United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and
Radiation
(ANR461)
EPA 520/1-90-009
March 1990
&EPA
EPA Workshop on
Radioactively
Contaminated Sites
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 520/1/-90-009
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EPA Workshop on Radioactively Contaminated
Sites
7. AUTHOR(S)
Office of Radiation Programs
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. EPA
ORP/OSWER
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
3 J^I^T s Ag^$°5 Q]AS
5. REPORT DATE
March 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
15. ABSTRACT
'This report is a compilation of reports presented at a workshop that was
sponsored jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Radiation Programs and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. They
include status reports from DOE, DOD, and private industry, EPA case
studies, and summaries of applicable technology and research...;-' --
t
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYS!
a. DESCRIPTORS
Radionuclides
Radiation
Contamination
Sites
Waste
Exposure
Workshop
Disposal
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
S
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report t
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c. COSATI Field/Group
>
21. NO. OF PAGES
. 180
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
EPA WORKSHOP ON RADIOACTIVELY
CONTAMINATED SITES
May 3-5, 1989
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Sponsored by:
ORP/OSWER
under
Contract No. 68D90170
Work Assignment No. 1-8
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 1990
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT vii
1. WELCOMING REMARKS -
Nick Morgan, Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compli ance Program, EPA 1
2. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM -
Anthony F. Kluk, Office of Defense Waste
and Remedial Actions Division, Department of Energy.... 6
3. OVERVIEW OF FUSRAP AND SFMP -
James W. Wagoner II, FUSRAP Program Manager, DOE 16
4. REGION 6 INVOLVEMENT IN NEW MEXICO:
URANIUM MILLS AND MINES -
William D. Rowe, Region 6, EPA 26
5. COMMERCIAL URANIUM INDUSTRY DECONTAMINATION
AND DECOMMISSIONING CONSORTIUM -
David G. Culberson, Babcock & Wilcox 33
6. NEW JERSEY RADIUM SITES, MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE
AND GLEN RIDGE -
Raimo Liias, Region 2, EPA 38
7. CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL CONTAMINANTS
FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES -
James Neiheisel, EPA 42
8. CHARACTERIZATION AND WASHING OF RADIONUCLIDE-
CONTAMINATED SOILS FROM NEW JERSEY -
William S. Richardson, S. Cohen & Associates
Tonya B. Hudson, S. Cohen & Associates
Joseph G. Wood and Charles R. Phillips, EPA 51
9. THE WELDON SPRING SITE, MISSOURI -
Daniel R. Wall, Region 7, EPA 62
10. OTTAWA RADIATION SITES -
Verneta Simon, Region 5, EPA 66
11. SHPACK LANDFILL, MASSACHUSETTS -
David Leqerer, Region 1, EPA 69
12. THE LANSDOWNE RADIATION SITE, PENNSYLVANIA -
William Belanger and Victor Janosik, Region 3, EPA.... 73
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
13. DENVER'RADIUM SITES -
Holly Fliniau, Region 8, EPA 77
14. ROBINSON BRICK CO. TRACT AT THE DENVER RADIUM SITE -
William N. Fitch, Frederick K. Algaier,
Bureau of Mines, DOI , 81
15. INSTRUMENTATION FOR DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH
FUSRAP GUIDELINES -
Cathy R. Mickey, Bechtel Environmental Inc 84
16. AERIAL RADIATION SURVEYS FOR RADIOMETRIC CONTAMINATION -
Joel E. Jobst, EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc..... 87
17. IN SITU VITRIFICATION -
Craig Timmerman, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 97
18. UMTRA VICINITY PROPERTIES IN GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO -
Donald MacDonald, UNC Geotech 104
19. A DEPLETED URANIUM SLUDGE BASIN, HASSACHUSETTS -
Donald A. Barbour, Nuclear Metals, Inc 105
20. CORRECTIVE ACTION INVESTIGATION OF A MIXED
WASTE CONTAMINATED PERCOLATION POND -
Lois C. VanDeusen, INEL, EG&G Idaho, Inc.,
F. Hunter Weiler, Idaho Operations Office, DOE 107
21. SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND CLEANUP AT THE
BABCOCK & WILCOX APOLLO AND PARKS TOWNSHIP,
PENNSYLVANIA FACILITIES -
Tom F. Aud, Babcock & Wilcox 117
22. MAXEY FLATS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE -
Chuck Wakarao and David Kluesner, Region 4, EPA ,. 121
23. PROPOSED HANFORD COMPLIANCE AND CLEANUP PROGRAM -
Paul T. Day, Region 10, EPA 128
24. RADIUM CONTAMINATION AT 930 YORK STREET, CINCINNATI:
A BRIEF HISTORY -
Robert W. Bowlus, Region 5, EPA 134
25. URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT -
Donald Dubois, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc 139
26. TRANSURANIUM ELEMENT CONTAMINATED SOIL CLEANUP -
Edward T. BramlHt, Defense Nuclear Agency 144
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
27. RADIUM CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE SUMMARY -
Shawn W. Googins, CHP, Region 2, EPA 151
28. LANDFILL CLOSURE TECHNOLOGY -
Thomas E. Hakonson, Los Alamos National Laboratory 153
29. SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP ON MANAGEMENT OF
URANIUM-BEARING WASTES AND CONTAMINATED SOILS -
Thomas F. Lomenick, Waste Management
Technology Center, ORNL 155
30. PANELS:
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS -
Richard J. Guimond, Director,
Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 159
30.1 LISTING AND RANKING OF RADIOACTIVE SITES -
Steve Caldwell, Hazardous Site Evaluation Div.,
EPA Kathryn A. Higley, Office of Environmental
Guidance, DOE
30.2 PROBLEMS IN INVESTIGATION/CHARACTERIZATION -
Charles Phillips, Region 4, EPA
William N. Fitch, Bureau of Mines, DO I
Donald MacDonald, UNC Geotech
Lowell Ralston, S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
30.3 ARE STANDARDS ADEQUATE? -
Larainne G. Koehler, Region 2, EPA
Anthony B. Wolbarst, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA
30.4 TECHNOLOGIES - BEING DEVELOPED FAST ENOUGH? -
Larry Coe, S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
Paul Shapiro, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA
Craig Timmerman, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Al Webster, AWC, Inc.
-------
ABSTRACT
A 3-day workshop was held to share information on the investigation,
management, and remediation of radioactively contaminated Superfund sites and
other similar Federal facility sites. These sites can pose a significant
threat to the public health and safety and have been found to present
particular problems because of difficulties in cleanup and disposal of the
radioactive wastes. Currently, 25 sites are on or proposed for the National
Priorities List. These sites have been identified as having significant
radioactive contamination, and it is estimated that there may be more than 100
additional Superfund and Federal facility sites in this category. Most of the
Federal facility sites occur on lands managed by the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD); both Agencies have developed
comprehensive programs to address these problems.
The workshop was sponsored jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Radiation Programs and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
The more than 130 attendees represented a wide spectrum of EPA offices and DOE
and other Federal agencies, as well as government contractors and state
agencies. Presentations included status reports from DOE, DOD, and private
industry, EPA case studies, and summaries of applicable technology and
research. Unresolved issues and problem areas were explored in panel
discussions. Ongoing research examining various aspects of soil cover designs
were visited at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The DOE and DOD have by far the largest share of the Federal Facility
Hazardous Waste Sites and have developed extensive programs for addressing
these. DOE, in particular, has a legacy of radioactively contaminated sites
dating from the Manhattan Project in the early 1940s, including isolated
buildings, uranium mill tailings and vicinity properties, research complexes,
and waste storage/disposal sites. These are being addressed under the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Surplus Facility
Management Program (SFMP), and Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program
(UMTRAP). In the nuclear industry, several major corporations, led by Babcock
& Wilcox, have formed a decontamination and decommissioning consortium to
address generic concerns and problems.
The EPA staff, particularly personnel in Regional Offices, is gaining
extensive site-specific experience in investigating, characterizing, and
remediating radioactively contaminated sites. Sites discussed at the workshop
included buildings with radium contamination dating from the early 1900s,
private landfills and improperly operated disposal sites, and uranium
processing sites. Major problems have been tracking historical records and
identifying potentially responsible parties (PRPs), lack of applicable
remediation standards, and costs for disposing of the contaminated wastes.
Because of transportation and disposal costs for the large volumes of
radioactively contaminated waste involved, EPA is sponsoring research in soil
treatment to reduce the volume of contaminated material. Work at the
radioactively contaminated sites has required extensive adaptation of existing
equipment and technologies to address the unique problems found at these
sites. Laboratory radiometric measuring instruments and protocols have been
adapted to field surveys, and verification and aerial surveys are used to
vii
-------
Identify the presence and extent of contamination. Various soil treatment
technologies are being examined In an effort to reduce the volume of
contaminated material requiring disposal at a licensed facility. In situ
vitrification is being tested as a method of isolating the radioactive
contaminants.
Problems and issues peculiar to these sites were the subject of four panel
discussions: Listing and Ranking of Radioactive Sites, Problems in
Investigation and Characterization, Are Standards Adequate?, and Technologies
- Being Developed Fast Enough?
-------
1. WELCOMING REMARKS:
INTRODUCTION TO EPA OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL AGENCY CLEANUPS
Nick Morgan
Environmental Protection Agency
I work in EPA's Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Office, a
special office, established in 1987, to ensure a nationally consistent
compliance program for all Federal installations. Our primary areas of
responsibility are the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA, and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
(CERCLA}, and the Superfund law. Not only do we assist the regions in
negotiating compliance agreements, but we also develop relevant RCRA and
CERCLA guidance and policy. We also support general enforcement actions taken
by the regional offices and handle any issues that are elevated for
headquarters resolution.
To explain a little bit more about where this Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compliance Office fits within EPA, there are several larger offices
underneath the Administrator. For example, the Office of Air and Radiation,
the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) which handles both Superfund and RCRA. We are
a special office that reports to the director of the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement within OSWER. Unlike most offices, we handle several
environmental statutes; RCRA and Superfund.
At this point, we have defined the universe of facilities that we are
interested in. These include all major Federal installations, as well as any
small Federal facility that may have had a release. We have identified about
1200 major Federal facilities nationwide with which we are concerned. These
range in size from just a few acres to tens of thousands of acres, such as the
Bureau of Land Management units. Most of these 1200 facilities are owned by
the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, or Department of Interior,
but we handle everything from Treasury buildings to DEA storage facilities.
We cover the full range of contaminant types from explosives, to solvents, to
radioactive materials. Additionally, we address .any release, whether related
to weapons manufacturing and testing or the production, processing and
recovery of nuclear materials. We are especially interested in the releases
of. these hazardous substances if they pose threats to human health or the
environment. These releases generally happen as a result of past disposal
practices which were either indiscriminate or even best management practices
or the time. Common disposal practice included the use of unlined pits,
drainage ditches, discharge on the ground, as were as direct injection
underground.
As I mentioned our office covers two environmental statutes -- RCRA and
Superfund--and over the years, especially during the last two amendments of
these two statutes, it became obvious that there's quite a bit of
jurisdictional overlap between RCRA, which includes the HSWA amendments to
deal with corrective action for past releases, and the Superfund law, which
was amended by SARA and had a special section dealing with Federal facilities.
Both of these statutes now deal with the same kind of issues; that is cleaning
1
-------
up past contamination. Me have spent a lot of time wondering about how to
manage this jurisdictional overlap and I'll talk about that in just a moment.
First I'll mention something about RCRA, Section 6001 of RCRA requires that
Federal facilities comply with the act, including permitting requirements, to
the same extent as any private party. That sets the framework of how Federal
agencies deal with RCRA. The act also requires that EPA conduct annual
inspections at Federal facilities. We can't delegate that to the states, as
we have with most of our other inspection authorities. EPA currently inspects
80 Federal land disposal facilities and 256 Federal treatment and storage
facilities each year.
CERCLA Section 120 contains several requirements unique to Federal facilities.
The first one is that EPA establish a docket of all Federal installations that
need to go through the Superfund process. We established the first docket in
February 1988, it was updated in November 1988 and again in December 1989.
At this point, the universe of Federal facilities on the docket is about 1200.
For these Federal installations, a preliminary assessment, and, if required,-a
site inspection, must be conducted within 18 months of listing. The
information is provided to EPA and we'll work with you to establish a Hazard
Ranking Scoring (HRS) score for your facility. Where appropriate, EPA will
list these facilities on the National Priorities List. In March of this year,
we finally published a listing policy for Federal facilities. Under this
listing policy we stated that we would include Federal facilities on the
National Priorities List regardless of the status of RCRA permit or RCRA
corrective action activities at that facility. That is different from private
facilities where we do not list them on the NPL if they have a RCRA permit and
are pursuing corrective action or will pursue corrective action in a
responsible manner. This policy is the result of the SARA requirement that we
list all Federal facilities on the NPL where appropriate.
Currently there are 41 Federal facilities on the NPL and 22 more proposed for
listing. We expect that another 50 or 60 will be proposed within a month or
two. That will be part of a special Federal facilities update, the last one
to be conducted using the old Hazard Ranking System scoring model. The new
model is out for comment under the NCP. If you have not submitted PA/SI data
and a draft HRS score using the old model to EPA, your future requirements are
to submit a draft HRS package using the new model. Ultimately we expect about
200 Federal facilities to be listed on the NPL and I expect that almost every
major DOE operating facility will someday be on the NPL because most have
significant enough releases to warrant inclusion on the NPL.
Another important component of CERCLA is the requirement that you begin a
remedial investigation/feasibility study within 6 months of listing on the
NPL. This means that you must have an approved work plan from EPA or you must
have entered into an Interagency Agreement which contains the schedule for
submitting your work plan within that 6-month time frame. That's different
than the actual field work which most facilities have already initiated.
Because we are interested in ensuring that any field work is consistent with
EPA guidelines, we have determined that you must have a work plan approved by
-------
the EPA office within 6 months of listing in order to meet this statutory
requirement.
Furthermore, EPA and the states must publish enforceable time-tables and
deadlines for the expeditious completion of your remedial investigation and
feasibility study. EPA and the State are also required to be involved in the
development and selection of the remedy at your site.
CERCLA further mandates that Federal installations on the NPL, enter into an
Interagency Agreement with EPA for any necessary remedial actions at your
site. This is the real cornerstone of EPA's involvement at Federal
facilities. These Interagency Agreements are the vehicles for selecting your
remedy at the site. They are three-party agreements in almost every instance.
We will work with you and the State to ensure that we have an agreement that
covers all three parties' interest. We'll integrate RCRA requirements and
CERCLA requirements into this one document so you have one frame-work for
conducting the response. We're also going to enter these agreements as early
as possible. We plan to start negotiations at the time of proposal to the
NPL, where possible. We certainly intend to have executed the IAG by the time
you've begun your remedial investigation/feasibility study. It's important to
note that these agreements are then enforceable by citizens and the State.
To help in developing these Interagency Agreements, we developed model
language with DOE and DOD headquarters in 1988. The model agreements have
nine sections. They deal with the most confrontational and difficult to
negotiate sections, so the folks in the field will not have to renegotiate
these sections. They deal with issues such as enforceability, RCRA-CERCLA
integration, dispute resolution, inspections, and funding. We have 10
agreements to date. Three are for DOE facilities: Lawrence Livermore - the
first in the country to get signed, Monticello Properties, Utah, and the
third, Hanford, is in draft right now and is out for public comment. We
expect to be signing it on the 15th of this month.
Any site that does get on the NPL, or is proposed for inclusion on the NPL, as
I mentioned, will be a candidate for negotiation of one of these agreements.
We view these as really helpful agreements to the facilities; facility people
will know where the state and EPA are coming from, what their requirements are
going to be; useful for the states so they will know what their role and
involvement in the process is; and for EPA so that we can have a defined role
in commenting on documents. Furthermore, a time schedule is set so all
parties can meet their review/comment and deliverable time frames.
CERCLA also mandates that cleanup activities begin 15 months after completion
of the remedial investigation/feasibility study. The completion is defined as
the signature of a Record of Decision (ROD). Once you complete the RI/FS, and
sign the ROD with the EPA office, you must, within 15 months, begin
substantial continuous physical onsite remedial action activity. Finally,
CERCLA requires that annual reports be prepared and sent to Congress
describing compliance with all these activities for all Federal facilities in
the nation.
-------
Now to look at your authorities, Executive Order 12580, which implements
Superfund, clearly assigns to all Federal agencies the responsibility to
perform all necessary response actions. You are designated the lead agencies,
as defined in the National Contingency Plan, and it's your responsibility to
actually perform the work in compliance with the NCP. It's your program and
we are here to ensure that, you do it properly. DOD is meetings its
requirements through the Installation Restoration Program, which was started
in 1975. They're spending about $500 million a year. DOE doesn't have as
centralized a program set up yet but they're also spending about that much
each year. Other agencies do not appear to have established as unified a
program as the DOD's.
As we have jointly administered RCRA and CERCLA at Federal facilities over the
last few years, we have become aware of several significant differences. For
example, there is a very different enforcement process. Because of an
incomplete, waiver of sovereign immunity in RCRA 6001, and a lack of waiver in
CERCLA, EPA may not issue unilateral orders under CERCLA against Federal
installations. However, RCRA 3004U and provisions have heen viewed as
requirements. Hence, EPA can unilaterally issue such permit provisions.
Cercla section 106 orders are certainly available, but only with Department of
Justice concurrence.
It's also important to note that RCRA does not regulate the radioactive
portions of mixed waste. It only regulates the chemical fractions of mixed
waste, whereas CERCLA does regulate the radioactive portions of mixed waste,
as well as any radioactive substance which may be released to the environment.
RCRA does not regulate pure radioactive waste streams. Also, if the waste
stream was permitted by the AEC or DOE and is a special nuclear byproduct, as
defined by the AEC, or some special source material, RCRA will not regulate
that substance either. Superfund, on the other hand, can address any
radioactive substance since such materials, when released, may cause harm to
human health and the environment.
At many installations we have listed the entire facility on the NPL, including
all releases contained therein. RCRA, when you obtain your permit, requires
that you do a facility assessment for the entire facility and look for all
possible source areas. RCRA then regulates all the releases from those
source areas. RCRA requires you to get a corrective action permit to address
the releases from any possible source area that handles or handled a RCRA
hazardous waste. Accordingly, at a NPL site, Superfund may be regulating the
entire facility and RCRA will also be regulating all the releases from all the
solid waste management units. Hence, two statutes will be regulating all of
the same releases. This is where an Interagency Agreement will really help a
facility sort out its requirements.
As you know, RCRA is a program which we ultimately delegate to the state. By
law, they are allowed to implement a more stringent RCRA program than the
federal RCRA program. When a state is operating its RCRA program in lieu of
the Federal RCRA program, you will often have far stricter state requirements
for corrective action. State corrective action requirements may, in fact,
conflict with the Federal Superfund process even when both are regulating the
exact same units. This additional complication can also be resolved through
-------
the IAG. They are excellent vehicles for carving up responsibilities and
resolving the regulatory overlaps.
We think the Hanford agreement is an excellent IAG model. Hanford is the
first of its kind and is a working document, subject to change in future
agreements. At Hanford the state has been given the authority to control the
response at about half the units under its RCRA authority while EPA will
maintain the lead for other sites under Superfund. The facility will
sometimes be meeting State RCRA requirements while using the Superfund process
for other sites. When there's a conflict, the two agencies will get together
and discuss which of the two authorities will be used to clean up the
particular sites.
During the scoping process in the Interagency Agreement, we carved up
responsibilities at the site so we would know what was under which Agency's
control. Accordingly, these interagency agreements allow you to investigate
and cleanup a site following just one set of procedures, and not performing
both State RCRA requirements and Federal Superfund requirements.
The real goal of all this is getting to cleanups. We're really interested in
conferences like this because they will help transfer knowledge on cleanup
technologies, as well as data on health and safety requirements. While this
is a difficult task, for the Agencies who must actually do the work as well as
the regulators who must do the oversight, it is an exciting challenge. I know
that all of us at EPA look forward to working with you as we move towards
sound, protective cleanups.
-------
2. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROGRAM
Anthony Kluk
Department of Energy
The DOE Environmental Waste Cleanup 5-year Plan encompasses waste management
operations, inactive site cleanup, and corrective actions needed at all DOE
operating facilities to bring air, water, and solid waste discharges within
acceptable limits. Through this plan DOE coordinates and consolidates all of
its waste and cleanup activities. The plan provides a focus for management as
well as a basis for FY 1991 programs. It accesses current technology
development activities and also provides a basis for future research,
development, and demonstration of new and innovative technologies. Finally,
the plan places highest priority on facilities where there are known releases
with the potential to affect public health and the environment.
The Environmental Restoration Remedial (ER) Actions Program (AP), created at
the request of the House Armed Services Committee and assigned to the Office-
of Defense Waste and Transportation Management (DWTM) for management and
execution, includes all phases of remediation of inactive radioactive,
hazardous, and mixed waste sites at Defense Program installations. The
program includes preliminary assessments and site inspections, remedial
investigations and feasibility studies, and remedial actions at radioactively
and nonradioactively contaminated sites that primarily meet the criteria of
RCRA 30Q4(u), CERCLA, or SARA. Remediation associated with pre-1970 buried
transuranic wastes is also included in the program. The decontamination and
decommissioning of inactive defense facilities is a related activity under the
ER Program which does a small number of soil cleanup activities.
The ER Program does NOT include the following:
-RCRA compliance for currently generated waste streams ;
-emergency spill response
-waste management facilities not part of remediation
-routine environmental monitoring
-remediation of land units opened after March 1, 1987.
The budget for the ER Program for FY 1988, 1989, and 1990 is summarized below.
Appropriation Request
FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990
(thousands of dollars)
Total Operations Offices 75,116 125,750 335,411
All Sites, Technology &
Demonstrations 5,734 15,920 36,993
Total Decontamination &
Decommissioning 16,988 17,655 28,889
Total-base program 97,838 159,325 401,293
-------
The funding prioritization of tasks is based on the Program Optimization
System (POS). The POS 1s based on multi-attribute decision analysis system, a
quantitative approach for analyzing decisions with multiple objectives. It
evaluates alternative funding levels, not specific projects, and recommends
funding programs whose benefits exceed costs if funds are not constrained. If
funds ARE constrained the POS selects programs with highest benefit-to-cost
ratio. The system allows field offices to propose alternative programs and
funding levels. The alternative programs are scored against quantitative
performance measures representing health and safety, regulatory
responsiveness, public concern, mission impact, and costs. The field office
scores are then reviewed and revised, if appropriate, at workshops involving
representatives from the field offices and headquarters (three such workshops
have been held to date). To assist in the allocation of the total ER budget
among the field offices, DOE uses a computer program that maximizes net value
or benefit.
- Lnwifnet Uweimofe Notional
MIS - Ncv«H« Te«! Bit
SNtA - Sjini^ft Iliillofillt tfttioiKlDty
t*NL - l,oi Alnmo* Nntlonnl L»l>oi«(oiy
MEL - td'uhu Militmal EnglnFFrlng L
KFP - Bdt'.y rintu Plmil
ONM. - <>«V "MlC- NnliCKMl L
OBOOT . O*k HMg« Omom DMIurton Ptanl
- FOTtf M*t*>W« Pio*x:llon c*«1«i
Figure 1. Environmental Restoration Program
DOE/DP Locations
-------
Table 1. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions Program
Radioactive Mixed Waste Summary
Albuquerque Operations Office
INSTALLATION
KANSAS CIT» PUNT
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL
LABORATORY
.151 WAGS)
MOUND PLANT
(2 WACS)
PAWTEXPIANT
(! WAGS)
PINELLAS PLANT
ROCKY FLATS WANT
(1 WAO) .
SAN0IA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES
ALBUQUERQUE
(10 WAGS)
NO. OF POTENTIAL
RELEASE SITf S»
NONE IDENTIFIED
470
ID
NONE IDENTIFIED
NOT APWJCABLf
CONTAMINATED AREAS, OPERATIONAL
RELEASES. KPriC SYSTEMS, DISPOSAL
AREAS. FIRING SITES, BURNNC PITS,
LANDFILLS. OUTFALLS, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS. DRUM STORAGE,
STORAGE TANKS, DRAIN LINES,
MCINEMTOHS, WASTE WELLS, WASTE
LINES. SUMPS, SHAFTS, STABIU-
•ZATION PITS, BUILDING DEBRIS
CONTAMINATED SOIL LANDFILLS, BUILDINGS
UNIDENTIFIED SOURCES
IANDFIU, SURFACE DEPOSITS, WENCHES,
SHAFTS
NOT APPLICABLE
SURFACE SPILLS, LANDFILL. TRENCHES
SURFACE MPOUNDMENT5, SPILLS,
DRAINFIELOS. LANDFILLS, SEPTIC SYSTEMS,
SURFACE CONTAMINATION, SCRAP YARDS,
TEST HOLES, KIRN SITES, BURIAL MOUNDS,
BUNKERS, DISPOSAL UTS. TRENCHES.
OUTFALLS
SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORY
UVERMORE
HONE IDENTIFIED
NOT APPLICABLE
* ToUl rumber of nttiu tllti to WAGi CptcUic mtmcKut WK) nhM) mtlt nluw itle
iRfonnalJofl hu no! been raport*3.
Waste Area Locations: Los AJamos National
Laboratory (Albuquerque)
Figured, LANL
8
-------
Table 2. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions Program Radioactive
Mixed Waste Summary Albuquerque Field Office, Los Alamos National
Laboratory
UAC
ID
Bfi.
Al-lA.)
Al-LA-l
M-LA-S
Al-LA-4
AL-LA-S
AL-iA-6
Al-LA-7
Ai-lA-1
AL-LA-9
MAC
TITLE
ifi-iHnota
1A-J3
7.VJJ
TA-33
T». 4, 5, 35. 42,
4fl,50,5Z,SS
TA-4,S.3S,42,
48,50,52,55
TA-4.5.3S.4J.
48,50,52,55
TA-21
TA-21
HO. Of
POTENTIAL
SITIS *
HA
1
Zl
1
20
14
11
IS
17
BAD/MIX
com Ah i mm s
HABIOKICLIDES
lADlDBiCLIDES
MDIOHUtllDES
URAKIUH
HABIOWICLIOES
URANIUM/
U010KUCL10ES
UD1CWUCLIDES
tADIOMICLIDES
IADIOMICLIDES
MllASI Sill
TtP^v
COhUKiUHa AttAi
EO*iTARJh;l!^
IA" tS'O^IW1 IDf'^l
RUEASLS/SIP1K SYSTEhS/
HMERiii 'DISPOSAL AREAS
D, [. «O I
' tOktW.IMTED WtAS/riMK
snis'iDOiik; pns
LAIOIlLlS/OUllttlS
riRi« SITES
tOMAHhtTEO ASEAS/SEFTIC
MSTEKS/DPUA1IIWU
«itAsts,«simr»[i
DISPOSAL AMAS C.I.U
TAJi
com Animus
RAOIOBUCIIJEI
WSiONUClIfiES
MDIONUCIIOES
IAD10HUCLIDES
BAD1WUCLIDES
IADIOMJCLIDES
(ADIOKUCIIDES
IADIONUCIIDCS
RADIWUCLIDES
tUEASI Jill
COnAHIMATEO AREAS/
1HC IKE RATORV 'UN^J R&ROUND
SlOSACl 1AIKS
tOBTWIIttTtD ARIAS'
DISPOSAL PITS/FIRIKC
SIJES/S1PTIE SYSTEMS'
OPERATIOhd RELEASES'
SUHPS/WTIRIAL DISPOSAL
ASU F
conmiwTio ASEAS/SEPTIC
SISIEnS/SUHPS/IWDERIROUND
S10RACE lANr.S/FlBIK:
COVT«imtTEO «C!AS/
Bi!TtAllS/SPHl$<
OPEU110PW RELEASES/
SEPTIC SWIIBS
CO«TI»1I«TED AREAS/SEPTIC
_S>STU1S/SU>'PS/LANDFILIS
CpnAMHlTED AREAS/
BfJPOSAl UlS/flRIN!;
SITiS/LAiOOSS/DJlH.LS
tONTAKlMTEO AREAS/
DISPOSAL PITS/OUTFALLS
CONTWIIUTED AREAS/SEPTIC
$»SH«S/F!S»IS SUES/
NTS/MTCIilA; DISPOSAL
AREAS* AND 0
CWTNIIHATED AREAS/
FIRIW SITES/LAWFUL*/
AL-LA-llI TA-J1
STORAGE TAWS
IADIDNUCIIDES
P1TS/UOU10
i*t-i.«-iU l»**l
AL-LA-11 TA-1
Ai-lA-13 TA-11,13,I(,
M.-LA-14 I*- 11, 13, 16,
24,25
AL-LA-1! TA-10
U-LA-li TA-18,27
AL-LA-17 TA-1B.27
Al-U-16 TA-1B, 27
Al-LA-lS TA-J, 59
AL-LA-IO TA-3, 59
AL-LA-21 TA-3, 59
AL-LA-22 TA-1S
AL-LA-23 TA-15
Al-LA-24 TA-!S
ic PM^tuntfhttwt^
11 IAAIONUCL1DCS
(5 tADIOMUCUDCS
1 • MDIONUCLIOES
1 tADIOmiCLIDES
2 IAD10NUCLIDES
12 lADIONJCllDES
16 HADIONLICL1DES
1 SABIOHUCllESES
14 UUI10NIICLIDES
14 KADIONUtLIDES
.
1 IAD1CWUUIDIS
13 RAD1DHUCLIOES
15 IADIDNUCL1CES
LwyuisAiiuie "ASIE
SURFAEE DISPOSAL
COKTAKIMTED AREAS/ACID
HASTE LIUS/SEPTIC
SUTENS/BISPOSAL ARIAS
CWIAHSWtEO MIAS/SCPTIt
StSHM.tlPEttDOWL
HElEASES/SIKTACE
F1SIM SnES/lAWILlS/
DAT HELLS/StM>SATORA6E
TAIKS
UmAKlliATEtl MEAS/SCPTIC
SYSTEM/LAKCIULS/BUSNIK
PITS
COKTAKIUTEEI MEAS/
tAK3MllV5EPTIt JWB6
UtOFILLS/OPEMTJOKAL
RELEASES
COKTAKIWTED AREAS/
FIRIkS PITS/SEPTIC
StSTERS/OPERATIDBAi.
KEllASES
£(«TAl(I«TEII A«AS/
STOU:E TAKU/SEPIK
TANKS
SEPTIt SJSTO5/
TAmS/SlWS/XTFALLS/
CLWTWIIIltTED AREAS/
SEPTIt SYSIEB/lAIOFjilS
OPiUTlOU; RELEASES/
TAMVSLWS/SEnit
iYSHKS
COK1AKIMTEO AREAS/
DISPOSAL AUAS « AKO Z
SITES/LAlOriLlS
CW.1AH1MTID AHAS/SyhPS/
AL-LA-31
W.-U-M
AL-LA-4D
AL-LA-4]
AL-LA-42
M.-M-41
Al-LA-44
AL-LA-45
Ai-LA-46
AL-LA-47
M.-IA-4I
AL-IA-SO
Al-LA-51
AL-U-U
M.-U-53
AL-U-S4
M.-U-U
TA-M
TA-JS
TA-32
TA-2,41
TA-2,41
It-It
TA-26
TA-ll
TUX S4
TA-12
tt-M
lA-43
Tk-4!
1A-49
TA-45
TA-14
TA-57
BIIPDSAL MEA N
COKTAKIUTEO AREAS/
F1BIKC 511ES/LA>oriLLS/
IURKIIIC P1TS/L10U1D HASTE
HOLDlkC/MTERIAL DISPOSAL
MIAK
8ABIOMICLIOES CMTMtlMIED AKEAS/FIIIIIC
anw~"~
TOUERS
RADIONUCLIDES COITAHIHATEO ASEAS/SEPTIC
KSTEKS/lHClMEU'lniS
lAOIONUUtDCS CnrtAMINITED AREAS/
OPKAHMit RILEASES/
OUTFALLS/StPTlC STSlBiS/
SIMPS AW> LINES
HAOIONUCL1DES CDNTAKIKATED AREAS/
OPERATIOHAL RElEASES/BURn
PUS/011 STOSACE AREAS
tMtDNUUIBES OMI/MMTEO AREAS/StPTlC
HSIW/OUrrAUS/LANDFILLS
tADlOWKLlDES CONTWIiaTED AREAS/
SEPTIC STSTEU/OUTFALLS
lADIONUClIDtS CIK7AMNATEO ARtAS/StPTIC
MSTEKS/KIIUUIU DEMI!
KADIOWUiDES KATER1AL DISPOSAL AREAS
t, H, J. AND I
MDIONUCLIDES COKTAIlnATED AREAS/
fiRm; SITES/PUS/
OPUA11EKAL RUE Aits
lADlONUCllfiES COtilAKlKATED ASEH5TIDlhi
SnES/lAK3fHlS,«SEP1IC
SrSTEKS/MTERIAL DISPOSAL
AREA T
RADIOMICL1DES CO«An!NATED AREAS/
OUIFALLi
•AOIONUCL1DES COiTAMIiMtD AREAS/SEPTIC
STSTEM LEACH FIELDS/
MTERIAl DISPOSAL AREA AB
RADIOHUU1DES COKTAnlN'TEO AREAS'
IURt,I)C ASHS/HilEeiAL
V1SPOSA1 MEA AS
MDIDMIU1DES CDKTAKWtlEO AREAS/
CUlf ALLS/DRAINS
MDIONUCL1DES CCWA-'.iNATED AF.EAS/FIFilFIG
S1TES/BLIRSIBS AREAS/
SffTiE SYSTEKS.'ftTfAiLS/
OHMTIOM; RELEASES
MaiDKUCLIDtS tOKtARINAItl) APCAS/
DISPOSAL AREAS
AL-LA-iS TA-0
AL-lA-21 TA-0
T01AI
11
470
lABlOIUCllDCS
IMS'ILU
* TMj] iwtllr of rtUtlf J»t« In HAS. SmctfSc 1
ittt Mfenutten hn not k>u,nporu«.
* Irclmkil ATM.
-------
Figure 3. Waste Area Locations: Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (Idaho)
Table 3. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions Program
Radioactive/Mixed Waste Summary
Idaho Operations Office,- Idaho National Enginneering Lab.
WAG
ID
NO.
1
2
3
5
6
1
8
WAG
Tmt
TEST AREA
WORTH
TEST REACTIVE
ARIA
CHEKlCftL
PROCESS INS
PBF/SPERt/
ARA
EBP./BORAX
8WKC
H1SCEUANEOUS
NO.
POTE1
JS01
£3
39
7E
-------
1 M.rn Plml Aril
2 WNU Oik C'lik and Wfvl. Oik like
3 Solid Wt.l. Slorig* AIM IBWS'I 3
« EWS» 4
5 8WS*5
C SWS»B
' lo«-l.»»l'-W»tl Pill ind T»nch*i Ar..
8 Mtlloii Vl»»r *'••
9 Homoginiout Ruclof Papl'imiil Af*a
10 HrOtofricliri Miction Wi"> I'M) O'oul
SMltl
tl WMo Wing Ec'*D Yl'd
V Envirowrwnfil Rimrch Ar»ii
17 ORNI Sl'ncil *'••
Figure 4.
Waste Area Locations: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (Oak Ridge)
Table 4. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions Program
Radioactive/Mixed Waste Release Site Summary
Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
WAG
ID
ML
\
1
3
4
5
C .
7
8
9
10
WAS
IITLE
KA1N PLWrt
AREA
WH!T£ OAK
CREEK Al;D
WHITE OAK
LAKE
SOLID VASTE
STORAGE ARIA
(SVSfl) 3
SUSA 4
SVSA 5
SUSA 6
LOW-LEVEL
PITS AND
IWIiCHCS
(IELTON V«LIE»
AREA
HWOSENiOUS
REACTOR
EYESHOT
AREA
HYDPOfRACTURE
INJECTION
KEl'.S ATO
CROUT SHEETS
NO. OF
RELEASE
SITES*
99
I
)
J
1)
3
12
11
3
4
PRINCIPAL
• COSTAMlmNTS
RADIOT'JCLIDIS
LINES
RAD10NUCLIDES
RADIONUCLIOES
RASIONUCIIDES
RAaiONUCLIOES
RA010NUCLIDES
RADICWJCIIDES
RAOIONJCLIOES
RlBIOIwCLIDcS
WOIOI.-JCl.IDtS
INJECTION POINTS
RELEASE SITE
SP11LS/IEM3/
SURFACE
IHPOUHXENTS/gURIAL
CROJIffiS/UlulEUROUtO
STORAGE TAWS
WASTE TRANSFER
MITE OAK CREEK
WATERSHED
BURIAL GROUNDS
ICAWIURIAL (BOUNDS
SPIllS/LEAKS/BURIAL
CROWOS
(JRIAL
SMUfflS/OnOKATION
TRENCHS
SP1LLS/LEAKS/PITS/
TRENCHES
SPILLS/LEAKS
S1KFACF.
I«PO-J:»;-K?S/
LiAU
UN9ERGROUC
VA6
ID
KL
11
13
14
IS
16
17
T01W.
WAG
TITLE
WHITE WING
SCRAP VARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH AREAS
TOWER
SH1ELLDING
FACILITY
FACILITIES
AT 1-12
HEALTH
PHYSICS
RESEARCH
REACTOR
OAK RIDGE
LAN3 FARM
16
NO. OF
RELEASE
SITES'
1
2
I
2
t
1
169
' Totll nucbtr of rtllut Iltis In WAS,
j(U tnfornjtion tin not bttn rtcorttd.
PRINCIPAL RELEASE SITE
RADIONUCLIDES SURFACE
CONTAMINATION
RADIONIICLIDES SURFACE
CONTAMINATION
RA9IONUCL1DES SURFACE
CONTAMINATION
RADIONUCLIOEi SURFACE
CONTAM1HAT10N
RADION1ILL1D~S SURFACE
COMAfiKtTIOfV
1HPOJNONENT
RASIOHUtUOlS SURFACE DISPOSAl
. Specific ridioicttvi (nd m\ni vistt
11
-------
Figure 5. Waste Area Location: Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge
Table 5. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions Program
Radioactive/Mixed Waste Release Site Summary
Oak Ridge Operations Office
Y-12 Plant
•AC
IB
•L
1-001
1-004
1-010
S-02D
D-on
B-M4
i-oio
1-017
1-BM
e-io4
l-m
s- 111
D-l)i
i-»i
we
lilU
MUTE MtHim
COOLU.1
tiootcmuMtioK
I-J HUBS
MM HOPE roc
MtMfiE t«U I
en s&ivtn
BjWjSIORWE
tMKINtn MOCE
KCIWlIf HIS
KMCtttt
KMiAt Howes
SltfWt 1Mb
f409-5 STOMtt
mum
i»S1[ COOlMT
MOttSSlW
ruiun
c«t nu
TOWN
Ul*Ut »«6D
WiW BCNIAOU
1*1*10! 1UO
KW KE1AI
STOMU MU
*4)l-l URAMlUK
VWtl
1MU. M90-U
iMNsru su.
•0. 8f
KUASt
flip1
1
,
1
j
t
11
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
niKiMi mats, nit
•wrw mum ouiv
EfTUUI IMlt FltlO
MHOXUCLJOCS BKFUt BKHMKIT
WWlUn IMFACt KKMOKIH
MW1W MM JTOMtl MT
•UW1U1 1NNDF1LI
•WIOKCLIKS IMBTIU
•UMIM MM JCraUH HI
WJU11UH MS StOUU-AKWE
mqj^p tfiB$
HANIUN ntxncin
IUMIK nuesu
' HWIM wmnn
MWIUH jjautt
•uiuM oisrasAi
MIMWI S10MU
MU Iff OF
IB ttt UltWt NIieiMt
•L |ntt Hits' mnfiiuMS
S-X1I 1MK 1 WHKn
fl« 1 HMIM
»-H* !••* « ^^*
S-HB YANK i WMUM
•iMlIM
S-J13 BCK JH 1 WWJPi
t-ui mi-iKsi i OMWI
HMD
f-m tni-i un i wnnM
mo
»-j mnic «cip no WMIW
rmuu
t-z rn; un ran no wMtm
nriM cuu
» j [ui ron no KMiun
KPLMCHU
1-4 KM OKU HO MMIM
101AI K M«
g . ^^ _^
-------
Figure 6. Waste Area Locations: Hanford (Richland)
Table 6. Environmental Restoration Remedial Action Program
Radioactive/Mixed Waste Release Site Summary
Richland Operations Office, Hanford Site
IB
BL
1
3
4
I
t
J
I
t
U
I)
R
II
14
Tint
100 i/c tun*
». Of
must
ims*
looo/M turn*
too F tunat
BKUTIOIS
too N tuciw
OWUtUMS
loo u/v
lUCKM
oruunioo
too » iurn»
OMUTino
i rurt
cmuiioo
T rum
anuTins
tran
trtWTions
i nun
onunou
ttNIMXU
«to' mun
mutton
no • run
S10AMI
OKUiiom
t!
II
n
x
I?
IUIOWUIOCS
tuiowaiDcs
UDIOMJCIIDU
lAgiouctiDts
•UIOWCIIDCS
trant/uuwum
UVlVSLB/mnjim
UOIOWCLIHS u»iio/sa.wo»u«>
IUIOKCLIDU
UDIOntllDtS
WQ1DMUHS
WtOWCllDtS
noun/sttm'»»i"Mn'
mi
n
Ml.
•. or
xinsc
run
rwiiutiais
•DUD
uomai
•turtciMCt
HDIOWCIIKS
12 UftOWUIDCS
00 UU II OAOtOHCilKS
IIOUTD win
nmn TB HDIOMCLIOCS
unices
(KUTIOn
S1KIE BCU 111 MBIOUUKS
cnai mrr in HCIOVCLIKS
m ASH BCD
* toiil *ma- of nlini inn u MS SKctf 1C radlHctm >M •<»« MIU
Hit l»fomi:ion Ml «t
13
-------
Table 7. DOE Operations Offices
Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions
Program, Comparison of Radioactive/Mixed
vs. Total Release Sites
OPERATIONS
pmei
AllUQUtRQUf.
HBUHtlHH
lAliSAS UT1 riANT
LOS AltMOS MIIOWJ.
IABOM1MI
WtffO.flUil
riNdiAS MAM
io«» FIATS run
SAHOIA IU1IONAI
101 A! KUIBF.R OF IADIOA!
(lH(»5f SHU1 HI*" «
17
SOS
10,
4(
U
104
•It
IllfASt Silts'
0
470
19*
1C
0
17
IB*
IABORA1M1IS ALIUQurRQUi:
10AHO
MVAU
OAK tlDtt
IICH!AKD
SAN fMNClSCO
SAUDI* MIIOMU
UBORA10SHS LlttWORt
igXHO VATIONU
tMlWlRlW LASaunOR)
Kt»ADA 1CS1 SHI AMD
orr-sm AUAJ
FttO MTU1AIS
NOOlKTiON CfMtt
0» aiOGt MT!WAL
UUOiiATOM
MI ruun
HANFORD
UWCNtE UKMOU
4
Ml
726
17
117
APriMlKATRY
US
l.ito
no
a
U9
725
14
1(9
M.
1.190
no
SAVANMU4
M110HA1 lAIORMMY
SAVAMNW MKI .MAM
110
•4
J.718.
J.159.
1 Tot»1 wtbtr *f rtliau ifUl In ill VACi.
b Toul umber «' nltiu itui in WCs ta»Mi tr luiptctia u emtatu
rtdionuclcti«i/>iita tune 11 tctuill; thi Utii for
•11 rtlitu llui In IMCS M nSiutttn/Btttd null Hit mi (utyHi
' All voluBtt *rt wry rough jpproiiuucni. fulirt U ittlrltj Hill
(iroviflt »ori tccurttt (UtI.
« ociotur JJ, IMt,
14
-------
UBS
1885
2000 2005 201D
Albuquerque
(AL)
loono
(ID)
MBvoda
(NV)
Oak Ridge
(OR)
Richland
(RL)
San Francisco
(SF)
Savannah River
(SR)
IWESTllCION
RDKS«. ACTONS T«B
ASSrSSUDJT
INVETTKaiTION
: • 1BD
KUEDUt ACTIONS
AULSIVEXT
MVEsnsniON
ROlEDiN. ACnONS
WVESTKATIOH
no i
HQEWiAcnoe
MvcsnacnoN (mwrtzMS)
KQEDlt ACTIONS (1VKU FY2OAJ)
NVESDCM10M
itnfiB*.AcmNs ( (6ROUNWWSR1RBemENO TBO
w^cmicioN
MW-DX. ACTONS fTHHyPfZOlT)
—
RcJercn-s; Emiror.niinta) Risioration Prof:air, and Implementation Piar..
Orifhrr ?:. 195.S
Figure 7. Environmental Restoration Remedial Actions
Long-Range Schedule Summary
15
-------
3. OVERVIEW OF FUSRAP AND SFMP
James W. Wagoner II
Department of Energy
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program {FUSRAP} and the Surplus
Facilities Management Program (SFMP) are two of DOE's major hazardous waste
management programs. FUSRAP currently includes 30 sites, 25 sites formerly
used by the Manhattan Engineering District or its successor, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and 5 sites assigned by Congress. SFMP includes 41 projects
involving decontamination and disposal of surplus DOE nuclear-contaminated
facilities and sites.
FUSRAP
This program addresses the safe management, decontamination, and disposal of
all formerly utilized sites, and any other sites assigned by Congress. This
will include a complete comprehensive site search and screening process;
assurance of public health and safety through effective surveillance and
maintenance and cost-effective, safely planned remedial action; and the
development of new permanent disposal sites and transport of wastes to those
sites.
Under this program, 350 sites will be reviewed to determine the potential for
contamination and authority for remediation; remedial actions based on
potential health effects, Congressional priorities, and other factors; and a
means to store waste on an interim basis until permanent disposal sites are
available. The program also encompasses working with the state of waste
origin to locate candidate disposal sites and coordinating activities with EPA
(for sites on the National Priorities List) and states.
SFMP
This program addresses the safe management, decontamination, and disposal of
surplus DOE nuclear-contaminated facilities and sites. This program will
assure public health and safety through effective surveillance and
maintenance, cost-effective and safely planned remedial actions, proper
disposal of radioactive waste, and full compliance with all applicable Federal
and state environmental regulations. DOE will seek to maximize re-use of
facilities or sites, provide D&D technology transfer of experience to the
nuclear industry, and participate in and benefit from the exchange of
experiences through international collaboration.
This program currently includes 41 projects: 30 remaining at 15 different
sites, including 6 at non-DOE laboratory locations. Completion of the current
inventory is targeted for about 2015. Decommissioning activities will be
assigned priorities on the basis of potential environmental and public
impacts, legal/regulatory requirements, optimization of government
expenditures, and maximizing manpower resources. Additional facilities will
be added to the program as appropriate.
16
-------
SFMP projects cover the full range of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear
research facilities, including uranium extraction and refining facilities,
waste storage/disposal sites, uranium and thorium metal fabricating
facilities, research and power reactors, research facilities (hot cells, glove
boxes, etc.), and spent fuel storage. Materials include contaminated
structures and building rubble, equipment, process residue, soil, and ground
water. Wind and surface water erosion and the movement of residues by
individuals have resulted in contamination of properties in the vicinity of
several of the major FUSRAP and SFMP sites. Approximately 100 vicinity
properties require remedial action, and surveys to identify additional
properties are Continuing.
Wastes and residues consist of low-level wastes, including some greater than
class C and by-product materials, uranium and thorium tailings or process
residues (AEA lle(2)} by-product material, TRU wastes, and mixed chemical and
radioactive wastes. The major contaminants include radium, uranium, and
thorium and their decay products and transuranics including plutonium, induced
radiation (i.e., Co-60), and fission products. Contaminated soil and residue
containing uranium, thorium, and radium account for the greatest volume of
wastes, presently estimated to exceed 2 million yd . These will require
establishment of several special disposal sites; other wastes will be disposed
of at existing DOE disposal sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND ANALYSIS
SCOPINOPLANNING
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
FEASIBILITY STUDY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
DESIGN
ENGINEERING
REMEDIAL
ACTION
( INTERIM
I BTORAOE
Figure 1. Basic Steps in the Remedial Actions Program
17
-------
K>1 ACID/PULBLO CANYON LOS ALAMOS MM
va ALBANY RESEARCH CENTER ALBANY, on
«U ASHLANO OIL «!. TONAWANDA, NY
WH IAYO CANYON, LOS ALAMOS. NM
W* CHUPADIRA MESA, WHITE tANDS
MltSllE RANGE NM
*» OUPONT t COMPANY. DEEPWATER. NJ
110 W.R. GRACE b COMPANY. CURTIS BAY. MO
114 KELLCX'PIERPONT. JERSEY CITY. NJ
111 NIAGARA f AUS STORAGE SITE IVICIMTY
mop. i UWISTON. Mr
1M MALLINCKROOT. INC . ST LOUIS. MO
117 MIDDLESEX LANDFILL. MIDDLESEX. NJ
lit MIDDLESEX SAMPLING PLANT.
MIDDLESEX. NJ
11* KATI0MAL GUARD ARMORY. CHICAGO. If.
121 PALOS PARK FOREST PRESERVE. COOK
COUNTY. U
U3 SEAWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK. TONAWANDA. NY
1& CNPACX LANQFILt. fcCRTON. MA
Uf UNIVERSAL CYO.OPS M.IOUIPPA. PA
UI VtMTKON. lEVCRLY. MA
111 UNDE AIR PRODUCTS. TONAWANDA. NV
1)0 UNIVERSITY Of CALIFORNIA. IERKELEY. CA
IX UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, II
IB ASHLAND OIL CO » TONAWANDA, NY
l> ST LOUIS AIRPORT SITE (VICINITY PROP I.
CT LOUIS. MO
117 tVAYNE(MOU«NNOCK. NJ
1» MAYWOOD. NJ
1M COLONIE. NV
MO HA2ELWOOO ILATIY AVENUE). MO
MI GENE; r..t MOTORS. ADRIAN. MI
U2 EEYMOi'X il"£CIALTY WIM. SEYMOUR CT
10 ST LOUIS AIIWJRT CITE. ST. LOUIS. MO
O REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNED
& REMCDIAL ACTION PARTIALLY COMPLETED
• REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETED
* RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING ONLY
Figure 2. Location of FUSRAP Sites
IDAHO HATIONAt
CNCINEERING
EHIPPWQPORT ATOMIC
. POWER STATION
* CHIPPINGPORT. PA
ARGONNt N*TtONAi
*"OONNI.«.
\ ST. LOUIS. MO \ MOUND
I * / f MIAMISBURC. OH
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
OAK RIDGE. TN
tAMTA f UtAKA SITE
CANOCA PARK. CA
CtER. MAYAOUU AND SONUS.
MNCON »ACIUTIU. til
Figure 3. Surplus Facilities Management -Program
Facilities and Site Locations
18
-------
Figure
Louis Downtown Site
• LUUI^
and SUPS Sites
19
-------
..«.•.£• Y . ..-£..
Figure 6, National Guard Armory, IL
Figure 7. Scabbling Concrete at National Guard
Armory, IL
20
-------
Figure 8. Aerial View of the Tonawanda Sites
Figure 9. Maywood Interim Storage Site Nursing Home Under
Construction on Balled Property
21
-------
^^^A^^^^^r^^^^T^^S^sO^^^
Figure 10. Vicinity Property with Foundation Removed
Figure 11. Wayne, NJ
22
-------
Figure 12. Shippingport Atomic Power Station
Figure 13. Shippingport Atomic Power Station During
Decommissioning ^
-------
Figure
-------
Figure 16. Raffinate Pits and Chemical Plant
Figure 17. Monticello Mill Site
25
-------
4. REGION 6 INVOLVEMENT IN NEW MEXICO:
URANIUM MILLS AND MINES
William Rowe
Environmental Protection Agency
UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION - CHURCHROCK SITE
The United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) site is located in McKinley County, New
Mexico, approximately 17 miles northeast of Gallup. The site includes a
uranium mill complex and tailings impoundment, both located approximately 1
mile south of the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mill and associated tailings
impoundment, situated in the Pipeline Canyon, cover approximately 125 acres.
The UNC mill was granted a radioactive materials license pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act by the State of New Mexico in 1977 and operated from 1977 to
1982. The mill used an acid leach, solvent extraction method to remove
uranium from the sre. The acid leach process produced an estimated
3.5 million tons of tailings which were disposed of in three cells adjacent io
the mill.
Before licensing of the uranium mill, uranium mining was conducted in the area
north of the mill site. In 1968, the northeast Churchrock mine began
operating and discharged mine water into Pipeline Canyon Arroyo which is
located between the uranium mill and the tailings impoundment. Two other
mines, the Old Churchrock and Quivira Mines, also operated in the area and
produced uranium ore for milling at the UNC site. All uranium ore was mined
from the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation.
In July 1979, a dam at the south end of the tailings impoundment broke,
releasing more than 90 million gallons of tailings liquids into Pipeline
Canyon Arroyo and the Rio Puerco. The dam was repaired shortly after the
release, and the spill was cleaned up according to criteria imposed by State
and Federal agencies, including EPA.
In 1983, EPA formally placed the UNC site on the National Priorities List
(NPL) of Superfund sites, primarily because of ground-water contanrination. At
the time of the listing, New Mexico, under "agreement state" status with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regulated the site.
EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation at the site after the NPL listing
focusing on impacts to ground water resulting from seepage from the tailings
impoundment. (The geology, geohydrology, and proposed ground-water remedy for
the site are illustrated by several slides shown during the presentation. See
Figures 1 through 6.)
NRC resumed licensing authority for uranium mills in New Mexico in June 1986,
and as a result, EPA and NRC ar. coordinating their respective requirements at
the site. EPA signed a Record of Decision for groundwater in September 1988
and established clean-up standards. NRC also approved UNC's reclamation plan
in 1988. Groundwater corrective action and reclamation activities are
scheduled to begin this summer (1989).
26
-------
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY
The Homestake Mining Company (HMC) site is in the northern portion of Cibola
County, New Mexico, about 5.5 mi north of Milan (figures 7 and 8). The site
is located in the San Mateo drainage basin at an elevation of 6,600 ft.
The HMC mill has been a major producer of uranium concentrate since 1958. The
mill employs an alkaline leach-caustic precipitation process for concentrating
uranium oxide. The mill has a design throughput capacity of about 3,500 tons
per day of ore.
Tailings are disposed of in an embankment that covers approximately 200 acres
and is 95 to 100 ft high. Total tailings received to date are on the order of
25 million tons.
HMC operated under a license issued by the State of New Mexico prior to June
1986, at which time NRC resumed licensing authority. In 1983, EPA placed the
HMC site on the National Priorities List, primarily because of ground-water
contamination that had migrated offsite and into private wells in surrounding
subdivisions. As a result of tailings seepage migration offsite, EPA required
HMC to provide an alternate water supply to the neighboring subdivisions.
Alternate water was fully installed in 1985. In addition to EPA requirements,
an aquifer restoration program was planned and implemented by HMC, pursuant to
a Ground-water Discharge Plan approved by the New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division.
In 1987, HMC entered into a Consent Agreement with EPA under which the company
would conduct an offsite indoor/outdoor radon monitoring program in
subdivisions surrounding the operation. Results of this effort are expected
to be final this summer, and a Record of Decision signed in September 1989.
Other environmental work performed by HMC includes the implementation of an
interim stabilization program for all tailings not covered by standing water,
and the removal of windblown tailings in areas delineated during radiological
surveying outside the tailings impoundment.
Both the EPA and the NRC will continue to coordinate their respective • '
requirements at the site.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ON URANIUM MILLS
The EPA is working closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and New
Mexico Environmental Improvement Division in order to achieve timely
reclamation and remediation of the UNC-Churchrock site and Homestake Mining
Company site.
Three other NRC-licensed mills are located in New Mexico, namely ;
Anaconda-Bluewater, BP America, and Quivira. ••
HMC has an approved Ground-water Discharge Plan, whereas UNC-Churchrock does
not.
27
-------
URNAIUM MINES - POTENTIAL CERCLA INVOLVEMENT
EPA has been giving attention to abandoned uranium mine wastes, and mine
wastes in general, as concern over possible environmental and human health
impacts from tailings and waste rock has increased. The primary concerns
about uranium mine wastes are:
1. Radon emanation from mine vents, mine headworks, and other workings
2. Dispersion of wastes by gravity-driven and wind-driven processes
3. Fluvial dispersions of wastes and related drainage impacts.
Issues regarding environmental assessments of uranium mine wastes have been
reported on both Federal and Tribal Lands in EPA Region 6.
Sites on Federal Land
The State of New Mexico has reported two uranium mine waste sites located on.
Federal land to EPA Superfund. One is located on land controlled by the
Bureau of Land Management; the other is on Forest Service land. Both sites
may not be eligible for funding by the Abandoned Mines Program under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
Sites on Tribal Lands
EPA Region 6 has assisted the Navajo Nation in establishing a Navajo Superfund
Office in Window Rock, Arizona. Navajo Superfund is in the process of
submitting preliminary assessment reports to Region 6, which include a number
of areas west of Shiprock previously mined for uranium. Mining took place in
the Jurassic Morrison Formation along the border of New Mexico and Arizona.
The preliminary assessment reports are focusing on waste piles and areas
worked on the surface during prospecting for and mining of uranium.
28
-------
NAVAJO RESERVATION
••?:'-. -1.X;:^:'#--'
VNC URANIUU HILL J .
FACILITIES
NORTH CELL
BORROW PIT N0.1
-r— EAST
fl^COVEHY WELLS
BORBOW PIT NO.12 '
CENTRAL CELL
SOUTH CELL
Figure 1. Map showing location of
tailings area.
UNC Uranium Mill facilities and
Figure 2. Map of UNC tailings area, showing drill holes for
.sampling and monitoring of contaminated zones.
29
-------
Figure 5. Schematic through UNC tailings showing sandstone aquifers,
and base of the tailings.
Figure 6. Schematic showing groundwater contamination, and proposed
extraction wells at UNC tailings area. An evaporation
disposal system will be constructed within the tailings area
to handle extracted aroundwater.
31
-------
AMMOM4MM
«;H!
-------
5. COMMERCIAL URANIUM INDUSTRY
DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING CONSORTIUM
David G. Culberson, Chairman
Good morning. My name is Dave Culberson. I am the Manager of the Technical
Control Department at Babcock & Milcox's Nuclear Service Operations in Apollo,
PA. I am very pleased to be here today as chairman of a newly formed
decontamination and decommissioning consortium representing the commercial
uranium processing industry, and this morning I will be sharing with you some
information on the background to the formation of this group, an overview of
our goals and objectives, a summary of recent accomplishments, and our plans
for the next few ir.onths.
BACKGROUND
The events leading to the formation of the decontamination and decommissioning
consortium began in May of 1988 when Babcock & Wilcox began to look closely at
the cleanup requirements at its two former fuel processing facilities in
Apollo and Parks Township, PA. This internal review was prompted, in part, by
the then "proposed" decommissioning regulations introducing new requirements
on licensees relative to decommissioning plans and decommissioning funding
commitments.
As early as 1980, B&W began to phase out production operations at both of its
Pennsylvania facilities, and in 1984 efforts were underway to remove all
production equipment from the Apollo facility. The removal of production
equipment was followed by a general cleanup and radiological characterization
of the facility.
In early 1986, radiological surveys conducted by B&W and Oak Ridge Associated
Universities revealed surface contamination and radiation "hot spots" slightly
above background in the parking lot of the Apollo facility. This area had
been an unrestricted area for many years. The identification of soil
contamination led to extensive characterization of the parking lot and other
areas adjacent to the facility, including some offsite areas. This
characterization effort included direct radiation surveys and a soil sampling
program which has thus far resulted in isotopic analysis of over 4800 soil
samples. To date, B&W has identified approximately 500,000 ft of uranium
contaminated soil which is above the NRC guideline level of 30 pCi/g,
INITIAL INDUSTRY CONTACTS
Early in 1988, B&W took a much closer look at the growing problem of disposing
of very large quantities of contaminated soil. Even the earliest estimates
indicated that disposal costs could soar over the 100 million dollar mark.
These early cost estimates, along with other influencing factors, led to a
corporate decision to pursue remedial action alternatives which would preclude
having to bury this material at a commercial LLW disposal facility.
33
-------
As a result, in an effort to identify alternatives for dealing with
contaminated soil, B&W made contact with decommissioning coordinators at the
following commercial facilities involved in similar cleanup efforts:
- Kerr-McGee Corporation's Cimarron site, where they were exhuming
onsite burial trenches and decommissioning former uranium and
Plutonium processing facilities,
- Nuclear Fuel Services' Erwin, TN, site, where they were cleaning up
settling ponds and a former plutonium processing facility,
- Westinghouse's Cheswick, PA, site where they had previously
decommissioned a uranium and plutonium facility and exhumed an onsite
burial trench, and
- United Nuclear's site at Wood River Junction, RI, where they had
decommissioned a former uranium scrap recovery facility.
We discovered an overwhelming interest in pooling resources and experience to
solve some of the generic problems and issues facing the industry. Although
each of the companies initially contacted had completed some decommissioning
work, each had other licensed facilities to be addressed at some future date.
INITIAL CONSORTIUM MEETING
In response to this overwhelming interest, particularly in cleanup of
contaminated soil, a planning meeting was held on November 1-2, 1988, at B&W's
Apollo, PA, facility. This first meeting served as the springboard for the
consortium and was attended by 17 technical and management representatives of
9 NRC-licensed facilities including: B&W Pennsylvania Nuclear Service
Operations (Apollo, PA), B&W Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division and B&W Nayal
Nuclear Fuel Division (Lynchburg, VA), Westinghouse Electro-Mechanical
Division (Cheswick, PA), Westinghouse CNFD (Columbia, SC), Kerr-McGee
Corporation-Cimarron Site (Cimarron, OK), Nuclear Fuel Services (Erwin, TN),
United Nuclear Corporation (Wood River Junction, RI), and General Electric,
Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing Division (Wilmington, NC).
In addition, an invitation was extended to Mr. Robert Alexander, President of
the Health Physics Society and who at that time was on the NRC staff for the
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs (Washington, DC). Mr. Alexander
provided a detailed update on the NRC's efforts to establish a Below
Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement, and was instrumental in the
consortium's early efforts to address the issue of BRC. Messrs. Henry Morton
and Tom Potter, environmental and criticality consultants from Washington, DC,
were also included in this initial meeting principally because of their
professional association with several of the companies in the consortium and
their key role in addressing similar issues in the past.
The principal objectives at this first meeting were to discuss generic
decontamination and decommissioning issues, and to consider establishment of a
formal industry consortium which would provide a mechanism for:
34
-------
1. Sharing operational and decontamination and decommissioning
experience on an informal and regular basis
2. Identifying generic decontamination and decommissioning issues
3. Jointly funding activities in the hopes of finding solutions to
these generic issues
4. Becoming involved in related regulatory affairs on a unified
industry basis
The response was overwhelmingly positive, and even before the first meeting
had ended we had initiated our first joint effort, that being to develop, with
the assistance of Morton & Potter, an industry position on the proposed NRC
Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern. This industry position was
presented to the NRC at a public meeting in Bethesda, MD, on January 12, 1989.
CHARTER
Since that first meeting last November, the initial group of six companies has
grown to include Nuclear Hetals Inc. (Concord, MA), Advanced Nuclear Fuels
(Richland, WA), Sequoyah Fuels (Oklahoma City, OK), and Combustion Engineering
(Windsor, CT). We have developed a draft charter which embodies the
objectives of the consortium. The five key points of this draft charter are:
1. To provide a forum where representatives can discuss and share
operational, technical, regulatory, and other problems and
experience.
2. To provide a means for establishing industry-wide positions on
technical, regulatory, and other matters.
3. To provide a forum for initiating, reviewing, or critiquing and
influencing regulatory issues related to, or impacting on,
facility and site decontamination and decommissioning.
4. To provide a forum for discussing and evaluating emerging or
existing technologies pertaining to decontamination and
decommissioning.
5. To provide a mechanism for joint funding of projects and
activities for the benefit of the entire industry.
The consortium meets on a quarterly basis and is involved in other activities
related to these objectives.
A number of key generic issues have been identified as topics for future
discussion and consideration and we anticipate action on these over the next
several months. These topics include:
- Ultimate disposition of onsite buried materials, formerly authorized
under 10 CFR 20.302
35
-------
- Potential mixed waste issues
- Investigation of the applicability of the Backfit Rule (10 CFR
50.109) as a protection against future liabilities resulting from
changing regulations
- Initiation of federal rulemaking to replace existing non-binding
"guidelines" (i.e., Branch Technical Position)
- Development of "fact sheets" to quantify and describe the
decontamination and decommissioning issues which may be affected by
changes in the acceptance criteria
- Investigation of institutional and technological alternatives (those
which have been proven and those which are under development)
- Possibilities for generic exemption under current regulations/
- Development of generic pathway analysis for applications under 10 CFR
20.302, "Methods for Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal
Procedures."
CURRENT AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES
The consortium has chosen as its first major undertaking, the generic issues
associated with cleanup of soil contaminated with low Bevels of uranium,
thorium, and depleted uranium. Two working groups haye been formed to
evaluate alternatives for soil contaminated slightly above those levels
determined to be acceptable for unrestricted release (this represents the
largest portion of the total volume of soil which must be dealt with), and to
develop rulemaking options for the establishment of consistent and practical
federal acceptance criteria. (Currently the industry is operating under
"guidelines" set by the NRC which are considered nonbinding and which may be
subject to change.)
We expect these efforts to lead to additional jointly funded tasks over the
next several months.
We continue to follow the NRC and EPA's activities in the areas of BRC,
Policy-setting and rulemaking, and intend to remain involved to the extent
possible. We believe that by not being involved, the industry leaves itself
open to the possibility of unnecessary and unrealistic cleanup requirements.
SUMMARY '
In summary and conclusion, this commercial uranium industry decontamination
and decommissioning consortium has proven to be an effective mechanism for (1)
identification of generic decontamination and decommissioning issues, (2)
exchange of information on available technological and institutional
alternatives, (3) coordination of industry involvement in regulatory matters
having a direct bearing on decontamination and decommissioning activities, and
(4) joint funding of specific decontamination and decommissioning projects and
36
-------
efforts which will benefit the industry as a whole. We continue to seek new
ideas, additional input and alternatives, and welcome opportunities to
participate in programs such as this EPA MRCS workshop which promote the
exchange of useful information which will be beneficial to the nuclear
industry as a whole.
37
-------
6. NEW JERSEY RADIUM SITES
MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE AND GLEN RIDGE
Raimo Liias
Environmental Protection Agency
The Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge radium sites are located in three
residential communities of suburban Essex County, NJ (figure 1). These sites
were identified as a result of a New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) program to investigate former radium-processing facilities
within the State. In 1981, NODE? requested that EPA conduct an aerial gamma
radiation survey of a 12-mi area in Essex County; this survey identified a
number of areas with elevated levels of gamma radiation.
Soil at the sites is contaminated with radioactive waste materials suspected
to have originated from radium-processing or utilization facilities located
nearby in the early 1900s. The material, similar to uranium mill tailings,
was disposed of in then-rural areas of the communities. It is thought that
some of the radium-contaminated material was moved from original disposal
areas and used as fill material in low-lying areas. Houses were later
constructed on or near the waste disposal sites, and, in a few instances, it
appears that some of the waste material was used in concrete for sidewalks and
foundations. This has resulted in local residents being exposed to elevated
indoor concentrations of radon and radon decay products and, in some cases,
excessive levels of gamma radiation.
EPA began preliminary investigations in late 1983 to assess the extent of
contamination at the sites. Since then, temporary radon ventilation systems
and gamma radiation shielding have been installed and maintained by EPA and
NJDEP, and a program was established to monitor the levels of radon decay
products in affected houses on a quarterly basis. The West Orange area was
added to the ongoing investigation in April 1984, and the Montclair/West
Orange and Glen Ridge radium sites were added to the NPL in 1985.
NJDEP secured-a disposal site in Nevada and began excavating the contaminated
soil in June 1985. Four properties in Glen Ridge had been completely
remediated when Nevada revoked the disposal permit and NJDEP was forced to
leave containerized soil at a transloading facility in Kearny, NJ, and at
partially excavated properties in Montclair. By the summer of 1988, NJDEP was
able to dispose of the material from Montclair and Kearny.
More than 300,000 yd3 of soil on public and private properties within portions
of the 3 communities are contaminated with varying degrees of radium. EPA
proposes to excavate the contaminated soil from the 23 most contaminated
properties and install engineering controls (e.g., radon control systems and
gamma radiation shielding) at a number of less contaminated properties.
The proposed plan would require excavation and removal of approximately 50,000
yd of radium-contaminated soil at a cost of $53 million.
38
-------
Excavation of the radium-contaminated soil is the EPA-preferred solution, but
it has proved very difficult to find a disposal facility for this volume of
low-level radioactive wastes. Because of this, EPA is evaluating other
solutions to the problem, including possible soil treatment technologies to
reduce the volume of contaminated material requiring offsite disposal.
Figure 1. Study Area Location Map
39
-------
Figure 2. Montclair Study Area
Figure 3. Glen Ridge Study Area
Figure 4. West Orange Study Area
Figure 5. Typical Contamination
Distribution Beneath
Hot Spots
40
-------
Table 1. PRAP Criteria
Category I Properties with Radon ;> 0.02 WL.etevaied Gamma
Ran Levels and House Situated over Core Area
Category B: Properties with Outdoor Gamma RaSafon levels i SO |iR/Hr or
Basement Wall Gamma Radiation Levels £ SO |iR/Hr
Category HI: Properties wnh Radon or Gamma Radafon Levels above
Kestti Guidelines* which are not included r\ Categories I and II
Category IV: Profafties with Sol Contamination above Cleanup Standards
bui wSh Radon and Gamma Radiation Lev* below Health GukJeinW
Category V: Properties with No Sol CenlarrnationaixweClesnup Standards
.Radoni0.02VVLerGaronaRaciationlwBbi30M»Hr
Table 2. Proposed Plan
Category I Full Excavation
Category II Partial Excavation arid Engineering Controls
Category III Engineering Controls and Hot Spot Removal
Category IV Radon and Gamma Radiation Monitoring
Category V No Further Action
Institutional controls for Categories IE. Ill and IV.
* Includes 4 NJDEP Phase I properties.
Number ot
Properties
23'
75
55
286
298
747
Table 3. Impacted Properties
Properties in study area
Properties with radium
contamination above soil
cleanup standards
Properties exceeding
health guidelines
Monfcfair West Orange SenRJdge'
239
172
75
* hdudes properties in East Orange
202
132
39
306
145
49
Total
747
449
163
Table
Category I
Category II
Category III
Category IV
Category V
4. Impacted Properties bv ratpnn>»\,
Mootdair
16*
37
22
97
67
West Orange
2
17
20
93
70
Glen Ridge"
5
21
23
96
161
•fatal
23'
75
65
286
238
•.Includes 4 NJDEP Phase I properties
~ Includes properties in East Orange
41
-------
7. CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL CONTAMINANTS FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES
James Neiheisel
Environmental Protection Agency
The radioactively contaminated soils at Superfund sites differ in the
materials constituting the native soil and the nature of the offending
contaminants. Native soils may range from homogenous to complex heterogeneous
admixtures with varying adsorptive properties, and radioactive materials may
encompass complex ore and tailing assemblages to magnetic furnace-fired radium
paint residues. Methods for contaminant characterization may differ for the
various sites.
The characterization plan for the Montclair and Glen Ridge, New Jersey, sites
utilized physical sizing, radiochemical and chemical analysis, mineralogical
testing, magnetic separations, and heavy liquid and linear density gradient
separation techniques which enabled identification of percentage of radium
contamination to specific materials of contrasting particle size, physical
properties, and solubility. Radium contamination was found to be highest in
the fine grain-size materials; radiobarite and amorphous silica from radium
mill tailings comprise more than half of the contamination. The rest of the
radium contaminants were uranium ore minerals, uraninite in coal ash,
furnace-fired radium paint residue, and adsorbed radium on mineral surfaces.
Limited analysis of radium contamination associated with the Ottawa, IL, site
suggests radium contamination mainly associated with radium paint on objects
and in magnetic furnace-fired materials.
It is clearly evident that characterization of contaminants in radioactive
sites is an important first step in remedial actions. Prediction of the
nature and distribution of radioactive contaminants will be facilitated by a
characterization site data base.
42
-------
n, M, a
•»• NMW
Mpoaujnam
Co.
U.a. tafem CoiporaMfl
WA One* A Co. me
Otan Mp Mun Sto Ota
Nenon/Anlceero MA
Mi|'«caamatn. Pit NJ
Onngi NJ
NJ
M»*rt 200-ATM (USDOC)
300-Am (U90OC)
IOO-ATM (USDOQ
* PropoMd. not ffn« M of Jun* itH
Figure 1. Locations of the 25 Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites
There are 25 radioactively contaminated Superfund sites in the United States
and there will probably be more added in the future. Each site has a
characteristic geologic host media and a unique assemblage of radioactive
contaminants. The geologic host media or native soil at each site has a
mineral assemblage that adsorbs some of the contaminants.
43
-------
Figure 2. Surficial Map
One can gain a general idea of the degree of adsorption of radionuclides at a
site from surficial maps, such as depicted here, and from adsorption
distribution coefficient measurements of the radionuclides at the site.
Approximately half of the Superfund sites occur in the glaciated central
region depicted as the checkered pattern in the diagram. IIlite and chlorite
are the most abundant clay minerals (most adsorbent) in this region.
Kaolinite tends to be the most typical clay mineral in the Atlantic coastal
plain and montmorillonite the most abundant in the western States. In some
places of the mid-west, e.g., Chicago, wind deposited montmorillonite from the
west sits as a thin surficial deposit over the glacial illite and chlorite
like "icing" on a cake.
44
-------
m VITMMIDMl. UVIK
OTUMtMU lAYIK
Oaowrra
• onam OK NvMom.
Figure 3. Clay Minerals
This sketch diagram of some of the clay minerals shows their sheet-like
structure made of tetrahedral layers (silicia tetrahedrons) and octahedral
layers (alumina sheets). The clay minerals are highly adsorbent because of
their (a) small size (less than 2 microns) and hence large surface areas (b)
negative charge, and (c) exchangeable cations. The clay mineral illite for
example, has k ions in the space between silica tetradrons. Radium of 1.43 A
ionic radius can substitute for the potassium (k) ion of 1.33 A ionic radius
in this structure.
Mnlnorillralto
Aftlte
IfcicwU*
Ourlz
farrlc NylrtiWi
JM fail/a)
•.500
l.tOO
20.000
20.000
I.TOO
•28.000
Figure 4. Radium Kds for Various Mineral Adsorbents
The adsorption distribution coefficient or kd is the chemical measure of the
ability of a cation to adsorb to mineral surfaces. The higher the kd number,
the greater the retention. In the above list of kd numbers for radium,
muscovite has a kd of 20,000. The clay mineral illite has a similar chemical
composition and structure as muscovite and would have a similar or higher kd
number considering its smaller size. Radium is the radionuclide of concern at
the Montclair and Glen Ridge Superfund Site.
45
-------
ii.it
n. •»
1*1
.to i
.1*
.tM
IrlllK
SillWIK
till
«•«.,
MPtllllM)
Figure 5. Laboratory Methods for Characterization
of Radium Contaminated Soils
The characterization plan for the Montclair and Glen Ridge sites included
construction of a grain size distribution curve and physical separation of 18
size fractions (listed above) for complete radioassay in mineral analysis.
Special chemical tests were conducted for chemical signature and other
correlation purposes. Magnetic, heavy liquid, and linear density gradient"
separations were made of selected size fractions to concentrate sufficient
amounts of these minute quantities of high radium activity materials for
identification and quantification. This characterization plan may serve as an
example for other Superfund sites.
« Ridlum In Socuttr Equilibrium
\
-Urtnlum Mlntril* (cwnotltt, urenlnlU. »tc)
-UranlnlU In Coel Aah/Slij
-Bickground nintrtls Ulrcon. fflonazitt. «tc)
* Xcld Latch
t Slllet
'••lit"
* Medium Coftctntrflts
-fi»«lym Pitnt In Furnici Tint Hitirlfl (magnetic ilig,
-lUdlum Pilnt on ObjttU
• Atfiertid Ridlum
-Stologlc Hoit nintnls
-»te
Figure 6. Types of Radium Contaminants at Superfund Sites
46
-------
irnr
i
" * I/»4
-lOAtl
-H/-JO
-»0/*100
-IOQAUO
!«<>/• JOO
4T10
1000
1110
100
118
101
n
n
11
it
i
i
0.5
"*"*
»O/B Wflt
11
JH 10
*
-------
•"
1
O «,
CM
Figure 8. Mineral and Material CompoEition of Montclair Soil
This figure depicts the mineral and material composition of the gravel, sand,
silt, and clay-sized fractions of the Montclair contaminated soil. The
average radium concentration and percent radium in each site is also listed.
23 50 79 100 \i% 1(0 171 100 tit ISO • >
Figure 9. Ra226 on Washed Gravel-Size Particles
The ferruginous slag particles are the incinerated or furnace-fired materials
containing the highest radium activity. The ferruginous slag is also magnetic
and further studies have'shown that this material averages 300 pCi/g Radium
226 and constitutes the major radium content of the gravel-size materials.
Magnetic separations may remove much of this material from the soil.
48
-------
IP
•E ••
GLEN KIDCr 20U1N (1020)
•tei UIMB tmiiiimm
'-FT
'
-
I 'iL ! «?" »ar~r
V A ......
UA
r •». - -
I IJ " -SA-.V sca
• :
Figure 10. X-Ray Diffractograms of Glen Ridge 10 to 20 Micron-
size Light and Heavy Density Fractions
X-ray diffractograms of linear density gradient bands of Glen Ridge soil
fraction showing amorphous welt on the light density scan (top). The
amorphous welt was verified as amorhpous silica by SEM and .EDX probe of the
material.
LT- 100 SECS
1BC
8
c
A
s, am
IB. MB
ENERGY
is. em
k.v
Figure 11. SEM and Energy Scan of Amorphous Silica
Tho scanning electric micrograph (SEM) and energy scan of amorhpous silica
from the 2.10 to 2.35 Specific gravity linear density gradient band of the 10-
20 micron size fraction of Glen Ridge soil validates that the amorphous silica
is the carrier of the 30 percent radium activity associated with this
fraction. 49
-------
4Mft*n*i
(»«*;
CquMrfcm
4cM LMeft Ibdlum MH^bto
AM*im AM A****'*
too
10 -.
iy»r»»«ut»
o 10
1
t
1
OkaaiJUtt*
!**
A
JUdiob&rlt*
A
Qaurt*
\
97
!
Figure 12. Relationship of Particle Size and Mineral Composition
to Percent Radium Distribution in Glen Ridge Soil
This summary diagram shows the spatial relation of specific contaminants and
the percent of the radium they contain for the Glen Ridge contaminated soil.
Gravel size Radium activity predominantly in magnetic ferruginous slag
16% Ra ferruginous slag containing uraninite (coal ^sh), adsorbed
radium, and radium residue from incinerated paint and
materials.
Sand-sized Uranium ore minerals, radiobarite, amorphous silica on
27% Ra quartz, and minor adsorbed radium.
Silt clay Uranium ore minerals, radiobarite, amorphous silica and
5"% Ra adsorbed radium on clay and hematite.
50
-------
8. CHARACTERIZATION AND WASHING OF
RADIONUCLIDE-CONTAMINATED SOILS FROM NEW JERSEY
W. S. Richardson
Tonya B. Hudson
Auburn University at Montgomery
S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
Joseph G. Wood
Charles R. Phillips
U.S. EPA
Montgomery, Alabama
INTRODUCTION
Soils from residential and business communities in Montclair and Glen Ridge,
NJ, are contaminated with Ra-226 and Th-230. The contamination allegedly was
produced by a radium extraction mill that operated nearby in the early part of
the century. As a result of the subsequent use of this radium residue as
landfill during construction, approximately 300,000 yd of soil over 95 acres
are contaminated; almost 1,700 people in more than 500 homes are affected to
one degree or another by elevated levels of gamma radiation as well as Rn-222
gas. The most significant contaminants producing the gamma radiation and
radon gas are Ra-226, ranging from about 40 to 1,000 pCi/g of soil, and
thorium, ranging from over 100 to almost 900 pCi/g (CDM85a and b). ;
:. •<.*!•*, •' ¥ '
The contamination is the result of the presence of process residue containing
barium-radium sulfate precipitates, partially extracted ores, and other
radiominerals that are mixed to varying degrees with the native soils (Ne88).
Earlier studies on uranium mill tailings indicated that volume reduction by
physical separation and chemical extraction might be feasible as a means of
remediation of the Montclair and Glen Ridge sites (Ri87). : • ;
PROCEDURES
Determination of Particle Size and Size Distribution ;
Wet sieving was performed on two soil samples from the Montclair site and one
from the Glen Ridge site, using a vibrating siever. One of the Montclair
samples labeled "Montclair" while the other was labeled "Representative,"
since, as reported in COM Report (CDM83a and b), the specific activity of
Ra-226 contamination in the latter represented an average value for the
overall sites. Each soil had been previously mixed to provide a uniform
Ra-226 activity. The soils were dried at 60 °C before separation.
Radiochemical Analysis
All soil samples and soil fractions were analyzed for Ra-226 by gamma-ray
spectroscopy (Li84). Soils and selected wet-sieved fractions and samples were
also analyzed for Th-230 (Li84) and, in some cases, for uranium isotopes
(Li84).
51
-------
Mash Studies
Four soil fractions were identified for wash studies: +4 (+4 designates
material retained by a number 4 sieve); -4/+16 (-4/+16 designates material
that passes through a number 4 sieve but is retained by a number 16 sieve);
-16/+30; and -30/+50. Based on the literature survey (Ri87), water and
several salt or salt/acid solutions were selected as wash reagents.
One-Step Hash Studies. Samples of the selerted soil fraction prepared by dry
screening, were analyzed for Ra-226. The samples were then mixed with water
or the selected wash solution in a Nalgene container and shaken at room
temperature for 1 hr. At the end of that time, they were rinsed with water,
and the solid residue (Rl) was collected over the appropriate sieve - number 4
for a +4 soil fraction or number 16 for a -4/+16 fraction, for example. The
residue was dried, weighed, and analyzed for Ra-226 and/or Th-230 and uranium
isotopes. The filtrate was subsequently filtered through a filter paper and
then a micropore filter. These residues were dried and weighed. The volume
of the filtrate was measured and, along with the residues, analyzed for
Ra-226.
Two-Step Mash Studies. The first step of the two-cycle wash studies was
performed as described above for a one-step study using water exclusively, but
shaking the mixture for a period of only 5 min. The first residue was treated
again for 1 hr with water or one of the wash reagents selected for the study.
Three-Step Wash Studies. The three-step wash studies were performed as
described above for a two-step study except that the residue from the second
step was washed again with water for 1 hour.
Soaking studies. Soaking studies were performed on selected soil fractions as
described for the one-step wash studies, except that the sample was gently
mixed with water and allowed to stand for 18 hr before shaking.
Recycle Studies. Samples of soil fractions were washed using the procedure
described for one-step wash studies; the micropore filtrate was collected for
the second step of the study. In the second step, a new soil fraction was
washed with the filtrate from the first step. The filtrate froifr the second
step was, in turn, used to wash a third new soil fraction.
Combined Hashing and Wet-Sieving of Total Soils
Soil samples were weighed for Ra-226 analysis. After analysis, the samples
were mixed with tap water in a Nalgene container and shaken vigorously at room
temperature for 30 min. The soil mixtures were then sieved under vacuum using
appropriate sieves.
52
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Particle Size and RadiochenricaT Distribution
Table 1 gives the average concentration of Ra-226 and Th-230 in the Montclair,
Glen Ridge, and Representative soil samples, based on their dry weights. The
concentration of Ra-226 is approximately 4 times higher in the Glen Ridge soil
than in the Montclair soil, while the Representative soils contain less than
1/3 that of the Montclair soil. Th-230 concentration in the Glen Ridge soil
is 3.5 times higher than in the Montclair soil; the isotope concentration in
the Representative soil is considerably less than the concentration in the
Montclair soil.
The distributions of Ra-226 and Th-230 by particle size are Indicated in
Tables 2, 3, and 4 for the Montclair, Glen Ridge, and Representative soil
fractions, respectively. Note in Table 2 that the Ra-226 activity is
moderate, less than 100 pCi/g, in the Montclair fractions larger than
600 u (30 mesh size), but it generally increases as the particle size
decreases. There is a noticeable increase between the -10/+16 and the -16/+30
fractions and between the -200/+400 aptf the -400 fractions and an unexpectedly
high value for the -16/+30 fraction -- more than twice the value of the
preceding fraction. The Th-230 values are, with the exception of one fraction
(-16/+30), less than that of Ra-226.
Table 3 shows that the Ra-226 concentration is distributed in a similar manner
in the Glen Ridge soil, but the increase in concentration is not as uniform
with decreasing particle size. There is, again, a noticeable increase from
the number 16 to 30 mesh size and from 400 to -400 mesh, a doubling in
activity, with a very high activity in the -400 fraction. Th-230
concentration is also inversely related to the particle size, doubling between
the 16 and 30 mesh size and between the 400 and -400 fractions. In each
fraction, however, the Th-230 concentration is less than Ra-226.
Table 4 indicates that the Ra-226 concentration is more evenly distributed in
the Representative soil, but an increase in concentration is observed.with
relatively significant increases from the -30/+50 fraction to the -50/+100
fraction and from the -100/4-140 to the -140/+200 fraction. Each fraction
contains less Th-230 than Ra-226.
The elevated concentrations of radioactivity in the fine material are clearly
demonstrated by these data. Thus, partial remediation of the soils by wet
sieving techniques appears to be feasible.
Tables 2 through 4 also summarize the particle size distributions, in
percentage by weight, of the material and sieved. In the Montclair soil,
Table 2, approximately 30 percent of the soil was retained by the number 16
sieve; 34 percent was retained up to the number 30 sieve (600 u).
Table 3 indicates a similar trend for the Glen Ridge soil. At least 45
percent of the sample was retained up to the number 16 sieve during wet
sieving, 50 percent was retained up to the number 30 sieve.
53
-------
Table 4 indicates that the Representative soil is similar to the Montclair in
distribution of particles by weight. However, it contains approximately 10
percent more fine material (-400 mesh); unlike the Montclair soil, no large
rocks (> 2 inches) are present in the soil.
Soil Wash Studies
Examination of the distributions of Ra-226 concentrations in the Montclair and
61en Ridge soils before and after wet sieving, along with preliminary evidence
from the geological characterization by James Neiheisel (Ne88), indicated that
preliminary wash studies should be performed on +30 soil fractions. These
fractions had been separated, by the methods described above, from Montclair
and Glen Ridge soils obtained from the New Jersey site in October 1987.
Table 5 is a summary of the initial results of single-step wash studies with
water and gentle shaking. With one wash, water removed approximately 50
percent of the Ra-226 activity from the +4 fraction and about 85 percent of
that in the -4/+16 fraction. In each case, the filtrate contained little to
no activity (data not shown in Table 5). The final average specific activity
of the Montclair samples ranged from 10 to 71 pCi/g. Although the Glen Ridge
samples followed the same trend, the final activity was well above 71 pCi/g
(121 to 330 pCi/g) since the activity of the samples was high initially.
The final specific .activity of the Montclair +4 and -4/+16 fractions indicate
a promising trend for remediation by washing and screening since their average
values after washing are 10 pCi/g and 33 pCi/g, respectively. Th-230 values
are lower than those of Ra-228, indicating that ingrowth of Ra-226 would not
be a long-term problem.
In most instances the salt solutions produced similar, and in several cases
slightly better, results (see Table 6). The data generally indicate, however,
that, relative to water, salt solutions increased the activity of Ra-226 in
the filtrate.
Pre-soaking the soil samples before washing was examined to deter-mine its
effect on one-step washing with water. For these studies, the
intermediate-size fraction, -4/+16, of both soils was selected for the study.
The results of the study and comparison of the data to those without
preliminary soaking indicate that soaking the fraction before shaking does not
increase the effectiveness of the water-wash procedure.
An important consideration in a large-scale remediation process using water is
the amount of water required. If the wash water could be recycled, an
appreciable amount would be conserved during volume reduction. Further,
recycling would avoid the necessity of disposal or decontamination of large
volumes of radioactive liquids. In a study designed to examine the
feasibility of water recycling, a -4/+16 soil fraction was first washed with
deionized water; the filtrate was collected after filtering through a
micropore filter and used to wash a new -4/+16 fraction. The filtrate from
the second wash was used, in turn, to wash another new fraction. In each step
of the wash process, the same percentage of activity was removed leaving
samples with comparable specific activities. The activity of the filtrate in
54
-------
each case was less than 25 pCi/L. Thus, the study indicates that wash water
filtered through a micropore filter to remove suspended particles may be
recycled at least twice with no significant decrease in removal efficiency.
The effect of two- and three-step washing was also examined. With each
fraction, the study indicates that the two-step process, compared to the
one-step process removed a greater percentage of Ra-226 activity. Like the
single-step procedure, each step of the process removed some mass from the
sample. The first step removed the majority of the associated fines, but
visual examination of the sample after two wash steps indicated that the
material had less fine particles associated with it than did a comparable
sample washed only once. The loss of material during the second wash step was
approximately 5 percent of the initial sample weight. In every experiment,
the specific activity of the filtrate was less than 25 pCi/L. The results of
the three-step wash study with water indicate that only a very small amount of
additional sample is removed by the third wash step. Examination of the
residues from the two- and three-step studies support this observation, since
there is no visual physical difference in comparable residues. There is no
significant increase in the loss of total activity of the samples after the *•
third wash and the specific activity is essentially the same.
A preliminary study of washing rocks with water was also initiated. Similar
to the +4 soil fractions, the geometry of the rock sample presents a problem
for Ra-226 analysis by gamma-ray spectroscopy than those of smaller fractions.
The Montclair rocks, however, indicated a specific activity of less than
15 pCi/g and were not washed. On the other hand, the Glen Ridge rocks with
more coal-like and coaly-slag character have a specific activity of
260 4- 217 pCi/g, but the wash study was not conclusive.
Combined Washing and Wet Sieving Studies of Total Soils
The results of the wet sieving and water-wash studies indicated that the
examination of a combination of the two processes applied to a total soil
sample would be appropriate. Table 7 indicates that by combining vigorous
shaking with vacuum sieving up to 35 percent of the Montclair soil can be
separated with an average Ra-226 specific activity of 15 pCi/g, a specific
activity very similar to that obtained in the preliminary studies. With the
inclusion of the -50/+100 fraction, however,.almost 43 percent of the
Representative soil can be recovered with a Ra-226 specific activity of
15 pCi/g. It is important to note that 56 percent of this soil sample can be
recovered with a specific activity of 16 pCi/g and 67 percent can be recovered
at 19 pCi/g.
Although vigorous shaking and wet sieving with vacuum was not effective in
producing a sufficiently remediated Glen Ridge soil, the process did separate
approximately 55 percent of the soil (+30) with less than half the specific
activity of a sample that had been shaken gently, 120 pCi/g compared to
290 pCi/g.
In light of the proposal from ORP to develop a simple, safe, economical,
onsite method of treatment that would produce a significant volume of
remediated soil that would remain onsite, the results of the initial wash
55
-------
studies indicate that water washing is a prime candidate for onsite
remediation.
Using water exclusively would eliminate the necessity for removal
of salt and/or acids by processes that would require one or more steps,
possibly including, among others, ion-exchange, neutralization, or
precipitation. Since the data indicate that little radium-226 is present in
the filtrate after washing the soil fraction either once or twice with water,
it is likely that the water could be disposed directly with dilution or, more
importantly, be recycled several times during the washing process. Thus, a
wash process that would include wet screening of the soil to separate the +100
fraction would be followed by filtration of the -100 fraction to remove wash
water that in turn would be recycled in the process. The -100 fraction could
be collected for disposal or additional treatment.
56
-------
REFERENCES
CDM85a "Remedial Investigation Study for the Montclair/West Orange
and Glen Ridge, New Jersey Radium Sites," Vol. I. Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc.; Roy F. Weston, Inc.; Clement
Associates, Inc.; ICF, Inc.. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York,
September 13, 1985.
CDM85b "Appendices for Remedial Investigation Study for the
Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge, New Jersey Radium
Sites," Vol. II. Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.; Roy F. Weston,
Inc.; Clement Associates, Inc.; ICF, Inc.; EPA Contract
No. 68-01-6939. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New
York, September 13, 1985.
Li84 Lieberman, R., ed.. "Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility Radiochemistry Procedures Manual."
Report 520/5-84-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 1984.
Ne88 Nieheisel, J., "Characterization of Contaminated Soil from
the Montclair/Glen Ridge,. New Jersey Superfund Sites." EPA
Inhouse Report. Office of Radiation Programs, EPA,
Washington, DC, 1988.
Ri87 Richardson, III., R.S., Snodgrass, G.B., and Neiheisel, J..
"Review of Chemical Extraction and Volume Reduction Methods
for Removing Radionuclides from Contaminated Tailings and
Soils for Remedial Action." EPA Office of Radiation
Programs, Analysis and Support Division, Washington, DC and
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, Montgomery, AL,
July 24, 1987.
57
-------
Table 1. Total Soil
RadiochMlcal Analysis
Soil
HontcUIr .
tlen Ridge
Representative
Ra-226
(PC1/S)
182 * 51
813 + 21
53 4 3X
Th-230
(pCi/g>
126 4 4X
881 + 4X
18 4 SX
Dried it fiO'C.
Percentage error for concentration represents + 2 slgsa error.
Table 2. Montclair Soil
Wet Sieving
Size Weight Percent *
*
-4/410
-10/+16
-16/+30
-30/450
-50/4100
-100/+140
-140/4200
-200/4400
-400
Dried at 60*C.
18.25
7.94
3.23
4.54
7.46
14.16
6.74
5.55
10.85
21.28
100.00
44
26
39
84
117
113
138
170
194
382
Ra-226
(pC1/g)
420X
+ 24X
+ 3U
*'5*
412X
4 12X
4 11X
4 8X
4 m
i ax
Th-230
(pCi/g)
7
12
15
175
71
62
68
115
.132
283
4 6X
+ 9X
+ 8X
4 41
4 5X
+ 5X
45X
4 4X
4 4'<
1 5*
•Percentage of sieved Hterltl; 3.34X of soil Is large rocks and 1.464 1s
trash.
Percentage error for concentration represents + 2 signs error.
58
-------
tn
Table 3. Representative Soil
Size
+4
-4/+10
-10/+16
-16/+30
-30/+50
-SO/+100
-100/+140
-140/+200
-200/+400
-400
Dried at 60*C.
Met
Height Percent *
15.79
6.70
2.65
4.74
7.73
12.29
5.55
4.56
10.48
29.51
100.00
Sieving
Ra-226
(pci/g!
14+91
22+9*
27 + 10*
25+9*
25+ 7S
33+5*
33 + 25*
52 + 16*
58 + 10*
105*
Th-230
(pCi/g!
5 + 9*
8 + 6*
8 J 6*
9 + 53
16 + 5*
23 + 5*
23 + 5*
39 + 5*
55 + 4*
**
'
Table 4. Glen Ridge Soil
Met Sieving
Size
-4/+10
-10/+16
-16/+30
-30/+50
-50/*100
-100/+140
-140/+200
-200/+400
-400
Dried «t 60°C.
Height Percent *
31.78
9.74
3.61
4.93
5.85
11.09
5.64
4.02
7.62
15.70
99.98
P.a-226
(pCI/g)
346+ 9*
307+ 7*
268 + 10*
535+ 8*
492+ 5*
47* + 5*
498+ 5*
677+ 5*
1,006+ 4*
2,855 + 3*
Th-230
(pCI/g)
76 + 6*
154 + 41
108+5*
211 + 4*
289 + 4*
302 + 4*
365 + 3*
500+3*
987 + 4*
2801 + 5*
*Ca1culated from total «ct1v1ty of the tuple sieved ind percentage of the
friction.
Percentage error for concentration represents + 2 ilgma error.
^Percentage of Mterlal sieved; 0.65* of soil Is large rocks and 0.30* Is
trash.
Percentage error for concentration represents +_ 2 ilgaa error.
-------
Table 5. Summary of Results from One-Step Wash Study with Water
Soil
H
G
Size
44(a)
-4/4l6(b)
-16/+30(c)
44 {a i
-4/+16(b)
-16/430(c)
Initial
Sp. Act.
Ra-226
(pC1/8>
W + 7.0
104 4 14
168 + 15
193 4 57
850 4 54
1.092 4 67
Final
Sp. Act.
fta-226
10 4 3.7
33 + 8.3
71 4 9.7
121 4 28
238 4 53
330 4 44
Percent
of Total
Activity
Reaoved
52 4 7.0
86 4 3.4
864 3.8
404 14
82 i 3.5
87 4_ 2.2
Weight
Percent
of Sanple
Recovered
86 4 5.6
45 4 2.0
34+1.9
92 4 4.3
66 + 2.5
44 4 1.3
Int. /Final
Sp. Act.
TH-J30
fpCl/g)
27/3
104/15
158/55
1.057/68
611/108
794/167
C«J Bepressnts tte average and standard deviation of seven rims.
(b) tepreients the average and standard deviation of elsM rui>s.
Ccj Represents the average and standard deviation of four runs.
Table 6. Summary of Results from One-Step Wash Study with Salts
Soil
N
K
II
H
M
N
H
N
C
G
e
c
G
C
G
C
Size
+4
44
44
44
-4/416
-4/416
-4/+16
-4/+16
44
44
44
44
-4/+16
-4/+16
-4/416
-4/416
Reagent
(tad
KC1
CaCb/HCl
CDTA
MaCl
KC1
CaClj/HCl
EDTA
«*n
Kl
CaC1;/HCl
EDTA
NaCl
KC1
CaClz/MCl
£DTA
Initial
Sp. Act.
Ra-225
fsCi/g)
35
28
28
26
82
82
101
147
331
276
202
174
945
822
898
813
Filial
Sp. Act.
Ra-226
Ml/a)..
28
10
K
11
41
19
26
32
186
142
122
108
520
196
135
244
Filtrate
Sp. Act.
(pCI/U
104
72
538
*
106
287
1.890
*
352
765
4.588
«
0
1.493
5.120
*
Percent
of Total
Activity
Removed
46
70
.56
(4
76
91
89
90
51
55
44
40
. 62
84
91
81
Height
Percent
Of Sample
. Recovered
68
84
es
85
49
44
42
44
38
88
92
97
70
65
62
64
• Hot measured.
60
-------
Table 7. Final Studies of Vigorous Shaking and Subsequent Sieving of
Soils on the Wet-Vac Si ever
Size
«4
-4/+16
-16/+30
-30/+50
-SO/4100
-100/+200
-200/4400
•400
ft
Height
Percent
11.06
5.59
4.10
7.99
13.89
42.63*
13.46
11.40
67.49
32.51
100.00
ta-226
SpCi/g}
12
21
14
14
IS
15**
22
34
19**
180
N
Height fta-226
Percent (pC1/g)
21.94
5.69
2.67
4.49
34.79*
10.46
13.61
13.12
28.02
100.00
15
15
16
18
15**
42
59
92
427
Welch!
Percent
18.68
11.73
2.91
5.52
38.84*
11.63
11.41
8.23
29.89
100.00
G
Ra-226
{pCi,'9i
102
151
175
182
134**
174
246
484
3.581
Th-230 specific activity for each fraction was less than the specific
activity of Ra-226.
•Cumulative weight percent.
"Weighted average of specific activities of above fractions.
61
-------
9. THE WELDON SPRING SITE, HISSOURI
Daniel R. Wall
Environmental Protection Agency
The Weldon Spring Site is in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area, situated
between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers (figure 1). The Department of the
Army acquired the property in the early 1940s, during World War II, for
construction of an explosives production facility, the Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works, which would manufacture trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT).
During operations, there was considerable spillover of red waste waters from
production lines and catchments, contaminating both surface waters and ground
water.
The facility was shut down at the end of the war, and later, in the mid-1950s,
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) acquired the property and built the Weldon
Springs Uranium Feed Materials Plan. This operated from 1957 until abandoned
in 1966, The plant processed uranium concentrates to uranium salts; it was
similar to the Fernald Plant in Ohio, which it predates. During operations,-
the immediate terrain, buildings, sewer system, and drainage easement were
contaminated.
Four miles to the south, in bluffs along the Missouri River, a 9-acre
limestone quarry was used for over 25 years by the Army and AEC for disposal
of wastes (figures 1 and 2). The Army disposed of contaminated debris, soils,
and rubble from the explosives production, and the AEC disposed of drums,
equipment, soils, and rubble contaminated with uranium, radium, and thorium.
The quarry was the first portion of this 220-acre DOE surplus facility to be
placed on the NPL. Investigations show that it has about 95,000 yd of
chemically and radiologically contaminated wastes and is hydraulically
connected through fractured limestone to the Missouri River alluvium. The
county has a well field in alluvium about 3/4-mi distant. Though uranium,
radium, and nitro-aromatics contamination has been detected outside the quarry
boundaries, none has been found in the well field.
The chemical plant and raffinate pits were recently added to the definition of
the quarry, and now the entire facility is on the NPL as one site. An
estimated 220,000 yd of contaminated sludges are in the raffinate pits; the
contaminant of primary concern is thorium. The chemical plant includes about
40 buildings, many of which are contaminated with uranium. Remedial action is
complicated by proximity to the local high school; thus, the site has a high
public profile. Also, the bulk of the contaminants are radionuclides, but
there are also nitro-aromatics, heavy metals, and organics. The ground water
is contaminated with nitrates and nitro-aromatics, most of the buildings had
PCB transformers {which have been removed), and many of the buildings have
asbestos insulation.
DOE, under an agreement with the EPA, is now conducting an RI/FS for the site.
These studies have been underway for 5 years and will take another 2 years to
complete. Complete remediation is likely to taken another 10 years. For
purposes of the RI/FS, the site has been divided into two sections - the
chemical plant area (including the raffinate pits) and the quarry area. Each
62
-------
contains several distinct components which will require separate RI/FS
documentation. ,
However, pending completion of the RI/FSs, there is an immediate need to
stabilize the site and stop migration of contaminants off-site, so an
extensive interim response action program is underway. Actions have included
removal of containerized chemicals, removal of PCB transformers and
incineration offsite, demolition of the less contaminated buildings,
installation of a diversion dike system for stormwater control, and
construction of a waste water treatment p'ant at the quarry. These actions
will enable further remedial actions; once the contaminated water is treated,
the bulk sludges can be removed from the quarry. There are over 20 separate
environmental compliance components underway. An extensive and dynamic public
relations program has been developed, and a Superfund technical grant has been
awarded to a community group.
Looking ahead, the most feasible alternative appears to be onsite disposal in
the chemical plant area if investigations show that site to be appropriate.
All of the nonradioactive contaminated wastes will go off site; this includes
most of the chemical wastes, so the bulk of the contamination to be dealt with
onsite will be radiological wastes. Up to 10 percent of the waste may fall
into the mixed waste category; if these wastes must remain on-site and cannot
be effectively treated, they may influence the design of the disposal cell.
Because of the large quantity of contaminated wastes involved, DOE and EPA are
looking at all possible volume reduction technologies.
63
-------
Figure 1. Area and Vicinity Map of the Weldon Spring Site, Weldon
Spring, Missouri
ox.
"fl*.
Figure 2, Layout of the Weldon Spring Quarry
64
-------
tn
A ^**»' >* I! *c- " ' I LI J I 0*
\. ^ lUPFIMATi MT MO. *jtf_ |J j-J ~£~
niMjua j^Ssi^^~-^k4-^mg ?jei^S
^r i 7 I UwttiHiJiibp -
fff • I : mt i. JCSTpi
I 7rt i ' '• -4—.'{I •• • ""^v-L.
T%-
\^
liti.eoo
n
jLr.-:i
HAFFINATC HT MO, * —
• f"^
•!
j:
^
,
M
y
S-'
j •
.-r
•MA
l&?
W^ir*
HtUftVH *IV
iJn/im
**'
*. •
r-«»^riM*Ti nr
•-"!
i
Hfl 4
«W« •
1
"V r
Figure 3. Layout of the Weldon Spring Raffirtate Pits
and Chemical Plant Area
Figure 4. Areas in the Raffinate Pits and Chemical
Plant Area that have Exposure Rates
Above Background
-------
10. OTTAWA RADIATION SITES
Verneta Simon
Environmental Protection Agency
Ottawa Radiation Sites consists of 17 areas in Ottawa, IL, where anomalous
levels of Ra-226 were identified by a Department of Energy (DOE) aerial survey
and by an EPA gamma mobile survey. Ottawa, a city with a population of
18,000, 1s about 80 mi south-west of Chicago.
From 1920 to 1978, Ottawa was the location of two radium watch-dial painting
facilities, Radium Dial and Luminous Processes Incorporated (LPI). Radium
Dial opened in 1920 and was razed in 1968; the current location of the debris
is unknown. LPI was in operation from 1932 to 1978; during 1985 and 1986, the
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS) dismantled the vacant factory.
The Department disposed of the contaminated soil, building materials, and
sewer lines at the nuclear waste landfill in Hanford, WA.
While the IDNS was decommissioning the LPI site, it learned that waste
material from the site was used for landfill in and around Ottawa. This was
substantiated when EG&G, a DOE contractor, performed an aerial radiological
survey of the area in May 1986 and identified 13 areas with varying degrees of
radium contamination. This State survey also led to the identification of 5
structures with high indoor radon levels - that is, in excess of 100 pCi/L of
air. EPA's action guideline is 4 pCi/L.
In December 1986, the IDNS requested EPA assistance in dealing with Ottawa's
radium and radon problems. After several discussions, a three-phased approach
was decided upon.
Phase 1 was to determine if the contamination was natural or of industrial
origin. Soil samples collected from several locations in December 1987 proved
the contamination was industrial.
Phase 2 ras to determine if there were other contaminated areas. During
December 1987, EPA conducted an extensive street-by-street inspection of
Ottawa with a gamma survey van. The gamma survey van was provided by EPA's
Las Vegas Facility. It houses a 4x16 sodium iodide detector that measures
radiation counts per minute and a pressurized ion chamber that measures
exposure per hour, making it easy to relate counts-per-second to
exposures-per-hour.
Survey results confirmed the presence of radioactive materials at 13 sites
identified by the aerial survey and found 4 additional sites. The 17
contaminated sites range in size from 10 ft to approximately 10 acres.
A convincing piece of evidence that, the contamination was industrial in origin
is a radium paint vial found at one site. Dry paint residue in the vial
measured 100 uR/hr on contact.
During this phase, radon testing was conducted in 62 buildings, both homes and
commercial structures. EPA found 3 residences and 1 commercial building with
66
-------
elevated Indoor radon levels, between 20 and 378 pCi/L, that required
reduction. With confirmed radon levels between 20 and 200 pCi, EPA recommends
taking remedial action within several months; at confirmed levels over 200
pCi, immediate action should be taken to reduce levels.
Superfund's Emergency Removal Program provided $193,500 to mitigate radon in
four buildings. The primary reduction method selected was subslab suction or.
ventilation. This method requires boring a hole in the building foundation.
PVC piping is inserted into the hole and sealed tightly at all connections.
The pipe is vented to the outside and fitted with an exhaust fan to suck the
radon from under the building and vent it to the outside where there will be
no impact. This reduces the indoor radon buildup.
Subslab ventilation systems were offered at no cost to the owners of the four
buildings with the highest levels; three owners accepted and these systems are
installed and operating. The owner of the house with the highest level, 378
pCi/L, refused EPA's offer of a subslab ventilation system and also refused
temporary relocation. The owner opens basement a»»d upper level windows at
night to ventilate the radon. Initially, the owner would not let EPA back on
the property for further assessment of radium contamination but finally
relehted.
Phase 3 called for remediation of the contaminated properties. This involved
evaluation of the extent of contamination and options for removal, conducted
under an interagency agreement with the DOE's Argonne National Laboratory.
Five of the largest of the 17 contaminated sites were identified. Tubes 1
inch in diameter were driven into the ground with a jack-hammer, and radiation
measurements were taken at 6-in increments below the surface. The volume of
contaminated soil was estimated by multiplying the square footage of the
contaminated area by the depth of contamination.
Currently, four options are being considered:
1. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil at S. K. Hart in
Clive, UT. An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 yd of soil would have to
be removed. Removal and snipping costs are estimated to be 520
million to $40 million.
2. In situ vitrification, a thermal process that converts soil into a
glassy rock. The procedure involves placing metal rods in the
soil to the depth of contamination. Applying a high voltage to
the rods converts the soil between the rods to a liquid, which
later solidifies. This technology was developed for the DOE to
prevent migration of transuranic wastes; it now is being applied
to other types of waste. The estimated cost of using this method
at the Ottawa site is $15 million to $25 million.
3. Soil washing, which entails washing the contaminated soil with a
chemical solution or water. Radioactive materials are
transferred to the liquid in the process. Pilot tests of this
technology are under way for a similar project.
67
-------
4. Consolidating and capping contaminated soil at a single site. The
estimated cost is $7 million to $9 million.
A combination of options may be used if EPA determines that It would be more
efficient and effective. A decision is expected shortly, following the
results of the in situ vitrification pilot test.
LEGEND
O - Site Miafctr
®- Municipal Well
All toirlcan Publl.hlnj Co.. Inc.
SCALE
1*00 IBM
In Ffct
Figure; 1. Sites Map, Ottawa Radiation Sites, Ottawa, Illinois
68
-------
11. SHPACK LANDFILL, MASSACHUSETTS
David Leqerer
Environmental Protection Agency
The Shpack Landfill is located in Norton, Massachusetts, on the town line
between Norton and Attleboro. The Attleboro Municipal Landfill lies on the
other side of the line (figures 1 and 2). The privately owned, 6-acre Shpack
Landfill was closed by court order and has been abandoned for the past 15
years; the publicly owned, 40-acre Attleboro Landfill is still in operation.
The Attleboro area has been the center of jewelry manufacturing for many
years; the Balfour Ring Company, long-time maker of school rings, is one of
the area'.s best-known manufacturers.
Wastes from the local heavy industry and jewelry manufacturing include spent
plating solutions and sludges, organic solvents, and various mixed wastes.
Before RCRA, disposal was not always done in the best fashion. Locally, it
was reported that the Shpack dump, started in 1946 by a retired municipal
employee on his farmland, would take any wastes refused at the Attleboro site.
The Shpack residence is right beside the landfill area; the well has been
tested many times and shows no contamination. In fact, monitoring to date has
revealed no offsite radiological contamination and very little chemical
contamination. This is explained by the very shallow or flat hydraulic
gradient of the swampy area. It is believed that the contaminants have been
adsorbed by or adhered to soil particles; monitoring wells to the north and
permitted wells around the Attleboro site have shown no radiological
contamination of the ground water.
The Attleboro Landfill is permitted by the State and still operating,
generating large quantities of leachate which are now regulated by the State.
The ;ground-water contour map (figure 3) shows some gradients but there is no
general direction of movement; contaminant migration offsite is not evident.
Several radiological surveys have been performed. In the late 1970s, the NRC
received a complaint from a citizen who had tested the area with a geiger
counter and found anomalous spots. Subsequent investigations included local
interviews with Ideal companies and a complete radiological site survey
(figure 4). The DOE radiological survey showed no clear pattern; the
radioactive contamination is unevenly or spottily distributed both vertically
and horizontally from the surface to a depth of several feet. The radioactive
waste appears to be just scattered debris, no drums or disposal pits.
Readings at the site boundaries and surface water in the swamp are background.
Air quality monitoring has indicated no problems.
Investigations at the site are still in the early stages. The Shpack Landfill
is on the National Priority List and some potentially responsible parties have
been identified. EPA is the lead agency; DOE is providing some funding for
addressing the radioactive contamination under the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program. The question now is how to get all of the PRPs
together; the list could include most of the industries in the town and
probably many from elsewhere in the state.
69
-------
Figure 1. Location of Shpack Landfill Site
70
-------
i i .'fee •;.-'•>. .* "-r."""
Figure 2, Shpack Superfund Site
Figure 3. Water Table Map Constructed from Table 4
Data with possible directions of Groundwater
movement (dashed arrows)
71
-------
Figure 4. Shpack Landfill Areas of Contamination
Soil
Croudw»t*r
Surface Hater
Uad
.Arsenic
Chrorelu*
Copper
Cadmlw
nickel
Zinc
Ra-226
tf-234
U-235
U-238
Ha«. CenttntratSen
3,055 ppb
18
3,060
16,170
S4
SOI,318
56,497
1.57J Cl/g
4.200
200
16,460
trans 1,2-tflchloro- 12,000 ppb
•thyUne
trlcMoroptthtnt
tttracfilMoethtfii
vinyl chloride
Bhthtlatt
acetone
2-buthanoni
•ethyiene chloride
R.-2Z6
V-234
U-235
V-238
U-234
U-235
U-238
ftnnt tx'poiurt
ecu doit ratt
Kt-226
U-234
U-238
13,000
19,000
73
136
29
13
270 Ci/1
3,900
380
C.300
16 C1/1
1
21
S3 uP/h
1.5 «rad/tir ,
7.1 C-04 p«/«3
>.S t-04 •
1.1 1-04 •
1.7 1-04 "
Table 1. Summary of Contamination at Shpack Landfill
72
-------
12. THE LANSDQWNE RADIATION SITE
William Bel anger
Victor Janosik
Environmental Protection Agency
During the early 1900s, Ra-226 was utilized for medical and industrial
purposes with few or no health precautions. Production, purification, and
packaging of this radionuclide were conducted at small industrial sites,
laboratories, and even private homes.
In 1910, Dr. Dicran Kabakjian, a physics professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, developed a process for the purification of radium. This
process was used by a local company from 1913 to 1922 when the company closed
down. The professor then continued a similar business from his house at 105
East Stratford .Avenue in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, for 20 years, producing and
repairing radium implant needles and working with other medical devices.
The Kabakjian side of the twin house (105 E. Stratford Avenue) was owned
successively by the Tallant family and the Kizirian family. The property
currently belongs to the Kizirian estate.
In 1963, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDH) inspected the house and
found extremely high levels of radiation. The U.S. Public Health Service
(PHS) and the PDH decontaminated the 105 E. Stratford portion of the twin
house as a "demonstration" project in 1964. The U.S. Air Force supplied a
mobile radiation laboratory to monitor the cleanup.
Decontamination consisted of removing as much radium as practical by sanding,
scraping, vacuuming, and washing the house walls, floors, and ceilings. Some
wooden floorboards and portions of the concrete basement floor were also
removed. It is postulated that the acid fumes from the radium-purification
procedure that Dr. Kabakjian used, as well as spills, burning of contaminated
newspapers, and tracking of the radium on the bottoms of the residents' shoes
carried the radium throughout the home and resulted in its penetration deep
into the wood and plaster of the house. After the cleanup, epoxy-based paint
was applied to limit the outward migration of the remaining radium. It is
estimated that approximately 90 percent of the radium in the house was removed
in the 1964 cleanup action.
The Kizirian family was allowed to move back into the unit. The PHS estimated
that the radiation dose rate received by the occupants was just above the
then-existing guideline of 0.5 rem/yr and that further decontamination of the
house would be impractical.
EPA'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTION
In 1983, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PDER)
notified EPA of the Lansdowne site and its previous contamination. EPA and
PDER's sampling and monitoring of the structure showed high radon and gamma
radiation levels in #105 (the Kizirians') and high radon levels but with lower
gamma levels in #107 (the Bashores'). Additionally, very high levels o;
73
-------
radiation were measured in the soil around the properties. In March 1984, the
Chronic Disease Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wrote that
based on the measured levels, "...the entire duplex structure should be
considered to pose a significant health risk to long-term occupants." Gamma
radiation levels were found to be about 100 uR/hr throughout most of 105 E.
Stratford and ranged to 300 uR/hr in the dining room. Radon daughters were
found to be about 0.3 WL. (This was before the discovery of the Watras House
in the Reading Prong area of Pennsylvania and these radon .levels were
considered very high.)
EPA's emergency response actions in 1984 included installation of burglar
alarm and fire alarm systems and a full sprinkler system throughout the
structure. A 1,000-gal water bladder was installed in the basement of each
house as a back-up for the municipal water supply. The insides of all windows
were sealed with plastic to minimize radon and radon daughter dispersion, and
security arrangements were made with the Lansdowne Police Department. The
owners were allowed to remove any uncontaminated furniture, but contaminated
furniture and other household items were left in the houses pending the
remedial action. A number of contaminated pieces of heirloom mahogany
furniture could not be satisfactorily decontaminated and had to be left.
To alleviate public concern about possible contamination of other homes, EPA
offered to survey other houses in the neighborhood. The offer was extended to
people who possessed articles that were taken from 105 or 107 E. Stratford
Avenue in years past and that might be contaminated with radium. While none
of the nearby houses were Found to be contaminated, elevated gamma levels were
found in the back yards of the adjoining properties. It was not clear at the
time whether this was due to shine from the 105/107 property or to actual
contamination.
Three metal cabinets, removed from 105 E. Stratford by Dr. Kabakjian's son,
were found in the basement of the son's home, near the E. Stratford Avenue
site. These cabinets contaminated the son's home and required a subsequent
emergency response action (called "Son of Lansdowne") by EPA.
RECORDS OF DECISION
;,.•;• '.',-, V '.•'
A Record of Decision (ROD), signed on August 2, 1985, by the EPA Region III
Administrator, provided for permanent relocation of the site residents. A
second ROD called for the removal of the contaminated structures and the
contaminated soil to an approved offsite disposal facility and removal and
replacement of the contaminated sewer line on E. Stratford Avenue. The site
would then be back-filled with clean soil and revegetated. At the time, the
project was expected to cost approximately $4,500,000.
REMEDIAL DESIGN
EPA Region III developed an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Omaha District, to develop cleanup specifications
and select a contractor. Of major concern were the protection of area
residents from radioactive aerosols, and the level to which contaminated soil
would be cleaned up. It was decided that the UMTRACA standard of 5 pCi/g
74
-------
(above background) for surface soil at uranium mill tailing sites was an
appropriate cleanup criterion for the soil in this densely populated area.
It was conservatively estimated at the time of the design process that
approximately 1,000 ions of contaminated soil would have to be excavated. It
was assumed that the house was of frame and stucco construction and that
approximately half of the rubble from the house would be disposed of as
contaminated waste while the other half would become ordinary demolition
debris. Revised estimates brought the remedial action budget to $6 million.
On April 26, 1988, the COE's Omaha Division awarded the construction contract
to Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., of Columbia, South Carolina, and the project
was transferred to the COE's Baltimore District Office.
SITE ACCESS
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania legislated money to pay the owners of 105 and
107 E. Stratford Avenue for their properties. The owners were paid the full
value of their properties. They retained the ownership of the building lots-
and will take possession of those lots following the remedial action.
Access was obtained from the six property owners surrounding the 105/107 E.
Stratford Avenue property because it was suspected that the soil of the back
yards of those residences would be contaminated with radium and would require
excavation. One home owner, in the process of attempting to sell his house,
resisted allowing EPA access, but this impasse was resolved with the
assistance of a Department of Justice attorney. Home owners were encouraged
to allow access by a contract provision requiring replacement of all fencing,
walkways, buildings, trees, shrubbery, etc., damaged or destroyed as part of
the cleanup of any "offsite" properties.
REMEDIAL ACTION
Chem-Nuclear began activities onsite at the beginning of August. These
included fencing of the 105/107 property, installation of electric and
telephone service, construction of a small building to separate contaminated
from uncontaminated wastes, and placement of four trailers to house the site
personnel.
The structure was removed from the inside out. The house shell was used as
containment to prevent migration of the radium off the site; the structure was
kept at a negative pressure with a fan and HEPA filter to prevent leakage.
Material removed from the house was classified as either rad waste or as
demolition waste. This process required some simplifying assumptions for cost
control. All materials with inaccessible interior surfaces, porous surfaces,
or painted surfaces were classified as rad waste. Materials noticeably above
background on a G-M survey meter received similar treatment. Only two items
from the structure, a half brick and three quarters of a brick, were
classified as uncontaminated waste. Whereas it had been originally assumed
that the houses were of frame and stucco construction, it was discovered
during the dismantlement that the exterior walls were of solid stone, ranging
from 18 inches to 24 inches thick, from the foundation to the roof line.
75
-------
Worker protection onsite consisted of cotton coveralls, booties, and
respiratory protection. Two forms of respiratory protection were used:
negative pressure HEPA filter respirators and Racal AH-3 Air Stream helmets.
Level C protection was selected based on site conditions, prior cleanup, and
survey data; this selection was confirmed by the air measurements taken during
the interior work. The cumulative average airborne contamination for the
entire job was 1.2 MPC-hr. This is far below the MFC for radium. The maximum
level measured was 7.5 HPC-hr for one 2-hr period.
The initial survey indicated that the soil contamination in the yard around
the house was more or less uniformly distributed and had been washed into the
soil by rainfall. Soil core samples appeared to confirm this assumption.
However, upon excavation the pattern of contamination was found to be quite
different. The hottest spots (1-2 mR/hr gamma) were associated with broken
test tubes apparently buried 6 inches to 1 ft below the ground. A hot spot
was discovered immediately to the right of the front porch door. It appears
that the professor occasionally discarded solutions by dumping them on the
ground beside the door and even had buried some materials in his yard.
It was found that soil contamination was more extensive than had previously
been estimated. Radium contamination was found to a depth of 9 ft in the
105/107 E. Stratford backyards and to 11 ft on 2 adjoining properties. The
contamination had migrated onto all six of the adjoining properties and
required excavation. An additional $4 million was added to the project in
January 1989, bringing the budget to $10 million. In April 1989, another $1.6
million was added to bring the budget to $11.6 million. Cleanup activities
continue. The sewer line on East Stratford Avenue has been excavated and
replaced, and two nearby garages were dismantled to perr t removal of
contaminated soil. Site restoration activities will include backfilling soil,
revegetating lawns, replacing trees and shrubs, rebuilding fences, and
building new garages for those neighbors whose garages were destroyed during
the remedial action. The onsite cleanup and restoration activities are
expected to be completed in late June or July 1989. .»
76
-------
13. DENVER RADIUM SITE
Holly Fliniau
Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII
The Denver Radium Site consists of 44 properties stretching along roughly 6
miles of the South Platte River within the Denver, CO, metropolitan area
(figure 1). The properties were contaminated by residues from about 10
radium-processing operations which were in business from 1914 to the
mid-1920s. The 44 properties are divided into 11 groups, or operable units,
for study and cleanup purposes. The groupings are based on location or
similarity of site characteristics.
Following several years of study, EPA decided that the best cleanup remedy for
all but two of the operable units was to excavate the radium-contaminated
material and transport it to a facility licensed to accept such waste for
permanent disposal. In 1988, cleanup began at 2 of the 11 operable units,
Operable Units IV/V and X. Material removed from these two locations is
scheduled to be transported for disposal beginning in spring of 1989. Other
locations are scheduled to be cleaned up through the 1992 construction season.
OPERABLE UNIT IV/V
Unit IV is the Robinson Brick Company (ROBCO) located at 500 S. Santa Fe
Drive. Unit V is the adjacent Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad
(D&RGWRR) property. The site includes approximately 17 acres. The
contaminated buildings used by the National Radium Institute have been torn
down and the debris buried in the stockpile at the site. To date, over 60,000
tons of contaminated soil have been excavated from this location and
stockpiled for disposal this spring. This stockpile is larger than originally
expected because of the discovery of a very large buried deposit of
contaminated material. Evidence of contamination by heavy metals, primarily
lead and cadmium, also has been discovered. Investigations are under way to
determine the extent and significance of the metal contamination. In the
meantime, air monitoring and security continue to be provided on a 24-hr basis
to ensure that the health and safety of both workers and the public are
protected.
During the 1989 construction season, EPA plans to excavate the remaining
contaminated soil and load stockpiled material for transportation and
disposal.
OPERABLE UNIT X
This unit is the property at 1314 W. Evans. Most of the outdoor contamination
has been cleaned up and stockpiled for shipment beginning next spring. Work
continued through the winter to remove radium-contaminated material inside and
under several structures at the site.
77
-------
OPERABLE UNITS I, II, III AND VI/IX/XI
Operable Unit I In the 12th and Quivas area consists of five separate
properties. It covers about 8.1 acres along the Platte River Valley above the
floodplain. Erickson Monument, the Materials Handling Equipment Company, Rudd
Investments, B&C Metals, and an alley are located on the site.
Operable Unit II includes approximately 24 acres at llth and Umatilla Streets.
The 11 individual properties in the unit are DuUald Steel, Jerome Park/Highway
Department property, Flame Spray, Inc., Burlington Northern Railroad, G&K
Services, the Jenkins Building, the Staab Building, Air Conditioning, Inc.,
Rocky Mountain Research, Capital Management Realty, and Alpha Omega.
Operable Unit III is located in the 1000 W. Louisiana area. It consists of
the following properties: a vacant lot at 1000 W. Louisiana, Creative
Illumination, Titan Labels, Packaging Corporation of America, and the
Burlington Northern property.
Operable Units VI, IX, and XI comprise the "Open Space" properties of the
Denver Radium Site. Unit VI consists of the Allied Chemical & Dye
Corporation, Brannan Sand & Gravel Company, Burlington Northern Railroad
property, Denver Hater Department land, Public Service Company property, Ruby
Hill Park, and an alley between Mariposa and Li pan Streets. Unit IX includes
the International House of Pancakes, Larry's Trading Post and East Side
Amusement Center. Unit XI is the Thomas Real Estate Company property.
Cleanup plans for Units I, II, III, and VI/IX/XI are currently in the design
phase. Because greater volumes of contaminated material than expected were
found at Unit IV/V, EPA ordered additional site assessment work to better
identify the extent of contamination at the remaining operable units scheduled
for cleanup. Supplemental data-gathering activities have been concluded, and
the new data will be incorporated into the detailed construction drawings that
are being prepared in anticipation of cleanup activities. The remedial design
for these properties will be completed In phases, with the first phases to be
finished by spring of 1989, at which time construction contracts for various
property units will- go out for bid. Cleanup at these locations is scheduled
to begin during the construction season of 1989. Work will continue through
1992 as the later phases of design construction are completed.
The vacant lot at 1000 W. Louisiana Avenue, part of Unit III, has been fenced.
Dirt removed during fence construction is contaminated with radium and is
being stored in barrels onsite to be disposed of as part of cleanup
activities. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin at that location in the
summer of 1990, after work has been completed at one of the properties across
the street.
OPERABLE UNIT VII
This unit includes sections of nine Denver streets. Radium wastes are
contained in a layer of asphalt and aggregate several inches below street
level. Residues from radium processing probably were used in paving materials
during street construction in the 1920s, EPA has decided to leave these
78
-------
contaminated materials in place because they pose only a limited threat to
public health and the environment. The City and County of Denver and the
State Health Department will carefully monitor routine street maintenance,
repair, and construction using funds supplied by EPA, these agencies are
developing an excavation control plan for the streets. The plan may include
provisions to remove contamination found during street work to an approved
disposal facility.
OPERABLE UNIT VIII
This unit consists of Shattuck Chemical Company and the adjacent railroad
property. This 6-acre site is located at 1805 S. Bannock Street.
The Colorado Department of Health is assisting EPA 1n the enforcement action
by performing a study to identify the nature and extent of contamination at
Operable Unit VIII. This study also will propose cleanup alternatives. The
study is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 1989.
TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL
Because of the nature of the health hazard represented by the radium
processing residues and contaminated soils at the Denver Radium Site, EPA has
determined that the best remedy is to remove these materials to an appropriate
disposal site. The health hazard from these materials is not so much from
direct contact as from the radon gas that they generate.
Radium processing wastes and contaminated soils like those found at the Denver
Radium Site are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM). As a class of radioactive waste, they "fall through the cracks" of
the Federal regulatory framework because no Federal regulations apply to thefr
disposal. Until very recently, there was no disposal facility in the United
States licensed,to accept such radium wastes. Inability to locate a disposal
facility delayed EPA's cleanup of the Denver Radium Site. However, last year
a facility licensed to receive NORM waste opened, and licensing procedures
have begun at one other site. The availability of one or more licensed
disposal sites makes it possible for EPA to proceed with cleanup.
To remove the contaminated material from the properties in a timely fashion,
EPA must be able to begin transporting the Denver Radium Site material to a
licensed disposal site in the spring or summer of 1989. To reach this
objective, EPA has obtained the assistance of another Federal agency, the
Bureau of Reclamation, to handle contracting for waste transportation and
disposal. A Request for Proposals has been prepared, and the process for
accepting and evaluating bids for the work is under way. The contract for
this work is scheduled to be awarded by the end of April 1989.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
EPA continues to maintain contact with interested citizens, neighborhood
groups, local officials, and media representatives to keep the community
informed on progress at the Denver Radium Site and involved in the decision
process.
79
-------
DENVER RADIUM
PROPERTY LOCATION KEY
2 MILES
SCALE
Group Location
1 12th and Quivas Area
2 11 th and Umatilia Area
3 1000 West Louisiana Area
4 500 South Santa Fe
5 Area Adjacent to 500 South
Santa Fe
6 Open Land Areas
7 Streets
8 1800 South Bannock Area
9 2000 East Colfax Area
10 1300 West Evans Area
11 1200 South Santa Fe Area
Figure 1. Denver Radium Site
80
-------
14. ROBINSON BRICK CO. TRACT AT THE DENVER RADIUM SITE
William N. Fitch
Frederick K. Algaier
Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior
The Bureau of Mines (BM) has been identified as a principal responsible party
for the uranium contamination at what EPA has designated as Operable Units IV
and V of the Denver Radium Site. The BM's involvement at this site dates back
to 1913 when the newly created Bureau entered into an agreement with two
medical doctors to form a private corporation, the National Radium Institute,
to produce radium for research and cancer treatment. The doctors, Dr. Howard
Kelly, a Johns Hopkins University cancer specialist, and Dr. James Douglas, at
New York's General Memorial Hospital, supplied the financing, and the BM
provided the technical expertise to develop a process for extracting radium
from uranium ores.
Operations began immediately. Mining claims in the Paradox Valley of
southwestern Colorado were leased from the Crucible Steel Company, and
carnotite ore was produced and concentrated at a facility built in Long Park.
Meanwhile, the Institute leased a 1-acre tract in Denver between the Denver
and Rio Grande Western Railroad tracks and the South Platte River, just north
of what is now Alameda Avenue, and constructed a radium processing facility.
Bureau personnel quickly developed the nitric acid leach process which
recovered over 90 percent of the radium contained in the carnotite, and the
plant reached full capacity by June 1914. An additional processing plant was
added on the tract and, by 1917, a total of 8.5 g of radium had been produced
from 960 tons of ore and 298 tons of concentrate.
The two doctors received 8 g of the radium; the BM kept 0.5 g. The 8 grams,
after minor losses, are still held by the Kelly Cancer Institute in Baltimore
and the Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute in New York City. The Bureau radium
was transferred to the Manhattan Project during World War II and is now held
by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
In the course of EPA investigations of the Denver Radium Sites, radioactive
contamination was found on the 17-acre tract owned by Robinson Brick Co. and
the contiguous Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad lands, designated as
Operating Units IV and V respectively. At this time, the BM is the only
identified PRP for these two units, although, in view of recently discovered,
apparently unrelated metals contamination at these sites, PRP investigations
continue.
CLEANUP
UNC Geotech, through agreement with DOE, is the site manager and has conducted
the most recent site investigations and planned the cleanup under EPA
direction. The BM provides technical input through review of cleanup plans.
UNC conducts radiological sampling and laboratory testing; the actual cleanup
is subcontracted. Excavated contaminated material is temporarily stockpiled
on site, pending location of a suitable disposal site. At the start of
cleanup, the total quantity of contaminated material was estimated at
81
-------
16,000 yd for a cleanup cost of $3 million. As cleanup progressed, it was
found that additional contaminated material underlaid clean soil, and by the
fall of 1988, about 60,000 yd of contaminated material had been excavated and
stockpiled for disposal.
Cleanup objectives are to reduce the Ra-226 concentrations so that they do not
exceed background level by more than 5 pCi/g averaged over the first 15 cm of
soil and by more than 15 pCi/g averaged over 15-cm-thick soil layers below
surface. Background levels in the area have been determined to be 2.1 pCi/g
for surface areas and 4 pCi/g for subsurface.
METALS CONTAMINATION
In August 1988, after rain at the site, a green, blue, and white
crystalline residue or precipitate was noted on the side of the deepest
excavation. Five separate sampling and analysis programs were undertaken in
an effort to determine the nature and origin of this contamination. Two
samples of the precipitate were analyzed using the EP Toxicity method, and the
results revealed cadmium exceeding the 1.0 mg/L standard. This was followed-
by analysis of 17 samples of precipitate and soil for total concentrations of
23 elements, Th-230, and EP Toxicity; the results showed elevated
concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc. In three subsequent sampling
programs, the area of investigation was extended to the nearby RTD parking
lot. Concentrations of silver, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, manganese,
lead, and zinc are high in the fill material, exceeding typical values by 2 to
4 orders of magnitude. However, only cadmium and lead exceeded the standards.
Borehole analyses for Ra-226, Th-230, and total uranium showed background
levels except in an area south of the excavated area where Th-230 levels
ranged from 25 to 60 pCi/g with one high of 160 pCi/g.
Three boreholes were completed as ground-water monitoring wells. Analyses of
water samples from two of these and the excavation indicated the possibility
of extensive metals contamination in addition to and perhaps mixed with the
radioactively contaminated material. Construction activities were halted
pending recharacterization of the site to determine source and extent of the
metals contamination in both the soil and ground water.
Site recharacterization is addressing three areas of concern: history of
activities at the site, soil contamination, and groundwater contamination.
Additional holes are being drilled on 100- and 200-foot grids to determine the
extent of contamination; 14 of these will be completed as monitoring wells.
All boreholes will be logged with a down-hole gamma Compulogger system and,
based on results, soil samples selected for Ra-226 analysis. Th-230 analyses
will be made of samples based on proximity to known elevated Th-230 levels and
presence of iron-stained alluvial sand. Results of the.recharacterization are
expected in August 1989.
SITE STATUS
When cleanup activities ceased in the fall of 1988 there were about 60,000 yd3
of radiologically contaminated material stockpiled on-site. The stockpiled
and excavated areas have been stabilized and groomed for drainage control, and
82
-------
all exposed contaminated areas sprayed with an elastomeric coating. When
cleanup operations resume, It is expected that further excavation will be
required in the area under the stockpile and the area south of the present
pit. There are no accepted cleanup levels or standards for thorium or uranium
at present; it is expected that DOE guidelines will be used.
Verification drilling to confirm cleanup is being done in the RTD parking lot
area based on a 10-ft x 10-ft grid. In each 30-ft x 30-ft area of 9 squares,
holes are drilled to bedrock at the center of 3 randomly selected squares and
gamma-logged to determine Ra-226 concentrations. Soil samples are taken at
the top of the bore-holes, ground-water interface, and bottom of the hole. If
radium levels are found to exceed the criteria, additional holes would be
drilled in the other 10-ft squares as needed to determine extent and level of
radon contamination.
83
-------
15. INSTRUHENTATION FOR OEHOHSTRATING COMPLIANCE
WITH FUSRAP GUIDELINES
Cathy R. Hlckey
Bechtel Environmental Inc.
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is funded by DOE
for remediation of sites containing natural radio-activity from operations of
the Manhattan Engineering District. Radioactive materials on these sites
consist primarily of U-238, Th-232, and their daughter products. DOE has
developed guidelines for direct radiation, surface contamination, and
environmental concentrations of radioactivity under this program. Sites
irelude open land, buildings, and subsurface areas, including drainage
courses.
A variety of field measurement techniques and instrumentation have been
adapted or developed to identify and characterize areas of contamination,
guide remediation efforts and demonstrate or verify decontamination. An
accompanying paper describes the instruments used, measurement and
verification techniques, and capabilities and limitations of the instruments
and procedures.
The presentation focused on actual field experiences with discussion of
adaptations for surveys under various field conditions such as winter weather,
subsurface measurements, and survey of drainage pipes.
84
-------
Table 1. Radiological Guidelines for FUSRAP Sites
Hat 1 of I
paot 2 of i
CO
en
i*su cost timis
the basic Dull for the annual radiation dose received by *n individual ember of the general public is
100 ar«Vyr.
Mil (UWO) CUlOillHES (IW1HJ* UH1TS K* UNMSTmCTtO USE)
iUilleniitlldt Soli Concentration tcCI/ol above baekflreimd«>b.c
ftadiuft-226
RadiuB-221
Thorium-230
ThorliM-232
Other radloAuctldes
5 pcl/g, averaged over tht flrtt IS OB of soil b«loM
ih* surfact; IS pCl/g Hhtn avtreged over any I&-OB-
thicl toll layer balov the surftc* laye?.
Soli guidelines Hill bt calculated on • site-specific
Mill using ti>* 001 Mmitl developed for tM* tin.
STUUCTtflE CUIDtllKES OVUIHJH L1H1TS FOB UNBtSTHICTfO UiEl
Airborne lUdon Decay Product!
fienerlc guidelines for concentrations of airborne radon dtcay product! ihill apply to ulitlng occvpltd
or kabiutilt ttrvcittrit on prtvMt property tint an Inttndtd for winstricM un; itructurti that
»U\ et «»ronit>»« or tarltd art tictvdtd, Tkt appllciblt ftMrlc ftildtlln* 140 CFt 112) It: In any
ecoipltd or h4blubl» bunding, tlw ebjtctl** of rtiwilal action thai) fet, and rtaionabtt effort thill
t» Mdt to acntivt, an annual anaragt (or aqgUalant) radon dtcay product concintratlon (Including
background) not to tucted 0.02 Wl.d in any can, tht radon d*cay product concantratlon (Including
background) shall not ncttd 0.03 Wl. tandlal actloni art not rtqulrtd In ordtr to coeply ulth thlt
guldtllM Hhtn thtrt It rtatonablt aiiuranet that rtildual radloactlvt MUrllli art not tin cauit.
Tttt avtrtgt 1t«t1 of s»m radUtion tmldt a bvltdlng or h*blUil« itnictvrt OK a ilU to pt rtltaitd
for unrtstrlctad u»* lhall Mt *icttd tht background 1t»t1 by oort than 20 u«/n.
Indoor/Outdocr Structure Surface Contanlnation
Attovaolt Mtldutl Surfact CwtMlMtlont
Iraniuranlct, IU-2M, Ra-ZM, In-2JO, Th-221
Pa-231. *c-2Z7, I-I2S, Nin
Th-Mtural, Th-i32, Sr-fX), «a-m, «a-Z24
U-312, t-lM, 1-111, 1-113
K»
1,000
MO
1,000
100
Structure Surface Contamination (continued)
Allowable Residual Surface ContMinatlon*
(doVIOQjp*l
JUdlonuelldef
U4latura1, B-Z35, U-ZJI, and associated dtcay 5,000 « 1S.OOO m 1,000 *
products
•eta-gams snttters (radtonuclldes with decay 5,000 6-T 15.000 p-t 1,000 pvi
•odes other than alpha Mission or spontaneous
fission) txcept Sr-tC and others noted above
athtse guidelines takt Into account Ingrowth of radiun-ZZi fro* ihoHu«-230 and of radiu»-22t fro*
thorii»4!32, and assuw secular equlHbrlu*, If either thorlun-ao and radlu»-22< or thorlu»-21Z
and radlum-ZZI are both present, not in secular equilibria, the guidtllnts apply to tht higher
conctntratlon. If ether ilxturts of radlonuclldts occur, the concentration! of Individual
radlonuclldts shall bt reduced so that tht dost for the "Inures nil I not exceed the basic dose
guldtllnts rtprtstnt unrestrlctedt background avtraged across
any l5-e»-thick layer to inj dtpth and ontr any tontlguous 10C-«Z surface area.
cucatlted concentrations IK eicess of thtst Italis are allwablt provided that tht awragt
concentration ottr a lOO-ti art* does not exceed thtst Halts.
d* Hording u»t1 (M.) Is any corttlnatlon of short-IUed radon dtcay products In I liter of air that
•111 result In tht ultlwtt emission of 1.1 « 10S mv of potential alpha energy.
*As wed In this Ublt, do» Cdlslntegratlons per •InuU) wans the rau of aristta by radloactl»t
awterlal as detemlned by correcting tlw counts per •inutt obstrir>d by an appropriate detector for
background, efficiency, and geonetrlc factors associated »Uh the iMinaenUtion.
ruhtrt surface contamination by both alpha- and btta-gamn aalttlng radlonuclldts exists, tht Ittilts
tsUbllshed for alpha- and beta-ga«i-4«lttlng radlonuclldts iheaid apply Independently.
•Masurtsttnts of average conta»lnatlon should not bt averaged ottr tort tfcan I «2. for obJKtj of
IMS tvrfact area, tt* aitragt shall It dtrlted for each tuck object.
>Tht airtragt and auitaut radiation levels associated ulth surfaei centavlnatlon reiulting from
btU-g«RM tsiltters should Mt exceed 0.2 wad/h and 1.0 •rad/h, rtsptctlitly, at I at.
Uhe sMlcts* conUilnatlon Itvil appllrs to an area of not am* than KM erf.
Jlht aneunt «f movable radioactive wUrlal per 100 of of surface area should be determined by
Niaing that area nltk dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying Kderate pressure, and aeasuring the
aKxint of radloactlvt wterlal on the vtpe »Hh an appropriate Instrument of known efficiency. Mien
movable contaKlMtlon on objects of surface area let! than 100 ai is dttemined, the activity per
•nit area should be based on the actual area and the entire surface should bt wiped. Tht Misters In
tills eolusn art auuh
-------
Table 2. Instrumentation for Gamma Exposure Rate Measurements
UPPER MEASUREMENT
LIMIT
INSTRUMENT
PRESSURIZED IONIZATION CHAMBER
• REUTER-STOKES RS-111 500 UR/H
NAI WITH RATEMETER
• VICTOREEN 489-55/EBERLINE PRM-6 0.5-1.0 MR/H
• VICTOREEN 489-55/VICTOREEN THYAC III
• EBERLINE SPA-3/EBERLINE PRS-1
REMARKS
HEAVY AND CUMBERSOME
FOR FIELD USE; USED AS
CALIBRATION STANDARD
FOR FIELD INSTRUMENTS
FOR ACCURATE RESULTS
MUST PERFORM ON-SITE
CALIBRATION
COMPENSATED GM WITH RATEMETER
• EBERLINE HP-270/EBERLINE PRS-1
>100MR/H
USED TO MEASURE
RADIATION LEVELS
ASSOCIATED WITH
HOT SPOTS
Table 3. Instrumentation for Surface Contamination Surveys
RADIATION
DETECTED
ALPHA
BETA?
GAMMA
ALPHA/
BETA
GAMMA
MSTRUMENTATION
DETECTORS)
EBERLINE. AC3-7
EBERLINE. AC3-8
LUOLUM. 43-5
BICRON, A-50
EBERLINE, HP-280
EBERLINE. HP-210
VICTOREEN. 409-110
BICRON, POM
LUDLUM, 239-1
EBERLINE. SAC-4
BICRON. FIDLER
EBERLINE. SPA-3
E8EHLINE, PQ-2
VICTOREEN. 489-55
HATE METER;
SCALER
EBERLINE, PRS-1
EBERLINE. ESP-Z
BICRON. ANALYST
LUDLUM. 2220
EBERLINE. PRM-6
EBERLINE. PRS-1
EBERLINE, ESP 2
BICRON ANALYST
LUDLUM. 2220
EBERLINE, PRM-6
LUDLUM, 2220
BICRON ANALYST
LUDLUM. 2220
EBERLINE. PRS-1
EBERUNE, ESP-2
EBERLINE, PRM-6
APPLICATION
SCANNING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DIRECT
MEASUREMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
SMEAR
COUNTING
•
•
•
APPROXIMATE*
SENSITIVITY
(dpm/IOOcm1)
<50
<400
<20 ALPHA
<100, BETA
DEPENDENT
ON
BACKGROUND
BASED ON ONE MINUTE INTEGRATED COUNT WITH NOMINAL EFFICIENCY. PROBE AREA, AND BACKGROUND LEVELS
86
-------
16. AERIAL RADIATION SURVEYS FOR RADIOMETRIC CONTAMINATION
Joel E. Jobst
Harvey W. Clark
EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.
For the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a fleet of 12 twin-engine aircraft is
operated by EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. (EG&G/EM) from operations bases in
Las Vegas, NV, and Washington, DC. Ten aircraft are operated as aerial
platforms for remote sensing of the environment by 260 personnel. EG&G/EM
employs aerial cameras, multispectral scanners, video systems, nuclear
radiation detectors, and an array of gas and particulate sampling instruments.
For radiological measurements of ground contamination fn array of
thallium-activated sodium iodide detectors is mounted externally on a
helicopter, shown in Figure 1, a twin-turbine Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB)
BO-105. To achieve maximum instrument sensitivity, the aircraft is flown in a
low-altitude survey pattern at altitudes as low as 100 feet above terrain in
unobstructed areas. Gamma ray photons generate electronic pulses in eight 4 x
4 x 16-in. extruded log detectors which are coupled to photomultiplier tubes'.
Gamma pulses are counted by REDAR IV, the Radiation and Environmental Data
Acquisition and Recording System.
The helicopter flies a precise survey pattern, as shown in Figure 2. Parallel
lines are typically spaced 250 ft apart. The pilot navigates with aid of an
Instrument Landing System (ILS) course indicator. This display is derived by
one of the REDAR micro-processors from a precision positioning system and the
radio altimeter. Position data are obtained from a UHF transponder system
consisting of two ground-mounted transceivers and a master unit aboard the
helicopter. The REDAR records gamma radiation spectra; aircraft position and
altitude; and other important environmental data, such as temperature and
barometric pressure. The data are recorded each second for later analysis.
Aircraft position can also be determined with an inertial navigation system or
LORAN C. Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation will be implemented when
enough satellites have been orbited to provide full coverage during daylight
hours.
In an aerial radiological survey one generates a map of the spatial
distribution and concentration of gamma-emitting radionuclides present in the
ground. One can not only map the radiation but also identify the
radionuclides which generated it. Aerial surveys can be valuable tools for
either emergency response or environmental monitoring programs. The DOE
routinely employs aerial surveys for four special purposes:
1. To locate radiation anomalies. For example, a survey was
conducted over a 176-mi area of Houston, TX, to locate fragments
of contaminated concrete that were improperly disposed of after a
Cs-137 spill. A survey with hand-held instruments would have been
impossible to conduct.
2. To provide an overview of.the radiological character of an
environment. An aerial radiological survey of uraniferous lignite
mines in Belfield, ND, lead to a reassessment of state and EPA
87
-------
cleanup criteria. It was found that radioactivity from natural
ore outcroppings in the greater area often equaled or exceeded
that found in the mined areas. This resulted in a relaxation of
the cleanup criteria, at great cost savings to those responsible.
A ground-based survey, covering sufficient real estate to discover
this phenomenon, would have been expensive to conduct.
3. To guide planning for ground-based measurements. Aerial survey
contours, laid directly on a site photography, indicate where
detailed sampling is required and, more importantly, where it is
not. Focused effort can result in considerable reduction in the
time and cost of ground-based measurements. The EPA commissioned
an aerial survey of Pocatello, ID, for precisely this reason.
"Negative" data are also very useful, especially in dealing with
public perceptions after an accidental spill of radioactive
materials.
4. To provide cost effective change detection. Detecting and
defining changes in the radiological character of a large area *
with ground-based measurements is a difficult and expensive
procedure. Repetitive aerial radiological surveys are a very
sensitive and relatively inexpensive means to detect and map such
changes. Over the past 15 years many surveys have been conducted
at the 300-mi Savannah River Plant to document critical changes
in radiation levels.
The REDAR system obtains a total gamma radiation spectrum. Figure 3 shows
natural background radiation contributions at the Susquehanna Nuclear Power
Plant in Berwick, PA. Two spectra are obtained each second, one a high and
one at low sensitivity, to cover a broad dynamic range in radiation activity.
The energy range shown here covers a broad range of gamma emitters. The data
enable our analysts to clearly identify major contributors to the exposure
rate in a give area.
In many cases the natural background tends to obscure man-made contaminants.
Hence, we have developed computer algorithms to strip away the natural
background. Figure 4 is a net spectrum, which clearly reveals man-made
activity, in this case due to Co-58. The technique allows us to locate,
quantify and identify anomalous radiation in every portion of a survey area.
The typical products of our data processing are isopleth contour plots. They
can be used to show the total exposure rate due to both natural and man-made
radionuclides in the soil. Or they can show only the natural exposure rate or
the man-made gross count, by selectively removing various spectral
contributions. For special situations one may want to show specific
radionuclide concentrations, displayed in nCi/m or pCi/g. Isopleth contour
plots are frequently provided for Cs-137, Co-60, 1-131, 1-133, U-235, U-238,
Bi-214, K-40, Tl-208, Am-241, and other radionuclides. Aerial surveys can
also be used to plot airborne plumes of these and other radionuclides. At
Savannah River Plant we successfully measured and plotted airborne
concentrations of sulphur hexafluoride, which was released to simulate an
accidental release of fission products from the Plant's production reactors.
88
-------
The data were used to validate plume dispersion models developed at the Plant.
Aerial radiation surveys are sensitive enough to detect very small changes
from natural background activity levels, often as low as 5 percent departures
from background. For radionuclides such as Cs-137 or Co-60, this implies that
concentratidns as low as 30 to 50 nCi/m can be consistently detected. For
most of the radionuclides customarily associated with a nuclear power plant
accident, the aerial detection limits are more than adequate to implement the
Protective Action Guides (PAGs) published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). To achieve this sensitivity the radiation detectors are
carefully calibrated, at least on a daily basis. As the data are plotted,
line-by-line corrections are made for variations in airborne radon
concentration, survey aircraft altitude, and temperature. The latter 2
parameters change the effective air-mass attenuation of the gamma ray signal
strength at the detectors.
It is difficult to quote a single value for the absolute accuracy of exposure
rates measured by an airborne measurement system. There are many variables
which must be considered simultaneously. EG&G/EM maintains "test lines" for
absolute calibration of aerial systems. Calibration flights have shown,
however, that EG&G/EM exposure rates are accurate to •* 15 percent over these
test regions which have been very accurately measured by other means. That
is, many discrete points are measured with calibrated ion chambers, directly
below and on both sides of the aircraft flight path. The results are
averaged, as the aircraft system effectively does in flying over distributed
radiation sources, then compared to the aerial measurements.
The precision of the aerial survey results is much better, i.e., the results
are highly reproducible. For typical background areas, successive surveys
will show an exposure rate reproducible to + 2 percent. To achieve such
precision the detectors are subjected to preflight calibration. And for every
survey, an on-site test line is identified;,it is flown prior to each survey
flight and, when possible, flown again before the aircraft lands on the saie
mission. Before the final isopleth map is plotted, each line of data is
corrected for the variations is air mass thickness and airborne radon
concentration which are inevitable during a survey. Detailed quality
assurance procedures are followed to maximize the precision and accuracy of
the aerial survey results.
Since the inception of the DOE survey program, in the mid 1960s, approximately
300 aerial surveys have been flown. Most of these have been for environmental
monitoring purposes. Nineteen separate DOE facilities have been flown.
Twenty-two aerial surveys have been flown over the Nevada Test Site, the
Northern Marshall Islands, and Johnston Island. Nineteen FUSRAP (Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) sites have been surveyed, as well as
24 UMTRAP (Uranium Mine Tailings Remedial Action Program) sites. Twenty naval
reactor sites have been surveyed and all of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
The latter survey was recently done to determine the natural radiation
background at KSC.
89
-------
Several foreign governments have requested DOE to survey within their
boundaries for various reasons. Surveys have been conducted in:
-Northwest Territories, Canada
-Maturin, Venezuela
-Chihuahua and Juarez, Mexico
-Haralinga, Australia
The first three surveys were in response to accidental dispersions of
radioactivity. Maralinga is a former nuclear weapons test site.
The DOE has cooperative programs with other Federal agencies. For the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), the DOE objective is to survey the site of each
commercial nuclear reactor before power generation begins and then every 5
years thereafter. To date all U.S. commercial reactors have been surveyed at
least once. The repeat survey effort, however, has been considerably delayed
and reduced in frequency because of NRC funding limitations.
DOE has also surveyed several NRC licensee waste management sites to monitor
their impact on the environment. These include:
-Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., Barnwell, SC
-U.S. Ecology, Haxey Flats, KY
-U.S. Ecology, Beatty, NV
-U.S. Ecology, Sheffield, IL
-U.S. Ecology, Richland, WA
DOE has also conducted a number of surveys for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). These sites include:
-Pocatello and Soda Springs, ID
-Port Henry, NY
-Newark, NJ
-Camden, NJ
-Orange, NJ
-Gloucester, NJ
At most of these sites industrial operations, unrelated to the uranium fuel
cycle, were conducted. Such operations included the manufacture of gas
lantern mantles and thoriated aluminum castings for aircraft engines. At some
sites phosphate ore, rich in radioisotopes from the uranium and thorium decay
chains, were processed into fertilizer or elemental phosphorus.
The Pocatello, ID, survey is an excellent example of the use of a specific
radioisotope to map a contamination problem. Figure 5 shows net gross counts
above background in the energy window from 1.58 to 1.93 HeV at Pocatello.
Phosphate slag is rich in Bi-214; hence, a window was centered on the 1.76
HeV photopeak of bismuth. Figure 6 is an enlargement of the previous isopleth
plot, which shows the details at the Pocatello airport. Impacted roads, run-
ways and railroad rights-of-way stand out clearly on a map of excess bismuth.
Phosphate slag was used as ballast for railroad tracks and as aggregate in
90
-------
asphalt and concrete for various construction projects: roads, airport
runways, building slabs, etc.
The aerial survey technique in this case provided a rapid assessment of the
scale and severity of the problem. It was used to plan and guide the
ground-based measurements which followed. The aerial survey was quite cost
beneficial; it provided excellent focus for soil sampling and air monitoring.
Perhaps the best example of long-term environmental monitoring using aerial
remote sensing is the Savannah River Plant. For the past 15 years EG&G/EM has
conducted there a program called CIRS: Comprehensive Integrated Remote
Sensing. Three different technologies are carefully integrated: aerial
photography, multispectral scanning, and gamma radiation surveys. The purpose
of the program is to map the site and document the impact on the environment
of the nuclear production reactors. In a 15-yr period, 9 nuclear surveys have
been conducted, 6 of the same impacted areas. These were closely coupled with
the photographic and infrared surveys. For the Savannah River Plant we always
provide 4 specific gamma contour plots: total exposure rate, natural exposure
rate, a Cs-137 count rate and a Co-60 count rate.
Figure 7 is a sample of the total count rate isopleth pint. Shown here is a
portion of Steel Creek, which flows into the Savannah River. The data were
obtained in 1985, prior to the restart of L Reactor. The primary concern was
that the resumption of high coolant flow in Steel Creek would enhance Cs-137
contamination due to resuspension of this isotope, which was known to be
bedded in the silt and clay of Steel Creek and surrounding marshlands.
Figure 8 shows the same area in 1986, after L reactor was restarted. Close
comparison indicates that there are considerable changes in both the
distribution and the intensity of the total activity map. The large changes
are easily recognized. We needed a method to compare the small, subtle
changes, as well as the large ones.
Hence, we developed a technique which enables us to obtain the dose difference
between two surveys. Both data sets were carefully normalized over background
regions not affected by Plant operations. The 1985 data were then subtracted,
point-by-point, from the 1986 data to show the changes in total activity.
Figure 9 shows the dose differences between 1985 and 1986. The white
contours indicate a decrease in activity from 1986 to 1985. The yellow
contours indicate regions where activity increased. The changes here reflect
differences in distribution due to flooding and changes in soil moisture.
Changes as small as 10 percent can be shown.
Similar techniques were used to illustrate the changes in the environment
surrounding the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in central California.
Two gamma surveys were made, in 1980 and 1984. Figure 10 shows the
distribution of exposure rates, extra-polated to the 1-meter level, over the
area surrounding the reactor. The blue contours here show an increase in
exposure rate levels between the 1980 and 1984 surveys. Greater
concentrations of man-made contamination were found in 4 of the river areas
enclosed in blue contours. Ground-based exposure rate measurements in these
areas, made by personnel from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, were 3 to 4 times
91
-------
higher than those inferred from the aerial measured count rate data. These
sources were highly localized. Background-subtracted net spectra over these
areas showed prominent contamination from Cs-137, Cs-134, and Co-60.
Figure 11 shows the area surrounding the Rancho Seco Plant. The data were
obtained in 1980. A stripping technique was used to process the data, called
man-made gross count. It effectively removes the contribution from all
naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil and sums all the man-made
nuclides. The exposure rate conversion factor here is approximately 1000
counts per second equals 1 uR/hr. In aerial surveys the apparent physical
size of a strong source is enlarged due to a phenomenon called shine. The
activity here is due to the reactor itself and radioactive materials stored at
die site.
The same computer algorithm, applied to data from the 1984 survey, shows a
dramatic change in Figure 12. There is considerable downstream contamination
in the Clay, Hadselville and Laguna Creeks which drain the Rancho Seco site.
Irrigation practices have also transported the contamination into neighboring
vineyards. The differences between 1980 and 1984 are clear and measurable. *
An estimated inventory of radionuclides transported downstream has been
computed from the data.
From these examples we can conclude that aerial radiological surveys are a
valuable technique for environmental monitoring and for planning further
monitoring in greater detail. It enables us to search efficiently for
radiation anomalies, such as the cesium-contaminated concrete in Houston, TX.
It enables us to obtain, very quickly, an overview of a large area, such as
the ore outcroppings in Belfield. It enables the user to plan ground-based
measurements to focus resources in areas where they are useful, such as the
EPA survey in Pocatello. Finally, it provides a precise, readily implemented
method of detecting environmental changes; it is used very extensively for
this purpose at the Savannah River Plant.
Aerial radiological surveys have several powerful advantages:
1. Fast coverage - more than 8 mi2 per day can be surveyed;
2. Maps inaccessible areas - such as the swamps and dense forests of the
Savannah River Plant;
3. High sensitivity - better than most protective action guides;
4. Excellent reproducibility - repeat surveys of areas not impacted by
human activity show changes of +2 percent;
5. Reliable area averages - equal to hundreds or even thousands of
measurements obtained from ground-based surveys;
6. Computer compatible data - all of the survey tapes are archived and
are readily available for reprocessing or comparison with later
surveys. Some users such as the Savannah River Plant, use the tapes
directly in their own environmental monitoring programs;
92
-------
7. Cost effective - a typical field survey is completed in 2 weeks.
Preliminary results and data plots are available to the user onsite
at the completion of the survey.
There are, of course, some disadvantages to aerial survey:
1. Special equipment is required. The DOE has maintained and operated
this capability for the user community since the late 1950s;
2. Compromised spatial resolution. Aerial detectors measure background
activity surrounding a finite source and effectively average it over
the detector field of view;
3. May require ground-based measurements to corroborate anomalies
detected from the air.
As shown in several of the previous examples, the most effective program is
one that uses the aerial data to.identify anomalies or problems areas, which
are then subjected to appropriate ground monitoring and sampling.
To complete this overview of DOE capability one should briefly consider two
other technologies being developed by EG&G/EH: in situ gamma spectroscopy and
airborne sampling.
Figure 13 shows a high-purity germanium detector being used for in situ gamma
spectroscopy with a portable multichannel analyzer. The system is easily
portable; it is usually used for cleanups and to corroborate aerial
measurements. It is best used for surface distributions of radioactive
contamination. Excellent data were obtained at Gore, OK, where uranium
hexafluoride was distributed over the landscape surrounding the Sequoyah
Production Facility of Kerr-McGee.
The DOE has three aircraft equipped for gas and airborne particulate sampling:
a Convair 580 and two identical Beechcraft B-200s. Figure 14 shows one of the
DOE B-200 aircraft. They can be used for a wide variety of aerial sampling
tasks, including the tracking of sulfur hexafluoride, which has been released
at various times to verify plume dispersion models.
Figure 1. The helicopter .flies a precise,
low-level survey pattern.
20 zs
-ENERGY (MeV)
30
Figure 2. A typical background
radiation spectrum.
93
-------
500
_• 400'
o
8
52
o
o
0.0 0.5
10 1.5 2.0
ENERGY (MeV)
Figure 3. The net spectrum shows man-
made activity.
Figure 4. Excess bismuth-214 at Pocattello,
Idaho
1985 SRP DOSE
Figure 5.
Total count
isopleth atj
Savannah River
Figure 6. An enlargement of the Pocatello
isopleth plot.
94
-------
1986 SRP DOSE
985/1986 SRP DOSE DIFFERENCE
Figure 7.
Same area, after
L Reactor restart.
Figure 8. Differences between
the 1985 and 1986
surveys.
* RANCHO SECO
1984 MAN-MADE CONTAMINATION
Figure 9. Man-made contamination
at Rancho Seco (1984).
RANCHO SECO
1980 MAN-MADE CONTAMINATION
A
Figure 10. Man-made contamination
at Rancho Seco (1980).
95
-------
Figure 11. Differences between 1980 and 1984 surveys.
!*Mf'®e^ v^v^HI0H«J~. -..
*^^Ji^:Msi^^
?'«*-.r»:^:: •«.- '.'.';_-t:v. .*•
Figure 12. In situ survey at Gore, OK
96
-------
17. IN SITU VITRIFICATION
Craig Timmerman
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) is developing in situ vitrification
(ISV), a remedial action process for treating contaminated soils. The ISV
process is being developed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), primarily
for treating transuranic-contaminated soils. It is expected, however, that
the process can also be applied to a wide variety of chemical waste sites.
In situ vitrification is a thermal treatment process that converts
contaminated soil into a chemically inert and stable glass and crystalline
product. Figure 1 depicts the process. A square array of four molybdenum/
graphite electrodes is inserted into the ground to the desired treatment
depth. Because soil is not electrically conductive when the moisture has
been driven off, a conductive mixture of flaked graphite and glass frit is
placed between the pairs of electrodes as a starter path. An electrical
potential is applied to the electrodes to establish an electric current in
the starter path. The resultant power heats the starter path and surrounding
soil to 2000"C, well above the initial soil-melting temperature of 1100 to
1400°C. The graphite starter path is eventually consumed by oxidation, and
the current is transferred to the molten soil, which is electrically
conductive. As the molten or vitrified zone grows, it incorporates
radionuclides and nonvolatile hazardous elements, such as heavy metals, and
destroys organic components by pyrolysis. The pyrolyzed byproducts migrate
to the surface of the vitrified zone, where they burn in the presence of
oxygen. A hood placed over the area being vitrified directs the gaseous
effluents to an off-gas treatment system.
Vitrified Soil/Waste Rock
38809091.1
Figure 1. In situ vitrification process
97
-------
Pacific Northwest Laboratory began developing ISV technology in 1980
under contract to the DOE. Since, then, 65 separate experimental tests with a
variety of conditions and waste types have been conducted (1, 2). These
include 17 pilot-scale tests, each processing 10-50 metric tonnes (t) of
contaminated soil, and 5 large-scale tests, processing 400-800 t each.
The first large-scale test of ISV at an actual contaminated soils site
was performed at the 216-Z-12 Crib on the Hanford Site near Richland,
Washington. The Z-12 site contains primarily transuranic materials that have
been previously disposed. The objective of the large-scale radioactive test
was to confirm, under actual site conditions, that the process conforms to
its functional criteria as predicted by numerous nonradioactive tests (3, 1).
Complete evaluation of the system's performance will require that the
core samples from the 700-t block produced during the test be completely
analyzed. However, results available now, together with data from previous
tests, are summarized in this report.
LARGE-SCALE RADIOACTIVE TEST RESULTS
This document reports the preliminary results of the large-scale
radioactive test (LSRT) for the following parameters:
electrode performance
equipment performance
process depth
element retention in the vitreous block
scrubber and filter removal efficiencies
water removal.
Electrode Performance
The reference electrode design used in the radioactive test is composed
of a 5-cm-diameter molybdenum core inside a 30-cm-diameter graphite collar
(1). This electrode design was developed to promote cold-cap subsidence and
to obtain reliable electrode performance during an entire single setting (up
to 400 hr). Cold cap subsidence refers to the suppression of the porous
glass layer that forms on the surface of the vitrified zone. The radioactive
test successfully achieved cold-cap subsidence without an electrode failure.
Measurements show that 0.3 to 1.3 m of subsidence was achieved, which
simplifies backfilling operations with clean soil over the vitrified zone.
On only one electrode was any (10 cm) of the molybdenum core exposed by
oxidation of the graphite collar. This did not, however, cause any oxidation
or breakage of the core, and thus the flow of current to the molten soil was
maintained. Molybdenum oxidation was prevented by a layer of 88 wt% ZrB2/12%
MoSi~ ceramic powder in the annul us between the molybdenum core and the
graphite collar. Previous tests with other protection techniques had
resulted in electrode failures due to oxidation or breakage, so that the
electrodes had to be replaced. Even though electrodes can be replaced during
processing, this need was completely avoided in the radioactive test because
of the improved electrode design's performance.
98
-------
Several key features are responsible for the success of the reference
electrode design. First is its ability to promote cold-cap subsidence. The
graphite collars around the 5-cm-diameter molybdenum rods are employed for
that purpose. Graphite provides a relatively inexpensive, large diameter (30
cm) cross-section that promotes conduction of heat to the surface of the
vitreous zone, keeping it molten near the electrodes. The molten glass
surface aids the release of gases—primarily H20, N2, 02, and C0?--generated
during the process (1). Throughout the radioactive test, visual observations
verified that the only molten regions were at the electrodes. In previous
tests, without graphite collars, this molten surface was not observed, and a
porous cold cap built up. In addition to heat conduction, graphite also
promotes gas release because molten soil does not wet graphite as it does
molybdenum. This property maintains an open pathway for gaseous release
between the graphite/glass interfaces thus reducing the tendency to form a
foamy glass layer.
The second significant attribute of the electrode design is the lower
current densities on the surface of the electrodes due to the large diameter
of the graphite collar (30 cm). Previous large-scale tests with 15 cm-
diameter collars had resulted in hot spots at the interface between the
graphite and molten glass (1). Stanek (4) reports that the maximum current
density of graphite should be limited to 0.3 A/cm , compared to 3 A/cm for
molybdenum. When this current limit was exceeded in previous large-scale
tests, the interfacial resistance created excessive power densities on the
electrode surface. This behavior can create excessive physical forces that
break electrodes. The condition was eliminated in the LSRT.
Finally, the graphite collar provides mechanical support to prevent
breakage of the molybdenum core during soil subsidence events. During
processing, the molten soil is consolidated at the surface. Occasionally,
the soil around the edges of the subsidence region above the molten soil
collapses into the subsidence region. This collapse can create lateral
forces on the electrodes. For a 3-m-thick melt with 1.3 m of subsidence, the
graphite collars can withstand 1300 newtons (300 Ibf) of lateral .force with
only a 0.64-cm deflection, whereas molybdenum electrodes alone could
withstand only 210 newtons (48 Ibf) before breaking. These calculations are
based on published shear strengths of graphite and molybdenum materials.
Since the spacing between the molybdenum core and graphite collar is 0.64 cm,
the graphite collars can withstand more than six times the lateral force
before exerting any force on the molybdenum core. Breakage of the molybdenum
cores was eliminated during the LSRT.
Equipment Performance ,
*
Aside from two temporary transformer malfunctions during the test, all
processing equipment operated as intended within the function criteria. The
process equipment and functional criteria are described by Buelt and Carter
(3). The process control system's batch logic, which automatically responds
to over 20 potential equipment failures, performed as required. For example,
when the 480-V power transformer experienced a primary winding fault to
ground, the backup diesel generator automatically restored power, and the
process control system restarted all the off-gas equipment in sequential
99
-------
order without operator influence. The pumps maintained flow and pressure to
the wet scrubbing system without interruption. The hood blower and filters
provided continuous filtration of residual process off gases when the main
power was temporarily down for repairs. The off-gas treatment system, as a
whole, was completely successful in containing process effluents during and
after the test.
Despite the tempt ary loss of the two main transformers during the run,
downtime for repairs was limited to 68 hr, 23 wt% of the total run time of
295 hr. The malfunctions occurred independently of each other and were
caused by internal faults on the transformers. Total operating efficiency
during the test was maintained at 46 wt%, counting downtime for repairs.
The lower than normal operating efficiency achieved during the LSRT did
not affect the energy-to-mass ratio. Historically, the large-scale process
has vitrified 1.3 kg of soil for every kWh of energy consumed (0.75 kWh/kg).
Core-drilling of the vitrified block indicated that a 700-t block was
produced with 460,000 kWh of electrical energy, for an energy-to-mass ratio
of 0,66 kWh/kg. The large-scale test thus confirms the operating efficiency
previously measured for this process.
Process Depth
The success of the LSRT was limited by its achieved process depth. The
goal of the test was to vitrify the transuranic contamination which existed
down to a depth of nearly 7 m. However, recent core-sampling of the
vitrified soil revealed that the downward progression of the melt was impeded
at 5 m, preventing vitrification of a significant concentrations of
radionuclides. The 5-m depth coincides with an artificial rock layer placed
in the crib during construction. Because ISV has always processed rocks
mixed with soil in previous tests without affecting its downward progression,
PNL assembled a task force to investigate the causes of the unusual melting
behavior during the radioactive test. After evaluating numerous possible
causes, the task force concluded that the larger particle sizes in the
artificial rock layer are sufficient to significantly decrease the rate of
downward melting. Layers of varying soil compositions can also affect the
downward melting rate. However, soils containing rocks throughout the soil
depth would not inhibit the downward rate, thus previously predicted depths
of as much as 10 m could be achieved.
ISV seeks its own equilibrium melting temperature depending on the
fusion temperature of the soil and the particle sizes encountered. When a
higher fusion temperature layer or a large particle size (greater than 2 cm)
layer is encountered, a higher equilibrium temperature is needed to achieve
the same downward progression rate. Otherwise, the molten zone will grow
preferentially outward into the soil that allows a lower equilibrium melting
temperature. This effect caused the lateral growth observed during the LSRT.
Now that this effect is recognized, engineering approaches, such as injecting
fluxants (e.g., soda ash, lime, and glass frit) into the voids of rock
layers, are being tested and used to enhance the downward melting rate when
necessary. The use of these engineering approaches combined with the low '
100
-------
energy-to-mass ratio observed during the LSRT supports past projections that
ISV can vitrify at least 10 m deep. A
Retention of Radionuclides and Chemicals
The efficiency of retaining or destroying radionuclides and hazardous
chemicals during vitrification of contaminated soils can be expressed as the
decontamination factor (DF). The DF is defined as follows:
DF = m.,
t
where m, = the initial or input mass of contaminant in the control volume per
unit time.
e
me = the exit mass of contaminant from the control volume per unit time.
Table 1 shows the soil-to-off gas DFs calculated from the data.
Decontamination factors for the major soil components are typical of DFs
observed for nonvolatile species in previous ISV tests (1). The data show
extremely high efficiency in retaining particulates during the process.
Generally, less than 0.001 wt% (DF = 10 ) of the particulates is evolved with
the off gas. Since these data are consistent with particulate and
radionuclide retention data from previous tests, losses of transuranic
elements are expected to be less than 0.001 wt% as well. The data in Table 1
also supports previous large-scale results of greater than 98 wt% destruction
of nitrates, (h DF of 53 is equivalent to 98 wt% destruction.) Phosphates
are retained in the ISV product, but sulfates and chlorides are removed, to
be captured efficiently by the off -gas treatment system.
Scrubber and Filter Efficiencies
Radionuclides and chemical contaminants not retained in the vitrified
soil must be removed from the gaseous effluents before the gases are
exhausted to the atmosphere. To assess the efficiency of the scrubbers,
scrub solution samples taken during the test and high-efficiency particulate
air (HEPA) filter samples taken after the test were chemically analyzed.
Scrubber DFs calculated from these data are also shown in Table 1.
Accounting for an additional DF of 1000 for particulates due to the presence
of HEPA filters in the train, the combined DF for the overall process is also
calculated and presented in Table 1.
101
-------
Table 1. Decontamination factors
Component
Al
B
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Mo
Si
Zn
F"
CT
NO
P0fl"3
SO/2
Soil to Off Gas
6.6 x 104
NM5.3 x 101
8.6 X 101
1.5 x 105
Scrubber
1.1 x 10s
1.4 x 102
.1.0 x 102
3.5 x 101
1.5 x 102
2.2 x 102
6.9 x 102
4.7 x 102
2.3 x 101
1.7 x 103
3.8 x 102
1.3 x 105
1.8 x 102
>9.8 x 101
Overall
7.3 x 107
NM
1.9 x 1015
3.8 x 109
2.4 x 1015
NM
NM
7.0 x 1015
NM
1.2 x 109
4.5 x 105
>6.9 x 101
1.5 x 107
>1.5 X 102
(a) NM = not measured.
The hood and off-gas line were smeared to determine the quantity of
materials collected on these surfaces. Typically, less than 10 wt% of the
total material released to the off-gas system was collected on the hood and
off-gas jumper. For example, 2.3 wt% of the silicon and less than 1 wt% of
the F", C -, and S04 were collected ahead of the scrubber. The exceptions
were the alkaline earths (Mg - 9.3 wt%, Ca - 12 wt%, Sr - 17 wt%) and
phosphates (26 wt%). The amount of plateout of those species associated with
oxidation of the hood and pipe materials (iron, chromium, nickel) could not
be quantified.
Water Removal
A water mass balance provides valuable information regarding how soil
moisture and volatile organics behave under large-scale processing
conditions. Mechanisms have been postulated that describe the behavior of
organics when processed by ISV (5). The postulated mechanisms in that paper
support empirical observations that organics behave similarly to that of
water. A water mass balance was performed by the LSRT to demonstrate that
the soil moisture is completely removed by the ISV process. The water mass
balances are achieved by the following:
102
-------
m * XH20^»1 * Va1r * Y1H20 " Pgf?} " vair * Y%0 '
where m * mass of soil dried during the large-scale test, kg
xHjO * mass fract1°n of water 1n the soil
Pi * density of water
^a1r ••volume of air drawn through the hood during the test
Y1u 0 «= volume fraction of water vapor In ambient air
pa « density of water vapor
YeH n « volume fraction of water vapor 1n the stack, and
411 * accumulation (or loss) of scrub liquid tn the tanks.
The mass of soil treated was determined to be 700 t of vitrified soil,
plus 23 cm of dry soil surrounding the vitrified block (which is typically
measured in ISV tests), for a total of 750 t. With a 4.5 wt% water content
in the soil, 33,800 L of water were treated during the test. With ambient
conditions varying from 28°C at 25 wt% humidity to 15°C at 71 wt% humidity
during the test, the equivalent amount of water lost from the scrub tanks
during the test accounts for a Vliq of -5100 L. Since a humidity meter was
not located on the stack, Yeu20 was determined based on 100% saturation at
the exit of the scrub system s mist eliminator. The average temperature at
this point was 30°C. At 30°C, the equivalent amount of water exhausted from
the stack was 47,500 L. Since the left and right sides of the mass balance
equation are equivalent (42,800 L ~ 42,400L), we conclude that water
associated with the area being treated is completely removed and treated by
the process before being released to the atmosphere. Also, because liquid
organics are expected to behave similarly to water, the water balance
supports the existing empirical observations that 97 wt% of organics are
destroyed or removed and treated by the process.
CONCLUSIONS OF PROCESS RESULTS
The results of the radioactive test indicate that the process is ready
for deployment at soil sites contaminated with radioactive materials and
heavy metals. However, treatability testing with actual site samples before
application is strongly recommended.
Results indicate that ISV can be applied more broadly to various waste
management problems. Nonetheless, it is recognized that no single treatment
process is applicable to all waste management needs. Within this context,
ISV is a powerful new tool to consider and evaluate for remediating
radioactive, mixed hazardous, and hazardous chemical waste sites falling
within its treatment capabilities.
103
-------
REFERENCES
(1) J. L. Buelt, C. L. Timmerman, K. H. Oma, V. F. FitzPatrick, and J. G.
Carter, "In Situ Vitrification of Transuranic Waste: An Updated Systems
Evaluation and Applications Assessment," PNL-4800, Suppl. 1, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (1987).
(2) C. L. Timmerman antFK. H. Oma, "An In Situ Vitrification Pilot-Scale
Radioactive Test," PNL-5240, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA
(1984).
(3) J. L. Buelt and J. 6. Carter, "Description and Capabilities of the
Large-Scale In Situ Vitrification Process," PNL-5738, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA (1986).
\
(4) J. Stanek, "Electric Melting of Glass," Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, NY (1977).
(5) BatteHe Northwest, "Application of In Situ Vitrification to Organic-
Contaminated Soils and Sludges," PNWD-1264, Battelle Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, WA (1988).
104
-------
18. UMTRA VICINITY PROPERTIES IN GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
Donald MacDonald
UNC Geotech
The Grand Junction Vicinity Properties Program is conducted by UNC as part of
the DOE UMTRA Program. DOE has identified over 3,500 individual properties
under this program and estimates that the total will exceed 4,000. Since
1985, 2,500 of these have been decontaminated, and verification surveys are
underway. Based on these surveys, DOE has certified 1,500 sites as completed
and meeting relevant EPA standards.
Vicinity properties range from vacant lots and individual residential
structures to commercial buildings and industrial complexes. About 50 percent
of the sites involve simple contamination of vacant lots and residences where.
tailings were used as fill in back yards, patios, and driveways. In 20
percent of the sites, tailings were used in or under the structures, in
concrete aggregate, or in mortar. The balance (30 percent) are commercial
properties: public buildings, shopping areas, filling stations, and
industrial sites. Among the commercial properties, about 70 sites involve
some industrial process and contain hazardous wastes in addition to uranium
mill tailings. Termed "commingled" wastes, these present a remediation
problem. Uranium mill tailings are exempt from RCRA unless contaminated with
RCRA wastes; if contaminated with RCRA wastes, then all RCRA requirements
apply.
DOE studied the scope of the problem and considered possible options for
handling or disposing of these commingled wastes. Handling/disposal options
examined included: temporary storage pending availability of approved State
repository, permanent disposal in UMTRA site, physical treatment
(incineration, solidification), chemical treatment (remilling/chemical
leaching), biological treatment, and delisting (apply for exemption from RCRA
requirements). It was recognized at the outset that some of these were
impractical.
The options were evaluated under the following criteria (in order of relative
importance): safety/environmental impact, chemical type, technical
feasibility, cost, and institutional issues. Each option was scored for
desirability under each criteria to develop a relative ranking. The top three
options under this ranking were delisting, temporary storage, and permanent
storage at an UMTRA disposal site. Temporary disposal is not considered
desirable, but since the remediation of vicinity properties has progressed
faster than the mill site part of the UMTRA program, it may be a necessary
interim step to disposal in an UMTRA site. However, it also became evident
that additional information was needed to determine the full extent of the
problem, and the Commingled Waste Investigation Project (CWIP) was developed.
Under the CWIP, DOE will follow the EPA site investigation procedures in
analyzing and assessing the commingled waste sites. Work plans will be
developed for each site covering sampling and analysis procedures, health and
safety plans, and quality assurance protocols. DOE will make a walk-through
inspection of each site, observing any soil discoloration, odors, or other
105
-------
signs of contamination. Historical research for past history of the site
includes owner interviews, checks of city directories and local records, and
analysis of aerial photographs (these are available back to the early 1930s
for the Grand Junction area). Standard hazardous waste site procedures are
followed: an exclusion zone established, protection level determined, and
appropriate sampling procedures followed.
Many of the 70 properties suspected of having commingled wastes are old
filling stations, possibly having abandoned underground storage tanks which
may have leaked fuel. Five such situations have been found to date; these
were handled by removing and windrowing the fuel-contaminated soil until it
would pass the ignitability test. Another site, where lead arsenate was
manufactured in the 1920s, was contaminated with arsenic. An old municipal
landfill containing many old car batteries had lead contamination. At an
industrial site, Grand Junction Steel, there were indications of elevated
organic levels.
106
-------
19. A DEPLETED URANIUM SLUDGE BASIN IN MASSACHUSETTS
Donald A. Barhour
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
HISTORY
NHI Is an NRC licensed manufacturer of depleted uranium products. DU
alloy billets are sealed in copper cans prior to extrusion into machining
stock. The resultant copper coating was formerly removed prior to machining
by pickling in nitric acid. Spent acid was neutralized with lime and
discharged into an unlined holding basin. Sludge was accumulated during the
27 year period 1958-1985. . Process modifications adopted in 1985 included new
reagents which are regenerated in a closed loop system and reused, enabling
NMI to terminate discharges to the basin. A Hypalon cover was installed in
November 1986 to further isolate the sludge from the environment. Since
then, the surface of the sludge has subsided some 1 to 2 feet. This is
attributed to drainage of liquid.
CHARACTER OF THE BASIN (PRIOR TO COVERING AND SUBSIDENCE)
The basin contained, prior to subsidence, approximately 5500 cubic yards
of lime sludge. Within this lime sludge are some 900,000 pounds of copper
and 500,000 pounds of depleted uranium. The chemical forms of these
materials are hydrated oxides or hydroxides, with some water of
crystallization chemically bound and mechanically held with the oxides.
Other absorbed water also exists which contains nitrates (-4%) and some small
percentage of water soluble machine coolant and oil (-4%). Other metals and
acids from R&D projects also made a very small contribution to total basin
sludge volume (est. <1%). Gravel and other inerts are known to exist. In
addition, the original constituents of the lime (calcium and some magnesium)
are also present as oxides. A specific gravity of 1.33 has been determined
for a composite sample of basin sludge, yielding a total basin weight of some
6,200 tons. Preliminary tests, including TCLP for metals and zero head space
extraction for volatile organics, indicates that the sludge is not a RCRA
"mixed waste."
REGULATORY SETTING
The holding basin has been recognized for a long time as a temporary
expedient. The disposition of the accumulated sludge has been discussed
during annual NRC inspections and is being formally addressed during the
license renewal process. This was understood to be the vehicle by which a
remediation strategy would be posed and approved. The Concord Board of
Health was kept informed of NMI's plans. On 3 October 1988, new state
legislation took effect, bringing another regulatory agency into the picture.
The Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) establishes mechanisms for
identifying and effecting the remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites
in the state. The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
administers the new program. Major staffing augmentation was planned to
enable DEQE to cope with the additional workload, but financial troubles in
107
-------
the state resulted in personnel reductions instead. Because of its previous
program responsibilities, DEQE has no resident radiological expertise. The
MCP process includes the requirements for substantial formal documentation.
STATUS OF ACTIONS
An NMI working group identified a spectrum of nine possible alternatives
ranging from the "do nothing" to processing the sludge for resource recovery
of its uranium and copper. Others included in situ vitrification, warehouse
storage, and both packaged and bulk disposal as low-level radioactive waste.
Alternatives were evaluated against criteria that covered regulatory
sufficiency, technological risk, long term corporate liability, community
acceptability, and project costs. The most promising options were determined
to be bulk disposal and resource recovery, both of which could well be
applied. Extraction of a representative lot of about 20,000 pounds of sludge
is planned for this spring to support a demonstration of the resource
recovery technology and the determination of the full scale economics of this
option.
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
NMI will be attempting to develop a remediation strategy that will
comply with the requirements and timetables of both DEQE and the NRC. A
major issue will be to negotiate cleanup standards for residual uranium in
the soil beneath the basin. The amount requiring removal will significantly
affect project economics. The ultimate challenge will be to deal
harmoniously with two regulatory agencies, town officials, and the community
so that the remediation of the basin can be effected efficiently and without
excessive delays.
IN SITU VITRIFICATION
IN PLACE WITH 1HKKOVED COVER
AS IS
RECLAMATION OF CONSTITUENTS
TOTAL BURIAL AS L-L-W-
•> ABOVE GROUND STORAGE
Figure 1. Holding Basin Sludge Disposition Options
108
-------
20. CORRECTIVE ACTION INVESTIGATION OF A MIXED WASTE
CONTAMINATED PERCOLATION POND
Lois C. VanDeusen
INEL, EG&G Idaho, Inc.
F. Hunter Welter
Department of Energy
ABSTRACT
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), located in southeast
Idaho and operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), has had the largest
number of nuclear reactors during its lifetime of any location in the United
States. The Test Reactor Area (TRA), one facility within the INEL, has been
the home of three major test reactors, one of which is still operational.
The TRA Warm Waste Pond is a three-celled percolation pond that has received
waste water from these reactor operations since 1952. The pond is estimated
to have received over 27,700 Ibs. of chromium in addition to about 5.2 x 10
curies of radioactive materials. Because of known migration of contaminants
to a perched-water zone, the pond is scheduled for corrective actions under a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Consent Order and Compliance
Agreement with Region X, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The pond will
probably be included on the National Priority List by the spring of 1989.
Field investigations were initiated in 1987 and continued in 1988 to pursue
possible corrective or remedial actions. This paper describes the efforts to
date, including a description of the unique problems and physical restrictions
associated with sampling the pond while it is in use and sampling through the
gravel and cobblestones that line the pond.
INTRODUCTION1
This paper describes the sampling that has been completed and the
techniques utilized to mitigate sampling concerns in the corrective action
investigation of the Test Reactor Area (TRA) Warm Waste Pond at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The INEL is located in southeast
Idaho and operated by the Department of Energy (DOE). The Test Reactor Area,
one facility within the INEL, has been the home of three major test reactors,
one of which is still operational. The TRA Warm Waste Pond has received
wastes from these reactors since 1952. The Warm Waste Pond is located
approximately 200 ft. east of TRA (Figure 1). The Warm Waste Pond was
designed to handle low-level radioactive wastewater and consists of three
cells. The first cell was excavated in 1952 and has bottom dimensions of 150
by 250 ft., 2:1 side slopes, and a depth of 15 ft. Because of decreased
permeability and increased discharge to the cell, a second cell was excavated
in 1957 with bottom dimensions of 125 by 250 ft., 2:1 side slopes, and a
depth of 15 ft. The combined capacity of the two cells, when full, is
approximately 9.7 x 10 gallons. About 1962, the permeability of both cells
a. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office under
Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570.
109
-------
again decreased, so the bottoms of both cells were dredged and about 2 ft. of
cobble rock was reportedly placed in the 1952 and 1957 cells, although it was
not found during drilling.
The third and largest cell was excavated in 1984 with bottom dimensions
of 250 ft. by 400 ft., 2:1 side slopes, and a maximum depth of approximately
6 ft. The capacity of the third cell is 4 x 10 gallons when the water is 5
ft. deep. Wastes have not been discharged to this cell since 1972 and the
ceil has been dry since the mid-1970s. None of the three cells is lined, but
some sealing has occurred from chemical precipitation, sedimentation and
deposition by algae.
The cells received all liquid wastes produced with TRA, except sewage,
from 1952 to 1962. About 27,700 Ibs. of chromium (used as a corrosion
inhibitor) from reactor cooling water blowdown, 12,100 Ibs. of waste from
laboratory wastewater, 8.8 x 10 Ibs. of corrosives from the demineralization
plant, and 5.2 x 10 curies of radioactive materials have been discharged to
the Warm Waste Pond. Before 1964, non-radioactive chromate wastes were
discharged to the pond. After 1964, the wastewater streams containing
chromates were discharged to a deep-disposal well located near the Warm Waste
Pond. In 1972, the use of chromates as a corrosion inhibitor was
discontinued at TRA. Liquid waste separation was initiated in 1962. A
separate Chemical Waste Pond was excavated (see Figure 1) just north of the
Warm Waste Pond to receive the demineralization plant discharges. These
discharges contain high concentrations of salts; consequently, water
originating in the Chemical Waste Pond can be traced in the perched-water zone
because the water has a high specific conductance. In 1982, a Cold Waste
Pond was put into service. It is located just south of the Warm Waste Pond.
The Cold Waste Pond receives non-radioactive cooling water which is moderate
in specific conductance and has no detectable tritium. Cells 1952 and 1957
of the Warm Waste Pond still receive low-level radioactive waste water.
Tritium, as tritiated water, is one of the most abundant radionuclides
discharged to these cells. Since tritium is only discharged to the Warm Waste
Pond, tritiui is a marker for water originating in that pond.
Chromium disposal at TRA began in 1952, but groundwater sampling for the
contaminant did not begin until 1962. Even then, only a few groundwater
samples were collected before 1965, and a good baseline was not established
before the TRA Injection Well went into use in 1964. However, it is assumed
that chromium reached the aquifer beneath TRA shortly after disposal began.
Chromium contamination detected in the aquifer in 1963 probably originated
from the Warm Water Pond effluent, as the injection well was not yet in use.
Measurements made by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) show
that chromium in the aquifer in the early 1960s was essentially all
hexavalent chromium. No recent data is available on the valence state of
chromium in the aquifer and perched-water zone. Hexavalent chromium is very
soluble and mobile because it is present in water as an anion. When chromium
is reduced to the trivalent state, it becomes very insoluble. The valence
state and the form in which chromium is present in sediments and basalts must
be determined by additional investigations before appropriate corrective
actions can be designed.
110
-------
PRELIMINARY AND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
Investigation of the Warm Water Pond is planned in four phases: the
preliminary investigation and three phases of the remedial investigation. In
the preliminary investigation, six grab samples of the sludge from the bottom
of the pond cells 1952 and 1957 were analyzed for 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 264, Appendix VIII constituents using Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved procedures. The maximum concentrations of
hazardous and radioactive substances in the pond sediment were estimated from
the analysis results and a list was developed of the Appendix VIII chemical
constituents present in the sediments. The pond sludge was found to contain
hexavalent (Cr ) and trivalent (Cr ) chromium, mercury (Hg), lead (Pb),
arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), silver (Ag),
Sulfides, organic carbons, zinc (Zn), phthalates, pentachlorophenol, and
acetone in concentrations above background. Principal radionuclides
identified above background were cobalt-60, cesium-134 and -137, tritium,
europium-154, and strontium-90.
The three phases of the remedial investigation are designed to examine-
strata progressively to greater depths, as necessary, to identify spatial
distribution of contaminants in surficial sediment and to determine the depth
of contaminant penetration. The results of the remedial investigations will
enable selection of appropriate remedial action(s). Phase I of the remedial
investigation included sampling the sediment and gravelly soil of the pond to
a depth of 10 ft. and drilling three auger holes adjacent to the Warm Water
Pond through the layer of surficial sediment to the basalt. Phase II sampling
is scheduled for 1989. Phase III sampling will be,performed if analysis
results show further characterization of the pond is necessary.
Systematic sampling on an unaligned grid was the chosen sampling design
for identifying the six sampling locations per pond cell for Phase I of the
remedial investigation sampling within the pond. Each cell was divided into
six sections and one sample location was chosen within each section. The
first sample location was randomly located by using a random digits table to
choose the initial X and Y coordinates. The initial X and Y coordinate was
then used with other random digits from the random digits table to identify
sampling locations in the remaining sections of each cell. At each sampling
location in the cells, samples were collected and analyzed to ascertain
contaminant concentration at each 2 ft. level (i.e., 0-2 ft., 2-4 ft., etc.,)
to a total depth of 10 ft.
The locations of the three auger holes were selected by drawing a grid
across a figure depicting the area where saturated conditions have existed in
shallow sediments near the TRA Warm Waste Pond. Auger hole locations were
chosen at three of the intersecting points of the grid within the mapped
saturated zone of the shallow sediments and immediately adjacent to the pond.
During Phase I of the remedial investigation sampling performed in May,
June and July of 1988, several major concerns were encountered. The first
concern was the coarse nature of the alluvial soil at TRA which made the
drilling and coring difficult. The second concern was the need to continue
waste water disposal to the Warm Waste Pond from TRA until approximately
111
-------
1991. Sampling through water may result in cross contamination of strata and
samples and increased risk to personnel while working on or near the water.
The third concern was the radioactive constituents in the sediment of the
pond because of the potential radiation exposure to personnel. The fourth
major concern was the weather in the high desert plateau of eastern Idaho.
The wind increased the risk of personnel contamination and contamination
spread. Heat stress may result when personnel are exposed to temperatures
greater than 70°F while wearing protective clothing. Hitigation of these
concerns was the governing principle in selecting some of the sampling
methods and techniques.
The first major concern was the 6 to 12-in diameter cobble rock reported
to be in the pond and the gravelly soil at TRA which made coring and drilling
difficult. Records of the pond do not show the strata in the pond.
Employees who worked on the pond "in the old days" remembered that when the
1952 and 1957 cells plugged up with silt, a drag line was used to dredge the
bottom of the cells and about 2 ft. of 6 to 12-in. diameter cobble rock was
dumped into the cells to increase drainage. Coarse gravelly soil was found
but no large cobble rock. However, the gravelly, dense soil was difficult to
sample and use of the slide hammer was necessary to drive the casing and
split spoons into the soil and to retrieve the split spoons. Initially a
jackhammer was used in the dry cell to drive the split spoon and casing but
this technique was abandoned below the 2 ft. level. Driving the split spoon
sampler and casing into the deeper gravelly dense soil caused the jackhammer
drive pin to fail repeatedly. These breakdowns resulted in about 7 to 10 days
delay in sampling the dry pond as well as the costs of repairs, additional
spare parts, and modifications in techniques. One split spoon was abandoned
at the 6-8 ft. level when a jack was damaged in an attempt to retrieve the
split spoon.
The following method was used to collect the sediment and soil in the
pond. In the wet cells, a split spoon sampler was driven 2 ft. into the
sediment and soil and retrieved. A 3-in. diameter casing was then driven
2 ft. into the sediment and soil. A removable, pointed plug (boulder buster),
sized to fit just inside the 3-in. casing and measured to extend just beyond
the end of the casing, was attached to a drive rod and was used to break up
and push aside the gravelly soil to prevent the casing from filling with
soil. It was loose enough, however, to allow water to flow around it. After
the casing had been driven, the boulder buster was removed and the water was
bailed out of the casing. A split spoon sample was collected from the 2-4
ft. level. The split spoon was driven using a 140-lb. slide hammer system
and retrieved using either a slide hammer system or a winch, depending on the
effort required. After retrieval of the split spoon, the boulder buster was
replaced and the casing driven another two feet. This sequence was repeated
until all the samples were collected at a sampling location. In the dry
cell, the first 2-ft. split spoon sample was driven using a jackhammer and
retrieved using a jack. The deeper samples were collected using the slide
hammer system to drive the sampler and to retrieve it. This method worked
well in both the wet and dry pond cells. However, driving the split spoon
sampler and the casing through the coarse, dense soils was very slow.
Typical penetration resistance for the split spoon sampler required 50-100
blows of the slide hammer per foot of soil penetration. Penetration
112
-------
resistance for the casing with the boulder buster in place was consider-ably
greater. As a general rule, penetration resistance was higher in the dry
cell than in the wet cells. In the dry cell, the penetration resistance for
the split spoon sampler was as high as 500-700 blows per foot.
Sample recoveries varied considerably, and appeared to be related to the
moisture content of the soil. Where the soil was either wet or dry, percent
recovery ranged from zero to about 50%. Where the soil was moist or damp,
the recovery typically was greater than 50%.
The second major concern was sampling through water which increased the
potential physical hazard to personnel and the potential cross contamination
of samples and strata beneath the pond. Since waste water disposal to cells
1952 and 1957 is continuing, the cells contained approximately eight feet of
water at the deepest point during Phase I sampling. As a result, special
sampling techniques were implemented.
Sampling through water may result in cross contamination of strata and
samples and intensify contamination spread to deeper zones beneath the pond.
To mitigate these concerns, the previously described sampling method was
used. At all but one sample site, the sludge and soil sealed .the casing to
prevent water flowing back into the casing. (The inlet to pond 1957 was
found to be soft sludge to the 8-10 ft. level and the casing filled with
water repeatedly.) This technique minimized the cross contamination of
strata and samples. After sampling was completed in each sample hole,
granular bentonite was poured into the casing and hydrated with demineralized
water. Sealing the sample hole minimized contamination spread through the
sample hole to the sediments beneath the pond as a result of sampling.
The potential risk of personnel injury while transferring equipment and
samples between the boat(s) and shore and operating heavy sampling equipment
iii a boat in 8 ft. of water was another concern. A 7-ft. by 18-ft. flat
bottomed aluminum Jon boat equipped with an auxiliary plywood floor was used
as the sampling platform in ponds. A rectangular hole was cut in the bottom
of the boat and an 18-in. high hole casing welded in place to provide a port
to allow sampling through the bottom of the boat. This method is safer and
more efficient than sampling from the side of the boat. A quadripod was
mounted in slots in the plywood in the bottom of the boat. A 5-hp motorized
cathead (mounted to the frame of the quadripod) powered a 140-lb. slide-hammer
weight supported by the quadripod that was used to drive sample-hole casing
and split spoon samplers. Personnel were instructed in boating techniques and
used a buddy system (one person would hold the boat while another person(s)
disembarked or moved equipment into or out of the boat) during transfer of
personnel and equipment between boats and to the shore or dock.
The third major concern was the radioactive constituents in the
sediments of the pond. The water in the 1952 and 1957 cells was beneficial
because it acted as a radiation shield which decreased.radiation exposure for
personnel and increased the amount of time per person per day that could be
spent sampling the wet cells. The maximum radiation fields found at selected
sites in the sludge in the wet cells was 90 mrem per hour (beta-gamma). With
113
-------
18 in. of water as shielding, the dose rate was potentially reduced to less
than 5 mrem per hour (beta-gamma).
The radiation field in the dry cell was generally 10 to SO mrem per hour
which limited the amount of time an individual could spend working in the dry
cell to about 2 to 6 hours before the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
exposure limit (set by management) of 50 millirem per person per day was
received. In addition to thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD), pencil
dosimeters were used so personnel could monitor their own exposure throughout
each day. To meet commitments and continue sampling, crews were rotated
among the sampling duties in the wet cells, sampling the dry cell, and sample
packaging and equipment decontamination. As many sampling activities as
possible were conducted away from the pond to keep radiation exposures as low
as possible.
The fourth major concern was the weather, specifically the wind (which
increased the potential for personnel exposure and possible spread of
contaminants beyond the area already contaminated) and temperature (above
70°F, heat stress could result). The pond is located on a high desert
plateau with an average elevation of 5000 ft. above sea level. Southwest
winds predominate over the INEL and the second most frequent winds come from
the northeast. The relatively dry air and infrequent low clouds permit
intense solar heating of the surface during the day and rapid radiational
cooling at night. These factors combine to give a large diurnal range of
temperature near the ground. The annual wind speed 20 ft. above the ground
ranges from a low average hourly velocity of 7.5 miles per hour to a high
average hourly velocity of 51 mph. The potential for personnel exposure to
airborne radioactive and chemical contaminants was greatest from the
disturbed dry sediments in the dry cell and during bottling of dry samples.
Disturbing the sediments also increased the potential for contamination
spread beyond the area already contaminated. A 20 mph maximum wind velocity
limit was selected to reduce the potential for contamination spread and
personnel exposure. Work began at 6:00 a.m. each day in order to get as much
sampling as possible completed before the wind velocity limit was exceeded.
Plywood was used as a platform for sample collection activities in the dry
cell to reduce sediment disturbance. Wind screens were set up around the two
sample staging areas (one near the dry cell and one near the wet cells) to
reduce the wind disturbance during sample preparation and packaging. Plastic
covered tables were set on plastic covered plywood within the wind screen to
contain any spilled material and to facilitate cleanup between samples.
Split spoons were opened and samples were composited and transferred to the
sample containers in the sample staging area.
Air temperature also affected personnel during sampling. Average
monthly maximum temperatures at the INEL range from 86*F in July to 27*F in
January. Average monthly minimum temperatures range from 49*F in July to 4*F
in January. Through 1984 the warmest temperature recorded was 101* F and the
coldest was -47"F. Temperatures ranged in the 80s and 90s in the afternoon
most days during the last two weeks of June and all of July so measures were
taken to prevent heat stress. Fifteen minute breaks were taken every hour.
A shads was set up but it was torn apart by the wind in about two weeks, so
the equipment storage trailers were used as break areas.
114
-------
SUMMARY
Phase I of the remedial investigation sampling at the TRA Warm Waste
Pond was completed July 22, 1988. Work delays as a result of the wind,
technique modifications and breakdowns caused by the gravelly soil increased
the time required for sampling by about 25%. Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.
laboratory personnel are performing the chemical analysis of the samples and
the EG&G Idaho Radiation Measurements Laboratory is responsible for the
radioactive sample analysis. Analysis of samples for hexavalent chromium was
performed by Envirodyne personnel at EG&G Idaho facilities during the
sampling to meet the required analysis holding times specified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Data analyses will be completed by
October 1, 1988. EG&G Idaho personnel will verify the data and the data will
be used to determine well locations for Phase II of the remedial
investigation of the pond. Because chromium and tritium have been found in a
perched-water zone downgradient from the pond, the pond is scheduled for
corrective actions under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Consent Order and Compliance Agreement with Region X, EPA and may be included
on the National Priority List by the spring of 1989.
115
-------
REFERENCES
G. E, Start (ed), Climatography of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
IDO-12048A and B, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October
1984.
6. R. Yanskey, E. H. Markee, Jr., and A P. Richter, Climatography of the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, IDO-12048, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 1966.
Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., Site Sampling and Quality Assurance Procedures
for Test Reactor Area Warm Waste Pond—Phase B, 1988.
L. C. Van Deusen, TRA Warm Waste Pond Corrective Action Workplan, Revision 1,
EG&G Idaho, Inc., February 1988.
B. R. Baldwin, BRB-08-88, EG&G Idaho, Inc., Exposure Rate Assessments for TRA
Warm Waste Pond, April 22, 1988.
C. L. Hertzler, CLH-06-88, EG&G Idaho, Inc., Warm Waste Pond 1988 Sampling
Design, March 30, 1988.
Figure 1. Location of the Chemical, Warm
Waste, and Cold Waste Ponds and
the Disposal Well.
116
-------
21. SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND CLEANUP AT THE BABCOCK AND
WILCOX APOLLO AND PARKS TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA FACILITIES
Tom F. Aud
Babcock & Mil cox
Babcock & Wilcox has three radioactively contaminated sites in Pennsylvania,
one at Apollo and two in nearby Parks Township. These sites are NRC-licensed
B&W facilities along the Kiskiminetas River, about 25 to 30 miles northeast of
Pittsburgh. The previous owner, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Company
(NUHEC), began operating the facilities in 1956, producing a number of
products for the nuclear industry. Products included both high- and
low-enriched uranium (HEU and LEU), mixed oxides, and other related
nuclear products. In 1971, B&W acquired the facilities from ARCO (Atlantic
Richfield Company), who had acquired the facilities about three years earlier
from NUMEC to provide a source of supply for the nuclear raw materials for its
nuclear power activities.
The five-acre Apollo site is located in the Borough of Apollo, a town of
3000-5000 residents, along the Kiskiminetas River and Route 66. The facility
proper includes a 50,000 ft plant that is surrounded on three sides by the
Metal Services, Inc. (MSI) facility. This plant was used in the 1970's and
into the early 1980's for manufacturing LEU fuel for the commercial nuclear
markets and for two steps of a three-step HEU fuel process. A nearby
4,000 ft building on the site was used as a decontamination laundry, for B&W,
as well as other nuclear industries in the Pittsburgh area. B&W terminated
manufacturing operations at the facility about 1982. The manufacturing
equipment was removed and either relocated to other licensed facilities or
shipped to Barnwell for burial. Decontamination activities were undertaken
within the facility.
A routine survey by Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) in 1986 revealed
radioactive hot spots in the parking lot, and the NRC issued a Confirmatory
Action Letter requiring that these areas be removed. B&W conducted a full
site characterization and discovered that contamination was more extensive
than originally thought. Cleanup has been underway for over two years; over
5,000 samples have been taken and some areas of soil contamination averaging
over 200 pCi/g have been found. Uranium, thorium, and some mixed fission
materials are the principal contaminants. Contaminated soil has been removed
from offsite locations, the alcove area between the B&W facility and the
adjoining MSI plant, and part of the river bank. The soil is being stored on-
site pending a decision as to the method of disposal.
Contaminated areas still to be addressed, in addition to the on-site
buildings, include a deep sewer line, some areas along the river bank near the
former sewer outfall, and a "breezeway" area between the B&W and MSI
facilities. Additional sites may be found as sampling continues. Meanwhile,
the site remains under NRC license and is being used for component storage,
soil decontamination research and development activities, and staging for
instrument and equipment decontamination efforts.
117
-------
The Parks Township sites are seven miles north of Apollo, also along the
Kiskiminetas River and Route 66. The first site here is a former
manufacturing complex, which encompassed a building where B&W manufactured
mixed oxides, and a metals building where B&W did some plutonium work and
manufactured source material, hafnium, and zirconium crystal bars. HEU was
manufactured in the T-2 facility on the hill; this building has been stripped
of equipment, and some decontamination has been done. All of these facilities
are operating under a NRC license.
The second Parks Township site, known as the burial ground, is not part of the
NRC license at Parks Township but is on B&W property. Our records indicate
that between 1962 and 1970, the former facility owners buried waste in nine
trenches on the hill side. In 1982, a routine NRC inspection found some hot
spots there which B&W remediated. Apparently in the 1960s, during an
investigation of missing high-enriched uranium, the owners were required to
excavate the trenches, and the hot spots remained from surface storage of
contaminated material during excavation. B&W considers this site remediated
and has no further plans for it.
These are not RCRA or Superfund sites. At the end of operations at the Apollo
and Parks Township sites, B&W will be required to submit a decommissioning
plan to NRC for approval. All of the areas will have to be fully
decontaminated to levels permitting unrestricted use of the facilities.
Meanwhile, B&W is continuing decontamination work on unused areas in the
plutonium facility and the laundry building. Remediation priorities include:
characterization and removal of offsite contaminated soil, cleanup and burial
of plutonium contamination from unused areas, cleanup of any other unused
areas at both Apollo and Parks Township, and finding an alternative to burial
of soil at a Low Level Waste Burial Site. B&W has budgeted in excess of $2.0
million for remediation work in this fiscal year.
Issues of concern include: contaminated soils, burial prices, release limits,
mixed waste, public perception, and third-party liability. B&W has taken over
5,000 soil samples from the parking lot area; although the contamination is
all above free-release levels, it is not a threat to workers or the general
public. Costs of transportation and burial at a licensed facility for this
contaminated material are about $55/ft and expected to increase. There is a
need for better communications with the local people and public groups.
Products from these facilities, whihc had at least three owners during its
lifetime, went to various Federal programs, therefore, the possibility of
third-party liability is being explored.
118
-------
.VT
Figure 1. Map showing location of Apollo, PA,
and towns within 10 miles radius
Figure 2. Map of Apollo, PA and location
of facility (center of circle)
-------
tfvVfea CMMCTHIKO
REKDIATED
OM-srre CMHMBUTIOI
Figure 3. Apollo Site, showing contaminated areas and status of remediation
AREA-
Figure A. Parks Township site, showing facilities and contaminated areas
120
-------
22. MAXEY FLATS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE
Chuck Wakamo
David Kluesner
Environmental Protection Agency
The Maxey Flats Disposal Site is located on a flat-topped ridge called Maxey
Flats, approximately 65 mi east of Lexington, KY (figure 1). The Commonwealth
of Kentucky owns 280 acres at the site. Approximately 40 acres of the site is
designated as a restricted area (figure 2); about 25 acres of the restricted
area have been used for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW).
Maxey Flats is in rural, rugged topography, covered primarily by deciduous
forest, and sparsely populated. Approximately 25 people live within 1/2 mi of
the site. The climate is Eastern temperate and humid, with about 44 inches
annual precipitation.
SITE HISTORY
The Commonwealth, as an AEC Agreement State, licensed the Maxey Flats Nuclear
Waste Disposal Site (MFDS) for disposal of low-level radioactive waste in
1963. The site accepted approximately 4.75 million cubic feet of radioactive
waste until closed in December 1977. The wastes, generated by medical,
academic, and industrial facilities and by State and Federal agencies,
contained approximately 2.5 million curies of by-product material, 240,000 kg
of source material, and 430 kg of special nuclear material, including 64 kg of
Plutonium. From 85 to 95 percent of the material is classified as low-level;
the remainder is a mixture of uranium and thorium waste and transuranic
radioactive materials.
Disposal was by shallow land burial. Wastes were placed in 52 trenches,
numerous high specific-activity source wells, and several special pits
(figure 3). The trenches were generally unlined, from 15 to 670 ft long,
10 to 70 ft wide, and 10 to 30 ft deep. The wastes were dumped into the open
trenches; then the trenches were backfilled with the excavated material to
reduce radiation exposure to acceptable levels. The backfilled trench was
mounded and compacted to promote run-off of surface water and the surface area
planted with shallow rooted vegetation to inhibit erosion.
In 1972, leachate pumping operations were initiated at the site to mitigate
the effects of trench overflow. In mid-1973, an evaporator was installed
onsite to reduce the volume of liquids. The site was closed in December 1977
after lateral seepage of radionuclides into an adjacent newly constructed
trench was detected. The flow was about 25 ft below the surface along a lower
sand-stone marker bed which forms the bottom of most of the trenches. Surface
water from rainfall and run-off had infiltrated the closed disposal trenches;
since 1981, the State has covered the trench and drainage ways with a plastic
(pvc) membrane to inhibit surface water infiltration.
The State is in the process of. decommissioning the site, and it appears that
it will be closed in accordance with Superfund. Because of the trench
leachate, the State indicated to EPA that the site should receive a high
121
-------
priority for remediation and closure. The State is maintaining custody of the
site and stabilization activities. The site has been placed on the NPL and
notices sent to 832 PRPs. Approximately 80 PRPs signed an Administrative
Order agreeing to conduct an RI/FS of the site. Field work commenced in
September 1987 and was completed in April 1988.
CURRENT STATUS
Currently, migration of tritium from the restricted area results from leachate
movement through fractures in the geologic units adjacent to and underlying
the trenches. Earlier, two principal pathways of tritium migration were
surface runoff from trench overflow and fallout from the evaporator plume.
Operation of the evaporator was terminated, and a pumping program has
eliminated overflow. Infiltration is minimized by the plastic membrane over
the disposal area.
GEOLOGY
The local geology consists of sedimentary rocks of Silurian, Devonian, and
Mississippian ages, dipping to the southeast at less than 25 ft/mi. A
generalized geologic cross-section is shown in figure 4. The Nancy Member of
the Borden Formation is the uppermost unit at the MFDS. Two sandstone
interbeds, ranging from less than a few inches to over 24 inches thick, serve
as markers within the shale. The top of the lower marker bed is about 20 to
25 ft below surface.
Rock units in the area contain major vertical or near-vertical, widely spaced
fractures, typically in sets, with many minor fracture sets also present.
Seeps occur at fractures in all exposed formations at the site. These are
most common in the thin, highly fractured sandstone beds of the Nancy and
Farmers Members, reflecting the higher hydraulic conductivity of these units.
Stratigraphic units beneath the site are predominantly aquitards, with ground-
water movement confined to the bedding planes, joints, and fractures.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
During the field investigations, over 600 samples were collected and analyzed
for the full Target Compound List, the Target Analyte List, RCRA
characteristics, and tritium. Sampling included air, surface waters, stream
sediments, soils, groundwater, leachate, and biota. It appears that both
organic and inorganic hazardous chemical constituents may be present.
Radionuclide data are voluminous but chemical data to support a health
assessment are limited. Based on this field work, the extent and probable
magnitude of the contamination and health risks attributable to the site have
been estimated.
Tritium has been detected at levels averaging 50 pCi/mL migrating down the
east and west hillslopes along the soil/rock interface (figure 5). It was
detected onsite in ground water at levels ranging from 98 to 2 million pCi/mL.
The greatest concentrations were in ground water of the Lower Marker Bed. It
122
-------
is also present onslte in surface water retention ponds and weirs at levels of
10 to 60 pCi/mL. Co-60 was the only other radionuclide detected along the
hlllslope that could be attributed to the site. Low levels of tritium and
trace organics were detected offsite in stream waters and sediments.
Two different methods of risk assessment are used for the MFDS wastes: one
for radioactive waste materials and another for the toxicity of chemical
wastes (figure 6). Major release and exposure pathways (hydrologic and
atmospheric) were evaluated to estimate health impacts, locations, and
populations affected (figures 7 and 8). Risks from the radioactive
contamination have been calculated using site data and accepted models. Four
potential exposure pathways have been identified: surface water, sediment
ingestion, evapotranspiration, and deer consumption. A fifth pathway,
ingestion of ground water, is being developed.
The Feasibility Study is underway to identify remedial measures; a partial
list includes prevention of vertical and lateral water infiltration into the
waste trenches and exfiltration from the waste trenches; dewatering the waste
trenches; surface water management; and a long-term cap design to prevent
infiltration and assure slope stability. Criteria for selection of
containment and treatment technologies at MFDS include preventing infiltration
of rainwater and ground water to the trench areas, preventing sub-surface
migration of trench leachate, promoting site drainage and minimizing the
potential for erosion, implementing institutional controls to prevent
unrestricted use of the site, and implementing performance and environmental
monitoring systems.
The Feasibility Study Report is being revised, and preparations are underway
for Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree negotiations with the PRPs.
A Record of Decision is anticipated by the end of 1989.
123
-------
REFERENCES
Clark, D.T., "A History and Preliminary Inventory Report on the Kentucky
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site." Radiation Data and Reports, v. 14, #10,
p.573-584, 1973.
Haight, C.P., et al., "Maxey Flats Low-level Waste Disposal Site Closure
Activities." Proceedings of Eighth Annual DOE Low-level Waste Management
Forum, COND-860990, p.32-50, 1986.
Kirby, L.J., et al., "Chemical Species of Migrating Radionuclides at
Commercial Shallow Land Burial Sites" - Quarterly Progress Report, p.14, July
- September 1983. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-4432-6.
"Results of the Environmental Monitoring Program at the Maxey Flats Nuclear
Waste Disposal site in Fleming County, KY, 1984." Westinghouse, 1985.
Prepared for the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection.
Haight, C.P., and Mills, H.D., "Remedial Action - Maxey Flats Low-level Waste
Disposal Site, CERCLA Action." Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection, Frankfort, KY, DOE Conf. 1987.
CONTOUR IHJIHVMi •
EXPLANATION
—.___ HFDS
Figure 1. Location of Maxey Flats
Disposal Site
124
-------
CONTOUR INTERVAL • 3O FEET _;
EXPLANATION
FENCE ENCLOSING
BURIAL AREA
MO 0 500 1POO
—l—^i—^-^
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2, Maxey Flats Disposal Site
Restricted Area.
EXPLANATION
BUILDING LOCATION
DISPOSAL TRENCH
FENCE (INCLOSING AREA tl
LIQUIDS
SPECIAL
Figure 3. Disposal Trenches.
-------
- CENTRAL AREATRENCM
• fORTY-SERIESTRENCH
=1 100
%
-, i,
tt 200
(OflOEN
FORMATION
<:<-osvC-r-x->:-> UPPER PART OF
;>>:<;>>>>>>>>:_ .CRAB ORCHARD FORJIATlpK. J^<^<<^55<<35jKgv55Sjjfi!ft
_ VERTICAL eXAGGCRATION: AffHOXIHAT£ir4:l
EXPLANATION
SHAlt
COLWVIUM. ALLUVIUM. ANDSOIL
MODIFIED FROM: ZCHHfa. 1983
Figure 4. Sketch showing general stratigrphy at Maxey Flats
Disposal Site
EXPLANATION
• APPROXIMATf HANO AUSCK SAMPLING POINTS
^- WATCH INfllTflATION/eNTflYPATHWAYS
f- WATCH MIGRATIOH/tXIT PATHWAYS
Figure 5. Sketch showing stratigraphy and sampling points at Maxey Flats.
126
-------
NO
VES
STEP 3
ESTIMATE
HUMAN
INTAKES
-
STEP*
ASSESS
TOXICITY
•*•
:: STEP s *-
CHAKACTEIIIZE
MISKS
SHAOIHS oenous STCPS THAT ttfoume
TOXICITY. fHYSlCALKHeUiCA,!.. MO
KAOIOCHEMICAL fAKAMfTfXS
Figure 6. Steps in risk assessment methodology
-SEEPAGE
AT1ON
KING
KING
INGE5T1ON
LIVESTOCK
AND Mil.K
INGESTION
HUMANS
SURFACE
CONTAMINATION
EXPOSED WASTE
FROM EROSION
SUSPENSION
DIRECT
EXPOSURE
AIR
INHALATION
HUMANS
INHALATION
DEPOSITION
INGESTION
CROPS
INGESTION
INGESTION
i
LIVESTOCK,
DAIRY
Figure 7. Hydro!ogic environmental
transport pathways.
Figure 8. Atmospheric environmental
transport pathways.
127
-------
2.3. THE PROPOSED HANFORD COMPLIANCE AND CLEANUP PROGRAM
Paul T. Day
Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Government has, since 1943, manufactured nuclear materials
for the nation's defense programs at Hanford, Washington, in nuclear reactors
and chemical processing plants (figure 1). Wastes generated at these
facilities have been treated, stored, or disposed of in a variety of ways.
Some of the wastes contain radioactive materials, some contain chemical
materials, and a third category, called mixed waste, is a mixture of both
radioactive and hazardous wastes. The majority of Hanford wastes are mixed
wastes.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which operates the Hanford Site, plans to
begin the cleanup of its waste sites and obtain Federal/State permits for
treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agen'cy (EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology will oversee
DOE's actions under Federal and State waste management laws.
The three parties have negotiated for more than a year regarding the
authorities of each agency, timing and funding of cleanup activities, specific
actions to be taken, and procedures to be followed. The negotiations.resulted
in four documents:
- A Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, which describes the
roles, responsibilities, and authority of the three agencies in the
cleanup, compliance, and permitting processes. It also sets up
dispute resolution processes and describes how the agreement will be
enforced.
- A Proposed Action Plan to implement the cleanup and permitting
efforts. The plan includes milestones for initiating and completing
specific work and procedures the three agencies will follow.
- A Community Relations Plan, which describes how the public will be
informed and involved throughout the cleanup and permitting
processes.
- A Cooperative Funding Agreement, which provides funding to the State
of Washington for oversight expenses.
The documents describe a 30-year program to address an estimated 5 billion yd3
of chemical and radioactive wastes that have accumulated over the past 45
years at Hanford. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion over the first 5 years.
Much research and investigation of site conditions still is needed before
costs can be set for the entire 30-year program.
Four public workshop meetings were held in late March on the Agreement in
Richland, Seattle, Spokane, and Vancouver; and additional public meetings are
scheduled.
128
-------
CURRENT WASTE PRACTICES AT HANFORD
Because many activities continue at Hanford, radioactive and hazardous waste
facilities that have operated recent1y are subject to the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Washington State Hazardous Waste
Management Act (WSHWMA). The statutes require the State to control the
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and EPA to handle the
cleanup of past practices at these active facilities.
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM RULES
The Action Plan requires DOE to meet specific milestones for bringing all its
facilities into compliance with all Federal and State rules. These rules,
called "Interim Status Standards," apply until Ecology and EPA have issued
permits that establish specific operating requirements for each Hanford
facility. A very important interim requirement is ground-water monitoring
around each hazardous waste facility.
PERMITS REQUIRED
The WSHWMA and RCRA require that, hazardous waste facilities that went into
operation after November 19, 1980, comply with the permitting and closure
requirements of the two regulations. The hazardous waste permit application
is divided into two parts. Part A describes general information about the
facility and the waste being handled. Part B provides detailed technical data
regarding the waste characteristics and operating conditions of the hazardous
waste facility.
Due to the complexity of the Hanford operations, Part A of the application has
been divided into groups of hazardous waste units. For example, all 149
single-shell waste tanks are included in one Part A group. Some of these
waste unit groups will be included in the RCRA permit (Part B), while others
will be closed in accordance with RCRA and the WSHWMA. Those units that will
be closed with waste remaining in place, such as a landfill, will be in the
post-closure portion of the RCRA permit. For ease of review, separate permit
application or closure plan documents will be submitted for each waste unit
grouping. DOE's waste unit groups include Treatment, Storage and Disposal
(TSD) units. Most existing disposal units at Hanford must be upgraded or
closed.
Public participation will be an important part of the permitting process, with
public workshops and hearings (when appropriate) scheduled at each decision
point of the permit process.
KEY TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL MILESTONES
Operating units and those undergoing closure will be assessed for compliance
with appropriate Federal and State requirements by April 1989. Nineteen
(nonhazardous) liquid effluent waste streams will either be treated or be
eliminated by June 1995. All permit applications, closure plans, and
post-closure permit applications for TSDs will be submitted to EPA and the
Washington Department of Ecology by May 1996.
129
-------
PAST CONTAMINATION OF THE LAND AND GROUND WATER
In addition to the currently operating facilities, a number of inactive sites
at Hanford show chemical and/or radioactive waste contamination. The sites
range from small chemical spills to large waste burial landfills and liquid
waste cribs, similar to but larger than septic drain fields.
These closed contaminated sites are called "past-practice units." Hanford has
approximately 1,000 such units. Due to the large number of sites and their
closeness to each other, they will be organized into 74 groups called
"operable units."
CLEANUP PLANS
The first units to be cleaned up are those that initially appear to represent
the greatest threat to human health or the environment. Criteria include:
-Amount of waste involved
-Type and concentration of the waste
-Health effects and toxicity of the waste
-Potential for movement through air, water, or soil
Each operable unit will go through a scoping phase to gather all existing data
and develop an overall management strategy. A work plan will be available for
public review and comment.
Two Federal laws, RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"), apply to the cleanup
program. The cleanup processes are similar for RCRA and CERCLA, as shown in
figure 2.
As each operable unit investigation proceeds, the public can review the major
documents produced. After a public comment period on the investigation
results and cleanup plan, the appropriate regulatory agency will make the
final decision on cleanup at each operable unit. Ecology and EPA will then
set an enforceable schedule for the cleanup, and DOE must carry out the
cleanup. Key milestones in the past-practices cleanup include:
- Additional laboratory capacity for analyzing wastes will be available
by January 1992.
- Work plans for investigating the first 20 operable units will be
submitted by April 1992. Six per year will be submitted thereafter.
- Investigations of all operable units will be completed by September
2005.
- Cleanup of all past-practice units will be completed by September
2018.
13C
-------
SINGLE SHELL TANKS
A major Issue In the Hanford cleanup program Is the handling of single-shell
tank wastes. These underground tanks, some dating back to 1944, store more
than 36 million gallons of highly radioactive and chemically toxic wastes.
Much of the liquid that can be pumped out has been removed from the tanks and
stored in newer, double-shell tanks, although an estimated 6.8 million
pumpable gallons of liquids remain.
Sixty-six of the single-shell tanks are known to have leaked at least 500,000
gallons since 1956. There is extensive soil contamination beneath the tanks
but no proof of ground-water contamination from the leaks.
The Interagency Agreement calls for an extensive management program for the
single-shell tanks. The tanks must be pumped to the extent possible. The
remaining wastes must be characterized, and a plan for removing, treating, and
disposing of the waste and tanks in accordance with State and Federal
requirements must be developed.
Key tank waste milestones include:
- An effective technology for safe removal of single-shell tank wastes
will be developed by June 1994.
- Fourteen "grout" campaigns will be completed by September 1994. Each
campaign converts approximately 1 million gallons of liquid grout
into a concrete-like substance.
- Remaining pumpable liquid waste will be removed from all single-shell
tanks by September 1995, except for two high-heat tanks, which will
be pumped by September 1996.
- The Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant will begin operation by
December 1999. The resulting glass-like substance will eventually be
shipped to the nation's high-level radioactive waste repository,
probably in Nevada.
- All single-shell tanks will be cleaned up and the area closed under
RCRA standards by June 2018.
ENFORCEABILITY
A major goal in the negotiations was to produce an agreement that would endure
by ensuring compliance with Hanford work commitments and schedules. This
requires that the Agreement be binding on the DOE and that a mechanism be in
place to make the Agreement enforceable. In addition to assurances built into
the agreement, the Department of Justice has reviewed the enforceability
provisions of the Agreement and has endorsed them in a letter that is part of
the Agreement. Major enforcement features of the Agreement include:
-All requirements of the Agreement and the Action Plan are
enforceable in court by the State and by any citizen.
131
-------
-EPA, together with the State, can levy penalties on DOE for
failure to meet the schedules for investigation and cleanup
of past contamination.
-The Washington Department of Ecology has the final
decision on "all disputes with DOE regarding treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities, and EPA has the final
decision on all disputes regarding past-practice units.
-EPA and Ecology have reserved all their legal enforcement
tools if DOE does not comply, if there is an emergency at
the site, or if DOE will not include newly discovered
problems under the Agreement.
FUNDING FOR THE AGREEMENT
To meet milestones agreed to by the three parties, $2.8 billion
will be required over the first 5 years. Without an agreement, the first 5
years' funding would be constrained by budget guidelines that limit funding
growth to 3 percent per year and would total only $1.4 billion.
KEY 1989 AND 1990 ACTIVITIES
- Installation of ground-water monitoring well systems to assess
contamination.
- Accelerated removal of pumpable liquids from single-shell tanks
storing liquid and solid radioactive wastes.
- Accelerated characterization of wastes in the single-shell tanks and
development of the technology required to remove the solid wastes
from the tanks.
- Initiation of investigation of past-practice disposal sites.
- Accelerated treatment and disposal of stored double-shell tank wastes
in grout.
Although milestones for permitting and cleanup are established, funding will
depend on yearly appropriations by Congress.
The DOE will provide the State with funds for environmental oversight tnd
other costs associated with the state's role in the Agreement based on yearly
workload through 2018. This includes $500,000 through September 1989 and
$2,400,000 from October 1989 through September 1991 (subject to availability
of appropriated funds).
132
-------
Figure 1. The Hanford Site
CERCLA • Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensator and Liability Act
RCRA . Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Note: WeHm itn*4'at artions or interim measures can be pe~tormed
•1 any pcirj in ihe remetfal'corresive aaton process.
Figure 2. The Cleanup processes for
RCRA and CERCLA
133
-------
24, RADIUM CONTAMINATION AT 930 YORK STREET, CINCINNATI:
A BRIEF HISTORY
Robert W. Bowl us
Environmental Protection Agenc
The Keleket X-Ray Corporation (previously spelled Kelley-Koett) operated a
plant on the first two floors of 930 York Street, Cincinnati during the early
1950s. The Safegard Corporation, a manufacturer of life preservers, occupied
the third floor.
Keleket manufactured X-ray equipment and radiation detection instruments. A
platinum capsule containing finely powdered radium sulfate was used to
calibrate the instruments. On July 24, 1951, the capsule ruptured and the
radium sulfate dust was carried on air currents throughout the room, out into
the alley, and into the rear part of the second floor through open windows.
Contamination was also carried on employees' hands, shoes, and clothing into
various areas of the building.
The ensuing investigation and 10-month cleanup involved the Cincinnati Health
Department, the University of Cincinnati, the U.S. Public Health Service
(PHS), and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), among others.
Decontamination was done to meet the permissible contamination limits
recommended by the PHS. Contaminated surfaces were cleaned or removed.
Decontamination efforts included shipping 474 55-gallon drums of contaminated
material and equipment to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for burial. Fixed
contamination that could not be removed from building surfaces was
covered with concrete, linoleum, or paint.
Of 44.8 mCi (44.8 mg) of radium sulfate originally in the container, only
about 1/3 could be found at the site of the accident. As a very conservative
working estimate, it is assumed that the remaining 30 mCi is scattered within
the building. Such contamination would be in wall and floor voids, in wiring
and plumbing chases, behind woodwork and fixtures, under paint, under concrete
and linoleum, and inside drainpipes. Since the original decontamination was
finished, no radiation has been detected outside the building.
The PHS approved the building for re-occupancy in May 1952 and recommended
(1) that the building be re-surveyed periodically for contamination, (2) that
safety precautions be followed during any structural, electrical, or plumbing
work, and (3) that food, drug, and/or cosmetic storage or handling not be
allowed in the building. Until the building was vacated in 1976, the
Cincinnati Health Department (CHD) inspected the building periodically to
ensure that the occupants, Keleket, Safegard, and, later, Prather
Products, were taking proper precautions.
In 1981, the CHD learned that the building had been sold to Robert Renner and
that he had been living there, sweeping up dust and peeling paint, and
operating an architectural antiques business on the premises. When Mr. Renner
was examined with a whole-body counter at the Argonne National Laboratory in
Illinois, no internal contamination was found. Mr. Renner ceased operating
his business there and moved out. .
134
-------
Personnel from the U.S. Department of Energy surveyed the building for radon
and radon progeny in 1982 and found areas of surface contamination In excess
of guidelines In several rooms throughout the building. They recommended that
the building not be used for continuous or frequent human occupancy and that a
surveillance program be established to ensure that contamination did not
spread.
In January 1984, EPA personnel Inspected the building with Health Department
personnel and the owner and observed that the condition of the building had
"significantly deteriorated" and that it was open to public ingress. EPA
personnel began preparing documentation to request a cleanup of the building
under Superfund. The justification for use of Superfund is the public health
hazard that would occur if there was a fire in the building, which would
release radium-bearing smoke into the community.
Health Department personnel have checked the security of the building at least
monthly from mid-1984 to the present. There has been extensive vandalism and
evidence of two small fires. Nearly all the salvageable metal items
(radiators, wiring, stair treads, etc.) were removed from the building. As
vandalism and deterioration have worsened, it is likely that contamination
previously covered has become exposed. Health Department personnel have found
contamination during the past 2 years in places where paint has peeled off and
concrete has come loose.
In July 1987, approval was given through the EPA and the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) for an Action Memo to be drafted to authorize a Superfund
cleanup of the site, and by April 1988 a disposal site for the low-level
radioactive waste was available. Cleanup was projected to begin within 9 to
12 months.
In May 1988, it was found that some of the facing brick on the southwest
corner of the front building had fallen into the alley, probably as a result
of extensive water damage. Health and Fire Division personnel checked the
scene and found no significant radioactivity. The Building Department hired a
wrecking firm to remove the remaining loose brick. EPA personnel checked all
the bricks for radioactivity as they were removed. The Building Department
and Public Works Department are cooperating at the Health Department's
request, to fence the alleyway and prevent public access to the area around
the damaged wall. EPA personnel are working to accelerate the Superfund
process and enable the cleanup to start as soon as possible.
135
-------
Co
CTl
•Mi •« ri«>t
»< vmi
O!t»tl
IIU
D
•»*t* 1
•M fr*
SlWttM
!••»•
1* 1401
.:tf *• u~fi
t'imn
c .,
*M Ml In
* r«m> j
I ""KrT?
Ml'lil
CU"t
• >~. 1 r
• »M « 1
i M»r §t»
if IMIIIt
lp»«.
M fl««t»
•mil
A /
>:u CI:T>:
JWCKI i
•'«"•«» .,-,«-,:,
tIM>(-|.*UT)
>!•< H" I» » 1W.IM ff>l
»B *• «M»IIHI «(m«t'i:t*
IXIIIIX IWO
"!HlM"n!! iUo!"!-in
•£r
>MCII \
1 .. riM.. IM»"I '•"> '
1 .Ml ^ '^5'^' ,„„
'""" "i':St,
sm.
) f«r*»f 4*i« !• |Hil'**tlt«>ti.
*JJ * l*tt«rl*| t«h*r«i«rr twnrvv
'ts * t.i. «fc »M« TAT >«r*«?
-3 N
,
i — -:-1
iit«ri:i p
•M{'H>
J
>
G
•iMi'utm
L 'l'"."".«l!. .
Ywtri:i |
»• ~ Mil
)C« » n»r
I'I:T*T*
^
wii'm:
«;MI •!::««
ill
•I 1
• ItM M
:M ••
«'i
>:MC<:I
MM — Kill!
I'lIWI
j- 'l""~
•XSS-.0
KMI'WI
^M§
.111
iMIfl
*ltl
!t
•;rAtri
M *at;
SO
(S
isl
1 c
A B T
IMflf'Ill* i-*T-"*
ISTCt'Ml IffMl'M) l:»t'l»
H 1 | ,9M|'l)t.|
, ^
•nnoii • n
0 *HHrt}ij!
H ' G r i
[
MMir Ilf'lll M
f llf.rillr.lM U
I .imrin . »i'i:i T
| ')
SSf, ..,«,. ,. .„». ....,..,„„ t... «...
!1 :jf:Vi:"i:''F'":'" '""'
*M • V.l. IF* CM TAt l.ntf
•
in' "inn " 1 '' iJ" ^YfISl?P71
-— **%Ht trm^"1 • -'• W ^6^/yS!^1-
Figure 1. Rear Building First Floor
Kelly Koett Instrument Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
Figure 2. Rear Building Second Floor
Kelly Koett Instru-nent Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
00
.iwi'iti K —-»
•.•in Cinii"!; —i
o i N
..
L
s
L J
m,
II !•»*
7 rflt* IM f.r..!•....
Figure 3. Front Building Second Floor
Kelly Koett Instrument Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
I :.i«-ii> -
IMTtl
I) All
• | |M[
•ii • u.i. if* (JtM««) l"f«r
ii'in '(i . *••»< ui»*r«t*tl<* <"•»»«'
. ' *ll TAT - Tt«l«lc«l A*«|II»«C« 1
B
N
Figure 4. Front Building Third Floor
Kelly Koett Instrument Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
t ». an-in
J;_ < <
t.- 1 1
MH'tll *:•»)"«! IMW'IH
riM'iil 0
i m'K) <*
. IHt'lIt t**~-4 Mr *•!«
BUM' It ** *«M I'll!
»** IMII *•!»•
MMC*H
ILMII'llt •• MM« tIM *
*** *MMK*t« IBK'itl j I
™ "™jiwi» , " g J
j- I |pg| IM ^ f ^^^ r^»^,, ...... M
f «ii I /i. 'in (J....1) i.«.F
*fl • MM< Ulmfflivrlt* (S»«ti«t« Chntttll Ut
*n «t - ttti>wi«*i **•!•!••«• r*M iwrvtr
I D
_,
J1
_ y 1 «•»,„
1 Mi-ill .
U 1«JI lit' 1 fll'tl
Q »it'i:i tM «*•
F •
iM'ln
^^ "
»«T .
1
!
r«i *
+
Figure 5. Front Building Basement
Kelly Koett Instrument Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mi :i i*«**r *•*• ** §*«••»*•••*•
•J) - bllirlM M»«»>«»"F^»*'*«r
w »J; tjtt*rt»«fc*i«i"I««i««««« »"*«»"«»
*M * ».§, «•* M^ *** *««*«?
N
Figure 6. Front Building First Floor
Kelly Koett Instrument Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
25. URANIUH MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT
Donald Dubois
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project was established by DOE to
carry out the remediation mandate in Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Remediation Control Act of 1978. The Act provided for the cleanup and control
of tailings from designated inactive uranium mills to eliminate potential
environmental health hazards such as those already identified at several of
thfc sites. The Act provided for sharing of direct remedial action costs by
the affected State (90 percent Federal/10 percent State), cooperative
agreements with States and Indian Tribes, establishment of cleanup standards
by EPA, and concurrence by NRC, the State and Indian Tribes (if on
Reservations) in remedial actions.
There are 24 designated sites in 10 States, and 5,056 vicinity properties
(adjoining lands and structures) have been identified to date for cleanup.
The program involves the cleanup and removal of tailings from vicinity
properties at the designated sites, consolidating the tailings and
contaminated materials and encapsulating them either onsite or at alternate
sites. Disposal pile and cover material must be designed to protect the
tailings from natural erosion and both deliberate or inadvertent human
intrusion.
Figure 1., UMTRA Site Locations
139
-------
EPA STANDARDS
SOLUTIONS
Stabilize & Control Tailings Isolate In-Place or it New
Piles and Control Radiation Location
Emissions 200-1000 yr*
Clean Up Contaminated
Open Lands
Clean Up Contaminated
Structures
Excavate & Remove to
Disposal Site
Excavate & Remove to
Disposal Site
TOPIC
CONTROL OF TAILINGS PILES
LOMOEVITY
HAD OH EMISSION
WATER PROTECTION
CLEAN-UP OF BUILDINGS
INDOOR RADON DECAY PRODUCTS
IWOOR GAMMA RADIATION
CLEAN-UP OF LAND
SURFACE
BURIED
EXCEPTIONS
PROCEDURE
APPLICABILITY
GROUHDWATEft
STANDARD
100-1010 YEARS
20 pCllm'l OR 0.1 pCI/l
UNDER EPA REVISION
10 mlcroR/te ABOVE BACKGROUND
• pCI/g ABOVE BACKGROUND IN
It-cm SURFACE LAYER
» pCI/g ABOVE BACKGROUND IN
ANYIItn SUBSURFACE
LAYER
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
HEALTH SAFETY, COSTS. OUAHTITY,
• ACCESSIBKITY
SPA TO PROMULGATE FINAL
CTAHOAHDB IN BPRINQ OF till
Figure 2. Requirements & Solutions
Figure 3. Summary of EPA Standards
-EROSION BARRIER:
DURABLE RO2K
SWA»AiwSs«i»sS?a*»«!E DURABLE RO:K
THBKNESS: , TO 2 FEET
BEDDING . FILTER. AND ORAIK
FINE TO COARSE SAND
THICKNESS: « INCHES
-INFILTRATION «NB RADON BARKER:
COMPACTED SOIL
THICKNESS: 1 TO > FEET
VEGETATION
0 - LOT ROCK MULCH
3.0 GROWTH MEDIUM AND FROST PROTECTION
BIOBARRIER: COBBLES (TOP CHOKED OR
FILTERED!
DRAIK CLEAN SAND
INFILTRATION BARRIER: CLAYMAX
IWN.I RADON SARRIER: CLAY/SILT
Figure 4. Standard Cover Detail
Figure 5. Checklist Cover Detail
140
-------
l •*»*it*a«*t •> C
VICMTV PII.Vf.TTIM
Figure 6. Activities Flow Diagram
Figure 7. UMTRA Project Participant
Structure
« »)•!» B^^ttedM
• Pten for Imp!«in*ntin0 EPA SUndardl D«valop«tf
• Technology D«»«lopm«nt Piogrun ComprtUd, Ttchnlcil
Approach ElUolllhid
Slt«e
• Pl«nnlng/Oi«lQn tMvilopmonl and NCPA ComptaU or
Undtrwiy at All SlUl.
• Englniirlng Compktt/UmJ«rwi» il All Sll«
• Sit* (Umtdlil AeUon ContpKUd «t I SlUt
• SIM ftomidlil AcUon tn-Proctu at 11 Sllaa
Vicinity Properties
• Inclutlon Work 17* CompliU
• Cnglnaarlnfl 70% Compt^ta
• Hamadlal AcUon SUrlad at 1000 of 1056 ProparUaa
0 —
SITE
Camxubwa
SNpceck
MII uk. cnr
Uknlt*
Anl»oil« UM
Dtvange
TUU air
IBvffrton
W1M 111
0>l«n Mvtr
Cpoak
Union Hll
a»M JuncUon
H0m«n«il Vtby
t
"""" " "~" «...«... AKU. "•••••/^^yv
BEMEOIAL ACTION
•UbilzfUv* «i III*
tuwnnooo i> n»»
««10MtlO«
IUIOC4UM
SUUHuUn In ftaci
anauUM
Sl.MNuUon In n>ct
IblautlM
ItelauUoa
SUMUUUon M SIU
SteMnutian !• Mac*
Il^UnUon M n>»
tWoMllea
:»k,«t,«
•MUllq.O»..llllr
PERCEMT
COMPLETE
105
100
II
n
H*
74
73
»
41*
31
19
11
1
-
mO«lr.»UWU»H
DATE
COMPLETE
11/IS
10/11
i/ai
a/if
1/12
1VIO
VIO
wit
l/ll
10/11
1VII
I'll
l/ll
•111
en Net T«1 lurlvd ^
Figure 8. Accomplishments
Figure 9. Site Status
141
-------
4 ti/'ri H "*"** •'*'*• O"*»(|P«»I *i •••<••
STATE PROCESSINQ SITE
COLORADO OURAMOO
GRAND JUNCTION
OUNMtON
NEW RIPLB
OLD NITLE
NEW MEXICO * 1HIPROCK
IOUTH DAKOTA EDOIMONT
UTAH (ALT LAKE CITY
• TO WHO RIVERTON
—7^
TAIUNQS BUDGETED IFYI9)
M TONS) VICINITY PROPERTIES
till til
toot *>»
0.011 t
1.700 t «
9.111 I -
ttoo 11
•/A 117
toio no
0.010 4*
@ ~™^
STATE PROCESSING SITE « TONS) VICINITY PROPERTIES
ARIZONA ' •* TUiA CITY 1.300 1
CCLORAPO HATUttlTA t.944 11
new HCXICO ANAROSIA LAKI a.«oo a
Oft CO OH LAKIVUEW •.MO |
UTAH • MEXICAN HAT t.100 *
* wocxuiisa ten M MMAJO twaat LAMM
I J
Figure 10. High Priority Sites Summary
Ffgura 11. Medium Priority Sites Summary
(D— - • — • -—^
,
STATE
ARIZONA
COLORADO
DADO
NORTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOWNO
PROCESSINQ SITE
* MONUUCHT VALLEY
MAYRELL
tLICK ROCK (KG)
SLICK HOCK IUCI
LOWMAN
•ELNELO
•OWIIAII
OJHIH RIVER
RPCOK
TAILINGS
(M TbNSI
tioo
1.100
*.u?
0.111
IUI
0.010
«.BTI
o.ni
0.111
BUDGETED (PYHI
VICINITY PROPERTIES
1
1
•i:
10
•
i
10
*
• PM'JUMO lire OH NAVAJQ TMHAL LAW*
Figure 12. Low Priority Sites Summary
• DESCRIPTION
- EPA ProraulB>U4 Slta-Spieltle Ocoimdwittr Slindudl I3JI3)
- Coir: Ord.r«i! Giixrllly Applleabl* Slindifdt mitt
- EP*. liiMd Miii Drill Sttmltrdt H/S7I
- EPA Rml Sundird* AMMpM»iI ISprlng 1I1M
• IMPACTS
- M«Jer Ground«tt*r PrBt*ctlon/R«*t8rfttion Program Ukcty
- Cut of (1.38 tar QfoundwlUt Ptol.cllon «nd
Aquifer Hciioraucn Expvcttd Band on Drift standards
• ACTIONS TAKEN/REQUIRED IT/R)
- DOE ltatf««iM la Draft Elandardt IT>
- EPA F1n.Hi. SUndirda (IV
- DOC/KKC kflptannnUllon at SUndardi (n
- Appropriation (HI
Figure 13. Issue: Implementation of
Revised EPA Groundwater Standards
142
-------
1 &•*•*!**•{ *> ••*'•)>
> DESCRIPTION
- SUttt Inability to ObUIn Adaqiiata Hatching Funding
- RnvaniM ShortfcHi
• IMPACTS
- Schadula Chang**
- Not AH Sltaa Ftimidlatld
' ACTIONS TAKEN/REQUIRED !T/H>
- Slabinx* Fodanl Funding (R)
- Vllut EnginM7lng WO
- Productivity lmpro«*nunt Program 1TI
- Accalorata Daalgni to Allow Schadula Ftoilbitlty IT)
- DOC Aaaliunca to SUM In D*valopmant.ol ludgil FVo.u*at (T)
• DESCRIPTION
- SUM IMay In Proc*Mlna SIM AcqulilUon
- SIM OwMr Uwsulta Hid Court Ocelilmw
• IMPACTS
- Conitructlon Dtliya
- Coilly Court StttKminta (Ourango, Orand Junction, atcJ
• ACTIONS TAKEN/REQUIRED DESCRIPTION
- Annual Approprlatlona Inadaquata for Traditional UUTRA
- Ho funding lor Oroundwatar CHinup
- Fluctuating LanM ">l Funding tor Tradition!! UMTRA
• IMPACTS
- E
- Pronldt Funding u Complata UUTRA by 1*9« IRI
- Initlala Aqullar Haaloratlon Funding (HI
Figure 16. Issue: Federal Funding
143
-------
26. TRANSURANIUM ELEMENT CONTAMINATED SOIL CLEANUP
Edward T. Bramlitt
Defense Nuclear Agency
The Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) manages two sites, Enewetak and Johnston
Atoll, contaminated with plutonlum from atmospheric nuclear weapon tests.
Weapons plutonlum Includes a short-lived Isotope which decays to americium;
both elements are present in vintage plutoniunt. Plutonium and americium are
transuranium (TRU) elements. A "TRU cleanup* gets rid of both plutonium and
americium contamination.
The cleanup at Enewetak between 1977 and 1980 required some 8,000 persons and
more than $140 million. DNA started the cleanup at Johnston when the Enewetak
effort ended. It is still on-going; the most ambitious phase of cleanup
begins this year.
At Enewetak, about 100,000 yd3 of contaminated soil were excavated from 5
islands and hauled across Enewetak Lagoon by barges to an island for disposal.
Soil was mixed with cement and pumped as a concrete slurry into the crater
from a 1958 nuclear test. The crater was eventually over-filled to a height
of 30 ft and capped with 15-in thick sections of concrete. This was an
unpopular remedy, a compromise between relocating soil to a disposal
facility in the States and dumping it in the ocean. The crater island is
permanently quarantined from the Enewetak people.
From its Enewetak experience, DNA learned that something better had to be done
to clean up Johnston Atoll.
ENEWETAK TRU CLEANUP GUIDELINES
The Department of Energy (DOE) provided guidance for Department of Defense
(OOD) cleanup at Enewetak. The basic DOE guide was: remove soil when TRU
specific activity is greater than 1.5 kbq/kg of soil. DOE measured TRU in
soil to guide cleanup. An in situ measurement method was used, averaging TRU
concentration oyerithe top .03 of a meter of ground. Cleanup decisions were
based on specific.activity averaged over a quarter hectare, about two-thirds
of an acre. Six samples were used to get an average specific;activity. Thus,
the cleanup removed soil with a surface activity exceeding 2 uCi/nr, and
Enewetak people now live on land which has TRU measuring less than
2 uCi (74 kbq) per squ«ire meter.
EPA TRU GUIDELINES, SOIL SCREENING LEVEL
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance to Federal agencies for TRU
in the environment includes a soil screening level (SSL), below which
corrective actions will not normally be required. The screening level is
7.4 kbq/m , an order of magnitude more stringent than the surface activity
cleanup guide previously set by DOE for Enewetak.
The EPA guidance allows sampling the top .01 m of ground to determine
compliance with the screening level. In terms of specific activity and
144
-------
typical coral soils, the screening level is equivalent to 500 bq/kg. Soil
With TRU levels less than the screening level can be used without radiological
control or cleanup. Soil cleaned to the screening level can be released for
unrestricted use.
JOHNSTON ATOLL RADIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED AREA
At Johnston Atoll, there is about as much TRU soil as was moved to the crater
at Enewetak. DNA has consolidated the contaminated soil on a 15-ha site,
giving the controlled area an elevation which averages about 2 m higher than
that of the rest of the island. It is the highest land in this part of the
Pacific.
The radiological area occupies a significant portion of the atoll. There is
only 260 ha of land; about half is used for aircraft operations and the rest
for industrial and residential purposes. The contaminated area was used for
•any years under radiological restrictions, but they were a severe hindrance
to beneficial use. Further, if the soil were not contaminated, it too would
be used, to reduce the need to import soil to meet construction requirements.
For the past 15 years, DNA has been manually decontaminating soil at Johnston.
A hot spot is found by radiation detector, dug up, divided, and monitored.
Through repetitive monitoring and division, one can often end up with a single
hot particle. Sometimes it will be big enough to see; at other times, it may
net be visible to the eye but will respond to a radiation detector.
Nature also decontaminates soil, as when plutonium accumulates behind weirs
set up to retard soil run-off during heavy rains.
CLEAN SOIL GUIDELINES
The Johnston Atoll cleanup guidelines are shown in figure 1. DNA tests soil
in two ways. One determines average specific activity for each tenth cubic
meter increment. If there are more than 500 bq/kg of soil, the increment is
considered to have distributed contamination. The second way determines
average total activity for each hundredth cubic meter increment. If there are
more than 5 kbq, the increment is presumed to contain a hot particle of
contamination. The first guide derives from the EPA soil screening level;
DNA created the second.
MINING TRU FROM JOHNSTON ATOLL SOIL
The process of extracting a metal from soil is mining. Mining divides source
Material into concentrate and tailings. In classic mining, concentrate is the
valuable resource and tailings are waste. In mining for cleanup, the
situation is reversed. The concentrate includes the radioactive elements and
Is disposed of as radiological waste. Tailings are clean soil and suitable
for fill with underground piping, bedding for pavement, aggregate or sand for
concrete, and other uses. Mining plutonium from soil can be a way to
decontaminate soil.
145
-------
In the mid-1980s, DNA tested mining technologies for possible automated
cleanup of Johnston Atoll soil. Several technologies were promising on a
laboratory scale, and a pilot plant was operated on the island. The plant
used a gravimetric method which had proven successful for mining heavy metals.
About 600 m of contaminated soil were processed, producing about 10 m of
concentrate containing the bulk of the TRU. The tailings had TRU at less than
500 bq/kg, the EPA soil screening level* This mining reduced the volume of
contaminated soil by about 98 percent, and convinced DNA to go forward with a
full-scale plant.
SOIL CLEANUP PLANT
The full-scale plant was constructed at Johnston Atoll last fall; performance
tests were completed in March 1989. Soil flow through the cleanup plant is
traced in figure 2. There is a screen at the start of soil flow to size soil:
soil particles greater than 1 inch are separated for storage; those less than
1 inch go to a crusher. This sorting is done because preliminary sampling
indicated that soil greater than 1 inch is clean. Clean soil is removed for
separate processing; otherwise, it would dilute contaminated soil.
Crushed soil is then checked for contamination and sorted into clean soil for
beneficial use or contaminated soil for mining. This sorting is done because
sampling shows that about 50 percent of soil collected from the radiological
control area is clean, and DNA attempts to avoid cleanup through dilution.
The mining unit produces tailings and concentrate. Tailings are checked for
contamination. If clean, they follow the path to beneficial use; otherwise,
they are either prepared for disposal or recycled for a second attempt at
cleanup. Mine concentrate also may be prepared for disposal or recycled.
The mining unit uses water to move soil and clean through gravimetric
separation of heavier particles from light particles. Water cycles through
ponds to allow fine particles, less than 50 urn, to settle. The plant is an
assembly of standard sand-and-gravel type equipment including conveyers, a
rock crusher, vibrating screens, and storage silo, plus radiation detectors to
determine the type of soil (contaminated or clean) and direct the flow.
Conveyers carry the soil in layers about 1.9 cm thick, 1 cm beneath the
detectors, which count radiation and send signals to a computer. A micro-
processor determines if counts exceed cleanup guidelines and operates a gate
to divert the soil accordingly.
A pants-leg gate directs soil to one conveyer if radiation counts indicate the
soil is clean and to another conveyer if it is contaminated. The gate is
activated by compressed air on signal, switching from one direction to the
other in less than 1 sec. Clean soil is conveyed along a stacker boom. The
boom swings in a large arc and can stack as much as 1,500 m of soil before
soil must be removed. A silo is used to store a day's supply of contaminated
soil for the mining operation.
Soil from the silo is conveyed to the top of a gravimetric separator, where a
stream of water then moves it over a bed of steel balls on a metal screen.
Pumps pulse water up through the soil. Heavy particles work their way through
146
-------
the bed of balls aridTare collected at the separator bottom. This concentrate
then flows to a smaller separator providing a second stage of cleanup.
The final concentrate is discharged to collectors for disposal. DMA uses
tri-wall cardboard boxes lined with plastic sheet to receive contaminated
soil. A radiation detector is suspended above the box so that the concentrate
can be assayed as it is received.
The in situ method used for concentrate assay can be very accurate because of
its well-defined geometry; a detector is centered at precise distances above
disk sources. Each 2-cm thick layer of soil is counted, and data transmitted
to computer for assay. The final result is a report of total container
activity in the format needed for transport and disposal. A container of
concentrate typically weighs about 1,500 kg.
Clean soil from the gravimetric mining unit is conveyed up a stacker boom and
stacked in small piles representing output for various periods of operating
time. The volume of these cone-shaped piles can be calculated for comparison
with plant flow meters and its weight can be determined from volume-density
for a comparative check with conveyer belt weigh scales. Clean soil is
routinely checked by an in situ radiation measurement method. DNA's quality
assurance procedures also include provisions for frequent grab samples and
radiochemical analysis.
Not all soil passes out the gravimetric unit as clean. Some material has
plutonium attached to larger particles of soil.
CLEANUP PROJECT MILESTONES
DNA's soil cleanup milestones are listed in figure 3. The plant performance
test was completed in March, except for data analysis and final report
preparation. Results to date indicate the plant successfully cleans soil to
the guidelines and DNA plans to proceed with a full-scale soil cleanup. The
Agency has begun contract acquisition for plant operation and expects cleanup
to begin by September 1989 and continue for at least 100 weeks. At that time,
the plant will be dismantled and all radioactive waste and contamination
removed from Johnston Atoll.
DNA is proceeding with the cleanup because it believes soil can be
sufficiently cleaned so that it can be used without radiological restrictions.
Figure 4 compares cleanup guides used at Enewetak, the EPA guidance to Federal
agencies for transuranium elements in the environment, and the Johnston Atoll
guides. (Enewetafc concentration should be 1,500 rather than 2,200 bq/kg.)
DNA's primary guideline is three times more stringent than that used at
Enewetak; further, its sampling guide is an order of magnitude more
conservative. The real difference in favor of the Johnston cleanup is the
bottom line which indicates the much greater degree of confidence DNA has in
soil cleaned at Johnston. At Enewetak, decisions were based on a handful of
measurements, whereas at Johnston, there are thousands.
147
-------
The performance test shows that DNA could lower its cleanup guides slightly.
The Agency actually samples on increments about one-sixth of the design
requirement.
BENEFITS
Benefits of soil cleanup at Johnston Atoll are listed in figure 5. Some of
these benefits may not be applicable elsewhere. For example, other places may
have easy access to soil for construction purposes. At Johnston, soil must be
imported at a current cost of about $50/m. It is possible to cleanup soil
for a lower cost than this.
CLEANUP COSTS
Figure 6 compares the Enewetak and Johnston cleanups, both of which involved
about the same quantity of TRU soil. The Johnston cost covers everything
since 1980, including a comprehensive radiological survey of the atoll,
decontamination and decommissioning of the missile launch complex which
previously was in the radiological area, relocation of all contaminated soil
to a single area, wages of all project personnel, and projected costs to
operate the plant through cleanup completion.
148
-------
ACTIVITY GUIDE
SAMPLE
DISPERSED < 500 Bq/Kg 0.1 m"
PARTICLE* < 5 KBq
0.01
(•Equivalent Dispersed • 250 Bq/Kg)
Figure 1. JA Clean Tru Soil
Figure 2. Soil Flow
ACTIVITY
PLANNING/FUNDING
DESIGN/PROCURE/DELIVER
SETUP/CHECKOUT
PERFORMANCE TESTING
CONTRACTING
OPERATIONS
DISMANTLING
REMOVE PLANT/WASTE
PATE
OCT 87-MAR 88
MAR 88-OCT 88
OCT 88-DEC-88
FEB 89-MAR 89
APR 89-SEP 89
SEP 89-SEP 91
OCT 92-NOV 92
NOV 92-MAR 93
Figure 3. JA Soil Cleanup Milestones
149
-------
Concentration (Bg/kg)
Surface CKBq/m2)
Particle (KBg)
Sample Vol. (m3)
Samples (#/Ha)
DOE/EA
2200
74
NV
12
24
EPA
500
7.4
7.4
NV
NV
DNA/JA
500
7.4
7.4
0.1
.19K*
Figure 4. Guide Comparisons
* Increase Useable Space
* Create Useable Soil
• Improve Environment
• Reduce Radiological Controls
* Conserve Disposal Space
* Enhance Accident Preparedness
Figure 5. Benefits
ENEWETAK ATOLL $140 M+
JOHNSTON ATOLL < $10 M
Figure 6. TRU Soil Cleanup Costs
150
-------
27. RADIUM CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE SUMMARY
Shawn W. Googins, CHP
Environmental Protection Agency
The Radium Chemical Company (RCC) site is located in a light industrial and
residential neighborhood in the Borough of Queens, New York, The site is at
60-06 27th Avenue, Woodside, and is immediately adjacent to the Brooklyn
Queens Expressway, a major highway through the New York City area. It
includes a 10,120-ft building, with 7,850 ft contaminated above New York
State (NYS) limits for unrestricted release, and 4,000 ft of surrounding
land.
The RCC leased radium sources to hospitals, research facilities, and
industrial firms throughout the United States and prepared radioluminous
paints containing radium and tritium. The company moved to this site in 1955,
abandoning another radioactively contaminated site at 235 East 44th Street,
Manhattan, New York. During RCC's operations at the Woodside site it is
estimated that approximately 1 Ci of radium sources was lost from the facility
during shipment. Some of the lost sources were later recovered from the
streets of New York City. The facility became an Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) removal action in 1985, at the request of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation after the New York State Court
declared the company abandoned.
Preliminary investigations indicate that contaminants include Ra-226, tritium,
Sr-90 and various chemicals. The Ra-226 consists of about 120 Ci of sources
previously used for cancer therapy, well logging, and research. Approximately
8 Ci of this are in the form of Ra-Be neutron sources. There is an
undetermined quantity of powdered radium in paints, salts, solutions, and
watch dials. There is an unknown quantity of tritium as tritiated water and
in watch dials. Air sampling and smear surveys show that tritium is not a
significant problem at the site; levels are either nondetectable or below NYS
limits for unrestricted use. There is 50 mCi of Sr-90 present in eye
applicator sources. Chemicals of concern at the site include hexanes,
lacquers, hydroxymethylcellulose, 200 to 500 Ib of mercury, ether, phosphoric
acid, miscellaneous acids, bases, solvents, and approximately 300 lab pack
containers.
Radiological contamination was found throughout the building interior, on the
rooftop, and in the soil and storm drains. Alpha levels and exposure rates
were particularly high in the glove box room, the vault, and the shipping
area.
Radon levels range from 1 to 500 pCi/L inside the building; outside ambient
air readings are between 0.5 and 0.8 pCi/L. Soil on the facility grounds
ranges from 0.9 to 37 pCi/g, with 58 percent of the readings below 5 pCi/g and
15 percent greater than 15 pCi/g. Sediment from the storm drains ranges from
200 to 400 pCi/g.
151
-------
RADIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Location
Exterior:
Walls
Rooftop
Interior:
Shipping area
Repair room
Work shop
Glove box room
Vault
Offices
Exposure Rate
raR/h
0.02 to 4.0
0.1 to 50
0.1 to 50
3.0 to 25
0.5 to 300
0.5 to 50
100 to 5000
0.03 to 0.2
Alpha Levels
dpro/lOOcin*
general < 33
hot spots 600
50 to 1,200
200 to 7,200
100 to 99,000
200 to 480,000
52,000
Upon taking over site management at the request of the State, EPA established
site security measures and developed contingency plans in cooperation with
local officials. Security measures included exclusion of the owner and
employees from the site and installation of a perimeter fence and a CCTV
surveillance system. Contingency planning with State and local officials
included conducting a dose assessment for potential accident scenarios, review
of State and local emergency plans, and providing instruction to local
ambulance, fire, police, and hospital emergency room personnel.
Trailers have been brought on site to provide work areas, offices, laboratory
facilities, and storage space. The existing exhaust system for the building
has been secured and capped; a HEPA ventilation system has been installed,
tested, and is in operation. Shielding and remote manipulators are used where
necessary for source handling. A remote video system has been installed in
the high radiation areas. Site radiological work practices include
airlocks, frisking, protective clothing, respiratory protection, step off and
sticky pads, and a Radiation Work Permit system. All activities involving
radiation exposures are preplanned to keep exposures as low as reasonably
achievable.
Environmental monitoring at the site includes air monitoring (of radon,
particulates, and exhaust system), surface contamination surveys, and exposure
rate surveys. The onsite laboratory is equipped with a gross alpha/beta
system, liquid scintillation, and gamma spectroscopy (Hyperpure or Intrinsic
germanium).
152
-------
28. LANDFILL CLOSURE TECHNOLOGY
Thomas E. Hakonson
Los Alamos National Laboratory
The Environmental Science Group (ESG) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
has been carrying out research projects to develop and evaluate technology to
address some of the problems associated with Shallow Land Burial (SLB) of
radioactive wastes. Much of the research findings and evolving technology are
also applicable to similar problems encountered in landfill disposal of
municipal, industrial, and hazardous solid wastes. This research, started in
1981, was funded by the Department of Energy's Low-Level Waste Management
Program.
SLB typically involves burial of the wastes in trenches, usually with some
backfill and a final cover. The site is then revegetated to control erosion
and for aesthetic appearance. SLB sites for radioactive materials must be
designed and constructed so as to perform satisfactorily for long periods of
time without the need for continuing post-closure maintenance; 200 to 1000
years for the inactive uranium mill tailings remediation projects. Problems
encountered to date or anticipated at these disposal sites include
precipitation or surface water intrusion with contaminated leachate
subsequently reaching local aquifiers, erosion of the cover material, and
subsidence. While vegetation serves to control erosion and enhance the
aesthetics of the site, penetration of plant roots through the cover, into the
backfill and waste, compromise the integrity of the pile by providing conduits
for water penetration into the pile. Vegetation can also mobilize waste and
bring it to the ground surface by physiological uptake. Some of these
processes affecting the integrity of waste sites are shown in figure 1.
A major difficulty in designing a suitable SLB facility is the lack of
reliable and comprehensive data for the various elements of the disposal cell.
In particular, sufficient information is not available to predict the
long-term performance of various cover materials, designs, and construction.
This is of critical importance in evaluating the potential for infiltration of
precipitation and surface waters into and through the piles and radon
emanations from the piles.
The Los Alamos Experimental Engineered Test Facility was established on an
8.6 ha site at LANL (figure 2) for field research to develop basic information
on physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting SLB site operations.
The end product is user-oriented engineering manuals with an emphasis on
biointrusion barriers, migration barriers, and ground water and surface water
management systems. Current work is being done on Area B, an inactive waste
disposal site, (figure 3), intermediate scale, Integrated Systems test plot
(figure 4), and in two caisson clusters for investigating subsurface flow and
transport of chemicals (figure 5). These have allowed closely controlled and
monitored studies of the effects of various soil profiles, and vegetative
covers, on moisture regimes in a semi-arid area. Area B, a closed low-level
radioactive waste disposal site, has a 5 percent slope and southeast aspect.
Remediation in 1982 resulted in three distinct soil profiles across the site:
east, west, and cobble-gravel. The west profile is typical of landfill covers
153
-------
at Los Alamos, with about 15 cm of topsoil (Hackroy sandy clay loam) over
85 cm of crushed tuff. The east pjgafile has large amounts of topsoil mixed
in, giving it significantly higher water retention capacity. The "biobarrier"
profile, a layer of cobble and gravel (a barrier to capillary moisture flow
and biointrusion) is overlain by 45 cm of crushed tuff and 15 cm of topsoil as
shown in figure 6. Vegetative cover treatments (bare, grass, and shrubs) were
carried out on 8 x 24 m study plots that this site.
The Integrated Systems Test monitors water balance in an enhanced and a
conventional trench cap design. The plots, about 3 x 10 m, are constructed and
instrumented to provide data on runoff, soil water storage, and seepage. All
components of the water balance could be measured, with provision for
automated data acquisition for soil moisture. The enhanced cover design
results in a stable, low maintenance, and cost effective system for preventing
erosion, seepage, and biointrusion (see figures) compared to the conventional
design.
The two caisson clusters are each comprised of 6 experimental caissons 3 m in
diameter and 6 m deep, clustered around a central access and instrument
caisson. Five smaller caissons, 0.5 m in diameter, were placed in the
interstices. Access ports, spaced at intervals, allow access from the central
caisson to both the large and small diameter caissons for emplacement of
various test instruments and sensors and removal of soil and moisture samples
(see figures). These arrays are especially useful for independent variable
experiments.
The facilities have been utilized to carry out a wide range of field
experiments: testing of biointrusion barriers, migration barrier testing,
ground and surface water management systems, vegetation and cover designs, and
allowed the verification and validation of models.
154
-------
29. SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT OF
URANIUM-BEARING WASTES AND CONTAMINATED SOILS
Thomas F. Lomenick
Waste Management Technology Center, ORNL
Recent requirements affecting the management of uranium wastes Include:
- Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A which defines uranium waste
as low-level wastes (LLH) and specifies that the waste must meet
Federal, State, and local regulations,
- Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 40 CFR 193, which is expected
to identify uranium wastes as LLW and specify that no individual
receives a total dose greater than 25 mrem/yr as a result of these
wastes.
The Uranium Task Force was established to provide an integrated and
coordinated approach to the new and proposed, regulator-approved and
performance-based systems for the disposal of uranium wastes. The Task Force
goals were to:
- assess present uranium waste management practices at each facility;
- identify principal uranium waste problems;
- determine and define technical and other options for problem
resolution;
- recommend a plan of action that relates to innovative technologies,
regulatory and environmental initiatives, and the DOE-wide model
approach to waste problem solutions.
Uranium Task Force reports cover facility descriptions; waste generation;
waste identification, processing, and treatment; waste transportation; and
waste storage and disposal.
A Workshop on the Management of Uranium-Bearing Wastes was sponsored by Martin
Marietta Energy Systems and Nuclear Assurance Corporation on May 5, 1988, at
Oak Ridge, TN. There were 131 attendees from government, industry, and
academia. The workshop focused on a generalized approach to
processing/recycling, treatment, storage/disposal, and
regulatory/environmental protection. Solutions do not lie with any single
organization, but must be found through joint participation by affected
states, EPA, DOE, NRC, expert consultants, industry, environmental groups, and
the public.
Uranium-bearing waste management is unique in that the generated quantities
are great and the material is extremely long lived. General guidelines
Include:
155
-------
- The 1988 deliberations and decisions are riot final solutions but are
progressive steps to meet current needs and guidelines.
- Our society is not risk-free, and it is not possible to work from the
standpoint of zero release.
- Some reasonable release number above zero should be adopted and
defended so that operating standards can be developed.
- Storage in concrete vaults etc. cannot be the long-range solution.
PROCESSING AND RECYCLING
The processors are conscious of environmental concerns and are more committed
to environmental improvements in this area than is commonly acknowledged.
They are aware of processing technology that will have improved environmental
consequences, but processors need to have greater input in planning and
decision-making. Problem areas include a critical need to reduce or eliminate
aqueous wastes; existing antiquated facilities that present problems in
reducing waste generation and reluctance to replace well-established
processes; and efficient handling of wastes is commonly at odds with meeting
production schedules.
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) wastes would be handled as sanitary landfill
materials. Higher concentrations of wastes would be treated utilizing
cement-based solidification processes and placed in concrete bunkers. The
highest concentrations of wastes (which would exist in small quantities) would
be emplaced in deep geologic formations or into the subsurface in arid/dry
environments.
Long half-life materials should not be buried near the land surface when
concentrations are above regulatory concern.
Depleted uranium (bulk metal, but not sludges and wastes of high volume and
low concentration) is a resource.
In weighing the advantages of storage versus disposal of uranium wastes,
storage is currently more attractive because of capital outlays. With less
available space and larger inventories, disposal would be viewed more
favorably.
NEED FOR BRC VALUE
The group recognized that the time has come for determination of a BRC value.
Both the regulators and the waste managers are in favor of a BRC; limits must
be established. As justification for BRC, it was reported that as much as
80 percent of the waste generated at Y-12 could fall into that category. This
material could be safely disposed of in landfills with the understanding that
derived doses would be well below a reference standard such as the 4-mrem/yr
drinking water standard. BRC values are starting to surface in some parts of
156
-------
the country; Texas, for example, has established BRC values for certain
low-level wastes, and EPA has proposed a 4-mrem/yr standard 1n 40 CFR 193.
Future DOE orders may address BRCs.
RESOLUTION OF WASTE TREATMENT ISSUES
Incineration was identified as an innovative and emerging technology that
offers a relatively low-cost method for reducing the volume of much
uranium-bearing wastes by factors of 100:1 or more, converting it to a
homogenous, relatively inert residue.
Box monitors (curie counters) large enough to accept bags or boxes of waste
5 or 6 ft in volume will facilitate sorting and segregation of waste. These
appear capable of adequately assaying uranium-bearing wastes at concentrations
of a few picocuries/gram. Present decontamination practices include the use of
nitric or citric acid by the Portsmouth GDP for machinery decontamination.
Bioprocessing appears capable of removing 80 to 90 percent of the uranium
content in liquid waste streams.
It appears that adequate durability/stability of some waste forms and
solidification products; e.g., vitrification and possibly some cement-based
solidification, over a 1000-year time horizon is achievable.
Waste Management Technology Center held a Workshop on the Management of
Contaminated Soils at Knoxville, TN, on November 10, 1988; sessions covered
present practices, characterization, regulations, and interim and
performance-based policies.
Figure 1. Uranium Managment Cycle in DOE System
157
-------
GENERATION REDUCTION
(INCLUDES, BUT HOT LIMITED TO
FEED METAL RECYCLE)
LOCALLY BRC
UNTREATED WASTE
LANDFILL
TO BE LOCALLY BRC
AFTER TREATMENT
TREATMENT
LANDFILL
WASTE SEPARATION
U-ULU
DETERMINE
CONTAMINATION
LEVEL DISTRIBUTION
STORAGE
To DISPOSAL
1
REMOTE
SITE
BRC
(COULD
•E ANOTHER
DOE SITE AT
A DEPLETED
URANIUM MINE
SITE, OR?)
I
' TRA'SH
RECYCLE
Destruction of organic* o
o .Flexible for any type
waste
o Final remediation for o
•11 organic*
o Low capital costs o
o Low operating/mgt. costs
a Mobile (flexible) o
o High processing rates o
o Lou unit rates
o
o Low capital costs
o Volatiles work veil
Limited by valence
fora of certain aetals
High operating/
maintenance costs
Capital intense
Permitting difficult
Reclamation
Can't handle wood,
resin beads
Increase is volume
Hay not be final
xeaediatioa
Hot applicable fox
certain organic*
Difficult to prove
effectiveness
Difficult to get
uniform flow
Not for octals
Must be dry
Air emissions v
Bloreoediation
o Low costs
o Non-volatile
o
o
o
Generally at shallow
depths
Hg volatility in high
concentrations
Liaited applications
Table 1. Soil Treatment Techniques
158
-------
30. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Richard J. Guimond
Environmental Protection Agency
This workshop was developed by the Office of Radiation Programs and the Office
of Emergency & Remedial Response as a result of requests from the Regional
Offices. There are growing concerns in regard to the problems being
encountered in the treatment or disposal of the large volumes of radioactively
contaminated materials resulting from Superfund cleanups. Recent discussions
between EPA Administrator Reilly and DOE Secretary Watkins promise to enhance
coordination between the two agencies. There is a recognition that a lot is
going on in the remediation of the radioactively contaminated sites, a lot of
work is being done and experience gained, and we aren't always sure that we
are doing enough coordination and integration to ensure that we achieve the
most cost-effective cleanup.
The talks during the past two days demonstrate that we have quite an array of
problems, a wide variety of sites with many different contamination issues.
This is our first meeting held to address the full scope of radioactively
contaminated sites and compare notes on what remediation methods we have used.
Meetings such as this give us the opportunity to share our experience and gain
insight as to which technologies and procedures show the most promise.
Hopefully, this will help make everyone's job a bit easier in the future.
Through sharing our experiences, we can gain the maximum benefit between the
EPA and DOE programs and thereby facilitate both the Superfund and the DOE
cleanups. It would be easy for our two agencies to each go their own way and
plow down separate paths. I would like these meetings to become a regular
feature of our programs, we need more discussion of our problems, ideas, and
solutions.
Expectations for our program are high and we must be sensitive to public
perceptions in our remediation activities. We should recognize that people
fear that which they do not understand or have confidence in and ensure that
the investigation, planning and remediation processes are open and the public
kept fully informed. We must work hard to gain the public's confidence;
unfortunately we don't have it yet. It is important to remember that public
confidence is easily lost and, once lost, is tough to regain. In each new
project or program work hard from the beginning to build confidence and never
lose it.
Where do we go from here? One thing we can do is build a network with other
agencies, contractors, and within EPA to deal with these problems. We can
develop mechanisms, procedures, and processes for better coordination and
problem resolution. Finally, a group should be created within ORP to help in
these matters. The group should consist of our staff and key contractors; it
would help provide quick turnaround support to Superfund and RCRA staffs in
the Regions and States on risk assessment, modeling, radiochemical analyses,
quality control, and evaluation of ARARs.
159
-------
30.1 PANEL: LISTING AND RANKING OF RADIOACTIVE SITES
Steve Caldwell
Environmental Protection Agency
Kathryn A. Higley
Department of Energy
MR. CALDWELL: We are revising the Hazard Ranking System (MRS) to operate at
different tiers of information and utilize better data where available.
Concern has been expressed about how the HRS considers radioactive materials
in evaluating sites. We are considering alternatives to the December proposal
and working with the Office of Radiation Programs for technical support. The
new HRS should provide a far better system to deal with radioactive
problems than the present system.
We are implementing the revised HRS even though it is not final. Except for
the sites already in the pipeline, we will not use the old HRS anymore. We
realize that some changes will be required, but data collection efforts now
under way should be geared towards the data elements in the revised HRS.
MS. HIGLEY: We have noted that remediation is done in part to limit potential
impact to the public. Unfortunately, costs of remediation have increased
substantially, and we may be faced with assigning priorities in allocating
cleanup funds. MEPAS, the Multi-Media Environmental Pollutant Assessment
System, is a tool designed for DOE to determine priorities .among its
environmental problems.
Contaminants introduced into the environment can move through four major
transport routes: overland, ground water, surface water, and atmospheric.
The interrelationships between these transport pathways are very complex and
not always obvious. Even though it's difficult, these need to .be accounted
for when evaluating or remediating a site.
MEPAS was designed to assist in site evaluation: to evaluate and address
potential impacts and provide a relative ranking of sites:;.o It's based on
potential health impacts and has been used by the DOE in several hundred
rankings at major facilities. MEPAS focuses on significance and computes
relative risk to people using analytical, semi-analytical, and empirical
equations to calculate contaminant movement through the environment.
The code starts with the source term and computes transport through air,
overland, ground-water, and surface water components. It considers exposure
of potential receptors - exposure to people through ingestion of food, water,
inhalation of air, or as direct radiation - and computes a relative risk
score. The exposure pathways of concern are similar to those in Rad Guide
1.109 but also include aquatic foods, drinking water ingestion, farm
products, deposition of contaminants to vegetation, recreation, showering,
ingestion of contaminated soils, and inhalation.
The code calculates a lifetime average exposure of .individuals to
radionuclides, chemical carcinogens, and chemical noncarcinogens. For
160
-------
radionuclides, it computes an ICRP 2630 effective dose equivalent, based on
lifetime exposure. For chemical carcinogens, it looks at lifetime average
intake and milligrams per kilogram per day, using the EPA-developed cancer
potency factors to project cancer risk. For noncarcinogenic chemicals, it
compares exposure (lifetime averages in milligrams per kilogram per day) to
reference dose limits to compute a relative impact assessment. It's a
population-weighted score and considers total population at risk through all
listed pathways. It can also look at the time of arrival of contaminants to
pathways of concern and generate the Hazard Potential Index - a relative
indication of impact.
The HPI score reflects the site, the constituent characteristics-chemical
carcinogens, radioactive constituents, noncarcinogens - the toxicity of these
particular compounds, and their ability to migrate in the environment. It is
a transport and exposure code; it calculates release from a waste site, for
example, using site-specific data to indicate the migration potential. The
HPI score, a population-weighted risk score, provides a relative measure of
impact. It's not a risk assessment per se but does indicate relative
potential impact between sites.
This code runs on an IBM PC AT or compatible system. We've developed a
user-friendly shell which helps the user define the particular transport
pathways of concern. The computer generates worksheets or data input
requirements that identify needed data. For a low-level waste site, this
could include the depth to ground water, the type of soil cover, velocity of
the ground water, and constituents of concern. Parameters can be entered
directly, and the shell will create run files, which can then be reviewed for
QA or QC before the shell runs the code.
To summarize, MEPAS has been used by the DOE at many of the DOE sites. It is
available on an IBM PC. It provides an indication of relative impact by going
through a traditional transport and exposure evaluation.
[Discussion/question from group]
RESPONSE: MEPAS was designed to be used by DOE after sites are listed on the
NPL. Because it's a computer code, it can be used in an interactive fashion.
The better data you have, the more accurate the result should be. It's
designed to use readily available information - e.g., USGS data and
meteorological data from airports - so that actual sampling is minimized.
[Discussion/question from group]
RESPONSE: The initial use of the code was to provide a population-weighted
relative risk score. We can also generate maximum individual scores through
each of the pathways of concern. We looked at the issue of addressing
environmental degradation but that's very complex and costly. L •*'$ no
easy way to compare deaths of nematodes vs. bunny rabbits vs. peopu
[Discussion/question from group]
161
-------
RESPONSE: Removal actions are taken in part because of the urgency of the
problem. Virtually all evaluation systems look at risk somewhat independent of
the time scale. RAPS/MEPAS has a long-term discounting effect. In terms of
real urgency, you're talking in terms of days, weeks, months, couple of years.
None of the systems that I'm familiar with try to get that extra dimension
into the system, and I feel it would be very difficult to account for that in
a set of objective factors. Such determinations are usually very
site-specific and, while not necessarily subjective, are decisions to ba made
by experts.
[Discussion/question from group]
RESPONSE: Currently MEPAS has been limited to use in the environmental
survey. I don't know how MEPAS would factor into the 5-year plan. In
allocating funding, the assessment of potential impact to people is only part
of the decision in remediation priorities. Defense Programs have used input
from MEPAS in conjunction with other information to schedule programs.
162
-------
30.2 PANEL: PROBLEMS IN INVESTIGATION/CHARACTERIZATION
Charles Phillips
Environmental Protection Agency
William N. Fitch
Bureau of Mines
Donald MacDonald
UNC Geotech
Lowell Ralston
S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
MR. RALSTON; The Office of Radiation Programs, working with Superfund, drafted
a manual for characterizing radiologically contaminated sites. This will
provide site managers with agency-approved, detailed, health physics-based
guidelines for characterizing threats posed by sites contaminated with
radioactive materials. The manual includes or references specific protocols
for conducting radiation surveillance, sampling and analysis, for health and
safety programs, for exposure and toxicity assessments, and for risk
characterization-all to be factored into decision making for the site.
Radionuclides are seldom adequately covered in existing Superfund manuals.
Lacking detailed information, the RPMs characterize on a site-by-site basis.
Because the characterizations differ, the risk assessments differ in their
quality, and this can affect site remediation decisions. Our philosophy in
drafting guidance is to work with site managers to provide tools needed to
identify radiation problems and sources of assistance. In using the manual,
project managers should consult with health physicists or other appropriate
experts for assistance. It is not a cookbook; there is flexibility for
professional judgment.
A draft was circulated to regional radiation offices and ORP laboratories of
EERF and Las Vegas for comment and is now being extensively revised. We're
reviewing the technical literature and a second draft is scheduled, hopefully,
by September. We need advice on the types of guidance needed in this area.
[Discussion/questions from the group]
RESPONSE: We're currently looking at addressing mixed wastes. An overriding
question is whether to sample once or twice - once for chemicals and once for
radioactive materials. Do chemical labs have the permits necessary to handle
radioactive materials? Do radioactive labs have the necessary tools and
equipment on hand to analyze for chemicals?
MR. FITCH: As a PRP, I'd like to see this manual address some of the things
that seem to have been omitted in many site surveys. We made decisions
thinking we had a small problem based on a site characterization and finding
as the problem unfolded that it was much larger. From the presentations
during the past 2 days, our site is not unique; this is a common problem at
radiological sites. A second question for the group is the applicability of
techniques based on uranium defense systems or atomic power systems to other
types of sites. Some things have happened with radium that seem quite
163 ;
-------
different than the experience of UMTRAP. Do the techniques provide adequate
information at depths on these sites? I have seen a lot of surface surveys,
and often, when we got in there, we found there were other things to deal
with. The task force should look at verification of technology. From my
perspective, I see quite a few limitations in those techniques. We have a
mixed waste site and are in the process of paying for people to go back and
drill holes beside where they drilled them 4 years ago.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. The original cost estimates on these sites are
usually about a tenth of what we end up spending, at best, so Bill's point is
well taken.
[Discussion/questions from the group]
RESPONSE: One problem in site characterization is that a decision is made
assuming there are 5 Ib of contaminated material and then you find that there
are really 5.000; that changes the decision you would have made.
MR. MACDONALD: How do you know when the site is clean? I will talk about the
other end of the cycle, some of the things we've done in Grand Junction on
vicinity properties to determine when the standard is met. Gauging each
characterization to the site, as we did at vicinity properties in Grand
Junction, is critical. We don't do 100 percent assessment on 4,000
properties. We do historical research and plan an assessment of between 60
and 80 percent. We can do this because we are dealing only with Ra-226
and daughter products. The key is to plan the characterization and
assessment individually for each site.
We use several methods to determine when a property is clean so we can start
the restoration process and return the property to its owner. We've created
mobile field laboratories; we "can" samples and do a prompt radium and soil
analysis in the field. We use two sodium iodide crystals opposed in a lead
pig, something that can be built for under $10,000. We "can" a sample and
read it out on a multichannel analyzer. Each mobile van is calibrated with
the laboratory onsite. Also, we do verification samples; every sample
that we "can" is taken back to the laboratory and run through the gamma
spectrometer to confirm the field readings. We have found it difficult to
calibrate or correlate gamma readings with radium and soil measurements.
Initially, we used just gamma measurements in the field, trying to compare
counts per second to the radium content of the soil. We felt that we were
doing a lot of over-excavating because of that, costly excavation of clean
material. Working with the Colorado Department of Health,1 we developed this
system of prompt radium and soil measurements in the field to guide our
remedial actions, control costs, and reduce the amount of over-excavating.
This is important in view of the costs - $300 a ton to dispose of contaminated
material. Inevitably you're going to mix some clean and contaminated
material. Limiting that by rapid measurements without rial aying-the contractor
is something to keep in mind.
164
-------
MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to continue to do In situ assessments and it
behooves us to do the best job we can. I don't think the total thing is in
this assessment. In a lot of cases, the assessment's done and then the rules
change. An example is structures with alpha contamination; in most cases the
entire structure and its contents are contaminated. Micro, as well as macro,
assessments are needed to identify the chemical and physical nature of the
contaminant, host material, and associated mineralogy.
165
-------
30.3 PANEL: ARE STANDARDS ADEQUATE?
Larainne G. Koehler
Anthony B. Wolbarst
Environmental Protection Agency
MR. WOLBARST: Jack Russell and I are project officers in the Guides and
Criteria Branch, developing criteria and/or standards to address the problem
of residual radiation. EPA is responsible for setting standards to safeguard
health and the environment, when nuclear power plants are cleaned up and
released for unrestricted use and when Savannah River is cleaned up and opened
to the public as a game park. We set criteria and standards for
decontamination and site cleanups. How clean is clean? At present, those
criteria and standards don't exist; however, we're beginning to lay the
groundwork. Production of guidance and standards is a major concern of our
office, and we ane looking at several possible approaches.
Radiation protection programs in the United States stem from principles,
policies, and guidance approved by the President. The first was prepared by
the Federal Radiation Council and signed by President Eisenhower in 1960.
That allowed a worker-exposure of 3 rem/quarter. Members of the general
public could receive 500 mrem/yr. From 1960 to 1987, this controlled the
exposure of both workers and the general public.
In 1987, President Reagan signed the "Radiation Protection.Guidance to Federal
Agencies for Occupational Exposure." Regulations of Federal agencies such as
DOE, NRC, and OSHA must be consistent with this guidance. The guidance is
essentially an extension of 1CRP 26 and consists of 10 recommendations that
endorse the need for justification and optimization. It elevates the ALARA
principle to a fundamental principle of radiation protection, emphasizing
limitation of dose to the worker and control of the workplace, so as to ensure
that workers will not exceed a certain intake of radionuclides. It also
covers other exposure areas such as members of the public, exposure to the
unborn, people under 18, monitoring, and so on.
However, this does not control nuclear power plants. A revised version of
10 CFR 20, consistent with this, will be issued soon to provide better worker
protection. An interagency workinig group of 12 Federal agencies is developing
new Federal guidance for protection of members of the general public. This is
1n a preliminary phase and is expected to contain recommendations concerning
justification, optimization of some sort, and possibly a 100-mrem limit
for members of the general public.
Another issue is development of criteria and standards for residual radiation.
There may be a recommendation made for setting authorized limits for sources
or categories of sources; limits for categories of sources such that all
sources together will not lead to an exposure of greater than 100 mrem.
There are no cleanup standards or criteria for the release of contaminated
sites for unrestricted public use after cleanup. The ad hoc process leads to
Inconsistent cleanups, some of which have to be redone. It's a problem which
clearly has to be remedied. EPA is considering criteria and standards for
166
-------
cleanup of NORM, power plants, and other facilities and for the disposal of
the resulting material. The problems are complicated and solutions are
not clear.
This is at an early phase, and we would like your suggestions and input.
Optimistically, the notice of proposed rulemaking for guidance for exposure
limits to the general public might come out later this year, and the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for guidance for cleanup levels might come out in
1990 or 1991. That would be Federal guidance, not standards. This would be
followed by the NPR for standards in 1991 or 1992 and advance notice for
man-made and NORM disposal in 1992 or so.
Issues involved in setting these criteria include: determining the optimal
cost/benefit balance, consideration of present and future individual risks,
collective risks and cost to society, and forms that the criteria should take.
There is a large variety of sites to be cleaned for unrestricted use. These
vary in the activities involved, the lifetimes, chemical combinations, and so
on. Should there be distinctions between new sites, active sites, and closed
sites? The latter are generally far more expensive to treat. Should we try
to develop guidance or standards? To what extent should we rely on
institutional controls? Finally, of significant economic importance is the
issue of recycling of equipment; e.g., valuable materials--copper pipes,
nickel, and so on.
MS. KOEHLER: You've heard about some of the sites in Region 2, such as the
Montclair/Glen Ridge site, and the problems New Jersey had in disposing of
soil from that site. We needed to get houses below health criteria and were
looking at technology and the limiting health-based values. The mill tailing
standards are based on what is reasonably feasible for radon mitigation and,
while legally applicable only to mill tailings, are frequently used as
appropriate and relevant - ARAR - for cleanup at these sites. Is the next
step gamma radiation? Ingestion potential? We had recommendations and
reports from CDC looking at ingestion of soils from these yards. The mill
tailings standards do not address these issues. Potentially, a health-based
cleanup criteria would have to address such issues,
In one sense, we are in better shape than people dealing with sites that don't
have radium or thorium because the ARARs there are even fuzzier. The Niagara
Falls storage site has material like the K65 residues in the tanks at Fernald.
The DOE would like to treat this material as mill tailings arid bury it below
some lower-level waste. The activity of the material is a few hundred
thousand picocuries per gram radium; if it were transuranic, it would be
high-level waste. Are mill tailings disposal methods appropriate for material
of that high activity? The standards don't really cover this; it falls
between the cracks. The position of EPA Region 2 is that DOE has to justify
not being held to high-level waste standards. Since there's no disposal site
and interim action is not going to result in any short-term exposures, it's in
never-never land and unresolved.
At BOMARC, a site contaminated with plutonium from a weapons accident, the
question arises as to cleanup standards. Standards were proposed for
167
-------
transuranics In the late 1970s but were never made final. The draft standards
specified a screening level and perhaps restricting access, but never mandated
a cleanup. The applicability of the draft standards and cleanup levels is
uncertain at this time.
Thus, there are many problems with lack of standards or with misapplied
standards. For example, if you're going to use mill tailing standards as an
ARAR for a site, read the EIS and background documents. The magic 5-15
numbers were not designed to have large volumes of material at 5 or 15. In
the panel discussion on technologies you'll see that you get to a point where
you're no longer looking at cleaning up to what's very close to background
around houses. You're looking at treatment methods which will, hopefully,
result in small volumes of high-level material and some fairly large volumes
of material at the 10 and 15 level. Does that meet the intent of the mill
tailings standards?
168
-------
30.4 PANEL: TECHNOLOGIES - BEING DEVELOPED FAST ENOUGH?
Larry Coe
S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
Paul Shapiro
Environmental Protection Agency
Craig Timmerman
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Al Western
AUC, Inc.
MR. COE: During these past two days we've heard a lot about cleanup problems,
with solutions ranging from not too difficult to nearly impossible. We've
heard about waste forms varying from needles to building stones weighing a
couple of hundred pounds - soil, sludges, icky stuff, and liquids of all
kinds. The volumes have ranged, in cubic yards, from the hundreds to 2 with
nine zeros after it. We've zeroed in on waste treatment, including soil
washing, vitrification, chemical extraction, grouting, etc. The problem is
huge. Technology may help solve some of these very difficult problems,
and we have three people here to give their perspectives on technology.
MR. WESTERN: At Johnston Atoll, we adapted a hundred-year-old mining
technology to the nuclear industry, using a one-unit gravity difference to
separate a contaminant from soil particles. However, before we could apply
this technology on a production basis, we had to develop the radiation
detection capability to monitor a stream of dirt on a belt roughly a meter
wide, moving about 30 ft/min, down to levels below regulatory concern. That
was not an easy task—radiation detector technology has progressed over the
years, and we're down in the grass now. What we did was not new; we
applied other industry technologies to the nuclear side of the fence. Now
several other outfits are looking at adapting other technologies - e.g.,
flotation separation techniques. So, let's look around to see what other
technologies can be adapted with a little engineering to solve our
contamination problems.
MR. SHAPIRO: EPA's Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Demonstration is part of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and does
engineering research support across all agency programs. I'll start by
mentioning two reports we've been involved in recently. Last year, we
reviewed the technologies available for cleaning up radiologically
contaminated soils and found essentially what has been reported here, that
many of those technologies were proven on hazardous waste but never used to
clean up radioactively contaminated waste sites. During this past year,
a task-group from the Office of Radiation Programs, the Superfund program, and
ORD has characterized 25 EPA radiation sites, looking at the contaminated
matrixes (soil, water, and structures) and the nature of the contaminants.
Then we did an assessment and a rating, based on Superfund criteria, of the
effectiveness of technologies for remediating those pro' "ns at Superfund
sites.
169
-------
Both reports are available. We looked at the problem and, touching on a
recent issue here, it was impossible to separate technologies from sites. You
need to know something about what you're going to clean up - characterization
of the sites - to do a match with potential technologies.
The 1986 Superfund law authorized a program to demonstrate alternative
technologies for cleaning up Superfund sites, the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation, or SITE, Program. There are already about 10
demonstrations in the field, 2 of which have application for radiation sites.
One is Geosafe's in situ vitrification, the outcome of the Battelle process
developed by DOE funding. A second project that will start shortly is Retech
Technology's incineration process which that will be tested, first by EPA then
by DOE, in Butte. At the New Jersey sites, we've been pursuing a separata
type of SITE Program with the State to promote technology demonstrations on
cleanup at the Montclair/Glen Ridge sites.
We've started discussions with the Defense Programs part of DOE about their
Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Program, or HAZRAP, seeking to use their
capability and funding to develop new technologies. DOE would perform the
site demonstrations, and EPA would do the analyses. This may turn out to be a
perfect marriage.
Some technologies out there now are very likely to be usable - in situ
vitrification, incineration, and others. However, it's not clear what will
follow these, and R & D is needed now to provide a selection of new
alternatives in the future. We have an opportunity for research to develop
technologies under the 1991 budget; research proposals will be selected in
about 10 days. Because of the small number of sites, the Superfund office has
had little interest in this, so it is critical to inform the people in
headquarters of any research needed to develop and demonstrate technologies
for cleanup of these sites.
Rich Guimond discussed sharing information. We've recently developed the
Alternative Treatment Technology Clearinghouse (ATTC). Some of the agencies
and private organizations here collect information, and ATTC is one mechanism
for sharing information about technologies. Looking ahead, EPA is giving
increased attention to waste minimization or pollution prevention. There are
opportunities for funding some research to reduce future radioactive wastes,
to minimize future cleanup problems.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Battelle's Pacific Northwest Laboratory is a prime contractor
for DOE and numerous industrial clients, giving us the perspective of both
industry and government. An example of DOE's efforts in technology transfer
is in situ vitrification. ISV was develdped from concept to a commercial
company, Geosafe, over an 8-year period. In perspective, with the increased
governmental oversight related to safety* quality assurance, etc. such a
concept would probably take three times as long to develop today.
Related to our technology development, we do a lot of treatability studies.
EPA and the State recently came up with a small quantity exemption. This is a
positive step; in our research, we're dealing with very small quantities, at
170
-------
very minimal hazard to the environment. Before this exemption, we needed a
Part A permit to do gram-quantity tests.
Adaptation of technology to radioactive contamination problems is a two-way
street; many technology developments associated with the nuclear industry can
also be applied directly to mixed wastes and to the hazardous chemical waste
field.
[Discussion/questions from the group]
RESPONSE: Actually, there's not really a buildup; it's a fixed decay. We
have done two specific tests on wastes containing radium, mill tailings, and a
naturally occurring waste product. Based on these, the leach rate of
encapsulated material meets NRC standards for radioactive material. Also,
after vitrification, we see about a 10,000 or greater decrease in radon
emanation from the vitrified radium bearing waste. Radium is decaying to
radon within the glass structure but is physically contained and decays
without release of the radon.
171
------- |