume for the well, qw, is assumed to be the annual rainfall multiplied
by the area of the waste pile.
D-2-12
-------
2JJ.11 Member of CPG - Ingestion of Food ;tuffs Contaminated by Well Water
The ingestion dose is also calculated for E member of the CPG assumed to be exposed
by eating foodstuffs irrigated with well water :hat becomes contaminated as a result of
groundwater transport of radionuclides from a NORM waste pile. The equation used to
calculate this ingestion dose is:
XL«f *Uc*DFing
Equation D-13 is identical to equation D- D except for the factor Uc which replaces the
factor Ud. The factor Uc (m3/yr) is the annual eqi ivalent foodstuff consumption uptake factor
for an individual. It is given by
Uc = Uv - Ud
where Uw is the annual equivalent water uptal 2 factor for an individual.
2.2.12 Member of CPG - Ingestion of Foods uffs Contaminated bv Dust Deposition
This exposure pathway describes the ngestion dose to an individual who eats
foodstuffs contaminated by fallout from fugitive lusts. As described in Subsection 2.2.7, the
downwind transport of resuspended particulatei contaminated with radionuclides can cause
exposure to a member of the CPG through t .e inhalation of the dust particles or the
ingestion of crops grown in soils contaminated v ith radioactive fallout. The inhalation dose
is calculated by equation D-7. The ingestion dc >e is calculated by:
where
D =50 year committed dose equi\ dent for one year's exposure (mrem)
qd = Atmospheric release rate (pC 'sec)
f^ = Fraction of year wind blows i i maximum direction (dimensionless)
D-2-1 i
-------
a^ = Atmospheric stability constant (dimensionless)
Va = Average wind speed (zn/sec)
Xj = Virtual distance to exposed individual (nv)
= 100 +L/2 + 2.5W, where L and W represent, respectively, the length and
width of the disposal site
Vd = Deposition velocity for particulates (m/sec).
^dep = Deposition time (sec)
Uf = Food uptake factor (kg/yr)
Xroot = Root uptake factor (kg/m2)
DFin_ = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
Vd/(Va * a{)
The atmospheric release rate, q^, is calculated as explained in Subsection 2.2.7. The
root uptake factor, X,.^, is the product of the average root depth and the soil density.
2.2.13 Member of CPG - Ingestion of Foodstuffs Grown on Repeatedly Fertilized
Soil
This exposure pathway describes the ingestion dose to an individual who eats
foodstuffs grown in soil that is repeatedly fertilized with phosphate fertilizer or water
treatment sludge. Fertilizers are spread over agricultural fields and diluted by mixing with
the soil. Hence the incremental radionuclide concentrations in the soil are much lower than
the radionuclide concentrations in the fertilizer itself. Over time, as fertilizers continue to
be applied, the radionuclide concentrations in the soil are expected to increase until
equilibrium is reached with competing mechanisms that remove fertilizers, and their
radioactive constituents, from the soils. These removal mechanisms include plant uptake,
leaching by infiltration of surface water, and wind and water erosion. The number of years
required for radionuclide concentrations in repeatedly fertilized soils to reach equilibrium is
not known and ran only be estimated with considerable uncertainty. For this ingestion dose
calculation, a time period of 20 years of repeated fertilizer application is assumed.
D-2-14
-------
Radionuclide concentrations are assumed to continue to increase during this period, and no
credit is taken for depletion mechanisms that might remove radionuclides from the soil.
The equation used to calculate the ingestion dose to a person who eats foodstuffs
grown in repeatedly fertilized soil is:
D = 103 * C * Uf « DFing
where
D = 50-year committed dose equivalent from one year's exposure (mrem)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
103 = Conversion factor to convert from pCi/g to pCi/kg
Uf = Food uptake factor (kg/yr)
DFing = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
2.2.14 General Population - Downwind Exposure to Resusoended Participates
This exposure pathway describes the dose to the general population in the vicinity of
the disposal site from the downwind transport of resuspended particulates (fugitive dusts)
containing radionuclides. Doses to the exposed population can result from the inhalation of
airborne particulates, ingestion of crops and produce contaminated with deposited fugitive
dusts, and direct radiation from deposited radioactivity. The exposed population is assumed
to reside within a radius of 8x104 meters (50 miles) of the NORM waste storage or disposal
site.
The equation used to calculate the population dose from this exposure pathway is:
CD
*PD*
(D-16)
where
D-2-15
-------
CD = Population dose (person-mrem)
PD = Population density (persons/m2)
qd = Atmospheric release rate (pCi/sec)
aj = Atmospheric stability constant (dimensionless)
Va = Average wind speed (m/sec)
Xj = Minimum distance to exposed individual (m)
= 100 +L/2 + 2.5W
Xg = Maximum distance of integral used to evaluate exposed population (m)
U{ = Annual breathing rate (m3/yr)
Vd = Deposition velocity for particulates (m/sec).
ldep = Deposition time (sec)
Uf = Food uptake factor (kg/yr)
X^ot = Root uptake factor (kg/m2)
DFinh = Inhalation dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
DFin_ = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
DFG = External gamma dose conversion factor (mrem/yr per pCi/m2).
b = >/27JT* Vd/(Va*ai)
The atmospheric release rate, q^, for radionuclides is calculated the same way for the
population dose from, downwind exposure as for the individual dose from downwind exposure
(see Subsection 2.2.7).
2.2.15 General Population - Downwind Exposure to Radon
The risk to a representative population in the vicinity of the disposal site is calculated
for downwind exposure to radon gas exhaled from NORM waste piles containing radium-226.
As is the case for the calculation of the radon risk to an individual member of the CPG
(Subsection 2.2.8), radon emanation rates from the waste piles are calculated based on
D-2-16
-------
average Ra-226 concentrations i the waste, representative radon exhalation rates, and
exposed pile areas for represent .live waste piles. The exposed population is assumed to
reside within a 8xl04 m (50 mi) adius of the waste pile.
The equation used to calc late the population risk from downwind exposure to radon
gas is:
PR
f] * _SL- * Infel
>|r Va*ai |XXJ
* PD * DFR
(D-17)
where
PR = Population ris. from radon inhalation (health effects)
qR = Atmospheric n lease rate for radon (pCi/sec)
Va = Average wind peed (m/sec)
3{ = Atmospheric s ability constant (dimensionless)
XQ = Maximum dist mce of integral used to evaluate exposed population (m)
X, = Minimum dist nee to exposed individual (m)
= 100 +L/2 + 2.5 V
PD = Population dei sity (persons/m2)
DFR = Radon risk CCK Hcient (health effects per pCi/m3 of radon).
The atmospheric release r te for radon, qR, is calculated as shown in Subsection 2.2.8
which describes the dose to an ii dividual from downwind exposure to radon gas.
2.2.16 General Population - Ingestion of River Water Contaminated via the
Groundwater Patlvx ay
This exposure pathway dc .cribes the population dose from the use of river water that
has become contaminated by thi groundwater migration of radionuclides from the NORM
waste storage or disposal site. 1 he equation used to calculate the population dose for this
exposure scenario is:
D-2-17
-------
CD = C*M*XL*f0*Uw*EP*DFine
qr
where
CD = 50-year committed dose to the population from o ie year of exposure
(person-mrem)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
M = Mass of reference waste pile (g)
XL = Fraction of each radionuclide leached from inventor in a year (yr"1)
f0 = Fraction of nuclide inventory arriving at the river fr< 01 transport through
the aquifer (dimensionless)
Uw = Annual water equivalent uptake factor for an indivi lual (m /yr)
EP = Exposed population (persons)
qr = Flow rate of the river (m3/yr)
DFin_ = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
The factors XL and f0 are calculated as described in Subsection 2.2.10.
The exposed population is estimated by multiplying the popi ation density by an
assumed area in which people live who would use the river water f r drinking or would
consume foodstuffs contaminated by agricultural use of the water. This "use area" is
assumed to be approximately 1,000 mi2.
2.2.17 General Population - Ingestion of River Water Contami lated by Surface
Runoff
This exposure pathway describes the population dose from tl a use of river water
contaminated through surface runoff of rainwater that transports radio .uclides leached from
a NORM waste pile. The equation used to calculate the population c >se for this exposure
scenario is:
D-2-18
-------
EP , DF
w ing
where
CD = 50-year committed dose to the population from one year of exposure
(person-mrem)
C = Nuclide concentration in waste (pCi/g)
pw = Waste density (g/m3)
fdt = Dilution factor for surface water transport of waste (dimensionless)
I = Annual water infiltration rate through the waste (m/yr)
rf = Runoff fraction (dimensionless)
A = Area of waste site (m2)
R = Retardation factor (dimensionless)
qr = Flow rate of the river (m3/yr)
Uw = Annual water equivalent uptake factor for an individual (m3/yr)
EP = Exposed population (persons)
DFin_ = Ingestion dose conversion factor (mrem/pCi)
The annual water infiltration rate through the waste, I, is assumed to be one-half the
rainfall at the site. The retardation factor, R, for surface runoff is assumed to be the
same as it is for the aquifer (i.e., groundwater) transport of radionuclides. In the aquifer this
retardation factor is given by:
R = 1 + (pa / p) * Kd
where
pa = Aquifer density (kg/m3)
p = Aquifer porosity (dimensionless)
Kd = Equilibrium distribution coefficient (m3/kg).
D-2-19
-------
2.2.18 General Population - Ingestion of Foodstuffs Grown on Repeatedly
Fertilized Soil
This exposure pathway describes the ingestion dose to an exposed population from
eating foodstuffs grown in repeatedly fertilized soil. This scenario is similar to that described
«
in Subsection 2.2.13 for the ingestion dose to an individual who eats food grown in soil that
is repeatedly fertilized for a period of 20 years. The equation for calculating the ingestion
dose to the exposed population is
CD = 103 * C * Uf * DFing * POP (°-21)
where
CD = 50-year committed dose to the exposed population from one year of
exposure (person-mrem)
POP = The population eating food grown on repeatedly fertilized soil (persons).
The other parameters in D-21 have the same meaning as in equation D-15.
The exposed population is obtained by estimating how many persons would obtain
their annual average vegetable requirement from agricultural fields fertilized by phosphate
fertilizer. The equation used to calculate the exposed population is
(POP) = A
IG
where
A = Plane area of fertilized field (m2)
Ie = Areal requirement for an individual for vegetables consumed annually
(m2/person)
The individual areal requirement, Ic, is 292 m2/person as determined from the
equation:
, _ Individual Consumption Rated 90 kg/yr)
Vegetable ProductionDensity (0.65 kg/m 2-yr)
Values for the individual consumption rate and the vegetable production density are taken
from the EPA's Background Information Document (EPA88a).
D-2-20
-------
2.3 INPUT PARAM 3TERS
Values of the va ious input parameters used with'the equations >f Section 2.2 to
evaluate individual and population doses from the storage,and disposal < f diffuse NORM
wastes are presented in his section. Input parameters include generic par imeters that are
assumed to be the same for all NORM sectors, parameters that are site a id NORM-sector
specific, and parameter! that are nuclide specific.
Values of generic oarameters that are assumed to have the same vr ue regardless of
waste type or site locati a are shown in Table D.2-1.
Values of site-spt :ific parameters are shown in Tables D.2-2 and D. :-3. Site specific
parameters include reft ence site dimensions and radionuclide concentr tions which are
shown in Table D.2-2, & id equilibrium distribution coefficients (Kd) and c her site-specific
parameters shown in Ti ale D.2-3. The rationale for the values used for t lese site-specific
parameters is presentee in Chapter B, in part, and in this chapter.
All of the dose ai 1 health risk calculations for fertilized agricultur: I sites are based
on radionuclide concent ations resulting from repeated applications of ft tilizer during a
20-year period. As pr viously described in Section 2.2.13, fertilizers ire spread over
agricultural fields and liluted by mixing with the soil. For repeated pplications, the
radionuclide concentrate ns in the soil increase until an equilibrium is rea> ned between the
rate at which fertilizer 5 added to the soil and the rate at which it is r moved by plant
uptake, leaching, wind ; id water erosion, and other removal mechanisms The number of
years required for radio uclide concentrations to reach equilibrium in rep atedly fertilized
soils is difficult to estim .te with any degree of certainty, and may be nucl ie dependent.
All of the indivic lal and population exposure scenarios involving t ie application of
fertilizer to agricultural ields are based on radionuclide concentrations in he soil resulting
from 20 years of fertili er application. The radionuclide concentrations are assumed to
increase linearly during this period, and no credit is taken for depletion : lechanisms that
could remove radionucli es. For phosphate fertilizers, the application rate '.s assumed to be
37 kg per hectare, applit d annually (see Section 3.4.1). For water treatmej t sludge used as
D-2-21
-------
Table D.2-1. Generic input parameters for diffuse NORM risk assessment.
Symbol
a
Parameter
drt
EP
fdex
h
Ic
rf
T
Total amount of fertilizer applied per year
Attenuation coefficient for distance of average CFG
from waste pile
Atmospheric stability constant (50% C stability,
50% D stability)
Radon diffusion coefficient through concrete
Radon diffusion coefficient through waste
. humid site
- dry site
Dust loading in air breathed
Root depth in fertilized soil
Exposed population using river
Annual rate of fertilizer application
Fraction of NORM in building materials
Fraction of year wind blows in maximum direction
Soil dilution factor (fertilizer)
Dilution factor for surface water transport of waste
Shielding factor for worker exposure
Fraction of year office worker is exposed
Exposure fraction for indoor exposure
Equivalent exposure fraction for outside exposure
Fraction of year waste pile worker is exposed
Height of reference room
Area! requirement for vegetables consumed by an
individual
Aquifer porosity
Flow rate of river
Surface water runoff fraction
Years of fertilizer application for repeatedly
fertilized soils
Thickness of building floor (cement)
Units
g/yr
m
'1
Value
4.8E+12
5.0E-3
7.0E-2
m2/yr
m2/yr
g/m3
m
persons
g/m2-yr
--
-
~
~
~
m
m2
m3/yr
~
yr
1.6E+1
2.2E+1
6.3E+1
5.0E-4
l.OE+0
3.3E+3
3.7E+0
3.3E-1
9.3E-2
2.3E-3
7.0E-1
6.0E-1
2.3E-1
7.5E-1
5.0E-1
1.8E-1
2.3E+0
2.9E+2
3.3E-1
l.OE+8
5.0E-1
2.0E+1
m
1.5E-1
D-2-22
-------
Table D.2-1. Continued.
Symbol
tdep
ud
u,
va
vd
vw
^root
*2
X
X
*h
uc
V4
Uw
Pa
Parameter
Deposition time for particulates
Volume of drinking water coT1*?"1^ annually hy
an individual
Volume of air breathed in a year
Average wind speed
Deposition velocity for particulates
Horizontal velocity of aquifer
Root uptake factor
Maximum distance of integral used to evaluate
exposed population
Distance of well and of average CFG from edge of
waste pile
Radon decay constant
Room air changes per year
Gamma linear attenuation coefficient for cover
material
Gamma mass attenuation coefficient for building
material (wallboard)
Gamma linear attenuation coefficient for waste
material
Aquifer density
Units
sec
m3/yr
m3/yr
m/sec
m/sec
m/yr
kg/m2
m
m
yr'1
yr'1
m'1
cm2/g
m'1
g/cm3
Value
6.3E+8
3.7E-1
8.0E+3
4.5E+0
l.OE-3
2.0E+1
7.0E+2
8.0E+4
l.OE+2
6.6E+1
1.8E+4
1.5E+1
l.OE-1
1.5E+1
1.8E+0
D-2-23
-------
Table D.2-2. Reference dlapoaal pUe parameters and radionncllde concentratlona for dlfluae NORM risk
I
Parameter
Unite
Uranium
Overburden
Phoaphato
Waste
Texaa
6.6E+07
Honda
6.0E+07
m
m
m
m
m8
1200
1200
20
None
1.4E+06
1760
1760
7
None
3.0E+06
1200
1200
0.16
None
1.4E+06
600
600
6.0
None
2.6E«06
1200
1200
0.16
None
1.4E*06
400
400
2
OJO
1.6E+06
700
700
30
None
4.9E+06
400
400
4A
None
1.6E+06
320
320
4
0.16
l.OE+06
I i.,. -ri>.r
Pile
Waste Mass
Reference Pile MT
Reference Disposal Pile
Length
Width
Thickness
Cover
Surface Ana
No. of Reference Piles 1.4E+01 1.6E+01
lnU.S.
Average Waste Density g/on* 20 2.36
Nuclide Concentration
Po-210 pCi/g 16.6 26.4
Pb-210 pCi/g 16.6 26.4
Ra-226 pCl/g 23.7 33.0
Th-228 pCi/g 1.0 0.27
Ra-228 pCi/g 1.0 0.27
Th-230 pCi/g 23.7 13.0
Th-232 pCi/g 1.0 0.27
U-234 pCi/g 23.7 62
U-238 pCi/g 23.7 60
U-236 pCi/g 1.2 0.3
Phcwphate
Fertilizer
Illinois
3.4E«06
CoalAah
Northeasl
1JE«06
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertilizer
Illinois
3.4E+06
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
LandBII
Illinois
6.1E+06
Mineral
Prooeaalng
Waste
Arizona
3.0E+07
OUAGae
Scale/Sludge
Texas
1.3E*06
O«o thermal
Energy Waste
California
7.4E+05
9.4E+06 1.3E«03 4.4E+02* 2JE«02b
1.6 13 1.6
6.7
6.7
8.2
1.1
1.1
63.0
1.0
66.3
66.3
2.8
7.0
6.8
3.7
3.2
1.8
23
2.1
33
3.3
0.18
10.0
10.0
16.0
0.2
20.0
0.2
0.2
4.0
4.0
0.03
10.0
10.0
16.0
0.2
20.0
0.2
02
4.0
4.0
003
6.7E+02
2.0
26.0
26.0
36.0
10.0
100
36.0
10.0
36.0
36.0
1.8
l.OE+01
1.8
166.0
166.0
166.0
66.0
660
2.0E+00
110.0
110.0
160.0
30.0
110.0
a Assumes that all of the water treatment sludge generated dunng the 20-year reference period is used as fertilizer.
b Assumes that all of the water treatment sludge generated during the 20-year reference period is disposed of at landfills.
-------
Table D.2-3. Site-specific Input parameters for diffuse NORM risk assessment.
p
£
Wl
Parameter Symbol
Distribution Coeflicents
Po-210 Kd
Pb-210 K,,
Ra-226 Kj
Th-228 Kj
Ra-228 K,,
Th-230 Kj
Th-232 Kj
U-234 K,,
U-238 Kj
U-235 Kj
Waste Porosity
Respirable Fraction f.
Radon Emanation E
Coefficient
Annual Rainfall at Site
Saturated Hydraulic K,
Conductivity
Water Percolation Rate I
Through Waste
Dilution Volume for Well qw
Population Density for PD
Atmospheric Pathways
per Site
Population Using River EP
Water per Site
Virtual Distance to X,
Unite
m'/kg
ms/kg
m'/kg
ma/kg
m3/kg
ms/kg
m3/kg
m3/kg
m'/kg
m'/kg
cm/yr
m/yr
m/yr
m3/yr
persons
per mi2
persons
m
Uranium
Overburden
0.050
0.090
0.045
150
0.045
15.0
15.0
0045
0045
0045
0.40
050
0.30
72.5
3.15E+04
036
l.OE+06
64
70,000
3700
Phosphate
Waste
0.60
0.90
0.45
1500
0.45
150.0
150.0
045
0.45
0.45
0.25
0.20
0.20
124.5
3.15E+02
0.62
3.7E+06
216
235,000
5350
Phosphate
Fertiliser
0.50
0.90
045
150.0
0.45
1500
150.0
0.45
0.45
045
0.25
0.50
030
90.7
3.15E+04
0.45
1.3E+06
210
230,000
3700
Coal Ash
0.10
0.10
0.075
30
0.075
3.0
3.0
0050
0.050
0.050
03
0.1
0.04
110.0
1.00 E+ 02
055
2.8E+05
780
850,000
1600
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertilizer
0.50
0.90
0.45
160.0
0.45
150.0
150.0
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.7
0.40
90.7
3.15E+04
0.45
1.1E+06
210
230,000
3700
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Landfill
0.50
0.90
0.45
1500
0.45
160.0
150.0
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.7
0.40
90.7
3.16E+04
0.45
1.5E+05
210
230,000
,
1300
Mineral
Processing
Waste
0.050
0.090
0.045
15.0
0.045
15.0
15.0
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.40
0.50
0.30
283
3.15E+04
0.14
1.4E+05
46
50,000
2200
Oil & Gas
Scale/Sludge
0.10
0.10
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.40
0.05
0.10
61.0
3.0E+02
*
0.26
8.2E+04
64
70,000
1300
Geothermal
Energy Waste
0.050
0.090
0.045
15.0
0.045
0.40
0.05
0.26
25.0
3.0E+03
0.12
2.5E+04
181
200,000
1060
Exposed Individual
-------
fertilizer, the application rate is assumed to be 10,000 kg per hectare (4.5 tons per acre),
applied every other year (see Section 6.5.1). The fertilizer is assumed to be mixed with the
top 0.15 m of soil. The radionuclide concentrations for phosphate fertilizer and water
treatment sludge shown in Table D.2-2 are adjusted for fertilizer application rates and soil
mixing ratios to obtain the radionuclide concentrations in repeatedly fertilized soil used in
the risk calculations.
The water percolation rate through the waste, I, shown in Table D.2-3 is assumed to
be equal to one-half the annual average rainfall at the waste site. The dilution volume for
the well, q^ is assumed to equal the rainfall rate multiplied by the pile area.
Population densities used in evaluating total population health effects for downwind
exposure to resuspended particulates are the average population densities for the state listed
under each NORM waste sector in Table D.2-3. Exposed populations used in evaluating total
population health effects from ingestion of contaminated river water are also based on the
average population densities in Table D.2-3, and are estimated as described in Subsection
2.2.16.
Nuclide-sperific parameters used in this analysis include equilibrium distribution
coefficients (1^), leach rates, dose conversion factors, and equivalent food and water uptake
factors. Values for equilibrium distribution coefficients are site specific and are shown in
Table D.2-3. Values for leach rates are calculated using Equation D-ll of Section 2.2.10.
Equation D-ll is derived from the leaching model used by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in the PRESTO-EPA-POP environmental transport risk assessment code (EPASTb).
The dose and risk conversion factors used in this analysis are shown in Table D.2-4.
Dose conversion factors for ingestion and inhalation are from the EPA's Federal Guidance
Report No. 11, which provides guidance for the control of occupational exposures to radiation
(EPA88b). Inhalation and ingestion dose conversion factors represent 50-year committed dose
equivalents from one year of intake. Dose conversion factors for direct exposure to gamma
radiation are from guidance for modifying PRESTO-EPA-CPG to reflect major recent changes
in the EPA's dose calculation methodology. They represent effective whole body dose
equivalents from external exposure during one year.
D-2-26
-------
Table D.2-4. Dose and risk conversion factors.
I. Dose Conversion Factors
Direct Gamma
Nuclide
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
a 50-year committed
Inhalation
(mrem/tlCi)a
9.4E-03
1.4E-02
8.6E-03
3.4E-01
4.8E-03
3.3E-01
1.6E+00
1.3E-01
1.2E-01
1.2E-01
dose equivalent from
Ingestion DF
(mrem/oCi)a
1.9E-03
5.4E-03
1.3E-03
4.0E-04
1.4E-03
5.5E-04
2.7E-03
2.8E-04
2.5E-04
2.7E-04
(mrem/yr
per t>Ci/m )
8.55E-10
2.91E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41E-08
1.67E-05
one year of intake (uptake).
IL Risk Conversion Factors.1*
Nuclide
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
Inhalation
(Risk per pCi
inhaled)
1.5E-09
2.2E-09
1.3E-09
5.3E-08
7.4E-10
5.1E-08
2.5E-07
2.0E-08
1.9E-08
1.9E-08
Ingestion DF
(Risk per pCi
invested)
2.9E-10
8.4E-10
2.0E-10
6.2E-11
2.2E-10
8.5E-11
4.2E-10
4.3E-11
3.9E-11
4.2E-11
Direct Gamma
(Risk per pCi/m2)
3.3E-16
1.1E-13
6.5E-11
1.3E-10
3.5E-11
3.5E-14
2.6E-14
3.1E-14
2.5E-14
6.5E-12
b 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
D-2-27
-------
Table D.2-4. Continued.
IL Radon Risk Conversion Factors.6
Rn-222 and Inhalation Risk
Daughters per pCi/m3
Indoor Exposure 4.9E-06
Outdoor Exposure 4.9E-07
c ' 0-year lifetime risk of fatal cancer of one year of exposure to Rn-222 and Rn-222
< aughters.
D-2-28
-------
Risk conversion factors in Table D.2-4 are based on the radiation risk factors in Table
6-27 of Volume I of the EPA's "Environmental Impact Statement for NESHAPS
Radionuclides" (EPA89a). They represent lifetime (i.e., 70 year) risks of fatal cancers from
one year of exposure. A quality factor of 1 has been used to convert from rads to rems for
low-LET (i.e, gamma) radiation, and a quality factor of 20 has been used to convert from rads
to rems for high-LET (i.e., alpha) radiation.
Equivalent uptake factors for food and water are shown in Table D.2-5. These factors
are calculated by the PATHRAE-EPA performance assessment code (EPA87a) using PRESTO
dose assessment methodology. The equivalent uptake factors quantify, on a nuclide-specific
basis, the annual amount of nuclide uptake by an individual from all potential ingestion
sources. For ingestion pathways involving the use of contaminated water, the water
equivalent uptake factor is the total equivalent drinking water consumption (m /yr) that
would give the same annual nuclide uptake as would occur from the consumption of
contaminated vegetation, meat, milk, seafood, and actual water consumption. For pathways
involving food grown in contaminated soil, the food equivalent uptake factor is the equivalent
amount of soil material (kg/yr) an individual would have to directly consume in order to
ingest the same amount of a particular nuclide that is ingested by eating contaminated foods.
Since water-to-soil and soil-to-plant transfer factors, and other related factors may be nuclide
dependent, the equivalent water and food uptake factors are nuclide dependent.
D-2-29
-------
Table D.2-5. Equivalent uptake factors.8
Nuclide
Food Uptake Factor UF
(ke/yr)
Water Uptake Factor Uw
(m3/yr)
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1J29E-02
1J29E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
2.21E-02
2.21E-02
2.21E-02
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
a See text for details.
D-2-30
-------
D.3 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The risk assessment equations of Section 2.2 were use,d with the input data of Section
2.3 to evaluate doses and health effects to individuals and populations from the storage or
disposal of diffuse NORM wastes. The results of these risk calculations are presented in this
section.
3.1 WORKER DOSES AND RISKS
Table D.3-1 gives the doses and risks to workers at the storage or disposal sites from
the direct gamma exposure and dust inhalation pathways. As explained in subsection 2.2.1,
the worker is assumed to spend 80 percent of each working day on the disposal pile and to
use machinery such as a grader or bulldozer. Direct gamma exposures are estimated to
result in the highest worker doses and risks - typically about three orders of magnitude
larger than the doses and risks from dust inhalation. The direct gamma exposure doses are
estimated to range from 6.5E+2 mrem/yr for direct exposure to oil and gas scale/sludge to
0.006 mrem/yr for direct exposure to radiation from a field repeatedly fertilized with
phosphate fertilizer. Estimated 70-year lifetime risks of fatal cancer from one year of
exposure range from 2.5E-04 for exposure from oil and gas scale/sludge to 2.4E-09 for
exposure from a repeatedly fertilized field.
Estimated health effects from radon inhalation to office workers who work inside
buildings at the NORM storage and disposal sites are given in Table D.3-2. Estimated
70-year lifetime risks of fatal cancer from one year of exposure for these office workers range
from 9.3E-02 at the geothermal waste site to 1.2E-04 at the landfill site for water treatment
sludge. Health effects to office workers from indoor radon inhalation dominate the worker
risks at the NORM waste sites. In general, the cancer risks from radon inhalation to persons
working in offices located on top of waste piles are estimated to be about three orders of
magnitude larger than the cancer risks from gamma exposure to persons working on the
NORM waste piles.
D-3-1
-------
Table D.3-1. Worker doses and health effects from storage or disposal of diffuse NORM.
Exposure Scenario
Direct Gamma Exposure
Dose (mrem/yr)*
Health Effects"
Dust Inhalation
Dose (mrem)b
Health Effects*
Uranium
Overburden
6.6E+01
2.5E-05
2.8E-02
4.3E-09
Phosphate
Waste
9.9E+01
SJE-05
1.2E-02
1.9E-09
Phosphate
Fertlifater
6.2E-03
2.4E-09
1.7E-05
2.7E-12
Coal
Ash
1.6E+01
6.3E-06
1.1E-02
1.6E-09
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertilizer
2.3E+00
8.8E-07
1.3E-04
2.0E-11
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Landfill
8.0E-01
3.1E-07
4.8E-05
7.6E-12
Mineral
Processing
Waste
1.6E+02
6.9E-05
6.9E-02
1.1E-08
Oil A Gas
Scale/Sludge
6.6E+02
2.5E-04
4.0E-02
6.3E-09
Geothermal
Waste
6.7E+01
2.6E-06
2.5E-02
3.8E-09
I
The annual whole body effective dose equivalent (mrenVyr).
The 60-year committed dose equivalent (mrem) from one year of intake.
The 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
-------
Table D.3-2. Risks from radon Inhalation.
Water Water
Treatment Treatment Mineral
Exposure Scenario
Office Worker
Health Effects"
Onsite Individual
Health Effects"
Member of CPG
Health Effects"
Population
Health Effects"
Uranium
Overburden
1.8E-02
6.0E-02
4.3E-07
3.8E-03
Phosphate
Waste
1.2E-02
3.9E-02
2.8E-07
1.6E-02
Phosphate
FertUUer
3.0E-06
B.4E-12
1.6E-07
Coal
Ash
1.4E-04
4.6E-04
3.0E-09
7.8E-05
Sludge -
FertUUer
l.OE-03
1.6E-09
4.7E-05
Sludge -
Undfill
1.2E-04
3.8E-04
2.6E-09
1.2e-05
Processing
Waste
2.7E-02
8.9E-02
6.3E-07
1.7e-03
QUA Gas
Scale/Sludge
2.1E-02
7.0E-02
4.6E-07
6.8C-04
Geothermal
Waste
9.3E-02
3.1E-01
1.9E-06
5.5E-03
a The 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure. Health effects to the office worker and the onsite individual are for indoor exposure. Health effects
to the member of the CPG located 100 m downwind of the site are for outdoor exposure.
b The number of excess fatal cancers expected int he exposed population as a result of one year of exposure. The number of persons in the exposed population is given in
Table D.2-3.
-------
3.2 DOSES AND RISKS TO MEMBERS OF THE CRITICAL PQPTTLATIQN GROUP
(CPG)
Estimated doses and risks to members of the CPG are shown in Table D.3-2 for radon
inhalation scenarios and in Table D.3-3 for all other exposure scenarios that were evaluated.
f
The CPG is assumed to be located 100 meters away from the waste site. The cancer risks
from indoor radon inhalation dominate the CPG risk calculations. Estimated 70-year lifetime
risks of fatal cancer from one year of exposure to persons living in houses located on
abandoned NORM waste storage or disposal sites range from 3.1E-01 at the geothermal
waste site to 3.0E-06 on a repeatedly fertilized field (see Table D.3-2).
For exposure scenarios other than radon inhalation (Table D.3-3), the direct gamma
exposure pathways dominate. The highest exposures, of the order of l.OE+04 mrem/yr, and
highest risks, of the order of 5.0E-03 lifetime risk of fatal cancer from one year of exposure,
result from the use of phosphate and mineral processing wastes in wallboard for home
construction. Direct gamma exposures to persons who reside at abandoned waste sites are
estimated to range from about 3.0E+03 mrem/yr at the oil and gas scale/sludge site to about
0.03 mrem/yr on a repeatedly fertilized field. Estimated 70-year lifetime risks of fatal cancer
from one year of exposure range from 1.2E-04 at the oil and gas scale/sludge site to 1.1E-08
at the repeatedly fertilized field. Doses and health effects from consumption of contaminated
foodstuffs are estimated to be very small compared to doses and health effects from direct
gamma exposure.
3.3 POPULATION DOSES AND RISKS
Estimated population risks from downwind exposure to radon are given in Table D.3-2.
The collective doses and risks from other exposure pathways that were evaluated are given
in Table D.3-4.
The largest collective doses and risks are calculated for the exposure pathway
involving the use of river water contaminated by surface runoff. For this exposure pathway
the estimated collective doses range from 1.1E+05 person-mrem for the uranium overburden
D-3-4
-------
Table D.S-3. Individual doses and health effects from storage or disposal of diffuse NORM.
Exposure Scenario
Onsite - Direct Gamma
Dose (mrem/yr)"
Health Effects'1
CPG Direct Gamma
Dose (mrem/yr)*
Health Effects'
CPG Dust Inhalation
Dose (mremr
Health Effects'*
NORM in Building
Materials
Dose (mrem/yr)*
Health Effects'1
Drink Contaminated Well
Water
Dose (mrem)c
Health Effects'1
Foodstuffs Contaminated
by Well Water
Dose (mrera)*
Health Effects'1
Foodstuffs Contaminated
by Dust Deposition
Dose (mrem)c .
Health Effects'1
Foodstuffs from Fertilized
Soil
Dose (mrem)c
Health Effects'1
Uranium
Overburden
2.9E+02
1.1E-04
8.9E+01
3.6E-05
2.7E-02
4.2E-09
-
5.7E-03
8.7E-10
8.6E-03
1.3E-09
4.6E-07
7.1E-14
Phosphate
Waste
4.6E+02
1.8E-04
1.4E+02
6.3E-05
4.9E-03
7.6E-10
1.1E+04
4.4E-03
1.3E-01
2.1E-08
2.0E-01
3.2E-08
2.6E-07
3.8E-14
-
Phosphate
Fertilizer
28E-02
1.1E-08
8.6E-03
3.3E-09
1.7E-05
2.6E-12
-
1.2E-07
1.9E-14
1.8E-07
2.8E-14
l.OE-10
1.6E-17
6.6E-04
8.5E-11
Coal
Ash
7.4E+01
2.9E-05
2.3E+01
8.8E-06
2.0E-03
3.0E-10
1.9E+03
7.3E-04
6.2E-01
9.6E-08
9.6E-01
1.6E-07
3.2E-08
4.9E-15
-
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertilizer
l.OE+01
4.0E-06
3.1E+00
1.2E-06
l.BE-04
2.3E-11
-
2.6E-05
4.0E-12
4.0E-05
6.2E-12
1.6E-08
2.3E-15
6.6E-02
l.OE-08
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Landfill
3.6E+00
1.4E-06
1.1E+00
4.3E-07
6.1E-05
9.6E-12
-
8.0E-06
1.2E-12
1.2E-06
1.9E-12
6.9E-09
9.1E-16
-
Mineral
Processing
Waste
6.9E+02
2.7E-04
2.1E+02
8.2E-05
6.6E-02
l.OE-08
1.7E+04
6.7E-03
3.3E-03
5.2E-10
5.1E-03
7.9E-10
7.7E-07
1.2E-13
-
Oil ft Gas
Scale/Sludge
3.0E+03
1.2E-03
9.0E+02
3.6E-04
3.6E-03
5.6E-10
-
1.8E+00
2.9E-07
2.8E*00
4.4E-07
3.2E-0?
4.9E-14
-
Geothermal
Waste
3.0E+02
1.2E-04
9.3E+01
3.6E-05
2.1E-03
3.2E-10
1.4E-01
2.1E-08
2.1E-01
3.3E-08
2.6E-07
3.8E-14
-
a The annual whole body effective dose equivalent (mrem/yr).
b The 50-year committed dose equivalent (rarern) from one year of intake.
c The 60-year committed dose equivalent (mrem) from one year of uptake.
d The 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
-------
Table D.S-4. Population doses and health effect* from storage or disposal of diffuse NORM.
Exposure Scenario
Exposure to Resuspended
Parliculates
Dose (person-mrem)*
Health Effects6
River Water
Contaminated by
Groundwater
Dose (person-mrem)*
Health Effects*
River Water
Contaminated by Surface
Runoff
Dose (person-mrem)"
Health Effects'1
Foodstuffs from Fertilized
Soil
Dose (pcrson-mrem)8
Health Effects'"
Uranium
Overburden
2.4E+02
3.7E-05
l.OE+01
1.6E-06
1.1E+05
1.7E-02
--
Phosphate
Waste
2.7E+02
4.4E-06
2.9E+03
4.6E-04
2.3E+05
3.6E-02
-
Phosphate
Fertlliier
4.8E-01
7.6E-08
9.0E-04
1.4E-10
6.3E+00
9.8E-07
2.7E+00
4.2E-07
Coal
Ash
5.0E+01
7.9E-06
3.7E+03
6.8E-04
6.4E+04
8.3E-03
-
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Fertilizer
4.1E+00
7.3E-07
1.7E-01
2.6E-08
l.OE+03
1.6E-04
3.2E+02
6.0E-05
Water
Treatment
Sludge -
Landfill
3.2E-01
5.5E-08
7.1E-03
1.1E-09
6.1E+01
7.9E-06
-
Mineral
Processing
Waste
1.7E+02
2.7E-05
6.9E-01
9.1E-08
1.7E+04
2.6E-03
-
OUAGas
Scale/Sludge
6.6E+00
9.8E-07
2.7E+02
4.2E-06
3.6E+04
5.6E-03
-
Geothermal
Waste
6.7E+00
1.2E-06
1.7E+01
2.7E-06
4.9E+04
7.6E-03
-
a The 50-year committed dose equivalent to the exposed population from one year of intake (uptake). The nu mber of persons in the exposed population is given in Table D.2-3.
b The number of excess fatal cancers expected in the exposed population as a result of one year of exposure. The number of persons in the exposed population is given in Table
D.2-3.
-------
NORM sector to 6.3 person-mrem for the phosphate fertilizer NORM sector. The
corresponding cumulative health effects to the exposed populations range from 1.7E-02 for
uranium overburden to 9.8E-07 for phosphate fertilizer.
3«4 BENCHMARKING THE DOSE METHODOLOGY
CPG doses from two exposure scenarios were also calculated with the
PRESTO-CPG-PC code (EPA89b) as a benchmark for the dose equations used in the present
analysis. PRESTO-CPG-PC was used instead of PATHRAE because it represents a more
independent check on the calculated doses. The two exposure scenarios calculated with
PRESTO are well water ingestion and dust inhalation of radionudides from disposed oil and
gas production scales and sludges. Insofar as possible, PRESTO used the input parameters
given in section D.2.3. The resulting doses are given by scenario and nuclide in Table D.3-5.
The major differences in the well water ingestion results are due to differences in leach rates.
The major differences in the dust inhalation results are due to vastly different resuspension
rates. If the PRESTO resuspension rates are increased to equal those from the simple
formalism, the inhalation doses are also different by a factor of about three.
3.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Estimated dominant risks to workers at NORM storage and disposal sites are
summarized in Table D.3-6. For disposal pile workers, the dominant exposure pathway is
direct gamma exposure. 70-year lifetime risks from one year of exposure range from 2.5E-04
for the oil and gas scale/sludge NORM sector to 2.4E-09 for workers on fields repeatedly
fertilized with phosphate fertilizer. Health risks to office workers exposed to indoor radon
inhalation are significantly higher than health risks to disposal pile workers. For indoor
radon inhalation, 70-year lifetime risks from one year of exposure range from 9.3E-02 for the
geothermal waste sector to 1.2E-04 for landfill disposal of water treatment sludge.
D-3-7
-------
Table D.3-5. Benchmark of methodology for oil and gas scale/sludge.
Simple
Methodology PRESTO
Dose Dose Simple
Nuclide (mr*»m/v"r)
Well Water Ingestion
Po-210 4.7E-01 7.8E-01 0.60
Pb-210 1.4 4.7 0.30
Dust Inhalation
Po-210 2.2E-04 1.1E-06 200
Pb-210 3.3E-04 5.9E-07 559
Ra-226 2.0E-04 2.2E-06 91
Th-228 2.8E-03 2.0E-05 140
D-3-8
-------
Table D.3-6. Summary of dominant risks to workers from one year
of exposure.
Disposal Pile Worker
Office Worker
Waste Sector
Uranium Overburden
Phosphate Waste
Phosphate Fertilizer
Coal Ash
Water Treatment
Health
Effects8
2.5E-05
3.8E-05
2.4E-09
6.3E-06
8.8E-07
Dominant
Pathway
Direct Gamma
Direct Gamma
Direct Gamma
Direct Gamma
Direct Gamma
Health
Effects8
1.8E-02
1.2E-02
~
1.4E-04
..
Dominant
Pathway
Radon Inhalation
Radon Inhalation
Radon Inhalation
Sludge - Fertilizer
Water Treatment
Sludge landfill
Mineral Processing
Waste
Oil & Gas Scale/Sludge
Geothermal Waste
3.1E-07 Direct Gamma 1.2E-04 Radon Inhalation
5.9E-05 Direct Gamma 2.7E-02 Radon Inhalation
2.5E-04 Direct Gamma 2.1E-02 Radon Inhalation
2.6E-05 Direct Gamma 9.3E-02 Radon Inhalation
a The 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
D-3-9
-------
Estimated dominant risks to members of the CPG are summarized in Table D.3-7.
The table shows maximum health risks from exposure pathways exclusive of radon inhalation
and health risks from radon inhalation pathways. For exposure pathways exclusive of radon
inhalation the dominant CPG health risks are from direct gamma exposure, either to a
person assumed to live onsite at an abandoned disposal site or from exposure to NORM in
building materials. 70-year lifetime risks from one year of exposure range from 6.7E-03 for
the mineral processing waste NORM sector to 1.1E-08 for a field repeatedly fertilized with
phosphate fertilizer. For radon inhalation, the dominant CPG health risks are estimated to
result from indoor exposure to radon by a person living onsite at an abandoned site. 70-year
lifetime risks from one year of exposure to indoor radon are estimated to be one or two orders
of magnitude higher than risks from direct gamma exposure, ranging from 3.1E-01 for the
geothermal waste sector to 3.0E-06 for a field repeatedly fertilized with phosphate fertilizer.
Estimated population health effects (e.g., cumulative health effects to persons living
offsite) are shown in Table D.3-8 for the reference site and in Table D.3-9 for the total U.S.
population impacted by each NORM sector. The largest number of cumulative health effects
is associated with the coal ash NORM sector, in part because of the large number of sites
required to deplete the total 20-year inventory. Two of the NORM sectors have total
population health effects equal to or greater than unity. The sectors with the lowest total
population health effects are water treatment sludge, oil and gas scale/sludge, and
geothermal waste, each having 0.1 health effects or less from one year of exposure.
The risk assessment results suggest that a relatively moderate number of health
effects could result from the improper use or disposal of diffuse NORM wastes. The risk
assessment results indicate that less than 20 lifetime health effects could occur to the total
population from one year of exposure to diffuse NORM. The dominant NORM sectors from
a population health risk standpoint are coal ash and mineral processing wastes.
These results are based only on the total NORM waste volume generated over the next
20 years. It is anticipated that should the total inventory of NORM wastes accumulated to
date be used instead, the total number of health effects would certainly increase significantly.
However, this assumption would most likely be unrealistic because the accumulated waste
inventory is not in a readily accessible and useable form, as postulated in this report, and
D-3-10
-------
Table D.3-7. Summary of dominant risks _to the critical population
group from one year of exposure.
Exposure Pathways
Except Radon Inhalation
Radon Inhalation
Waste Sector
Uranium
Overburden
Phosphate Waste
Health
Effects8
1.1E-04
4.4E-03
Dominant
Pathway
Onsite - Direct
Gamma
NORM in
Building
Materials
Health
Effects8
6.0E-02
3.9E-02
Dominant
Pathway
Onsite
Indoor Exposure
Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
Phosphate 1.1E-08
Fertilizer
Coal Ash 7.3E-04
Water Treatment 4.0E-06
Sludge - Fertilizer
Water Treatment 1.4E-06
Sludge T .and fill
Mineral Processing 6.7E-03
Waste
Oil & Gas 1.2E-03
Scale/Sludge
Geothermal Waste 1.2E-04
Onsite Direct
Gamma
NORM in
Building
Materials
Onsite - Direct
Gamma
Onsite Direct
Gamma
NORM in
Building
Materials
Onsite Direct
Gamma
Onsite Direct
Gamma
3.0E-06 Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
4.5E-04 Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
l.OE-03
3.8E-04
8.9E-02
Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
Onsite Indoor
Exposure
Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
7.0E-02 Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
3.1E-01 Onsite - Indoor
Exposure
a The 70-year lifetime risk of a fatal cancer from one year of exposure.
D-3-11
-------
Table D.3-8. Summary of cumulative health effects per reference
site from one year of exposure.
Waste Sector
Health Effects*
Uranium Overburden
Phosphate Waste
Phosphate Fertilizer
Coal Ash
Water Treatment Sludge -
Fertiliser
Water Treatment Sludge -
Landfill
Mineral Processing Waste
Oil & Gas Scale/Sludge
Geothermal Waste
1.7E-02
3.5E-02
9.8E-07
8.9E-03
1.6E-04
7.9E-06
2.6E-03
5.6E-03
7.6E-03
Dominant Pathway
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
River Water Contaminated
by Surface Runoff
a Number of excess fatal cancers (70-year lifetime risk) expected in the exposed population
as a result of one year of exposure. The number of persons in the exposed population per
reference site is given in Table D.2-3.
D-3-12
-------
Table D.3-9. Summary of cumulative health effects in the United
States from one year of exposure.
Waste Sector
Number of Sites for
20-Year Inventory
Fertilizer
Water Treatment Sludge -
Mineral Processing Waste
Oil & Gas Scale/Sludge
Geothermal Waste
2.3E+02
6.7E+02
l.OE+01
2.0E+00
Health Effects8
Uranium Overburden
Phosphate Waste
Phosphate Fertilizer
Coal Ash
Water Treatment Sludge -
1.4E+01
1.5E+01
9.4E+05
1.3E+03
4.4E+02
2.4E-01
5.2E-01
9.2E-01
1.2E+01
7.0E-02
1.8E-03
1.7E+00
5.6E-02
1.5E-02
a The number of excess fatal cancers (70-year lifetime risk) expected in the total U.S.
population as a result of one year of exposure.
D-3-13
-------
currently there is no outlet which would allow that much NORM waste to be recycled.
Given the uncertainties associated with waste volumes, radionuclide concentrations,
and exposure pathway models and parameters, it is estimated that the results of this risk
assessment analysis are within a factor of 3 of results obtained when using more
sophisticated computer codes. In general, it is suspected that the variability of the results
is asymmetric, in the sense that the degree of conservatism is more pronounced on the lower
range of the input parameters and assumptions »-h«*« on the higher end. Accordingly,
depending upon a specific input parameter or assumption, the results may reveal a still
greater degree of variability. Finally, it should be noted that changing a parameter does not
always yield results that are directly proportional since competing factors may nullify an
increase in a specific parameter.
These NORM waste risk assessments are based on relatively simple models that
incorporate a number of assumptions, some better defined than others. Thus the results
incorporate some uncertainty. The results imply, however, that the number of potential
health effects associated with some NORM sectors may be significant enough to warrant
more detailed modeling of NORM waste storage and disposal practices in order to further
refine the risk assessment analysis.
D-3-14
-------
CHAPTER D
TOES
EPA87a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "PATHRAE-EPA: A Performance
Assessment Code for the Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Documentation
and Users Manual," Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 520/1-87-028,
December 1987.
EPASTb U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "PRESTO-EPA-POP: A Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Environmental Transport and Risk Assessment Code,
Volume I, Methodology Manual," Office of Radiation Programs, EPA
520/1-85-001, draa, November 1987.
EPA88a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Low-Level and NARM Radioactive
Wastes, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Rules, Volume
1, Background Information Document," EPA 520/1-87-012-1, June 1988.
EPA88b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Limiting Values of Radionuclide
Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation,
Submersion, and Ingestion," EPA-520/1-88-020, September 1988.
EPA89a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Risk Assessment Methodology,
Environmental Impact Statement for NESHAPS Radionuclides, Volume 1,
Background Information Document," EPA 520/1-89-005, September 1989.
EPA89b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "A PC Version of the
PRESTO-EPA-CPG Operation System," EPA 520/1-89-017, April 1989.
NRC87 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Methods for Estimating Radioactive and
Toxic Airborne Source Terms for Uranium Milling Operations," Regulatory
Guide 3.59, March 1987.
ROG85 Rogers, V.C. et al., "The PATHRAE-T Performance Assessment Code for
Analyzing Risks From Radioactive Wastes," Rogers and Associates Engineering
Corp. report to U.S. Department of Energy, RAE-8339/12-2, December 1985.
D-R-1
-------
E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
E.1 CONCLUSIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in September 1989, developed a
preliminary risk assessment characterizing generation and disposal practices of wastes which
contain diffuse levels of naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM). Such wastes are
typically generated in large volumes of potentially recyclable materials which contain Ra-226
at elevated concentrations. The preliminary risk assessment report was prepared as an initial
step in the development of acceptable standards governing the disposal and re-use of NORM
waste and material. These bulk wastes and materials are of such large volume and relatively
low radionuclide concentrations that it was deemed inappropriate to include them within the
scope of other proposed rulemaking activities. The preliminary report indicated that there
exists a need to further review the data, assumptions, and models used in that report,
provide additional information on categories of diffuse NORM wastes which were not
explicitly addressed, and perform a more detailed risk assessment. This report, prepared in
response to these recommendations, presents the results of further characterization efforts
and a revised risk assessment analysis.
All soils and rocks are known to contain some amounts of naturally-occurring
radioactive material (NORM). The major radionuclides are uranium and thorium, and their
respective decay products. One of the decay products is radium (Ra-226) and its daughters
products, which are the principal radionuclides of concern in characterizing the redistribution
of radioactivity in the environment. Radium is normally present in soil in trace
concentrations of about one picocurie per gram (pCi/g).
Certain processes, however, tend to reconcentrate or enrich the radioactivity to much
higher levels in the resulting waste or by-product materials. The concentration of radium in
wastes «»n vary considerably and primarily depends upon the initial levels and processes
reconcentrating the radium. Such processes include mining and beneficiation, mineral
processing, coal combustion, the treatment of drinking water, among others. Some of the
NORM wastes or materials are being generated in large quantities and typically disposed or
E-l-1
-------
stored at the point of generation. At times, however, NORM material and waste are used in
various applications which may result in unnecessary radiation exposures, potential adverse
health effects, or environmental contamination.
NORM waste generation and disposal practices were, characterized for eight NORM
sectors. The largest inventories of NORM wastes are associated with mineral processing,
phosphate rock production, uranium mining, and coal combustion from utility and industrial
boilers. Each of these processes generate large volumes of waste with annual production rates
of several million metric tons. Over the next 20 years, these NORM sectors will generate
significant waste inventories ranging from about 1 to 20 billion metric tons. Smaller
quantities of waste are generated by the petroleum industry (oil and gas pipe scale) and by
drinking water treatment facilities. It is anticipated that water treatment facilities and the
petroleum industry will generate 6 and 13 million metric tons of waste over the next 20
years, respectively. Phosphate fertilizers, while not a waste, are included in this analysis
because of their elevated radium concentrations. It is estimated that about 100 million metric
tons of fertilizers will be applied in agricultural fields over the next 20 years.
It should be noted that these estimates incorporate a large degree of uncertainty since
the characterization of these NORM sectors is based on limited information and data (see the
next section for further details on this aspect). It was also concluded that for some NORM
sectors, waste generation and disposal practices were partially represented or that the
available information was deemed to be inadequate or incomplete. Accordingly, there is a
need to better characterize the radiological and physical properties of these wastes, evaluate
NORM waste disposal and application practices, and refine waste generation rate estimates.
The risk assessment analyses addresses several exposure pathways to the public and
to workers for each of the eight NORM sectors. Such pathways include direct radiation
exposures while standing on NORM waste or material, standing at a hypothetical facility
fence post, and due to the incorporation of waste in building materials. Inhalation exposures
are due to resuspended airborne particulates and radon emissions from waste piles. Indoor
radon in structures is also considered for homes erected over waste and incorporating NORM
in building materials.
E-l-2
-------
For internal exposure, this assessment considers the drinking of ground and surface
water, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and the ingestion of animal products (meat and
milk). The risk assessment assumes that the water and foodstuff contain residual levels
radioactivity. In water, it is assumed that waste leachates have contaminated ground and
surface water sources. All water needs are assumed to be supplied from a well or surface
stream, including domestic and agricultural uses. Vegetables and fruits are assumed to be
grown in soils containing NORM waste and livestocks are assumed to be grazing in
contaminated pastures.
The results reveal that for the Critical Population Group (CPG), six NORM sectors
dominate with annual non-radon risks ranging from 1.1 x 10"* to 6.7 x 10"3. These sectors,
in a decreasing order of risks, are mineral processing waste, phosphate waste, oil and gas
scale, coal ash, geothermal waste, and uranium overburden. The remaining sectors are
characterized by annual risks which are less than 6.0 x 10"6. The dominant exposure
pathways associated with these risks include direct radiation from the use of NORM wastes
in building materials, and while standing on NORM wastes, or at the fence post. In terms
of indoor radon exposures, all NORM sectors except phosphate fertilizer dominate with
annual risks ranging from 0.31 to 3.8 x 10"*. The phosphate fertilizer NORM sector has a
resulting annual CPG risk of 3.0 x 10"6. In the aggregate, the CPG risks associated with all
ingestion exposure pathways are typically 10"6 or less. The annual risks due to downwind
radon exposures are less than 10"7 across all NORM sectors.
The risks to disposal pile workers range from 2.5 x 10"4 for the oil and gas scale sector
to 2.4 x 10"9 for the phosphate fertilizer sector. For office workers, the risks are mainly from
radon daughter inhalation and range from 9.3 x 10"2 for geothermal waste to 1.2 x 10"4 for
water treatment sludge.
The number of population health effects at each generic site, ranges from 3.5 x 10"2
to 7.9 x 10"6. In decreasing order of potential number of health effects, the NORM sectors are
phosphate waste, uranium overburden, coal ash, geothermal waste, oil and gas scale, mineral
processing, water treatment, and phosphate fertilizers. The dominant exposure pathway is
radon for four of the seven NORM sectors. Ingestion of well water (for both, oil and gas scale,
and coal ash) and foodstuff (for phosphate fertilizers) are the controlling pathways for the
remaining three NORM sectors. The potential number of health effects due to downwind
E-l-3
-------
radon exposure ranges from 3.5 x 10'2 to 5.5 x 10"*. In decreasing order of potential number
of health effects, these NORM sectors are phosphate waste, uranium overburden, mineral
processing waste, oil and gas scale, coal ash, water treatment sludge, and phosphate
fertilizers.
The risk assessment results suggest that a relatively moderate number of health
effects could result from the improper use or disposal of diffuse NORM wastes. The risk
assessment results indicate that about 30 population health effects could occur from
exposures received over the next 20 years, with some individual risks as high as 3 in a 1000.
The dominant NORM sectors and their respective health effects are phosphate fertilizers with
17, mineral processing with 2, coal ash with 12, and water treatment sludge with 1. These
results are based only on the total NORM waste volume generated over the next 20 years.
It is anticipated that should the total inventory of NORM wastes accumulated to date be used
instead, the total number of health effects would certainly increase significantly. However,
this assumption would most likely be unrealistic because the accumulated waste inventory
is not in a readily accessible and useable form, as postulated in this report, and currently
there is no outlet which would allow that much NORM waste to be recycled.
Given the uncertainties associated with waste volumes, radionuclide concentrations,
and exposure pathway model and parameters, it is estimated that the results of this risk
assessment analysis are within a factor of 3 of results obtained when using more
sophisticated computer codes. In general, it is suspected that the variability of the results is
asymmetric, in the sense that the degree of conservatism is more pronounced on the lower
range of the input parameters and assumptions than on the higher end. Accordingly,
depending upon a specific input parameter or assumption, the results may reveal a still
greater degree of variability. Finally, it should be noted that changing a parameter does not
always yield results that are directly proportional since competing factors may nullify an
increase in a specific parameter.
Given that these results are based on a number of assumptions, some better defined
than others, these estimates are still uncertain. The results imply, however, that the number
of potential health effects may be significant enough to warrant additional characterization
of NORM waste generation and disposal practices in order to further refine risk assessment
analysis.
E-l-4
-------
Even with these uncertainties, however, it is clear that a significant number of health
effects and high risks could occur for a limited number of individuals in exposed populations.
Therefore, it is worth evaluating the regulatory options that exist to control NORM wastes.
One option for regulating the disposal of NORM wastes would be the use of RCRA, to require
disposal in RCRA hazardous waste disposal facilities. This may not be a particularly feasible
option as RCRA does not now include radioactivity as a characteristic used to define
hazardous wastes.
Another option with RCRA would be the use of Subtitle D requirements for regulated
disposal. This option is being studied by EPA for certain mineral processing wastes, but the
use of Subtitle D is less desirable, since Subtitle D lacks Federal enforcement capabilities.
Another major constraint with the use of RCRA, however, in that RCRA only has authority
over waste disposal. Since much of the health impact from NORM waste comes about from
reuse that is not appropriate, RCRA could not be used to control that aspect since it would
be considered recycling and not waste disposal.
There are currently regulations being considered which apply to the disposal of higher
concentrations of NORM wastes (greater that 2,000 pCi/g). These regulations are being
prepared under the authority of Section 6 of TSCA, which could also be used to regulate the
diffuse NORM wastes. Under Section 6, materials found to present unreasonable risk to the
public can be controlled in a variety of manners, including requirements on disposal,
manufacture, distribution in commerce, and use of warning labels and record keeping.
Finally, the EPA, under the Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA), could assume
the authority to regulate the manufacture and disposal or commercial distribution of items,
materials, and waste containing NORM found to present an unreasonable public health risk.
Additional requirements could involve the placement of warning labels on some items or
signs in some areas and necessitate a record keeping and inventory system for specific
categories of NORM material. Currently, there is an impetus to consider using TSCA to
regulate higher activity NORM wastes and it may be appropriate to extend TSCA to also
regulate diffuse NORM wastes as well. With TSCA, the EPA could prohibit certain use and
application of NORM wastes which present unreasonable public health risks or could result
in environmental contamination.
E-l-5
-------
F.2 RECOMMENDATIO> 3
The following summar zes a number of specific Recommendations based on the
information and data presente in Chapter B. It is recommended that in subsequent efforts
these aspects be considered in refining and updating the existing characterization of each
NORM sector and risk assessm :nt analyses. It should be noted that these recommendations,
as discussed below, are not all < imprehensive, but are included here for illustrative purposes
and to give a sense of perspect /e on the type and scope of the uncertainties associated with
the results of this analysis. Th . reader is referred to Chapter B for more details regarding
each NORM sector.
FJ2.1 Waste Vol«m«»« and C laracteristics
For some of the eight I ORM sectors, there is a need to further characterize waste
volumes and generation rates, a some cases, the assumed amount of wastes contained in the
pile or held in inventory ma} in fact represent varying fractions or multiples of yearly
generation rates. There may . Iso be some inconsistencies between the volume of NORM
waste assumed to be stored r - a site and the yearly average quantity based on current
practices and projections. The unounts and total waste inventory stored at any one site is
known to vary since some wa tes are always added and subjected to waste management
procedures. Because of this dyr imic process, it may be in fact difficult to define a generic site
which is representative of a s lecific NORM sector. It should also be noted that in some
instances, because of a declinir i industry or business, the projected 20-year waste inventory
is dwarfed by the total amount , of waste already stockpiled from past activities. It may just
be that any additional waste v hich will be generated over the next 20 years, in itself, does
not present a significantly grez er degree of risk when compared to the risks associated with
existing inventories. According y, there is a need to determine if a specific NORM sector or
site should be considered unc jr the umbrella of reclamation program, or fall under the
jurisdiction of future NORM re ulations. A threshold, based on yearly waste generation rates
and existing waste inventorie , could perhaps define the category (either reclamation or
subject to proposed NORM reg ilations) in which a NORM sector or site belongs.
E-l-6
-------
It was noted that NORM wastes may be used in several types of applications, from
building and construction materials to consumer products. Because of the bulk quantities,
there is a need evaluate, based on a survey, the mobility of this material from the point of
generation to the point of processing, use, or manufacturing, including amounts of wastes
used or incorporated in building materials at the local and regional or national level. For
example, what are the technical and economic factors which may lead a specific user to select
one NORM waste generator among others? Are there threshold quantities below which the
transportation costs outweigh the cost of the material itself? Such considerations may reveal
that perhaps the bulk the waste is simply not used or, if so, only in limited quantities and
within the locality in which they are produced. Consequently, there may be a limit inthe rate
of utilization of NORM wastes. Should this be the case, the profile of the population risks and
health effects may shift from what may have been perceived as exposures to distant
end-users to only a very few nearby site residents. The potential health risks may then be
confined to short distances around each waste generator. Some sources of information and
data which may help answering these questions, as well as others, include the upcoming
results of the American Water Works Association 1989 survey of water utilities, the federal
reporting data system of water utilities, and the American Petroleum Institute NORM data
bank.
Another point which needs to be examined in greater depth, given the physical
characteristics of such wastes, is the potential re-use limited to only a few application? If so,
there is a need to reevaluate the risk assessment models to ensure that the exposure
pathways being considered are indeed realistic with current or anticipated applications. For
example, in considering uranium overburden, would such material be used as backfill or for
land reclamation on large scale given that mining sites are typically located in arid and
remote regions of the U.S.? Similarly, are certain NORM wastes suitable for incorporation
in construction materials? For example, wastes which have been subjected to chemical
extraction or processing may have physical properties which make them less desirable than
other competing materials. Conceivably, such wastes will have a narrower range of
applications and, hence, a limited number of potential exposure pathways.
E-l-7
-------
This report has identified that, for any given NORM sector, it is not uncommon for
radionuclide concentrations to vary by several orders of magnitude. This variation is
primarily due to two factors: 1) the natural variability of radionuclide concentrations in any
materials, and 2) processes or practices which are specific to a NORM sector. The wastes
generated by some of the sectors is poorly understood because of the paucity of the data. The
literature contains only a few studies and in most cases, a few specific sites were evaluated
for each waste form. In addition, the characterization of some of the industries was based on
very limited field sampling and analysis programs, with a limited number of samples taken
at each site and in some instances none at all It is generally believed by geologists that the
presence of naturally-occurring radioactivity is more dependent upon the geological formation
or region than a particular type of mineral ore. It will also be apparent that ores often
contain many different minerals. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that the radionuclide
content of one type of ore and its associated wastes will be representative of a NORM sector
or industry.
The quantity of waste materials and their physical and radiological characteristics
differ widely among the various NORM sectors. In addition, depending on the processing or
treatment methods employed, some of the resulting wastes can contain elevated
concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides. Furthermore, materials stockpiled at any
one site are not always necessarily waste. Some of the wastes are in fact additional resources
which may be subjected to further processing to extract additional minerals.
There have been reports that some of the more uncommon metals have highly
radioactive waste products. Also, some of the processes associated with metal extraction
appear to highly concentrate the radionuclides and enhance their environmental mobility.
Some published information and data to support these arguments have been presented, but
in most cases it is suggested that further studies be conducted prior to reaching any
conclusions.
In considering the presence of radioactivity, there is a need to refine the relationship
between waste volumes and radionuclide concentrations. The existing assessment relies on
average concentrations. It is, however, suspected that concentrations are log-normally
E-l-8
-------
distributed and that the bulk volume is primarily characterized by very low concentrations.
Furthermore, t-hi« assessment noted that for some mineral processing wastes, some ores (e.g.,
copper) may contain uranium in elevated concentrations (at milling grade) which are
equivalent to those found in uranium mines. Such findings, if confirmed, may have a
significant impact on the results and conclusions in the next risk assessment. With respect
to waste forms there is also a need to reevaluate the physical characteristics of the waste
since t*"3 information is used to model the radiological source terms and environmental
transport and mobility. For example, the following items, among others, need to be
re-examined: waste permeability, particle size vs. specific activity, porosity, hydraulic
conductivity, leach rate or coefficient of distribution (Kd).
F.2.3 EnvlropTn«»ntnl Transport Mechanisms
The current analyses consider several transport mechanisms by which NORM
materials or wastes could become a potential source of exposures. These transport
mechanisms include the re-use of NORM wastes into building materials, introduction of
NORM materials in construction activities, application of such wastes as soil conditioners,
atmospheric dispersion, and the infiltration of waste leachates in ground water aquifers and
surface streams. A last category, although not truly an environmental transport mechanism,
addresses direct radiation exposures, to the nearby resident, due to the presence of the
wastes either stored in piles or spread in soils and agricultural fields.
This risk assessment assumes that the bulk of the material is used in its basic form,
for example, unprocessed and as an additive or as clean fill. It should be noted that some
industrial sectors are processing such wastes for mineral resources recovery or as feedstock
for other types of products. It is suspected that additional processing may create a substream
of industrial wastes whose radiological properties are unknown. The commercial end product
may also have radiological properties which may or may not pose a public health risk. This
type of intermediate application or processing across several industrial sectors may result in
the generation of new waste streams and other forms of waste disposal practices.
E-l-9
-------
F.2.4 Exposure Pathways
The risk assessment analyses addressed several exposure pathways for ea h of the
eight NORM sectors. Such pathways include direct radiation exposures while sta iding on
NORM waste or material, standing at a hypothetical facility fence post, and di 3 to the
incorporation of waste in building materials. Inhalation exposures are due to resi spended
airborne particulates and radon emissions from waste piles. Indoor radon in structui ;s is also
considered for homes erected over waste and incorporating NORM in building ma 'rials.
For internal exposure, this assessment considers the drinking of ground an surface
water, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and the ingestion of animal products (: leat and
milk). The risk assessment assumes that the water and foodstuff contain residv il levels
radioactivity. In water, it is assumed that NORM waste leachates have contaminate I ground
and surface waters. All water needs are assumed to be supplied from a ground wat< r well or
surface stream, including domestic and agricultural uses. Vegetables and fruits are issumed
to be grown in soils containing NORM waste and livestocks are assumed to be g azing in
contaminated pastures.
The exposure pathways selected for this assessment are comprehensive a: d are in
agreement with similar studies performed by the EPA and others. It is currently ei /isioned
that no new pathways need to be considered unless currently unforeseen mode of e :posures
are identified as a results of additional investigation. Consequently, should any a lew risk
assessment analyses be required, existing model parameters should be refined to more
accurately represent each exposure pathway.
F.2.5 Exposed Populations
Exposed populations include workers, the critical population group (CPG) and the
general population in the vicinity of the disposal sites. The analyses consider the states in
which a NORM site might be located, where the waste material might be used 01 applied,
population densities near each site, location of the nearby resident, and an averaj ! type of
residence.
E-l-10
-------
As was noted earlier, the size of the exposed population may be dependent upon the
utilization rate of any specific NORM waste. Should this be the case, the profile of the
exposed population may then shift to nearby residents rather than distant end-users. The
potential health risks may then be confined to short distances around each waste generator.
In assessing the potential number of health effects, there may also be a need to consider
expressing these results as waste volume weighted averages, which would take into account
waste generation rates or existing inventories and the size of the exposed population.
There is also a need to refine the connection between exposure pathways and the size
of the exposed population. For example, when considering the ingestion of contaminated
vegetables and animal food by-products, it may be unrealistic to assume that a NORM site
could impact a food supply which cannot be produced in the immediate surroundings or fulfil
the needs of large population centers. For example, in considering sites located in arid and
remote regions of the southwest, it is highly improbable that a large population segment
would be impacted by a metal mining and processing facility.
F.2.6 Evaluation of Overall TTncertainties
The assumptions and information used in this risk assessment analysis were reviewed
and, for each NORM sector, the parameters and assumptions were examined, and ranked as
to their level of uncertainty. For each exposure pathway, this review considered each NORM
sector and waste, radiological source terms, environmental transport mechanisms, types of
exposure pathways, and exposed populations.
A simple ran long system is used to attach a level of priority to the identified
parameters. The ranking process reflects information gathered to date, literature review, and
technical judgement. For this exercise, a simple numerical ranking scheme is used, for
example, a value of 1 to characterize a parameter with the least uncertainty and 5 for one
with the most. Table F.2-1 presents the results of this ranking process. From this tabulation,
the following conclusions are reached:
The ranking each NORM sector, in a decreasing order of uncertainty, is as
follows: 1) mineral processing, 2) petroleum pipe scale, 3) water treatment,
E-l-11
-------
Table E.2-1. Sources and pathways uncertainties ranking/**
Item
Wastes:
Sites
Volumes
Forms
Pro pert.
Config.
Disposal
Uses
Radiological:
Nudides
Concent.
Propert.
Environmental Transp.
Disposal
Applctn.
Atmosph.
Surf. ttjO
Grnd. H2O
Exp. Pathways:
Inhalatn.
Ext. Rad.
Ingestion
Population:
Sites
Pop. Dens.
CPG
MGP
SUM;
Uranium
Ovrbrdn
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
46
Phosph. Pert.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
34
NA
2
2
3
NA
NA
1
2
2
2
NA
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
31
Coal
Ash
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
r
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
PetroL
Scales
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
Water
Treat.
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
42
63
52
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
71
(a) Ranking system reflects information gathered to date, literature survey, and technical judgeir nt. For
example, a value of 1 characterizes a parameter with the least uncertainty and a value of 5 for ne with
the most.
E-l-12
-------
4) uranium overburden, 5) coal ash, 6) phosphate waste, and 7) phosphate
fertilizers.
Three NORM sectors stand-out as requiring further evaluation, these are
mineral processing, water treatment, and petroleum oil/gas scale.
For two NORM sectors, the ranking scheme indicates that the information
gathered to date is sufficiently detailed for the purpose of this risk
assessment. These 2 NORM sectors include, uranium overburden and coal
ash. It may still be necessary to revisit these two NORM sectors for the
purpose of updating some of the descriptive sector parameters and revise
the risk assessment analysis.
-The phosphate waste and fertilizer NORM sectors are deemed to be
adequately characterized, but may nevertheless require some further
analysis simply for the purpose of refining the risk assessment analysis.
E-l-13
-------
APPENDIX A
TABULATIONS OF DOSE AND
RISK CALCULATIONS TO CHAPTER D
-------
WORKER - DIRECT OAIOIA EXPOSURE
ten Unnlum Overburden
& 1.10E-01
S- 1.33E+05
D(mrem) - G S C * DFQ
R(fatal cancan) . G S * C * RFC
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
2.37E+01
1.20E+00
DPQ
8.SSE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.SOE-14
6.50E-12
D
2.08E-04
7.07E-02
5.79E+01
4.93E+00
1.32E+00
3.08E-02
9.60 E-04
2.77E-02
2.22E-02
2.93E-01
R
8.01 E-11
2.67E-08
2.25E-05
1.90E-06
5.12E-07
1.21 E-08
3.80E-10
1.07E-08
8.67E-09
1.14E-07
TOTAL 6.46E+01 2.51 E-05
A-2
-------
W1b
WORKER DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
Ian Phoiphmti
G- 1.10E-01
& 1.59E+05
(Xmram) . G * S * C * DFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal canec
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
ITS) - G * S
era
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
C * RFC
RFO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
3.95E-04
1.34E-01
9.64E+01
1.59E+00
4.27E-01
2.02E-02
3.10E-04
8.68E-03
6.73E-03
8.76E-02
R
1.52E-10
5.08E-08
3.75E-05
6.14E-07
1.65E-07
7.96E-09
1.23E-10
3.36E-09
2.62E-09
3.41 E-08
TOTAL 9.87E+01 3.84E-05
A-3
-------
W1e
WORKER - DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
Photphato Fertilizer
G. 1.10E-01
S- 9.66E+04
D(mram) - G * S C DFQ
R(fatal cancers) - Q * S '
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1 .80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1 .70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
GFQ
8.SSE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
' C * RFQ
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
1 .64E-08
5.57E-06
4.44E-03
1.22E-03
3.27E-04
1.51E-05
2.16E-07
1 .45E-05
1.16E-05
1.53E-04
R
6.31 E-1 5
2.10E-12
1.73E-09
4.70E-10
1.26E-10
5.95E-12
8.56E-14
5.60E-12
4.52E-12
5.94E-11
TOTAL 6.18E-03 2.40E-09
A-4
-------
W1d
tor.ComlAth
G- 1.10E-01
S. 7.98E+04
D(mrem) - G * S * C * DFG
R(fatal cancers) - G S '
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1 .80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E«00
1 .60E-01
OPQ
8.5SE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-06
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C * RFG
HTO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
S.2SE-05
1.74E-02
5.42E+00
9.47E+00
1.43E+00
1.79E-03
1.21E-03
2.32E-03
1.86E-03
2.35E-02
R
2.03E-11
6.57E-09
2.11E-06
3.6SE-06
5.53E-07
7.07E-10
4.79E-10
8.98E-10
7.24E-10
9.13E-09
TOTAL 1.64E+01 6.33E-06
A-5
-------
WORKER - DRECT OAMHA EXPOSURE
ten Wittr Tnmt Sludg* (Firtlllnr)
G- 1.10E-01
S- 1.13E+05
0(mram) = G * S C DFQ
R(fatal cancers) - G * S * C * RFG
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40 E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.80E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
OPB
8.SSE-10
2.91 E-07
1 .67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
HPO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
4.25E-06
1 .45E-03
1.33E+00
3.3SE-02
8.99E-01
8.83E-06
6.52E-06
1.59E-04
1.27E-04
2.49E-04
R
1.64E-12
5.47E-10
5.17E-07
1 .29E-08
3.48E-07
3.48E-12
2.59E-12
6.17E-11
4.97E-11
9.70E-11
TOTAL 2.26E+00 8.79E-07
A-6
-------
W1f
WORKER MRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
tan Wit r Tntl Sludg* (Lmndflll)
' » 1.10E-01
: =. 1.06E+05
D(mram) . G S * C DFQ
R(fatal cai *rs) - Q * S * C * RFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
C
1.50E-0
1 .50E-0
2.40E-0
3.00E-0
3.00E-0
3.00E-0
3.00E-0
6.00E-0
6.00E-0
5.00E-0
DPO
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.4 IE-OS
1.67E-05
RFB
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
O
1.50E-06
5.09E-04
4.67E-01
1.18E-02
3.16E-01
3.11 E-06
2.29E-06
5.60E-OS
4.48E-05
9.74E-OS
R
5.77E-13
1.92E-10
1.82E-07
4.55E-09
1 .22E-07
1.22E-12
9.09E-13
2.17E-11
1.75E-11
3.79E-1 1
TOTAL 7.96E-01 3.09E-07
A-7
-------
W1g
tar: MiMraJ Proc*M/n0 WM«*
G- 1.10E-01
S- 1.36E+05
0(mram) - G S C DFG
R(fatal cancan) - G * S '
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E*01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
3.50E*01
1.80E+00
OPO
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1 .67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
' C ' RFG
HFB
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
3.20E-04
1.09E-01
8.74E+01
5.04E+01
1.35E+01
4.65E-02
9.81 E-03
4.19E-02
3.36E-02
4.50E-01
R
1.23E-10
4.11 E-08
3.40E-05
1 .94E-05
5.24E-06
1.83E-08
3.89E-09
1 .62E-08
1.31 E-08
1.75E-07
TOTAL 1.52E+02 5.90E-OS
A-8
-------
Wlh WORKER .DMECrOAiaiA EXPOSURE
ton Oil A On SemU/ Studg»
Q. 1.10E-01
S- 1.20E+05
D(mrani) - G * S C DFG
R(fatal cancan) - Q S * C * RFQ
Nuelldi
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1 .55E+02
1.55E+02
1.55E-f02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
. .
- -
- -
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
- -
- -
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.SOE-11
- -
- -
- -
1 .75E-03
S.95E-01
3.42E+02
2.45E+02
6.56E+01
- -
6.7SE-10
2.25E-07
1.33E-04
9.44E-05
2.54E-05
- -
- -
TOTAL 6.53E+02 2.53E-04
A-9
-------
W1I WORKER - DIRECT OA1HIA EXPOSURE
ton 6*otfMHMJ Wm»t»
Q. 1.10E-01
S- 1.30E+04
(Xmrem) - G * S C * DFQ
R(fatal cancan) - Q * S * C * RFG
Nuelld* C OFO HFB
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
-
»
. .
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
- -
- -
- -
- -
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
- -
- -
1 .34E-04
4.58E-02
3.82E+01
1.45E*01
1.42E+01
- -
- -
- -
S.19E-1 1
1.73E-08
1 .49E-OS
S.58E-06
5.51 E-06
-
-
TOTAL 6.69E+01 2.60 E-0 5
A-10
-------
W2a
WORKER DUST INHALATION
ton Urmnlum Onrburdan
O.1.68E-03
& 1.00E+00
O(mrem) - 6 S * C * DRnh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal eanet
e
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1 .OOE+00
2.37E+01
2.37E+01
1.20E+00
n) - Q * S
DRnh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C RRnh
RFInh
1 .SOE-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1.90E-08
D
2.62E-04
3.90E-04
3.42E-04
5.71 E-04
8.06E-06
1.31E-02
2.69E-03
5.18E-03
4.78E-03
2.42E-04
R
4.18E-1 1
6.14E-11
5.18E-11
8.90E-11
1.24E-12
2.03E-09
4.20E-10
7.96E-10
7.57E-10
3.83E-11
TOTAL 2.76E-02 4.29E-09
A-11
-------
W2b
WORKER DUST INHALATION
iOf! PhOSphttB MflMtft
G.1.68E-03
S- 1.00E+00
D(mrem) . Q S * C * DFInh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fata) eancc
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
ire) - Q * S
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E^OO
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * RFInh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1 .90E-08
D
4.17E-04
6.21 E-04
4.77E-04
1.54E-04
2.18E-06
7.21 E-03
7.26E-04
1.35E-03
1.21 E-03
6.05E-06
R
6.65E-1 1
9.76E-1 1
7.21 E-11
2.40E-11
3.36E-13
1.11E-09
1.13E-10
2.08E-10
1.92E-10
9.58E-12
TOTAL 1.22E-02 1.90E-09
A-12
-------
W2e
WORK! ?-DUST INHALATION
Plk :phmt» Fertilizer
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
&
&
D(mrem) -
R(fatal cane
c
1 .80E-03
1 .80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1 .70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
1.68E-03
1.00E+00
S ' C * DRnh
«) - G * S
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * Rflnh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
S.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
D
2.84E-08
4.23E-08
3.61 E-08
1 .94E-07
2.74E-09
8.87E-06
8.33E-07
3.71 E-06
3.43E-06
1.73E-07
R
4.S4E-15
6.6SE-15
5.46E-15
3.03E-14
4.23E-16
1.37E-12
1.30E-13
5.71E-13
5.43E-13
2.75E-14
TOTAL 1.73E-05 2.69E-12
A-13
-------
W2d
WORKER DUST INHALATION
for: Cod
G- 1.68E-03
S-1.00E+00
O(mreni) - G S C DRnh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataJ canct
c
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
ra) - Q * S
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * RFlnh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1 .90E-08
D
1.11E-04
1 .60E-04
5.35E-05
1 .83E-03
1 .4SE-05
1 .28E-03
5.64E-03
7.21 E-04
6.6SE-04
3.23E-OS
R
1.76E-1 1
2.51 E-11
8.08E-12
2.85E-10
2.24E-12
1.97E-10
8.82E-10
1.11E-10
1.05E-10
5.11 E-1 2
TOTAL 1.05E-02 1.64E-09
A-14
-------
W2* WORKER DUST INHALATION
ton Wmtw Tnmt Sludgi (Firtlllxir)
G. 1.68E-03
S-1.00E+00
D(mrem) - Q S * C * DFInh
R(tatal cancan) - Q S * C RFinh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
DFlnh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
RFInh
1 .SOE-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
D
6.32E-06
9.41 E-06
9.2SE-06
4.57E-06
6.45E-06
4.44E-06
2.15E-05
3.49E-OS
3.23E-05
2.42E-07
R
1.01E-12
1.48E-12
1.40E-12
7.12E-13
9.95E-13
6.8SE-13
3.36E-12
5.38E-12
5.11E-12
3.83E-14
TOTAL 1.29E-04 2.02E-11
A-15
-------
W2I
WORKER OUST INHALATION
ton Watir Tnmt Sludg* (Lmdtlll)
G.1.68E-03
S- 1.00E+00
D(mrem) - G * S * C ORnh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal cana
e
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
vs) - G * S
OFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C ' RFInh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
D
2.37E-06
3.53E-06
3.47E-06
1.71E-06
2.42E-06
1 .66E-06
8.06E-06
1.31E-05
1.21E-05
1.01E-07
R
3.78E-13
5.54E-13
5.24E-13
2.67E-13
3.73E-13
2.57E-13
1.26E-12
2.02E-12
1.92E-12
1.60E-14
TOTAL 4.85E-05 7.56E-12
A-16
-------
W2g
WORKER DUST INHALATION
ten Un*ml Procntlng WMf*
fr 1 .68E-03
S-1.00E+00
O(mrem) - 6 S C * DRnh
R(fatal cancan) - Q S
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.80E+00
OFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C ' RRnh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
D
3.95E-04
5.88E-04
S.06E-04
5.71 E-03
8.06E-05
1.94E-02
2.69E-02
7.64E-03
7.06E-03
3.63E-04
R
6.30E-1 1
9.24E-1 1
7.64E-1 1
8.90E-10
1 .24E-1 1
3.00E-09
4.20E-09
1.18E-09
1.12E-09
5.75E-1 1
TOTAL 6.86E-02 1.07E-08
A-17
-------
W2h WORKER - DUST INHALATION
tar: Oil t OM Scata/ Sludg*
G- 1.68E-03
S- 1.00E+00
D(mrem) . G S * C DRnh
R(fatal cancers) - G S C * RRnh
Nuclld* C DFlnh RRnh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1 .55E+02
1.55E+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
. .
. .
. .
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
1 .SOE-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
- -
- -
. .
. -
2.45E-03
3.65E-03
2.24E-03
3.14E-02
4.44E-04
- -
- -
3.91 E-10
S.73E-10
3.39E-10
4.90E-09
6.84E-1 1
- -
- -
»
TOTAL 4.02E-02 6.27E-09
A-18
-------
W2I WORKER - OUST INHALATION
tor:
G. 1.68E-03
S- 1.00E+00
D(mrem) . G * S C * DRnh
R(fatal eancara) - G * S * C * RFInh
Nuclld* C DFInh RFInh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E-f01
1.10E+02
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
. -
- -
- -
- -
1.50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
-
1 .74E-03
2.59E-03
2.31 E-03
1.71E-02
8.87E-04
2.77E-10
4.07E-10
3.49E-10
2.67E-09
1.37E-10
- -
- -
TOTAL 2.47E-02 3.84E-09
A-19
-------
W3a WORKER INDOOR RADON INHALATION
ten Urmntum Orarburdton
O. 4.10E-06
S. 9.17E+08
DFr- 4.00E-06
R(fatal cancers) . Q S DFr
Nuclld* R
Ra-226 1.84E-02
TOTAL 1.84E-02
A-20
-------
W3b WORKER INDOOR RADON INHALATION
fen Phosphmtu Wm»t»
Q. 4.10E-06
S. 5.91 E+08
OR- 4.90E-06
R(fatal eanoara) - G S DFr
Nuelld* B
Ra-226 1.19E-02
TC3TAL 1.19E-02
A-21
-------
Wtt WORKER -INDOOR RADON INHALATION
& 4.10E-06
S- 6.77E+06
DFr- 4.90E-06
R(fatal cannn) - Q S * DFr
Nuelld* R _
Ra-226 1.36E-04
TOTAL 1.36E-04
A-22
-------
W3f WORKER-INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tar: Mfelw Tnmt Sludg* (LmndHII)
G. 4.10E-06
S- 5^5E*06
OFr- 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) - Q S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 1.18E-04
TOTAL 1.18E-04
A-23
-------
W3g WORKER - INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tar: MMrml Pncuulng Wnte
&4.10E-06
S- 1.35E+09
OFr- 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) - G * S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 2.71 E-02
TOTAL 2.71 E-02
A-24
-------
W3h WORKER INDOOR RADON INHALATION
ton Oil 4 GM Seal*/ Sludg»
G- 4.10E-06
S- 1.06E+09
DFr- 4.90E-06
R(fataJ cancers) . Q * S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 2.13E-02
TOTAL 2.13E-02
A-25
-------
W3I WORKER -INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tor; CMfftwiMl Wntu
Q.4.10E-06
S- 4.64E+09
DFr. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) - G S DFr
Nuclld* R
Ra-226 9.32E-02
TOTAL 9.32E-02
A-26
-------
11*
ONSfTE INDIVIDUAL - DIRECT GAUUA EXPOSURE
ton Urmntum
fr 5.00E-01
S- 1.33E+06
D(mram) - Q * S * C * DFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal eanei
e
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2J7E4-01
I.OOE-t-00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1.00E4-00
2.37E+01
2.37E*01
1.20E+00
ra) . Q ' 3 * C ' RFG
ora
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
0.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.S6E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
nra
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
9.44E-04
3.21E-01
2.63E+02
2.24E+01
6.01 E*00
1.40E-01
4.36E-03
1.26E-01
1.01E-01
1.33E+00
R
3.64E-10
1.21 E-07
1.02E-04
8.65E-06
2.33E-06
5.52E-08
1.73E-09
4.89E-08
3.94E-08
S.19E-07
TOTAL 2.94E+02 1.14E-04
A-27
-------
lib
ONSITE INDIVIDUAL DIRECT OAUUA EXPOSURE
ten P/KMp/ute MTMI»
& 5.00E-01
S-1.59E+05
D(mram) - G * S C DFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal cancc
c
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1 .30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
ire) - Q S '
DPB
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C * RFC
BPO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.SOE-12
D
1.79E-03
6.11E-01
4.38E>02
7.23E+00
1.94E+00
9.18E-02
1 .41 E-03
3.94E-02
3.06E-02
3.98E-01
R
6.93E>10
2.31 E-07
1.71E-04
2.79E-06
7.51 E-07
3.62E-08
5.S8E-10
1 .53E-08
1.19E-08
1 .S5E-07
TOTAL 4.48E+02 1.75E-04
A-28
-------
He
ONSITE INDIVIDUAL . DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
Phosphate F«rff/lz«r
G- S.OOE-01
S- 9.66E+04
(Xrnrarn) - G S C OFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataleanet
C
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1.60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
ire) - Q ' S '
OFO
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
' C ' RFC
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.SOE-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
7.43 E-08
2.53E-OS
2.02E-02
5.53E-03
1.48E-03
6.86E-05
9.82E-07
6.S7E-05
5.26E-05
6.94E-04
R
2.87E-14
9.56E-1 2
7.85E-09
2.13E-09
5.75E-10
2.70E-1 1
3.89E-13
2.55E-11
2.05E-11
2.70E-10
TOTAL 2.81 E-02 1.09E-08
A-29
-------
ltd
ONSffE INDIVIDUAL
Ian Goal Ath
DIRECT GAIUIA EXPOSURE
Q. 5.00E-01
S- 7.98E+04
(Xmrem) - Q 3 C DFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatalcance
C
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E*00
1.60E-01
ra) . Q * S '
DPS
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41E-08
1.67E-05
C ' RFQ
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.SOE-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
2.39E-04
7.90E-02
2.47E*01
4.30E+01
6.49E*00
8.15E-03
5.SOE-03
1 .05E-02
8.44E-03
1.07E-01
R
9.22E-1 1
2.98E-08
9.60E-06
1 .66E-OS
2.51 E-06
3.21 E-09
2.18E-09
4.08E-09
3.29E-09
4.15E-08
TOTAL 7.44E+01 2.88E-OS
A-30
-------
11*
ONSITE INDIVIDUAL - DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
tor: Mbtor Tn»t Sludg* {F»rtHU»r)
& S.OOE-01
S- 1.13E+05
D
-------
Ml
QUOTE MOIVIOUAL DIRECT QAIMIA EXPOSURE
Wafer Tnmt Sludg* (LfntHIH)
G. S.OOE-01
& 1.06E+05
D{mrem) - G * S * C DFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataleancc
c
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
rs) . Q S '
era
8.S5E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C RFQ
RFQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.SOE-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
6.80E-06
2.31 E-03
2.12E+00
5.36E-02
1.44E+00
1.41E-05
1 .04E-05
2.54E-04
2.04E-04
4.43E-04
R
2.62E-12
8.75E-10
8.27E-07
2.07E-08
5.S7E-07
5.57E-12
4.13E-12
9.86E-1 1
7.95E-11
1.72E-10
TOTAL 3.62E+00 1.41E-06
A-32
-------
ONSITE INDIVIDUAL DIRECT OAIMIA EXPOSURE
Procuring Wm»t»
Q. 6.00E-01
^ 1.36E+05
(Xmrem) - G S * C * DFQ
R(fatal cancers) - G * S '
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
e
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E>01
1.00E+01
3.50E>01
3.50E+01
1.80E+00
DPO
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
' C ' RFQ
RTO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
O
1 .45E-03
4.95E-01
3.97E>02
2.29Ef02
6.15E+01
2.11E-01
4.46E-02
1 .90E-01
1.53E-01
2.04E+00
R
5.61E-10
1.87E-07
1 .55E-04
S.84E-OS
2.38E-05
8.33E-08
1.77E-08
7.38E-08
5.95E-08
7.96E-07
TOTAL 6.91 E+02 2.68E-04
A-33
-------
11 h ON8ITE WOMDUAI. - DIRECT OAUUA EXPOSURE
lor. Oil 4 OM Sccfa/ Studg»
-------
Ml
ONSIYE INDIVIDUAL - DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
ten OfoOMnual Wm»t»
Q. S.OOE-01
S-1.30E+04
D(mram) » Q S ' C DFQ
R(fatal eaneora) - Q * S * C
RFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
- -
- .
ore
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
- -
- -
- -
- -
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
- -
m m
~
D
6.1 1 E-04
2.08E-01
1.74E+02
6.57E+01
6.46E*01
- -
R
.36E-10
7.87E-08
6.76E-OS
2.54E-05
2.50E-05
- -
-
TOTAL 3.04E+02 1.18E-04
A-3S
-------
I2« ONSTl : INDIVIDUAL - INDOOR RAOON INHALATION
lor Ui nlum OvMfturtfM
Q. .34E-06
S- .17E+08
DFf- .OOE-06
R(fatal canct 3) . G S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 6.02E-02
TOTAL 6.02E-02
A-36
-------
I2b ONSITE MOIVIOUAL - INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tan Photphftt Wmmtm
Q. 1.34E-OS
S- 5.91 E+08
DR. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancer*) . Q S DFr
Nuclld* R _
Ra-226 3.88E-02
TOTAL 3.88E-02
A-37
-------
I2e ONSITE INDIVIDUAL. INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tan Photph»t» Firtlllnr
O. 1.34E-05
S- 4.57E+04
DR. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancan) . Q S * DFr
Nuclld* R
Ra-226 3.00E-06
TOTAL 3.00E-06
A-38
-------
I2d ONSITE INDIVIDUAL INDOOR RADON INHALATION
4*A
G. 1.34E-05
S- 6.77E+06
DFr. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) - Q S * DFr
Nuclld* R
Ra-226 4.45E-04
TOTAL 4.45E-04
A-39
-------
12* ONStTE WOIVIDUAI. INDOOR RADON INHALATION
for: Wmttr Tnmt Sludgt
&1.34E-06
S. 1.56E4-07
DFr- 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) - Q S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 1.02E-03
TOTAL 1.02E-03
A-40
-------
I2f ONSTTE MOIVIDUAL INDOOR RAOON INHALATION
tan 1VMW Tnml Sludg* (Landnil)
Q.1.34E-05
S- 5.85E+06
OFtm 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancers) . Q S DFr
Nuclld* R
Ra-226 3.84E-04
TOTAL 3.84E-04
A-41
-------
|2g ONSITE INDIVIDUAL - INDOOR RADON INHALATION
ton Unurml Practising Wu»t»
&1.34E-05
S- 1.35E+09
OFr. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancars) . Q S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 8.86E-02
TOTAL 8.86E-02
A-42
-------
I2h ONSITE INOIVIOUAL - INDOOR RADON INHALATION
tar; Off « CM Seata/ Sludg*
(W1.34E-05
S-1.06E+09
OR- 4.90E-06
R((atal cancers) . Q S DFr
Nuclld* H
Ra-226 6.96E-02
TOTAL 6.96E-02
A-43
-------
121 ONSITE INDIVIDUAL INDOOR RADON INHALATION
ton
&1.34E-05
S- 4.64E+09
DR. 4.90E-06
R(fatal cancan) - Q * S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 3.0SE-01
TOTAL 3.05E-01
A-44
-------
AVERAGE CPO - DIRECT GAIOIA EXPOSURE
Ion Uranium
Qi 1.52E-01
S- 1.33E+05
D(mrem) - Q * S * C * DFG
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatalcanct
C
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
2.37E+01
1.20E*00
n) m Q S '
OPQ
8.S5E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
0.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
8.41 E-08
1.67E-05
C * RFQ
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
2.87E-04
9.77E-02
8.00E+01
6.81 E+00
1.83E*00
4.25E-02
1 .33E-03
3.83E-02
3.07E-02
4.05E-01
R
1.11E-10
3.69E-08
3.11 E-OS
2.63E-06
7.08E-07
1 .68E-08
5.26E-10
1.49E-08
1.20E-08
1 .58E-07
TOTAL 8.93E+01 3.47E-05
A-4 5
-------
I3b
AVERAGE CPO DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
tan
G-1.52E-01
S- 1.59E+05
D(mrem) . Q * S C DFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal cancc
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
ITS) . Q S '
era
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-06
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
C * RFQ
RFO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.SOE-12
D
S.46E-04
1.86E-01
1.33E+02
2.20EfOO
5.90E-01
2.79E-02
4.28E-04
1.20E-02
9.30E-03
1.21E-01
R
2.11E-10
7.02E-08
5.18E-05
8.48E-07
2.28E-07
1.10E-08
1.70E-10
4.65E-09
3.63E-09
4.71 E-08
TOTAL 1.36E+02 5.31 E-05
A-46
-------
I3e
AVERAGE CPO DIRECT OAIOIA EXPOSURE
FirUUnr
O. 1.52E-01
S- 9.66E+04
D(niram) - O 3 C DFQ
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataicancc
c
1 .80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1.60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
r» . Q S '
era
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C * RFG
RPO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
2.26E-08
7.69E-06
6.13E-03
1 .68E-03
4.51 E-04
2.09E-05
2.99E-07
2.00E-05
1.60E-05
2. 11 E-04
R
8.72E-15
2.91 E-1 2
2.39E-09
6.49E-10
1.75E-10
8.22E-12
1.18E-13
7.74E-12
6.24E-12
8.21 E-1 1
TOTAL 8.54E-03 3.32E-09
A-47
-------
13d
AVERAGE CPO - DIRECT GAIOIA EXPOSURE
G- 1.52E-01
S- 7.98E+04
Dfmrem) - G * S C * DFG
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataleancc
C
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
n) . Q * S '
DPS
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1 .67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41E-08
1.67E-05
C ' RFG
RTO
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
7.26E-05
2.40E-02
7.49E+00
1.31E+01
1.97E+00
2.48E-03
1 .67E-03
3.20E-03
2.57E-03
3.24E-02
R
2.80E-11
9.07E-09
2.92E-06
5.05E-06
7.64E-07
9.76E-10
6.62E-10
1 .24E-09
1 .OOE-09
1 .26E-08
TOTAL 2.26E*01 8.75E-06
A-48
-------
13*
AVERAGE CPO - DIRECT GAIIUA EXPOSURE
ton Waltr Tract Slu4g»
G- 1.52E-01
S- 1.13E+05
(Xmrem) - G S C * DFG
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal cancc
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00 E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
ire) m Q S '
era
8.5SE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
C * RFG
Rre
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
S.87E-06
2.00E-03
1.84E+00
4.63E-02
1.24E+00
1.22E-05
9.01 E-06
2.20E-04
1.76E-04
3.44E-04
R
2.27E-12
7.56E-10
7.15E-07
1.79E-08
4.81 E-07
4.81 E-1 2
3.57E-12
8.52E-1 1
6.87E-1 1
1.34E-10
TOTAL 3.13E+00 1.21 E-06
A-49
-------
131
AVERAGE CPO - DIRECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
for: W»tir Tnal Sludg* (Landfill)
Q.1.52E-01
S- 1.06E+05
Dpnram) - Q 3 C * DFQ
R(fatal cancan) . Q S C * RFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
2.07E-06
7.03E-04
6.46E-01
1.63E-02
4.37E-01
4.29E-06
3.17E-06
7.73E-05
6.20E-05
1.35E-04
7.98E-13
2.66E-10
2.51 E-07
6.28E-09
1 .69E-07
1.69E-12
1.26E-12
3.00E-11
2.42E-1 1
5.24E-1 1
TOTAL 1.10E+00 4.27E-07
A-60
-------
I3g
AVERAGE CPO- DIRECT GAMMA EXPO
for. MTfMraf Proofing fflul*
Q. 1.52E-01
S- 1.36E+05
Dfmrarn) - G S C * DFQ
R(fatal cancore) . Q S C
RFQ
Nuelldi
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E*01
1.00E>01
3.50E*01
1.00E4-01
3.50Ef01
3.50E>01
1.80E+00
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-OS
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
4.42E-04
1.50E-01
1.21E+02
6.97E-f01
1.87E+01
6.42E-02
1 .36E-02
5.79E-02
4.64E-02
6.21 E-01
1.71E-10
5.68E-08
4.70E-OS
2.69E-05
7.24E-06
2.53E-08
5.37E-09
2.24E-08
1.81 E-08
2.42E-07
TOTAL 2.10E+02 8.15E-05
A-51
-------
I3h
AVERAGE CPQ DWECT GAMMA EXPOSURE
ten Oil « GM Scita/ Sludg*
&1.52E-01
& 1.20E+OS
D(mrani) . Q S * C * DFQ
Rffatti cancan) - Q * S * C RFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1 .55E+02
1.55E+02
1 .55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
8.5SE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
- -
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
- -
2.42E-03
8.23E-01
4.72E+02
3.38E+02
9.07E+01
- -
- -
- -
9.33E-10
3.11 E-07
1.84E-04
1.30E-04
3.51E-05
-
-
-
- -
TOTAL 9.02E+02 3.50E-04
A-S2
-------
131 AVERAGE CPO- DIRECT QAUUA EXPOSURE
ten OMMwnwl Wm»t»
Q. 1.52E-01
S- 1.30E+04
0(mram) - Q * S * C * DFG
R(fatal cancan) - Q S * C RFQ
Nuelldi
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.10E-I-02
1.10E+02
1 .60E+ 02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
. .
. .
8.55E-10
2.91E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
- -
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
- -
- -
- -
1 .86E-04
6.33E-02
5.28E+01
2.00E+01
1.96E+01
7.17E-11
2.39E-08
2.06E-05
7.71 E-06
7.61 E-06
- -
-
- -
-
TOTAL 9.25E+01 3.59E-05
A-53
-------
14*
AVERAGE CPO INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
Ion Unnlum Orarfeurdfen
& 2.36E+03
& 6.90E-07
D(mrem) . G S * C * DRnh
R(fatal cancers) . Q S
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
2.37E+01
1.20E*00
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * RRnh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
D
2.54E-04
3.78E-04
3.32E-04
5.54E-04
7.82E-06
1 .27E-02
2.61 E-03
5.02E-03
4.63E-03
2.34E-04
R
4.0SE-1 1
5.95E-11
5.02E-11
8.63E-1 1
1.21E-12
1.97E-09
4.07E-10
7.72E-10
7.33E-10
3.71 E-11
TOTAL 2.67E-02 4.16E-09
A-54
-------
I4b
AVERAGE CPO
tor
INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
G. 2.36E+03
S- 2.83E-07
O(mrem) - G * S * C * DFlnh
R(fataJ cancers) - G S C '
RFinh
Nuclld*
DFInh
RFlnh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
9.40E-03
1 .40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .66E-04
2.47E-04
1 .90E-04
6.13E-05
8.66E-07
2.87E-03
2.89E-04
5.38E-04
4.81 E-04
2.40E-05
2.64E-1 1
3.88E-1 1
2.87E-1 1
9.56E-12
1.33E-13
4.43E-10
4.S1E-11
8.28E-1 1
7.61 E-11
3.81 E-1 2
TOTAL 4.86E-03 7.54E-10
A-55
-------
I4c AVERAGE CPO - INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
Pnosptete Ftrtfltrw
O. 2.36E+03
S- 6.90E-07
D(mrem) - 0 ' S * C * DFInh
R(tatal cancer*) . Q S C RHnh
Nuelld* C DFInh RFInh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1.60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1 .90E-08
2.76E-08
4.10E-08
3.50E-08
1 .88E-07
2.66E-09
8.60E-06
8.08E-07
3.60E-06
3.32E-06
1 .68E-07
4.40E-15
6.4SE-15
5.29E-15
2.93E-14
4.10E-16
1.33E-12
1.26E-13
5.54E-13
5.26E-13
2.66E-14
TOTAL 1.68E-OS 2.61 E-12
A-66
-------
I4d
AVERAGE CPO INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
G. 2.36E+03
S- 1.32E-07
D(mrem) - G * S * C * DRnh
R(fatal cancers) - G * S
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * RFlnh
RRnh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1.90E-08
D
2.05E-OS
2.97E-05
9.91 E-06
3.39E-04
2.69E-06
2.36E-04
1.05E-03
1.34E-04
1 .23E-04
5.98E-06
R
3.27E-12
4.66E-12
1.50E-12
5.28E-1 1
4.15E-13
3.65E-1 1
1.64E-10
2.06E-11
1.95E-11
9.47E-13
TOTAL 1.95E-03 3.04E-10
A-57
-------
141
AVERAGE CPO INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
Ion W»t»r Tnml Sludg* (F*rtHU»r)
& 2.36E+03
S- 8.28E-07
D(mrem) . Q S C * OFInh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatal eanoi
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
n) . 0 S
OFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1 .30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C ' RFlnh
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
D
7.35E-06
1 .09E-05
1.08E-05
5.32E-06
7.50E-06
5.16E-06
2.50E-OS
4.06E-05
3.75E-05
2.81 E-07
R
1.17E-12
1.72E-12
1.63E-12
8.29E-13
1.16E-12
7.97E-13
3.91 E-1 2
6.25E-12
5.94E-12
4.46E-14
TOTAL 1.50E-04 2.34E-11
A-58
-------
141
AVERAGE CPO INHALATION OF CONTAUN/ "ED DUST
Ion Wmltr Tnml Sludg» (LandHII)
G. 2.36E+03
S- 8.95E-07
D(mrem) - Q * S * C * DRnh
Nueli- i
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R((atal canes
e
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
n) - Q S
OFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C * RRnh
RRnh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
D
2.98E-0*
4.44E-0'
4.36E-0-
2.15E-0'
3.04E-0-
2.09E-0'
1.01E-0
1 .65E-0
1 .52E-0
1.27E-0
R
4.75E-13
6.97E-13
6.59E-13
3.36E-13
4.69E-13
3.23E-13
1.58E-12
2.53E-12
2.41 E-1 2
2.01 E-14
TOTAL 6.10E-0 9.51 E-12
A-59
-------
I4g
AVERAGE CPO - INHALATION OF CONTAIONATEO DUST
tor MTmraf Practising Mtote
G. 2.36E+03
S- 6.85E-07
D(mrem) - Q S C * DRnh
R(tatal cancers) . Q S
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1 .OOE+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.80E*00
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
C RFJnh
RRnh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1.90E-08
D
3.80E-04
5.66E-04
4.87E-04
5.50E-03
7.76E-OS
1 .87E-02
2.59E-02
7.36E-03
6.79E-03
3.49E-04
R
6.06E-1 1
8.89E-1 1
7.36E-1 1
8.57E-10
1.20E-11
2.89E-09
4.04E-09
1.13E-09
1 .08E-09
5.53E-1 1
TOTAL 6.60E-02 1.03E-08
A-60
-------
Uh AVERAGE CPO INHALATION OF CONTAMINATED DUST
ton Oil * OM Scata/ Sludg»
fr 2.36E+03
S- 6.39E-08
O(mrem) - Q S C DFlnh
R(fatal cancan) - G S C RFInh
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1.55E+02
1.55E+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
- -
- -
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
-
D
2.20 E-04
3.27E-04
2.01 E-04
2.82E-03
3.98E-05
R
3.51 E-11
5.14E-11
3.04E-1 1
4.40 E- 10
6.14E-12
" "
TOTAL 3.61 E-03 5.63E-10
A-61
-------
141 AVERAGE CPQ- INHALATION OF CONTAMNATEO OUST
for: OMfftwiMl Wut»
G. 2.36E+03
S-6.01E-08
D(mrem) - Q * S C * DFlnh
R(fatal cancan) - Q * S * C * RFlnh
Nuclld* C OFInh RFInh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
. .
. .
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
. .
- .
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
- .
^~,
- -
1 .47E-04
2.18E-04
1 .95E-04
1 .45E-03
7.49E-05
-
- -
2.34E-1 1
3.43E-11
2.95E-1 1
2.26E-10
1.15E-11
-
- -
- -
- -
TOTAL 2.08E-03 3.24E-10
A-62
-------
ISm AVERAGE CPQ-OOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RADON
iOfS IMVAMIfll OWfftlirawfV
G- 2.95E-01
S- 2.97E+00
OR- 4.80E-07
R(fatal cancers) » Q S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 4.29E-07
TOTAL 4.29E-07
A-63
-------
I5b AVERAGE CPQ-OOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RAOON
tars PAMptef* Wmrnt*
& 2.95E-01
S- 1.96E+00
DFr- 4.90E-07
R(fatal cancers) - Q S * DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 2.83E-07
TOTAL 2.83E-07
A-64
-------
ISc AVERAGE CPO-DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RAJ ON
tar: Pho»ph*t» FwtHlnr
G» 2.85E-01
S- 3.76E-05
DFf- 4.90E-07
R(fatal cancan) « Q * 3 * DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 5.44E-12
TOTAL 5.44E-12
A-65
-------
134 AVERAGE CPO-OOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RADON
Q. 2.96E-01
S- 2.09E-02
OR- 4.90E-07
R(tatal canem) . Q * S * DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 3.02E-09
TOTAL 3.02E-09
A-66
-------
IS* AVERAGE CPO-OOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RADON
ton W»t»r Tnmt Sludgm (FwtlUnr)
& 2.95E-01
S- 1.10E-02
DR. 4.90E-07
R(fatal cancan) - 0 S DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 1.59E-09
TOTAL 1.50E-00
A-67
-------
ISf AVERAGE CPO-OOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RADON
ton Wuttr Tmt Sludg* (Lutdttllt
G. 2.05E-01
S- 1.76E-02
DFr. 4.90E-07
R(fatai cancers) - Q S * DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 2.54E-09
TOTAL 2.54E-09
A-68
-------
I5g AVERAGE CPO-DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RADON
Ion IHiMrml Procuring Wm»t»
& 2.95E-01
S- 4.35E+00
DFr- 4.90E-07
R(fatal cancer*) . Q S * DFr
Nuellda R
Ra-226 6.29E-07
TOTAL 6.29E-07
A-69
-------
I3h AVERAGE CPO-DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RADON
tan Of/ « OM Scita/ Sludg*
G- 2.95E-01
S- 3.19E+00
DFr- 4.90E-07
R(fatal cancers) - G * S * DFr
Nuclld* H
Ra-226 4^1 E-07
TOTAL 4.61 E-07
A-70
-------
ISI AVERAGE CM-OOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RADON
ton
0. 2.95E-01
S- 1.31E+01
DFr- 4.90E-07
R(fatal canon) . Q * S * DFr
Nuelld* R
Ra-226 1.89E-06
TOTAL 1.80E-06
A-71
-------
I6b
MVKMWM^ W^^M ~ r ^v^v^rva^ »^ «* « ^-^V^B^WV .- -- - - -
ten Photphf* IMMte
Q- 8.48E-01
3- 2 J5E+06
CKmrem) . Q S C * DFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fatalcance
C
2.64E+01
2.64E«01
3.30E*01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
UOE+01
2.70E-01
6.20E*00
6.00E*00
3.00E-01
ra) - 0 * S
era
8.55E-10
2.01 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
0.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C RFQ
f*Q
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.SOE-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
4.50E-02
1.53E*01
1.10E*04
1.8lEf02
4.86E*01
2.30E+00
3.53E-02
9.88E-01
7.66E-01
9.98E+00
R
1 .74E-08
5.79E-06
4.27E-03
6.99E-05
1 .88E-05
9.07E-07
1 .40E-08
3.83E-07
2.99E-07
3.89E-06
TOTAL 1.12E+04 4.37E-03
A-72
-------
I6d
AVERAGE CPO - EXPOSURE TO NORM IN BUILDING MATERIALS
Q. 8.48E-01
s- 1.20E+06
D(mram) - Q 3 C * OFQ
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
R(fataleanct
c
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
m) . Q * S '
DPQ
8.SSE-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-05
' C * RFG
RPQ
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
8.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
D
6.09E-03
2.01 E+00
6.29E*02
1.10E+03
1.66E*02
2.08E-01
1.40E-01
2.60E-01
2.15E-01
2.72E+00
R
2.3SE-09
7.61 E-07
2.45E-04
4.23E-04
6.41 E-OS
8.19E-08
5.56E-08
1.04E-07
8.40E-08
1 .06E-06
TOTAL 1.90E+03 7.34E-04
A-73
-------
I6g
ton Unerml Procuring Wm»
Q. 8.48E-01
S- 2.00E+06
D(mrem) . Q S C * DFQ
R(fatal cancers) - G * S '
Nuclid*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E*01
3.50E*01
1.00E*01
3.50E4-01
3.50E+01
1.80E*00
OPB
8.55E-10
2.91 E-07
1.67E-04
3.37E-04
9.04E-05
8.88E-08
6.56E-08
8.00E-08
6.41 E-08
1.67E-OS
' C ' RFC
RP9
3.30E-16
1.10E-13
6.50E-11
1.30E-10
3.50E-11
3.50E-14
2.60E-14
3.10E-14
2.50E-14
6.50E-12
O
3.63E-02
1.23E+01
9.91 E*03
5.72E+03
1.53E+03
5.27EfOO
1.11E+00
4.75E+00
3.80E+00
5.10E+01
R
1 .4OE-08
4.66E-06
3.86E-03
2.20E-03
5.94E-04
2.08E-06
4.41 E-07
1 .84E-06
1 .48E-06
1 .98E-05
TOTAL 1.72E+04 6.69E-03
A-74
-------
17*
AVERAGE CPO - MOESHON OF
DRMKINQ WATER FROM A CONTAMWATED WELL
tan Urmnlum Orarburriwi
G. 7.40E+00
S- 4.67E+04
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
D(mr m) . (Q S C DRng (1-«xp» / R
R(fai I cancers) . (Q S * C RFIng (1-exp)) /
1.6 i+01
1.6 =«-01
2.3 =+01
1.0 EfOO
1.0 E+00
2.3 S+01
1.0 5+00
2.3 £+01
2.3 =+01
1.2 =+00
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-1 1
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
2.46E+02
2.46E+02
R
1-«xp
3.40E-05
3.40E-05
3.40E-05
3.40E-OS
3.40E-05
3.40E-05
3.40E-05
3.40E-OS
3.40E-05
3.40E-05
O
1.35E-03
2.14E-03
1.47E-03
5.75E-08
6.69E-05
1.87E-06
3.88E-07
3.17E-04
2.83E-04
1.55E-OS
R
3.33E-10
2.26E-10
8.91 E-1 5
1.05E-11
2.89E-13
6.03E-14
4.87E-11
4.41 E-1 1
2.41 E-1 2
TOTAL 5.65E-03 8.72E-10
A-75
-------
I7b
AVERAGE CPO - MGESTION OF
DRINKING WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
tar Phetphmtf Wm»t»
Q. 7.40E+00
S- 7.72E+03
D(mrem) - (G * S * C * DFIng * (1-exp)) / R
R(tatal cancers) . (Q S * C * RFlng * (1-exp)) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1 .30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFlng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
1-«xp
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.SOE-02
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.50E-02
3.SOE-02
D
3.67E-02
5.81 E-02
3.50E-02
2.64E-07
3.08E-04
1.75E-05
1.78E-06
1.42E-03
1.22E-03
6.61 E-05
R
. S1E-09
< 03E-09
' 39E-09
09E-14
85E-11
. 70E-12
. 77E-13
. 18E-10
91E-10
03E-11
TOTAL
1.33E-01
OSE-08
A-76
-------
I7e
AVERAGE CPQ - MQESTION OF
DRMKWQ WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
Phemphmtf Ftrtf/tnr
Q. 7.40E+00
S> 2.18E+02
D(mrem) . (Q S C DFIng (1-exp)) / R
R(fataJ cancers) - (Q * S * C * RPIng * (1-«xp)) / R
Nuclld
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1 .80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1.60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
DFIng
1.BOE-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E\03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E*03
1-««p
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80 E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
8.80E-03
0
1 .78E-08
2.81 E-08
1.88E-08
2.36E-12
2.76E-09
1.53E-10
1.45E-11
2.76E-08
2.46E-08
1 .35E-09
R
4.37E-1 S
2.90E-1 5
3.66E-1 3
4.33E-1 6
2.36E-1 7
2.26E-13
4.24E-1 5
3.84E-1 5
2.09E-1 6
TOTAL
1.21E-07 1.87E-14
A-77
-------
174
MGESTIONOF
A CONTAMINATED WELL
AVERAGE CPO
ORMKINQ WATER
for: Co* Adi
Q. 7.40E+00
S- 1.07E+04
D(mrwn) - (Q * S * C * DRng (1-exp)) / R
Rftatal cancers) . (Q S C RHng (1-«xp)) / R
PO-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
OFInfl
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RRna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-1 1
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
4.10E+02
1.64E*04
4.10E+02
1.64E-f04
1.64E+04
2.74E+02
2.74E+02
2.74E+02
1-.XP
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
6.70E-02
D
1.29E-01
3.57E-01
6.22E-02
4.14E-04
3.26E-02
4.09E-04
1 .83E-03
1 .79E-02
1.60E-02
8.36E-04
R
1 .97E-08
5.55E-08
9.57E-09
6.42E-1 1
5.12E-09
6.32E-11
2.85E-10
2.75E-09
2.49E-09
1.30E-10
TOTAL 6.18E-01 9.57E-08
A-78
-------
17*
AVERAGE CPO - MGESTION OF
DRWKMO WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
Mfefw r/Ml Sludg» (Fwtlllnr)
Q. 7.40E+00
S- 2.58E+02
O(mrem) - (Q * S * C DFlng (1*xp)) / R
R(fatal cancers) - (G * S * C * RFlng * (1-exp)) / R
Nuclid*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.4OE-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFlng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
1-«P
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
8.70E-03
D
4.62E-06
7.31 E-06
5.64E-06
6.50E-1 1
7.S9E-06
8.93E-1 1
4.39E-10
3.04E-07
2.71 E-07
2.20E-09
R
7.06E-13
1.14E-12
8.68E-13
1.01E-17
1.19E-12
1.38E-17
6.82E-17
4.66E-14
4.23E-14
3.42E-16
TOTAL 2.57E-OS 3.99E-12
A-79
-------
171
AVERAGE CPO MGEST1ON OF
ORINKWO WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
tor: W»t»r Tnmt Sludg* (LfadlUI)
fr 7.40E+00
S- 8.50E+03
O(mrem) - (G * S C DFIng * (1-exp» / R
R(fatal cancers) . (Q S * C * RFIng (1-exp)) / R
Nuelldi
OFIna
RFIna
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1 .40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
1 .44E-06
2.28E-06
1.76E-06
2.03E-1 1
2.37E-06
2.79E-1 1
1.37E-10
9.49E-08
8.47E-08
7.63E-10
2.20E-13
3.55E-13
2.71 E-1 3
3.15E-18
3.73E-13
4.31 E-1 8
2.13E-17
1.46E-14
1.32E-14
1.19E-16
TOTAL 8.04E-06 1.25E-12
A-80
-------
I7g
AVERAGE CPQ - MOE9TION OF
DfUNNNQ WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
lor: Iff/Mm* Proc*M4ng Wm»t»
& 7.40E+00
S- 3.06E+05
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
D(mrem) . (Q 8 * C DFlng (1-exp)) / R
R(fatal cancer*) . (Q S C RRng * (1-«xp» /
C DFIna RFIna R
2.50£+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E>01
3.50E*01
1.80E>00
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E>04
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46E>02
2.46E*03
2.46E>02
R
1-«ip
2.00E-06
2.00 E-06
2.00E-06 !
2.00E-06 :
2.00 E-06 :
2.00E-06
2.00E-06
2.00E-06
2.00E-06
2.00E-06 >
35E-04
24E-03
38E-04
21E-07
58E-04
07E-06
49E-06
80E-04
61E-05
95E-06
1.20E-10
1.93E-10
1.29E-10
3.43E-14
4.0SE-11
1.65E-13
2.33E-13
2.77E-11
2.51 E-12
1.39E-12
TOTAL : 33E-03 5.15E-10
A-81
-------
I7H AVERAGE CPO-MGESnON OF
ORIMONO WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED WELL
ton Off « OM Safe/ Studg»
& 7.40E+00
S- 3.96E+04
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
D(mram) - (Q S C * DFIng * (1-axp)) / R
R(tatal cancers) - (Q * S * C RFlng * (1-axp)) /
C DFIng RFlng R
1.55E+02
1.55E+02
1.55E*02
5.50E+01
5.SOE+01
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
m
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
5.46E+02
5.46E>02
1.36E+04
1.36E>04
1.36E*04
R
1-.KP
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
D
4.74E-01
1.3SE*00
1.30E-02
1.42E-03
4.98E-03
R
7.24E-08
2.10E-07
2.00E-09
2.20E-10
7.82E-10
TOTAL 1.84E+00 2.85E-07
A-82
-------
171 AVERAGE CPQ - MGESTON OF
DRINKING WATER FROM A CONTAMINATED V -LL
tor tteofftwimf Wmmt»
O> 7.40E+00
S- 9.25E+04
D(mrem) - (G S C DFlng * (1-exp)) / R
R((atal cancer*) . (Q S * C * RRng * (1-exp)) /
Nuelld* C DFIng RFlng
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
- .
. .
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
- -
- -
- -
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
- -
- -
- -
- -
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
-
5.80E-05
5.80E-05
5.80E-OS
5.80E-05
5.80E-05
-
»
- -
3.03E-02
4.79E-02
3.36E-02
S.82E-06
2.49E-02
-
-
4.62E-09
7.46E-09
5.16E-09
9.03E-13
3.91 E-09
-
-
TOTAL 1.37E-01 2.11E-08
A-83
-------
9m
AVQ CPO - MGESnON OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMINATED BY WELL WATER
tor Urmnlum Orarfturriwi
G> 2.00E+01
S. 4.67E+04
1-exp-3.40E-05
D(mrem) - (Q S * C * (Uw - 0.37) 'DFIng (1-exp)) / R
R((ataJ cancers) - (G S C (Uw - 0.37) * RFIng (1-exp)) /
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
C
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1 .OOE+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1 .OOE+00
2.37E+01
2.37E4-01
1.20E>00
DHitfl
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFlnfl
2.90^-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.74E+02
4.92E>02
2.46E*02
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
2.46E+02
2.46E+02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
D
2.09E-03
3.32E-03
2.28E-03
8.84E-08
1.03E-04
2.90E-06
5.96E-07
4.33E-04
3.87E-04
2.12E-05
R
.20E-10
S.16E-10
3.51 E-10
1.37E-14
1.62E-11
4.48E-13
9.28E-14
6.66E-1 1
6.04E-1 1
3.29E-12
TOTAL 8.64E-03 1.33E-09
A-84
-------
I8b
AVO CPO NOESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
GOMTAUMATED BY WELL WATER
Ion Phoiphat* W»mt»
& 2.00E+01
S- 7.72E+03
1-«xp-3.50E-02
D(fflrem) - (Q S C * (Uw - 0.37) 'OFIng * (1-«xp)) / R
R(fatal cancer*) - (Q * S C (Uw - 0.37) RRng (1-exp)) / R
f*O-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1 .30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1 .30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
HFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E*03
8.18Ef05
8.18E*05
2.4SE+03
2.45E+03
2.45E*03
Uw
9.43 E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
D
5.69E-02
8.99E-02
5.42E-02
4.06E-07
4.74E-04
2.71 E-05
2.74E-06
1.94E-03
1 .67E-03
9.04E-05
R
1.40E-08
8.34E-09
6.29E-14
7.46E-1 1
4.18E-12
4.26E-13
2.98E-10
2.61 E-10
1.41E-11
TOTAL 2.05E-01 3.17E-08
A-85
-------
I8e
AVO CPO - MOESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMINATED BY WELL WATER
Phosphate FtortfflMr
Q. 2.00E+01
S- 2.18E+02
1-«xp- 8.80E-03
D(mram) - (O S * C (Uw - 0.37) 'OFIng (1-exp)) / R
R(fatal cancan) - (Q * S C * (Uw - 0.37) RRng ' (1-exp)) / R
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.80E-03
1 .80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1 .70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
DHna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
S.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.SOE-04
2.70E-04
RFInfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E*05
2.46E*03
8.18E+05
8.18E*05
2.45E+03
2.45E>03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
D
2.7SE-08
4.35E-08
2.92E-08
3.63E-12
4.24E-09
2.37E-10
2.23E-1 1
3.77E-08
3.37E-08
1.84E-09
R
6.77E-15
4.49E-15
5.63E-19
6.67E-16
3.66E-17
3.47E-18
5.79E-15
S.25E-15
2.86E-16
TOTAL
1.78E-07 2.75E-14
A-86
-------
I8d
AVO CPO - MGESTON OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMMATED BY WELL WATER
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
Q. 2.00E+01
S- 1.07E+04
1-exp- 6.70E-02
D(mram) - (Q * S C * (Uw - 0.37)
R(fatal cancers) - (Q S C (Uw -
C DFlna RFIng
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
S.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-1 1
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
DFIng * (1-exp)) / R
0.37) * RFIng * (1-exp))
R Uw
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
4.10E+02
1.64E+O4
4.10E+02
1.64E+04
1.64E+04
2.74E+02
2.74E+02
2.74E*02
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
/ R
D
2.00E-01
5.53E-01
9.64E-02
6.37E-04
5.01 E-02
6.34E-04
2.82E-03
2.45E-02
2.18E-02
1.14E-03
R
3.05E-08
8.59E-08
1.48E-08
9.87E-11
7.88E-09
9.79E-1 1
4.39E-10
3.76E-09
3.41 E-09
1.78E-10
TOTAL 9.51 E-01 1.47E-07
A-87
-------
IB*
AVO CPO MQEST10N OF
TUFFS
CONTAMINATED BY WELL WATER
ton Mfefw Tnmt Sludg* (Fmrtlllxmr)
Q- 2.00E+01
S- 2.58E+02
1-exp-8.70E-03
D(mrem) - (Q S C * (Uw - 0.37) 'OFlng (1-exp)) / R
R(fatal cancers) . (Q S * C * (Uw - 0.37) * RFing (1-exp)) /
Nuelld*
F*o-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E*03
2.45E+03
2.4SE4-03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
O
7.16E-06
1.13E-05
8.74E-06
9.99E-1 1
1.17E-05
1.38E-10
6.74E-10
4.15E-07
3.71 E-07
3.00E-09
R
1.09E-12
1.76E-12
1.34E-12
1.55E-17
1.83E-12
2.14E-17
1.05E-16
6.38E-14
S.79E-14
4.67E-16
TOTAL 3.97E-05 6.15E-12
A-88
-------
I8f
AVO CPO MGESTWN OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMINATED BY WELL WATER
for: Watir Tnat Sludg» (LindUH)
G. 2.00E+01
S- 8.50E+03
1-exp- 2.20E-04
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
D(mrem) - (Q * S C * (Uw - 0.37)
R(fatal cancan) - (G S C (Uw -
C DFlng RFIng
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
S.OOE-04
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.SOE-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-1 1
DFlng (1-exp)) / R
0.37) RRng (1-exp))
R Uw
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E>05
8.18E+05
2.45E*03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
/ R
D
2.24E-06
3.54E-06
2.73E-06
3.12E-11
3.65E-06
4.32E-11
2.11E-10
1.30E-07
1.16E-07
1 .04E-09
R
3.41 E-1 3
5.50E-13
4.20E-13
4.84E-18
5.73E-13
6.68E-18
3.28E-17
1.99E-14
1.81 E-1 4
1.62E-16
TOTAL 1.24E-05 1.92E-12
A-89
-------
ISfl
AVO CPO MGESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMINATED BY WELL WATER
Ion MOOT* Pnc»»tlng Wnt»
Q. 2.00E+01
S- 3.06E+05
1-exp- 2.00E-06
D(mrem) - (Q S * C * (Uw - 0.37) 'DFlng * (1-exp)) / R
R(fatal cancers) - (O * S C (Uw - 0.37) RRng (1-exp)) /
Nuelld*
PO-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E*01
3.50E+01
1.80E+00
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1 .30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFInfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.74£+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E*04
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46E4-02
2.46E+03
2.46E+02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
D
1.22E-03
1.92E-03
1.30E-03
3.41 E-07
3.96E-04
1.65E-06
2.30E-06
2.47E-04
2.20E-05
1.22E-05
R
1.86E-10
2.99E-10
2.00E-10
5.28E-14
6.23E-11
2.55E-13
3.58E-13
3.79E-1 1
3.44E-12
1.90E-12
TOTAL
S.12E-03 7.91 E-10
A-90
-------
I8h AVOCPO-WGEST1ON OF FOODSTUFFS
COMTAUMATEO BY WELL WATER
for; Oil « CM Scata/ Sludg*
Q> 2.00E+01
8- 3.96E+04
1-exp-3.00E-03
D(mram) - (Q S C * (Uw - 0.37) 'DFlng * (1-exp)) / R
R(fatal cancan) . (Q S C (Uw - 0.37) * RFIng (1-exp)) /
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
e
1.55E+02
1.5SE+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
. .
- .
. .
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
. -
R
5.46E+02
5.46E*02
1.36E*04
1.36E+04
1.36E*04
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
D
7.34E-01
2.09E+00
2.02E-02
2.19E-03
7.65E-03
-
R
1.12E-07
3.25E-07
3.10E-09
3.39E-10
1.20E-09
"
" "
"
TOTAL 2.85E+00 4.41 E-07
A-91
-------
181 AVOCPO-WOESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
CONTAMMATED BY WELL WATER
tor G*00MniMf Wmtt»
& 2.00E+01
S- 9.25E+04
1-exp- 5.80E-06
D(mrem) - (Q * S C * (Uw - 0.37) *DRng * (1-exp)) / R
R(fataJ cancers) - (Q S C (Uw - 0.37) * RRng * (1-exp)) /
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
. .
. -
. .
- -
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
*
- -
RFInfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E>02
- -
- -
-
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
- -
- -
- -
D
4.69E-02
7.42E-02
5.20 E-02
8.96E-06
3.82E-02
- -
- -
R
7.16E-09
1.15E-OS
8.00E-09
1.39E-12
6.01E-09
TOTAL 2.11E-01 3.27E-08
A-92
-------
AVERAGE CPO MOESTION OF
9 CONTAMINATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
ten Urmnlum Overburden
& 2.66E+02
S- 6.90E-07
D(mretn) . Q S C OHng Uf
R(fatal eanewv) - Q S * C RFIng * Uf
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1.66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1 .OOE+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E*01
2.37E4-01
1.20E>00
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RRng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
Uf
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
7.58E-08
2.16E-07
7.41 E-08
9.47E-10
3.31 E-09
3.13E-08
6.39E-09
2.69E-08
2.40E-08
1.31 E-09
R
1.16E-14
3.35E-14
1.14E-14
1.47E-16
5.21 E-16
4.84E-15
9.94E-16
4.13E-15
3.75E-15
2.04E-16
TOTAL 4.60E-07 7.11E-14
A-93
-------
I9b
AVERAGE CM MOESTON OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAUMATEO BY OUST DEPOSITION
Ion Phoffhm* Wm»t»
& 2.66E+02
S- 2.83E-07
D(mrwn) - Q S * C DRng * Uf
R(fatal cancan) - Q S C RRng * Uf
Nuelld*
1*0-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
HFIiiB
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
Uf
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
4.95E-08
1.41E-07
4.23E-08
1.05E-10
3.67E-10
7.05E-09
7.08E-10
2.89E-09
2.50E-09
1.35E-10
R
2.19E-14
6.51 E-1 5
1.63E-17
S.77E-17
1.09E-15
1.10E-16
4.44E-16
3.89E-16
2.10E-17
TOTAL 2.46E-07 3.81 E-14
A-94
-------
I9e
AVERAGE CPO - MCESTION OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAMINATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
Q. 2.66E+02
S- 6.90E-07
D(mrem) - G * S C DRng * Uf
R(fatal cancers) - Q * S
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1 .80E-03
1 .80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
C RFing
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
Uf
Uf
1.31 E-02
1.31 E-02
1.31 E-02
1.29E-02
1 .29E-02
1.31 E-02
1.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
8.22E-12
2.34E-1 1
7.81 E-1 2
3.22E-13
1.13E-12
2.12E-11
1.98E-12
1.93E-11
1.72E-11
9.42E-13
R
1.26E-18
3.64E-18
1.20E-18
4.99E-20
1.77E-19
3.27E-18
3.08E-19
2.97E-18
2.69E-18
1.47E-19
TOTAL 1.01 E-10 1.57E-17
A-95
-------
I9d
AVERAGE CPO MOEST1ON OF
ICOHTAMMATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
far: CM* Art
G. 2.66E+02
S- 1.32E-07
D(mrom) . Q S C * DRng Uf
R(fatal cancan) - G S * C RHng * Uf
Nuelldi
DFIna
RFIng
Uf
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
7.00E+00
8.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1 .40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
6.12E-09
1.69E-08
2.21 E-09
S.80E-10
1.14E-09
5.82E-10
2.S7E-09
7.17E-10
6.40E-10
3.3SE-11
9.34E-16
2.63E-15
3.40E-16
8.99E-1 7
1.79E-16
8.99E-17
3.99E-16
1.10E-16
9.99E-17
5.21 E-1 8
TOTAL 3.15E-08 4.88E-15
A-Q6
-------
19*
AVERAGE CPQ - WGESTKJN OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAMINATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
Mfeter Tnmt Sludg* (Ftrtlllzir)
Q. 2.66E+02
8. 8.28E-07
Nuelld*
Pe-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
D(mrem) . Q S C * DFing * Uf
R(fatal cancara) - Q * S C RFIng * Ul
C DFInfl RFIng Uf
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1 .20E-03
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10 1
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11 i
3.90E-11 i
4.20E-11 '
.31 E-02
.31E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
2.19E-09
6.23E-09
2.40E-09
9.09E-12
3.18E-09
1.27E-11
6.14E-11
2.18E-10
1.9SE-10
1.58E-12
R
3.3SE-16
9.69E-16
3.69E-16
1.41E-18
5.00E-16
1.96E-18
9.55E-18
3.35E-17
3.04E-17
2.45E-19
TOTAL 1.45E-08 2.25E-15
A-97
-------
I9f
AVERAGE CPG MOESTION
FOODSTUFFS COKTAIUNATED BY DUST
ton Wmttf Tnmt Sludg* (Ltndail)
Q. 2.66E+02
S- 8.95E-07
D(mrem) - Q * S * C * DRng Uf
R(fatal cancer*) - Q S C * RHng * Uf
JF
DEPOSITION
Nuclld*
DFIng
RRng
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
1 .90E-03
S.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11 !
3.90E-11 !
4.20E-11 i
.3- i-02
.3- =-02
.3 =-02
.2! =-02
.2! =-02
.3 =-02
.2!- =-02
2.2 =-02
2.2 i-02
2.2 =-02
8.89E-10
2.53E-09
9.73E-10
3.69E-12
1.29E-09
5.15E-12
2.49E-1 1
8.84E-11
7.89E-11
7.10E-13
1.36E-16
3.93E-16
1.50E-16
S.71E-19
2.03E-16
7.9SE-19
3.87E-18
1.36E-17
1.23E-17
1.10E-19
TC 'AL 5.88E-09 9.12E-16
A-98
-------
I9g
AVERAQE CPO - INOESnON OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAMINATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
ton Un»nl Procuring Wmsto
G- 2.66E+02
S- 6.85E-07
D(mrem) - Q S * C * DRng * Uf
R(tatal cancan) . G S * C RRng * Uf
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
1 .OOE+01
3.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.80E+00
DFlna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
HFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11 I
3.90E-11 !
4.20E-11 '
Uf
.31 E-02
.31E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
1.13^-07
3.22E-07
1 .09E-07
9.40E-09
3.29E-08
4.59E-08
6.35E-08
3.9SE-08
3.52E-08
1.96E-09
R
1.73E-14
5.01 E-1 4
1.67E-14
1.46E-15
5.17E-1S
7.10E-15
9.87E-15
6.06E-15
S.50E-15
3.04E-16
TOTAL 7.73E-07 1.20E-13
A-99
-------
I9h AVERAGE CPO - MGESTtON OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAMINATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
tor. Oil * OM SeaH/ Sludg*
G. 2.66E+02
S- 6.39E-08
D(mrem) . Q * S C DRng * Uf
R(fatal cancers) - Q * S * C RRng * Uf
Nuclld* C DFIng RFIna Uf
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1 .55E+02
1.55E+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
. .
- -
. .
»
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
- -
- -
- -
- -
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
- -
- -
- -
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
- -
- -
6.56E-08
1 .86E-07
4.49E-08
4.82E-09
1 .69E-08
- -
-
- -
- -
1.00E-14
2.90E-14
6.90E-15
7.48E-16
2.65E-15
- -
- -
- -
- -
TOTAL 3.19E-07 4.93E-14
A-100
-------
191
AVERAGE CPQ MGESTION OF
FOODSTUFFS CONTAUMATED BY DUST DEPOSITION
fen OcotlMniwI Wm»l»
Q. 2.66E+02
S.6.01E-08
O(mram) - Q * S * C DRng Uf
R((atal cancan) - Q * S * C * RPIng Uf
Nuelld*
'0-211
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
Uf
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
D
4.38E-08
1.24E-07
4.36E-08
2.47E-09
R
6.68E-15
1.94E-14
6.70E-15
3.84E-16
1.10E+02 1.40E-03 2.20E-10 1.29E-02 3.18E-08 4.99E-15
TOTAL 2.46E-07 3.81 E-14
A-101
-------
I10e
INGESTON OF FOODSTUFFS GROWN ON
REPEATEDLY FERTILIZED SOIL
OTHER INDIVIDUAL
ton
G- 1.00E+03
S-1.00E+00
D(mrem) - Q S C * DFlng * Uf
R(fatal cancan) . Q S C * RRng * Uf
Nuelld*
DFIna
RFIna
Uf
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
4.48E-05
1 .27E-04
4.26E-05
1 .75E-06
6.14E-06
1.15E-04
1 .08E-OS
1 .05E-04
9.39E-05
5.13E-06
6.84E-1 2
1.98E-11
6.55E-12
2.72E-13
9.65E-13
1.78E-11
1.68E-12
1.62E-11
1.47E-11
7.98E-13
TOTAL 5.53E-04 8.55E-11
A-102
-------
no*
OTHER INDIVIDUAL - INGESTION OF FOODSTUFFS GROWN ON
REPEATEDLY FERTILIZED SOIL
Mtefw Tnut Sludg» (FtrtHlxir)
Q. 1.00E+03
S-1.00E+00
D(mrem) - Q * S C DRng Uf
R(fatai cancers) - G * S C RFing * Uf
Nucllda
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1 .60E-01
1 .20E-03
OFIng
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFlng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-1 1
4.20E-11
Uf
I.31E-02
I.31E-02
.31E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
D
9.96E-03
2.83E-02
1.09E-02
4.13E-05
1.44E-02
5.76E-05
2.79E-04
9.90E-04
8.84E-04
7.16E-06
R
1.52E-09
4.40E-09
1.68E-09
6.40E-12
2.27E-09
8.91 E-1 2
4.33E-11
1.52E-10
1.38E-10
1.11E-12
TOTAL 6.59E-02 1.02E-08
A-103
-------
POP. - OOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENOEO PARTICULATES
tor. Unnlum Ovwfturrfwi
G- 1.00E+03
G1- 8.00E+03
Q2- 3.15E+05
G3- 4.50E+02
S- 1.77E-06
PR(fatal cancers) - G S * C l(G1*RFInh) * (G2*RFG) + (GS'UI'RFJng)]
PtXpereon mrem) - G * S * C l(Gl'DFInh) * (G2*OFG) « (G3*Uf*DFlng)]
C DFIng RFInfl DFInh RFInh PD
PR
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
1 .66E>01
1.66E*01
2.37E*01
1 .OOE+00
1 .OOE+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
2.37E+01
1.20E*00
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
9.40E-03
1 .40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
S.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1.90E-08
2.21 E+00
3.29E+00
5.09E*00
S.OOE^OO
1.18E-01
1.11E4-02
2.27E+01
4.36E4-01
4.03E*01
2.05E+00
3.53E-07
5.18E-07
1.30E-06
8.23E-07
3.00E-08
1.71E-05
3.54E-06
6.71 E-06
6.38E-06
3.27E-07
TOTAL
2.35E+02 3.71 E-OS
A-104
-------
P1 b
POP. DOWNWMD
tar Pho»phmt» W»»t»
G. 1.00E+03
01. 8.00E+03
02- 3.15E+05
03- 4.50E+02
S-4.51E-06
TO RESUSPENOEO PARTWULATES
PR(fata) cancers) . G * S
PCXperson mrem) G * S
Nuelld* Uf C
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234 !
U-238 i
U-235 !
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.20E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
C ' ((Gl'RFInh) + (G2*RFG) + (G3*UrRFIng)J
C * ((GVOFInh) + (G2*DFG) i- (G3*Uf*DFIng)]
ORnfl RRna ORnh RFInh
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-1 1
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
9.40E-03
1 .40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E>00
1.30E-01
1 .20E-01
1.20E-01
1.SOE-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
S.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
PO
8.95E+00
1.33E+01
1.81E+01
3.44E+00
8.14E-02
1.55E+02
1.56E+01
2.91 E+01
2.60E+01
1.31E+00
PR
1.43E-06
2.10E-06
4.60E-06
5.66E-07
2.06E-08
2.39E-05
2.44E-06
4.47E-06
4.11E-06
2.08E-07
TOTAL 2.71 E*02 4.39E-05
A-105
-------
P1e
POP.- DOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENDED PART1CULATES
Phoiphmto ftrttttnr
G- 1.00E+03
G1- 8.00E+03
G2.3.15E+05
G3- 4.50E+02
& 5.82E-06
PR(fataJ cancers) - G S C [(QTRRnh) + (G2*RFG) + (G3*UfRRng)]
PtXperaon mrem) . G S C [(Gl'DFInh) * (G2'DFG) + (63'UfDFing)]
Nuclld* Uf C DFIna RFIna DFInh RFInh
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
U-234 2.21 E-02
U-238 2.21 E-02
U-235 2.21 E-02
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
2.SOE-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1.60E-02
3.10E-04
1 .70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-1 1
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
1.50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
S.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1.90E-08
PD
7.88E-04
1.17E-03
1.77E-03
5.59E-03
1.32E-04
2.46E-01
2.31 E-02
1.03E-01
9.50E-02
4.83E-03
PR
1.8SE-10
4.49E-10
9.20E-10
3.35E-11
3.80E-08
3.61 E-09
1.58E-08
1.50E-08
7.71 E-10
TOTAL 4.81 E-01 7.50E-08
A-106
-------
Pld POP. -DOWHWMO EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENDED PARTICULATES
tan Co* Ath
G- 1.00E+03
Q1- 8.00E+03
G2-3.15E+05
G3- 4.SOE+02
& 0.83E-07
PR(fatal cancers) - G * S C ((OVRRnh) + (G2*RFG) + (G3'UfRFIng)l
PCKparson rnrem) - Q * S C ((01'DFlnh) + (G2*DFG) * (G3*UfDRng)]
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234 i
U-238 !
U-235 !
.31^-02
.31E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
r
C
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E*00
3.20E>00
1 .80E>00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E>00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
DFIna
1.90E-03
S.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-O4
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-1 1
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
DFlnh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
RFInh
1.SOE-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
S.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
PD
5.18E-01
7.49E-01
4.42E-01
8.89E+00
1.18E-01
5.97E>00
2.64E>01
3.37E+00
3.11E+00
1.52E-01
PR
8.26E-08
1.18E-07
1.12E-07
1.46E-06
3.00E-08
9.22E-07
4.13E-06
5.19E-07
4.93E-07
2.42E-08
TOTAL 4.97E+01 7.89E-06
A-107
-------
P1« POP. OOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENDED P/ MKULATES
tor; Wtttr Tnmt Sludg» (F*rtllU»r)
G- 1.00E+03
G1- 8.00E+03
G2-3.15E+05
G3- 4.50E+02
S» 6.14E-06
PR(lata) cancers) - G S * C [(GVRFInh) * (G2*RFG) + (GS'UfRi ng)]
PD(pereon mrem) - G * S C [(Gl'DFinh) * (G2'DFG) * (GS'UfOF 1fl)l
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
Uf
1.31 E-02
1 .31 E-02
1.31 E-02
1 .29E-02
1 .29E-02
1.31 E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
C
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1 .60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
DFIng
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFInfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1 .20E-01
1.20E-01
Rl nh
1.5( i-09
2.2( =-09
1.3( H-09
S.3( =-08
7.4( MO
5.1 ( =-08
2.5( =-07
2.0( =-08
1.9c =-08
1.9( =-08
PD
1.85E-01
2.75E-01
4.77E-01
1.39E-01
3.29E-01
1.30E-01
6.29E-01
1.02E+00
9.43E-01
7.11E-03
PR
2.95E-08
4.33E-08
1.21E-07
2.28E-08
8.32E-08
2.00E-08
9.82E-08
1 .57E-07
1.49E-07
1.14E-09
TC ~AL 4.13E+00 7.26E-07
A-108
-------
Pit
POP. - DOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENOED PARTICULATES
ton Wmttr Tnmt Sludg» (Lmndflll)
G- 1.00E+03
Q1- 8.00E+03
G2- 3.15E+05
G3- 4.50E+02
S- 1.25E-06
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
PR(»atal cancers) - G * S
PD(person mrem) - G * S
Uf C
i
i
.31 £-02
.31 E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
.29E-02
.31 E-02
.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
1 .50E-01
1 .50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
C * [(GrRFinh) + (G2'RFG) + (G3*Uf*RFing)J
C * [(GI'DRnh) + (G2'DFG) + (GS'UfDRng))
DFInfl RFIng DFInh RFInh
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
S.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-1 1
4.20E-11
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1 .30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
1.50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
PD
1.41 E-02
2.10E-02
3.64E-02
1.06E-02
2.51 E-02
9.90E-03
4.80E-02
7.80E-02
7.20E-02
6.03E-04
PR
2.25E-09
3.31 E-09
9.26E-09
1.74E-09
6.35E-09
1.53E-09
7.50E-09
1.20E-08
1.14E-08
9.63E-1 1
TOTAL 3.16E-01 5.54E-08
A-109
-------
P1g POP. - OOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENOEO PARTICULARS
far: Untnl Processing Wm»t»
G- 1.00E+03
Q1. 8.00E+03
02- 3.15E+05
Q3- 4.50E+02
S. 5.23E-07
PR(fataJ cancers) - Q * S C KGVRFinh) + (G2'RFG) * (GS'UfRFing)]
PtXperson mrem) - G * S * C KGI'DFInh) + (G2'DFG) *
Nuelldc
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
Uf
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
1 .29E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E*01
1.00E+01
1 .OOE+01
3.50Ef01
1 .OOE*01
3.50E*01
3.50E+01
1.80E*00
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
HFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
3.30E-01
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
1.20E-01
1.20E-01
RFInh
1.50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
S.30E-08
7.40E-10
5.10E-08
2.50E-07
2.00E-08
1 .90E-08
1 .90E-08
PD
9.83E-01
1.47E+00
2.22E+00
1.48E*01
3.SOE-01
4.83E+01
6.69E>01
1.90E+01
1.76E*01
9.09E-01
PR
1.57E-07
2.31 E-07
5.65E-07
2.43E-06
8.86E-08
7.47E-06
1.0SE-05
2.93E-06
2.78E-06
1 .45E-07
TOTAL
1.73E+02 2.73E-05
A-110
-------
P1h
PR(fata) cancers) -
PD(parson mrem)
POP. - DOWNWWD EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENOEO PAR1WULATES
far; OU * OM ScmW STudg*
G. 1.00E+03
G1- 8.00E+03
G2-3.15E+05
G3- 4.60E+02
S- 2.72E-08
G * S C [(GI'RRnh) + (G2*RFG)
G S * C ' [(QrDRnh) * (G2*DFG)
+ (G3*UfRRng)]
(G3*UfDRng)]
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
Uf
1.31 E-02
1.31 E-02
1 .31 E-02
1.29E-02
1 .29E-02
1.31 E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
C
1.55E+02
1 .55E+02
1.55E+02
5.50E*01
5.50E+01
- .
. .
. .
. .
DFInfl
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
- -
- -
- -
- -
HRna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
- -
- -
- -
- -
DFInh
9.40E-03
1 .40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
RFInh
1 .50E-09
2.20E-09
1.30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
- -
- -
- -
PO
3.17E-01
4.73E-01
5.12E-01
4.23E+00
1.00E-01
- -
-
-
- -
PR
S.06E-08
7.44E-08
1.30E-07
6.96E-07
2.54E-08
- -
*
TOTAL 5.63E+00 9.76E-07
A-111
-------
P11 POP. DOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RESUSPENDED PART1CULATES
ton OMtfMmMl Wmtt»
G- 1.00E+03
01- 8.00E+03
G2- 3.15E+05
G3» 4.50E+02
S- 5.05E-O8
PR(fataJ cancers) - Q * S C * [(GI'RRnh) + (G2'RFG) + (G3*UfRRng)l
PDiperson mrem) - G S C [(Q1*DFWi) * (G2'DFG) * (G3*Uf'DRng)|
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
1.31 E-02
1 .31 E-02
1.31 E-02
1 .29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31 E-02
1.29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1 .60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
. -
. .
»*
1.90E-03
S.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
-
- -
- -
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
- -
-
-
DFInh
9.40E-03
1.40E-02
8.60E-03
3.40E-01
4.80E-03
-
- -
- -
RFInh
1.50E-09
2.20E-09
1 .30E-09
5.30E-08
7.40E-10
- -
- -
- -
- -
PD
4.18E-01
6.23E-01
9.81 E-01
4.28E+00
3.72E-01
*
"
"
" "
PR
9.80E-08
2.49E-07
7.04E-07
9.41 E-08
"
"
"
"
"
TOTAL 6.67E+00 1.21E-06
A-112
-------
P2« POPULATION. DOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO rfADON
ten Urmlum Orarfeurdten
-------
P2b POPULATION -DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RADON
ton Photphatf IMute
Q. 2.53E+00
S- 1.28E+04
OR- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancers) - Q * S DFr
Nuclld* PR
Ra-226 1 .S9E-02
TOTAL 1.50E-02
A-114
-------
P2e POPULATION-DOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RADON
Ion Phoiphmt* Ftrtflliw
O. 2.53E+00
S-1.28E-01
OR- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancan) - Q S DFr
Nuclld* PR
Ra-226 1.59E-07
TOTAL 1.50E-07
A-115
-------
P2d POPULATION DOWNWMO EXPOSURE TO RADON
Q- 2.53E+00
S- 6.31 E+01
OR- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancan) - Q S * DFr
Nuelld* _ PR
Ra-226 7.82E-05
TOTAL 7.82E-05
A-116
-------
P2« POPULATION - DOWNWMD EXPOSURE TO RAOON
ton Mtofw tt»«l S/urf0«
G. 2.53E+00
S- 3.76E+01
DFr- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancan) - Q S OFr
Nuclld* PR
Ra-226 4.66E-05
TOTAL 4.66E-05
A-117
-------
pgf POPULATIOM - DOWMWBJD EXPOSURE TO RADON
ten Motor Troat Sludgo (Landfill)
GD 2.53E+00
&> 9.91 E+00
4.90E-07
PR(fatal eaneere) «» Q S DFr
Nuelldo PR
Ra-226 1.23E-OS
TOTAL 1.23E-05
A-118
-------
P2g POPULATION -DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO feADON
tar; MTiMral Pmcinlng Witt*
G- 2.53E+00
S- 1.35E+03
Oft- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancan) - G S DFr
Nuelld* PR
Ra-226 1.67E-03
TOTAL 1.67E-03
A-119
-------
P2h POPULATION DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RADON
Ion Oil « OM SciM/ Sfurf0«
& 2.53E+00
S- 5.48E+02
DFr- 4.90E-07
PR(fata) cancers) - G * S DFr
Nuclld* PR
Ra-226 6.79E-04
TOTAL 6.79E-04
A-120
-------
P2I POPULATION DOWNWIND EXPOSURE TO RADON
ten Ofcthtnuml Wm*t»
Q. 2.53E+00
S- 4.45E+03
OR- 4.90E-07
PR(fatal cancan) - G S * DFr
Nuclld* PR
Ra-226 5.52E-03
TOTAL 5.52E-03
A-121
-------
POPULATION INOESTION OF RIVER WATER
OONTAUNATED VU THE OROUNOWATER PATHWAY
lor: Unnlum Ovwfeurdwi
Q. 2.00E-07
S- 3.27E+15
1-«xp-3.40E-05
PDfmrem) - (G S C * UW DFIng (1-exp)) / R
PRffatal cancan) - (O * S * C Uw * RFlng * (1-exp)) /
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1 .66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
2.37E>01
2.37E+01
1.20E*00
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.SOE-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFInn
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E*02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
2.46E4.02
2.46E>02
Uw
9.43 E-01
9.43E-01
9.43 E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
2.41 E+00
3.82E+00
2.63E*00
1.02E-04
1.19E-01
3.34E-03
6.89E-04
5.25E-01
4.69E-01
2.57E-02
PR
.68E-07
5.94E-07
4.04E-07
1.S8E-11
1.87E-08
5.16E-10
1.07E-10
8.07E-08
7.32E-08
3.99E-09
TOTAL
1.00E+01 1.54E-06
A-122
-------
P3b
POPULATION INGESmON OF RIVER WATER
CONTAMNATED VIA THE QROUNDWATER PATHWAY
tor. Phtupha* Witt*
G. 2.00E-07
S- 6.71E+15
1-exp. 3.50E-02
PD(mrem) - (Q S * C * UW DRng (1-exp)) / R
PR(fatal cancan) (Q S C * Uw * RRng (1-exp)) / R
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
DFIng
1.90E-03
S.40E-03
1 .30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73^+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E>05
2.45E+03
2.45E>03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43 E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
.14E+02
1.29E+03
7.76E+02
5.82E-03
6.80E+00
3.87E-01
3.93E-02
2.92E+01
2.52Ef01
1.36E+00
PR
1 .24E-04
2.00E-04
1.19E-04
9.03E-10
1.07E-06
5.98E-08
6.11E-09
4.48E-06
3.93E-06
2.12E-07
TOTAL 2.94E+03 4.53E-04
A-123
-------
P3c
POPULATION - DIGESTION OF RIVER WATER
CONTAMNATED VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
Phe»plimt» FmrtllUw
G. 2.00E-07
S- 6.52E+13
1-axp. 8.80E-03
' Uw * ORng * (1-exp)) / R
S * C * Uw * RFIng * (1-exp)) / R
PD(mram) (Q * S * C
PR(fatal cancers) (Q
Nuclld*
f»o-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1 .80E-03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1.70E-02
8.60E-04
OFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.SOE-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
1.36E-04
2.14E-04
1.44E-04
1.79E-08
2.09E-05
1.16E-06
1.10E-07
1.95E-04
1.74E-04
9.53E-06
PR
.07E-11
3.33E-11
2.21 E-11
2.78E-15
3.29E-12
1.80E-13
1.72E-14
3.00E-11
2.72E-11
1.48E-12
TOTAL 8.95E-04 1.38E-10
A-124
-------
PM
POPULATION - INGEST1ON OF ftlVER WATER
CONTAIBNATEO VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
ferrCMf Afh
Q. 2.00E-07
S- 2.55E+15
1-«xp-6.70E-02
PCKmrem) - (Q S * C * UW ORng * (1-exp)) / R
PR(fatal cancers) - (Q S * C * UW RFIng * (l*xp)) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E4-00
1.60E-01
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.SOE-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
4.10E+02
1.64E+04
4.10E+02
1.64E+04
1.64E+04
2.74E+02
2.74E+02
2.74E+02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
7.85E+02
2.17E+03
3.78E+02
2.50E+00
1.97E+02
2.49E+00
1.11E+01
1.01E+02
9.01 E+01
4.72E+00
PR
1 .20E-04
3.37E-04
5.82E-05
3.88E-07
3.10E-05
3.84E-07
1.73E-06
1.55E-05
1.41E-05
7.34E-07
TOTAL 3.74E+03 5.79E-04
A-125
-------
P3«
POPULATION INGESTION OF RIVER WATER
OONTAIONATED VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
tor. Wmtur Tnml Sludg» (F»rtUU*r)
Q. 2.00E-07
S- 6.52E+13
1-«xp-8.70E-03
P0(mrwn) - (Q S * C * Uw ' DFIng (1-axp)) / R
PRXfatal cannra) - (Q S C Uw RHng * (1-«p)) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
6.40E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-01
8.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-01
1.60E-01
1.20E-03
DPIna
1.90E43
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
S.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E>03
8.18E^05
8.18E-fOS
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
2.98E-02
4.71 E-02
3.63E-02
4.17E-07
4.87E-02
5.75E-07
2.81 E-06
1.82E-03
1.62E-03
1.31E-05
PR
4.55E-09
7.32E-09
5.59E-09
6.46E-14
7.65E-09
8.89E-14
4.38E-13
2.79E-10
2.53E-10
2.04E-12
TOTAL
1.6SE-01 2.56E-08
A-126
-------
P3f
POPULATION INGESTION OP RIVER WATER
CONTAIONATED VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
tor. Wmtur Tnml Sludg* (Lmndail)
& 2.00E-07
S- 2.93E+14
1-exp- 2.20E-04
P0(mram) - (Q * S C Uw DRng * (1-exp)) / R
PR(fatal cancan) - (O S C * UW RFIng (1-exp)) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
DRng
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RRnfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.4SE+03
8.18E>05
2.4SE>03
8.18E+05
8.18E>05
2.4SE+03
2.45E*03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
1.27E-03
2.01E-03
1.55E-03
1.78E-08
2.08E-03
2.45E-08
1.20E-07
7.74E-05
6.91 E-05
6.22E-07
PR
1.94E-10
3.12E-10
2.38E-10
2.75E-15
3.26E-10
3.79E-15
1.86E-14
1.19E-11
1.08E-11
9.68E-14
TOTAL 7.0SE-03 1.09E-09
A-127
-------
P3g
POPULATION INGESTON OF AlVER WATER
CONTAUMATED VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
ten MbMraf Procuring W**t»
Q. 2.00E-07
3- 2.14E+1S
1-exp-2.00E-06
PDdnrem) - (Q * S C * UW DFIng (1-axp)) / R
PR(fatal cancers) . (O S C * UW RRng * (1-«xp» / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1 .OOE+01
1 .OOE+01
3.50E+01
1 .OOE+01
3.50Ef01
3.50E>01
1 .80E+00
DFInfl
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-1 1
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E*02
8.18E+04
8.18E+04
2.46Ei4)2
2.46E+03
2.46E+02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
2.21 E-01
1.49E-01
3.93E-OS
4.57E-02
1 .90E-04
2.65E-04
2.99E-02
2.67E-03
1 .48E-03
PR
.14E-08
3.45E-08
2.30E-08
6.09E-12
7.19E-09
2.94E-1 1
4.13E-11
4.59E-09
4.16E-10
2.30E-10
TOTAL 5.91 E-01 9.13E-08
A-128
-------
P3h POPULATION - INOESTION Of RIVER WATER
COKTAMMATEO VIA THE GROUNOWATER PATHWAY
ton OU « OM SemW Studg»
G. 2.00E-07
S- 2.28E+14
1-exp-3.00E-03
P0(mrem) . (Q S C Uw DFlng (1-«xp)) / R
PR(fatal cancers) - (Q * S * C * Uw RHng * (1-exp)) / R
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1.55E+02
1.S5E+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
. -
Dflng
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
- -
R
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
1.36E+04
1.36E+04
1.36E+04
Uw
9.43 E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
- -
- -
-
- -
PO
6.96E+01
1.98E+02
1.91E>00
2.08E-01
7.27E-01
-
- -
-
-
PR
1.06E-05
3.08E-05
2.94E-07
3.22E-08
1.14E-07
TOTAL 2.70E+02 4.18E-05
A-129
-------
P3I
PD(i ram)
PR(f tal
POPULATION INGESTION OF RIVER WATER
CONTAMINATED VIA THE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
for: OMlftcniM/ Wut»
G. 2.00E-07
S- 4.62E+14
-axp- 5.80E-05
Uw DFIng * (1-«xp)) / R
S * C * Uw * RRng (1-exp)) /
(Q
S * C
(Q
Uw
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
Nuclld* C DFinfl RFlnq R
TT ST55 1.90E-03 2.90^-10 2.74^*02 9.43E-01
1.1 E+02 5.40E-03 8.40E-10 4.92E+02 9.43E-01
1.6 E+02 1.30E-03 2.00E-10 2.46E+02 9.43E-01
3.C E+01 4.00E-04 6.20E-11 8.18E*04 9.39E-01
1.1 E>02 1.40E-03 2.20E-10 2.46E+02 9.39E-01
PO
3.85E+00
PR
S.88E-07
6.10E*00 9.49E-07
4.27E+00 6.S7E-07
7.38E-04 1.14E-10
3.1SE+00 4.95E-07
TOTAL 1.74E+01 2.69E-06
A-130
-------
POPULATION INGESTION OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
r: Omnium
Q. 3.50E-09
S» 7.06E+16
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-236
PDOnram) -
PR(fatalcan
c
1.66E+01
1.66E+01
2.37E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E>00
2J7E*01
1.00E*00
2.37E+01
2JJ7E+01
1.20E*00
(Q S C *
eon) » (Q *
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
Uw DRng )
S * C * Uw '
RRng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
/R
RRng ) / R
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E*02
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
8.18E>04
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
2.46E*02
2.46E+02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
2.68E+04
4.25E+04
2.92E+04
1.13E>00
1.32E+03
3.71 E+01
7.66E+00
5.84E4-03
5.21 E+03
2.85E+02
PR
4.09E-03
6.60E-03
4.49E-03
1.76E-07
2.08E-04
5.74E-06
1.19E-06
8.97E-04
8.13E-04
4.43E-05
TOTAL 1.11E+05 1.72E-02
A-131
-------
P4b
POPULATION - INGESTION OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
tor. Pho*ph»t»
fr 3.50E-O9
& 1.03E+18
P0(mrem)
PR(fatal
(Q S * C
» - (G '
Uw * DPIng ) / R
S * C * Uw * RFlng ) / R
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-23S
C
2.64E+01
2.64E+01
3.30E+01
2.70E-01
2.70E-01
1.30E+01
2.70E-01
6.20E+00
6.00E+00
3.00E-01
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E*OS
2.45E*03
8.18E+05
8.18E*05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
6.25E+04
9.87E+04
5.95E*04
4.47E-01
5.22E+02
2.97E+01
3.02E+00
2.24E+03
1.93E+03
1.04E+02
PR
1.54E-02
9.16E-03
6.93 E-08
8.21 E-05
4.59E-06
4.69E-07
3.44E-04
3.02E-04
1.62E-OS
TOTAL 2.26E+05 3.48E-02
A-132
-------
P4e
VMVKVt WWW BMHHnM I KM 0V 9Wir^n«^ ni»fww
Photphttf FurtlUxfr
(^ 3.50E-09
S- 2J2E+17
PD(mrem) - (Q S C Uw DRng ) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
PR(fatal cam
C
1.80E--03
1.80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1.70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
yon) » (Q S C * Uw *
OFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
S.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-1 1
4.20E-11
RFIng ) / R
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
2.45E+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
9.59E-01
1.52E+00
1.02E+00
1.27E-04
1.48E-01
8.24E-03
7.80E-04
1.38E+00
1.23E+00
6.74E-02
PR
1 .46E-07
2.36E-07
1 .56E-07
1 .96E-1 1
2.33E-08
1.27E-09
1.21E-10
2.12E-07
1 .92E-07
1.05E-08
TOTAL 6.33E+00 9.78E-07
A-133
-------
P44
POPULATION INOESnON OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
Nuclld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-228
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
G.
S-
PD(mrem)
PR(tata) cant
C
7.00E+00
6.80E+00
3.70E+00
3.20E+00
1.80E+00
2.30E+00
2.10E+00
3.30E+00
3.30E+00
1.60E-01
3.50E-09
1.40E+17
(Q S C '
Uw * DRng ;
DOT) - (Q ' S ' C ' UW
DFIng
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.SOE-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.SOE-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
>/R
RFIng ) / R
R
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
4.10E+02
1.64E+04
4.10E+02
1.64E+04
1.64E+04
2.74E-K02
2.74E+02
2.74E4-02
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PD
1.13E*04
3.11E+04
5.42E*03
3.59E+01
2.83E4-03
3.56E+01
1.59E+02
1.45E+03
1.29E4-03
6.77E+01
PR
1.72E-03
4.83E-03
8.34E-04
5.57E-06
4.44E-04
5.51 E-06
2.47E-05
2.22E-04
2.02E-04
1.05E-05
TOTAL 5.36E+04 8.30 E-03
A-134
-------
P4«
POPULATION - INGESTION OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
ten Wmtur Tnmt Sfu0« (Firtlllxir)
G. 3.50E-09
S. 1.99E+17
PD03
8.18E>05
2.4SE+03
8.18EfOS
8.18E+05
2.46E+03
2.45E+03
2.4SE+03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
1.83E+02
2.89E+02
2.23E+02
2.56E-03
2.99E+02
3.53E-03
1.73E-02
1.12E+01
9.96E*00
8.07E-02
PR
79E-05
49E-05
43E-05
97E-10
70E-05
46E-10
S9E-09
71 E-06
5SE-06
26E-08
TOTAL
1.02E+03
57E-04
A-13S
-------
P4f
POPULATION - DIGESTION OF RIVER
WATER COMTAMMATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
Ion Wmtor TfcMf Sludg* (LfndflH)
Q. 3.50E-09
S- 2.66E+16
PD(mram) - (G * S * C UW DFIng ) / R
PR(fatal cancan) - (Q * S * C * UW RFIng ) / R
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.40E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-01
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-04
DFIna
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIng
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.73E+03
4.91 E+03
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
8.18E+05
8.18E+05
2.45E+03
2.4SE*03
i45E*03
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-01
PO
9.13E+00
1.44E+01
1.11E+01
1.28E-04
1.49E>01
1.76E-04
8.62E-04
5.57E-01
4.97E-01
4.48E-03
PR
1.39E-06
2.24E-06
1.71E-06
1.98E-11
2.35E-06
2.73E-1 1
1.34E-10
8.56E-08
7.76E-08
6.96E-10
TOTAL
5.07E>01 7.86E-06
A-136
-------
P4fl
POPULATION - INCESnON OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOF
ten MM;*/ Preceding Wm»t»
0. 3.50E-09
S- 6.86E+15
PCHmrem) . (Q S C Uw DRng ) / R
PR(fataJ cancan) - (Q S C * UW RFlng ) / R
Nuclld*
PO-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
2.50E+01
2.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
1.00E+01
3.50E+01
3.50E+01
1.80E+00
DFIng
1 .90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.SOE-04
2.70E-04
RFInfl
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E^02
8.18E*04
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
2.46E-^03
2.46E+02
Uw
.43E-01
.43E-01
.43E-01
.39E-01
.39E-01
'.43E-01
.39E-01
.76E-01
.76E-01
.76E-01
PO
3.93E+03
6.21 E+03
4.19E>03
1.10E+00
1.28E+03
5.33E+00
7.44E+00
8.38E+02
7.48E+01
4.16E+01
PR
5.99E-04
9.66E-04
6.44E-04
1.71E-07
2.02E-04
8.23E-07
1.16E-06
1.29E-04
1.17E-05
6.46E-06
TOTAL
1.66E*04 2.56E-03
A-137
-------
P4h
POPULATION INGESTIONOF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
tor. Oil OM Seal* Sludg*
G. 3.50E-09
S- 5.24E+16
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
PEXmrem)
PR(fatal can
e
1.55E+02
1.5SE+02
1.55E+02
5.50E+01
5.50E+01
(Q 3 C *
can) . (Q *
DFIno
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1 .30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
Uw'DFlng)
s c uw
RFInq
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
/R
RPIng )/R
R
5.46E+02
5.46E+02
1.36E+04
1.36E+04
1.36E+04
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
PD
9.33E+03
2.65E+04
2.56E+02
2.79E+01
9.75E+01
PR
1.42E-03
4.1 2E-03
3.94E-OS
4.32E-06
1.S3E-05
TOTAL 3.62E+04 5.61 E-03
A-138
-------
P4I POPULATION - INGESnON OF RIVER
WATER CONTAMINATED BY SURFACE RUNOFF
ten (teofftwiMf WM(*
G. 3.50E-09
S- 4.32E+15
PCKmram) . (Q S * C UW DFIng ) / R
PR(fata) cancan) - (G S C Uw RRng ) / R
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
e
1.10E+02
1.10E+02
1.60E+02
3.00E+01
1.10E+02
- .
. .
- -
DFInfl
1.90E-03
5.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
R
2.74E+02
4.92E+02
2.46E+02
8.18E+04
2.46E+02
*
Uw
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.43E-01
9.39E-01
9.39E-01
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
PO
1.09E+04
1.72E+04
1.21E+04
2.08E+00
8.89E+03
-
-
-
PR
1.66E-03
2.68E-03
1.85E-03
3.23 E-0 7
1.40E-03
"
"
"
" "
- -
TOTAL 4.90E+04 7.59E-03
A-139
-------
P5C
POPULATION INGESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
GROWN ON REPEATEDLY FERTILIZED SOIL
Pho*phat» Fertilizer
(^ 4.93E+06
S.1.00E+00
PDOnrem) . (Q S C Uf DFing )
PR(latal cancers) - (Q S * C Ul * RRng )
Nuelld*
Po-210
Pb-210
Ra-226
Th-228
Ra-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
U-235
C
1 .80E-03
1 .80E-03
2.50E-03
3.40E-04
3.40E-04
1 .60E-02
3.10E-04
1 .70E-02
1 .70E-02
8.60E-04
DFInfl
1.90E-03
S.40E-03
1.30E-03
4.00E-04
1.40E-03
5.50E-04
2.70E-03
2.80E-04
2.50E-04
2.70E-04
RFIna
2.90E-10
8.40E-10
2.00E-10
6.20E-11
2.20E-10
8.50E-11
4.20E-10
4.30E-11
3.90E-11
4.20E-11
Uf
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
1.29E-02
1.31E-02
1 .29E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
2.21 E-02
PD
2.21 E-01
6.28E-01
2.10E-01
8.65E-03
3.03E-02
S.68E-01
S.32E-02
S.18E-01
4.63E-01
2.S3E-02
PR
3.37E-08
9.76E-08
3.23E-08
1 .34E-09
4.76E-09
8.78E-08
8.28E-09
7.96E-08
7.22E-08
3.94E-09
TOTAL 2.73E+00 4.22E-07
A-140
-------
PS*
lots \
POPULATION DIGESTION OF FOODSTUFFS
OJKMM ON REPEATEDLY FERTILIZED SOL
Tnmt Sludge
S-1.00E+00
P0(mr 01) . (Q S C Uf DFing )
PR
-------