EPA/600/R-13/124 | October 2013 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technologies to Improve
Efficiency of Waste Management
and Cleanup After an
ROD Incident
Standard Operational Guideline
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup
After an ROD Incident
Revision Number: 005
Issue Date: June 28, 2013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Homeland Security Research Center
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
Disclaimers
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
managed the research described here. This work was performed by Battelle under Contract No.
EP-C-11-038 Task Order 0002. It has been subjected to the Agency's review and has been
approved for publication. Note that approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views of the Agency.
The cleanup process described in this guidance does not rely on and does not affect authority
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.
This document is intended to provide information and suggestions that may be helpful for
implementation efforts and should be considered advisory. The guidelines in this document are
not required elements of any rule. Therefore, this document does not substitute for any statutory
provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself, so it does not impose legally-binding
requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community. The recommendations herein may not
be applicable to each and every situation.
Inclusion of any commercial products, companies, or vendors is for informational purposes only.
EPA and its employees do not endorse any products, services, or enterprises. Similarly,
exclusions or absence of specific references is merely an indication that information related to
that entity was not readily available during the development of this informational document.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
Paul Lemieux
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code E343-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-0962
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimers i
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Glossary viii
Acknowledgments xiii
1. I ntroduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the Standard Operational Guideline 2
1.2 Scope of the SOG 2
1.3 General Cleanup and Waste Management Methods 3
2. Planning Assumptions 6
2.1 Nature and Consequences of an ROD Attack 6
2.2 Estimated Waste Quantities and Radioactivity Levels Under the WARRP ROD
Scenario 6
2.3 Focus on Recovery 13
3. Response Management and Agency Roles/Responsibilities 14
4. Operational Concepts 16
5. Waste Management 21
6. ROD Incident Response Planning 23
7. Available Resources 24
8. Public Involvement 25
9. References 26
ANNEX A A-1
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
List of Figures
Figure 1. WARRP ROD scenario releases at U.S. Mint 7
Figure 2. WARRP ROD scenario - estimated number of contaminated structures in
area bounded by <15-millirem contamination zone 9
Figure 3. Estimated quantities and sources of waste from WARRP ROD scenario in
area bounded by <15-millirem contamination zone 10
Figure 4. Estimated breakdown of solid waste from WARRP ROD scenario in area
bounded by <15-millirem contamination zone 11
Figure 5. Average estimated activity concentration of waste from WARRP ROD
scenario in area bounded by <15-millirem contamination zone 12
Figure 6. Example of incident command structure for ROD incident 15
Figure A-1. Examples of manual survey in use A-5
Figure A-2. Samples of automated survey in use A-7
Figure A-3. Plowing can protect shallow rooted crops from contamination, but can also
reduce soil health. Plowing or digging can also be done by hand A-9
Figure A-4. Lawn mowing cuts grass or vegetation in order to remove contaminated
material A-10
Figure A-5. Sod cutter used to loosen soil, which will be removed later by larger
equipment A-11
Figure A-6. Scarification equipment can consist of large-scale equipment A-12
Figure A-7. Large-scale dig and haul equipment, versus smaller-scale equipment,
removes greater amounts of soil or landmass A-13
Figure A-8. Workers remove contaminated leaves and select vegetation A-14
Figure A-9. A street sweeper cleans the street surface without breaking the concrete A-15
Figure A-10. Street sweepers with vacuum attachments allow contaminated dust and
debris to be collected A-16
Figure A-11. Using pressure washing as a mitigation technology A-17
Figure A-12. Clean soil removed from the white building housing the SGS.and the SGS
detector systems shown on a conveyer belt A-18
Figure A-13. Soil washing machines can operate on-site to decontaminate soils A-19
Figure A-14. Composting contaminated animal carcasses by mixing them with various
feedstock, can create clean, remediated soils A-21
Figure A-15. Plasma arc systems for waste vitrification are effective A-22
Figure A-16. Soils or wastewater can be solidified, locking in contaminants in low-
permeability, high-strength blocks A-23
Figure A-17. Waste is collected in bags or drums before being incinerated A-25
Figure A-18. Zeolites and clays are quarried in very large quantities A-26
IV
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Figure A-19. IX can be used for the removal of radioactive ions from contaminated
wastewater A-28
Figure A-20. RO can remove radionuclides from a variety of waste streams A-30
Figure A-21. ED/EDR uses an IX membrane to separate ionic contaminants A-32
Figure A-22. Filtration membranes can come in any number of forms depending on the
particle size and pore size A-34
Figure A-23. Coagulation/filtration is used to remove particulates and turbidity from
surface water A-36
Figure A-24. AC is made from organic materials with high carbon contents such as
wood, lignite, and coal, and can be used in water treatment applications A-38
Figure A-25. Passive and active wastewater evaporation systems have been proven to
remove radionuclides from wastewater A-40
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal and Denver UASI Recovery Support Functions 13
Table 2. Phases of Response and Recovery Effort Following a Wide-area ROD
I ncident 17
Table 3. Technologies and Methodologies to Consider During Recovery Effort 18
Table 4. Decontamination Technologies and Relative Effectiveness 20
Table A-1. Technology Summary of Color Coding Against Each Criterion A-41
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
137Cs cesium-137
ASPECT Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology
BAT Best Available Technology
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CI/KR critical infrastructure/key resources
COTS commercial off-the-shelf
cm centimeter(s)
CST crystalline silicotitanate
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EBCT empty bed contact time
ED/EDR Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESF Emergency Support Function
FAST FIELDS Analysis and Sampling Tools
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIELDS Field EnvironmentaL Decision Support
FR Federal Register
FRMAC Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center
GAC granular activated carbon
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
HazMat hazardous material
Hazus-MH Hazards U. S. Multi-Hazard (modeling tool)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HMO Hydrous Manganese Oxide
HPGe high-purity germanium
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-WASTE Incident Waste Assessment and Tonnage Estimator
ICS Incident Command System
IX ion exchange
keV kiloelectron volt(s)
LLRW low-level radioactive waste
MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols
MeV megaelectron volt(s)
mm millimeter(s)
NCP National Contingency Plan
NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework
NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center (EPA)
NIMS National Incident Management System
VI
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
nm nanometer
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRF National Response Framework
NRIA Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex
OEM Office of Emergency Management (EPA)
OHS Office of Homeland Security (EPA)
ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (EPA)
ORD Office of Research and Development (EPA)
ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (EPA)
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OW Office of Water (EPA)
PPE personal protective equipment
PSI pounds per square inch
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDD radiological dispersal device
RID radionuclide identifier
RO reverse osmosis
RSF recovery support function
S/S stabilization/solidification
SGS Segmented Gate System
SME Subj ect Matter Expert
SOG Standard Operational Guideline
SPC sulfur polymer cement
SSCT Small System Compliance Technology
UASI Urban Area Security Initiative
UC Unified Command
UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans
USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture
WAC Waste Acceptance Criteria
WARRP Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program
WCIT Water Contaminant Information Tool
WEST Waste Estimation Support Tool
VII
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Glossary
The following terms are defined for purposes of this document.
Agency - A division of government with a specific function, or a non-governmental organization
(e.g., private contractor, business, etc.) that offers a particular kind of assistance. In the incident
command system (ICS), agencies are defined as jurisdictional (having a statutory role in incident
mitigation) or assisting and/or cooperating (providing resources and/or assistance).
Clearance - The process of determining that a cleanup goal has been met for a specific
contaminant in or on a specific site or item. Generally occurs after decontamination and before
reoccupancy.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) - The codification of the federal regulations published in
the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. Each
volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. See
http ://www. gpoaccess. gov/cfr/index. html.
Critical Infrastructure (CI) - Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital that the
incapacity or destruction of such may have a debilitating impact on the security, economy, public
health or safety, environment, or any combination of these matters, across any federal, state,
regional, territorial, or local jurisdiction.
Decontamination - The inactivation or removal of contaminants from surfaces by physical,
chemical, or other methods to meet a cleanup goal. For the purposes of this document,
decontamination does not include treatment of contaminated water or wastewater, or other
wastes.
Emergency - Any incident, whether natural or man-made, that requires responsive action within
hours to protect life or property. As defined in the Stafford Act, any occasion or instance for
which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and
local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or
to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States
(Per42U.S.C. 5122).
Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) - The federal official responsible for coordinating and
directing federal responses under subpart D, or the government official designated by the lead
agency to coordinate and direct removal actions under subpart E, of the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) (per 40 CFR 300.5). The specific duties of the OSC are provided in 40 CFR 300.120.
The federal OSC is predesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S.
Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), or U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
depending on the location and/or source of the release and may be designated by other federal
agencies under certain circumstances.
Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) - A multi-agency
response asset to assist state and local officials with monitoring, assessment, and health guidance
for nuclear/radiological incidents. The mission of the FRMAC is to coordinate and manage all
VIM
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
federal radiological environmental monitoring and assessment activities during a nuclear or
radiological incident, within the United States.
Federal Register (FR) - The official weekday publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices
of federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential
documents. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR.
Hazardous Waste - For the purposes of this guidance, a solid waste that may cause an increase
in mortality or serious illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed. See Solid Waste for the definition of a solid waste for the purposes of this guidance.
Incident - An occurrence, caused by either human action or natural phenomena, that may cause
harm and may require action. Incidents can include major disasters, emergencies, terrorist
attacks, terrorist threats, wild and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills, nuclear
accidents, aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war-related
disasters, public health and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an emergency
response.
Incident Command System (ICS) - A standardized on-scene emergency management construct
specifically designed to provide for the adoption of an integrated organizational structure that
reflects the complexity and demands of single or multiple incidents, without being hindered by
jurisdictional boundaries. ICS is a management system designed to enable effective incident
management by integrating a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and
communications operating within a common organizational structure, designed to aid in the
management of resources during incidents. It is used for all kinds of emergencies and is
applicable to small as well as large and complex incidents. ICS is used by various jurisdictions
and functional agencies, both public and private, to organize field-level incident management
operations. (From U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, 2008,
FEMA Publication P-692.)
Initial Response - Actions taken immediately following notification of a contamination incident
or release. In addition to search and rescue, scene control, and law enforcement activities, initial
response may include initial site containment, environmental sampling and analysis, and public
health activities, such as treatment of potentially exposed persons.
Key Resources (KR) - As defined in the Homeland Security Act, publicly or privately
controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) - Radioactive waste not classified as high-level
radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in
paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of the definition of by-product material set forth in 10 CFR 20.1003
(per 10 CFR 61.2). LLRW may contain either high or low concentrations of radioactivity.
In general practice, LLRW does not include naturally occurring radioactive material but does
include man-made material.
IX
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Mixed Waste - For the purposes of this guidance, waste that contains both hazardous waste and
source, special nuclear, or by-product material subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
National Contingency Plan (NCP) - Also called the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, the plan (40 CFR Part 300) that generally provides a blueprint for
carrying out response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and section 311 of the Clean Water Act. The NCP
is designed to provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective response to discharges of oil and
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The NCP describes the
organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) - Any device that causes the purposeful dissemination of
radioactive material across an area with the intent to cause harm, without a nuclear detonation
occurring.
Recovery - Those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover
effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing adequate
interim and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and community services;
promoting economic development; and restoring natural and cultural resources. (From U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework, FEMA publication,
September 2011).
Remediation - For the purposes of this guidance, when used in connection with hazardous
waste, all solid and hazardous wastes, and all media (including ground water, surface water,
soils, and sediments) and debris, that are managed for implementing cleanup. The cleanup
process described in this guidance does not rely on and does not affect authority under CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - A 1976 federal law (42 U.S.C. §6901 et
seq.) that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control
hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the
management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to
address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and
other hazardous substances.
Response - Immediate actions taken to save lives, protect property and the environment, and
meet basic human needs (see also Initial Response). Response includes the execution of
emergency plans and actions to support short-term recovery (see Recovery). (From U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, FEMA Publication
January 2008).
Solid Waste - For the purposes of this guidance, any garbage, refuse, or sludge from waste
treatment, water supply treatment, and air pollution control and other discarded materials from
industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Treatment - For the purposes of this guidance, when used in connection with hazardous waste,
any method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such
waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Treatment is not the same as
"decontamination." (See Decontamination).
Treatment technology - For the purposes of this guidance, any unit operation or series of unit
operations that alters the composition of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant
through chemical, biological, or physical means so as to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of
the contaminated materials being treated. Treatment technologies are an alternative to land
disposal of hazardous wastes without treatment. (See 55 FR 8819, March 8, 1990.) The
definition of treatment technology as defined in the NCP can be found at 40 CFR 300.5.
Waste Management - For the purposes of this guidance, the administration of activities that
include, but are not limited to, source reduction, waste minimization, waste segregation,
decontamination, recycling, transport, staging, storage, treatment, and disposal.
XI
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
This page is intentionally left blank.
XII
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff
members for their ongoing participation in this effort: Cayce Parrish (Office of Homeland
Security [OHS]), Daniel Schultheisz (Office of Radiation and Indoor Air [ORIA]), Emily Snyder
(Office of Research and Development [ORD]), Eugene Jablonowski (Region 5), James Michael
(Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery [ORCR]), James Mitchell (Region 5), Marissa
Lynch (Office of Water [OW]), Matthew Magnuson (ORD), Paul Kudarauskas (Office of
Emergency Management [OEM]), Terry Stilman (Region 4). We would also like to thank the
participants and presenters at the Subject Matter Expert (SME) Workshop in August 2012:
Argiz, Armando
Benerman, Bill
Cleveland, Gordon
Erickson, Dave
Evans, Leroy
Graham, Richard
Grove, Glenn
Hart, James
Hindman, James
Jablonowski, Eugene
Lemieux, Paul
Lloyd, Lisa
Michael, James
Moore, Ronnie
Mueller, Eric
O'Connor, Marian
Peterson, Phil
Schultheisz, Dan*
Snyder, Emily*
Steuteville, Bill
Stilman, Terry
Torstenson, Jared
Tupin, Edward
Buckley Air Force Base - OEM
Denver Environmental Health
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A)
Denver Environmental Health
Defense Coordinating Officer - Region 8
EPA Region 8
Adams and Jefferson County Hazardous Response Authority
Denver Fire Department Hazardous Materials (HazMat)
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
EPA Region 5
EPA National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC)
EPA Region 8
EPA ORCR
US - NORTHCOM
Buckley Air Force Base
CDPHE
CDPHE
EPA ORIA
EPA NHSRC
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
CDPHE
EPA ORIA
Contractors
Battelle Memorial Institute
Briese & Associates, LLC
Energy Solutions
Idaho National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories
Van Voris & Associates LLC
Wastren Advantage, Inc.
*Participated via telephone
XIII
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Finally, special thanks to the people who managed and facilitated all the Wide Area Recovery
and Resiliency Program (WARRP) project-related activities:
Lori Miller (Department of Homeland Security [DHS])
Chris Russell (formerly DHS, now government contractor)
Doug Hardy (U.S. Department of Defense [DoD])
Bill Ginley (DoD)
Bill Benerman (Denver Environmental Health)
Contractors: Briese & Associates, LLC
XIV
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in close coordination with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and
the Denver Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), has initiated the Wide Area Recovery and
Resiliency Program (WARRP).1 WARRP is designed to develop guidance to reduce the time and
resources required to recover a wide urban area (specifically, Denver) following a chemical,
biological, or radiological incident, including meeting public health requirements and restoring
critical infrastructure (CI), and key resources (KR) (both civilian and military) and high-traffic
areas. WARRP planning documents generated for the Denver UASI could potentially be used as
templates and adapted by other urban areas to plan for recovery from wide-area, all-hazards
incidents.
This Standard Operational Guideline (SOG) describes technologies that may be employed for
decontamination and cleanup in the aftermath of a radiological dispersal device (RDD) ("dirty
bomb" attack). Responding to such an incident may involve waste staging, screening,
segregation, treatment, transportation, and disposal. This document focuses on the application of
technologies to minimize the generation of waste and segregate waste by type and level of
contamination, which will facilitate further treatment and ultimate disposal. The Annex to this
document provides detailed information on each technology, including a qualitative ranking of
attributes significant to implementation, that will assist decision-makers in selecting the
appropriate technology(ies) for a given situation.
It is important to recognize that these or other technologies are likely to be selected within the
framework of an overall integrated decontamination strategy and waste management plan for the
response. Strategies and plans will depend on factors such as the exact nature of the contaminant
and the size of the contaminated area, the statutory and regulatory framework governing the
response, the timeline within which the response is operating, the resources available to
implement the response, cleanup goals, and decisions on final disposal locations. RDD waste
disposal decisions must protect public health and the environment, and the community
potentially receiving the waste must be provided with an opportunity to provide meaningful
input on receiving radioactive waste. These and other factors affecting the response involve
important policy considerations, which are beyond the scope of this document to address.
This document relies in part on previously published information by EPA and other federal
agencies, as well as institutional knowledge gained from existing programs such as EPA's
1 More information about WARRP planning objectives, guidance documents, and exercises and workshops among end
users/interagency partners can be found at http: //www.warrp. org. The WARRP program was based around developing planning
documents for the Denver UASI.
See Statement of Michael Shapiro, then - Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (July 25, 2000). Also see related letter from
Robert Perciasepe, then-EPA Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, and Timothy Fields, Jr., then-Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to The Honorable Clint Stennett, Minority Leader, Idaho
State Senate, June 26,2000.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Superfund program and from recent large-scale incidents (Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater
Horizon, Fukushima, etc.). State and local officials also have access to online guidance and
handbooks that may be considered for use when responding to a radiological incident. The intent
of this document is to provide information to any decision-maker, emergency management
planning organization, qualified radiological cleanup contractor, or recovery personnel involved
in waste management/minimization activities. For instance, Section 5 of this document provides
some basic information on preparing waste management plans that can be adapted to RDD
incidents.3
This SOG provides multi-level (federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local) response and recovery
information for a wide urban area (in this case, Denver) that could potentially be leveraged and
transit!oned to other parts of the United States and internationally. The cleanup process described
in this document does not rely on and does not affect authority under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
1.1 Purpose of the Standard Operational Guideline
The purpose of this SOG is to provide information on existing technologies and methodologies
that have the potential to enhance cleanup and reduce waste and/or waste management costs.
Appropriate use of cleanup technologies and tactics and effective field survey and screening will
improve the removal and management of contaminated materials and reduce radiation exposure.
Together, these technologies and methodologies may help to minimize wastes, segregate waste
streams, keep higher activity wastes separate from lower activity wastes, and ultimately
maximize the efficiency of the cleanup process.4
The information provided in this SOG is not an endorsement or recommendation of any specific
technology by any agency or individual. Appropriate technologies will be selected by the
involved decision-makers according to the needs of the specific incident. Many of the
technologies and methodologies described in this document have very specific or limited
application. Others have had only limited testing or have been tested for applications other than
an RDD attack. Some may be effective for one radionuclide and not for another. A wide-area
RDD cleanup would likely employ many or all of these technologies and methodologies in
different locations or at different times to achieve the overall cleanup goals. Many of the
technologies and methodologies also would have to be field-tested during a response to fully
evaluate their effectiveness and application. All of the technologies impact in some way the
waste management of the response and recovery to the RDD.
1.2 Scope of the SOG
The SOG is intended to provide decision-makers with a summary of cleanup and waste
management technologies that may be applicable in response to an RDD incident. However,
3 For the purposes of this SOG, waste management includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: source reduction, waste
minimization, waste segregation, decontamination, recycling, transport, staging, storage, treatment, and disposal.
4 Waste management costs are likely to represent a significant proportion of the cost of facility decommissioning and may be a
significant consideration in responding to an RDD attack. This document discusses waste management approaches that may
improve cost-effectiveness while achieving an appropriate level of public health protection, thereby allowing additional resources
to be dedicated to decontamination and remediation.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
cleanup and waste management decisions are expected to be made within the scope of the overall
response. Section 1.3 identifies general cleanup and waste management methods. Sections 2
through 8 of the SOG provide a general summary of other factors and considerations that
decision-makers should consider in selecting cleanup and waste management technologies.
These sections are deliberately general in nature so that responding organizations can insert or
reference more detail or local, incident-specific operational information. Section 9 lists
references cited in this SOG. Annex A provides detailed descriptions of technologies for
decision-makers to consider when planning and implementing waste management activities as
part of a radiological incident.5
Annex A also lists a set of criteria (e.g., During the WARRP Decon-13 Subject Matter Expert (SME)
time to implement, availability) to be Meeting held on August 14-15, 2012, several technologies listed
considered when evaluating these in the Annex were scored against each criterion and assigned a
technologies The criteria can be low/not advantageous (red), medium/neutral (yellow), or
subjective or objective and can be high/advantageous (green) designation Data have been presented
J ic • consistently in a standard format to facilitate comparisons between
impacted by several tactors, including technology options. These results are being carried forward in this
(1) type of radionuclide; (2) type of SOG; however, the ranking of the technology options should be
surface or bulk media (building, soil, considered only the opinion of the SMEs attending the meeting and
road, trees, water or other liquids); and are not prescriptive in nature.
(3) desired cleanup level goal. As stated .... , . . , . . . ,. , , . .
^ ,. ^111- 1 Wastewater cleanup/waste minimization technologies were
earlier, many of the technologies and identified as an e,ement of the overa|, project after the SME
methodologies would also have to be meeting; hence, their color coding was not developed until later.
field-tested during a response to fully The criteria and discussion from the other types of technologies
evaluate their effectiveness and ^om tne SME Meeting were used to prepare the color coding in the
application. Annex-
1.3 General Cleanup and Waste Management Methods
The following general methods and options were considered during the development of the SOG
to enable the segregation, separation, and reduction of waste. The technologies listed in Annex A
are consistent with one or more of these methods:
• Enhanced surveying. RDD plume maps tend to be deceptive because they indicate
uniform and declining concentrations over distance. Topography, structures, and
vegetation are expected to result in localized areas of higher or lower concentration of
radioactive material within the overall pattern of radioactive material distribution.
Improved surveying may enable focused cleanup of specific areas where contamination
is greater, which allows areas with little or no contamination to be addressed at a later
time.
• Hot spot removal. An RDD attack will likely result in a small area of higher-
concentration/higher-activity wastes (hot zone) immediately surrounding and
immediately downwind of the blast. These higher-activity wastes may be contaminated
with radionuclides at levels consistent with Class B or C low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW).6 Beyond this area of higher-activity waste, it is anticipated that the remaining
5 Waste minimization is defined as the minimization of the generation of radioactively contaminated waste through action such as
segregating waste types and controlling the spread of radioactivity.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defines classes of low-level radioactive waste at 10 CFR 61.55.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
contaminated materials will be significantly less concentrated. Hot spot removal also has
applications outside the hot zone. Air deposition may result in uneven contamination
(e.g., back yards may have significant contamination, while front yards may not be
impacted and drainage channels may be more impacted than the surrounding property).
In some cases, cleaning up only the areas of higher contamination may achieve cleanup
goals. In other cases, focusing on hot spots may be sufficient to allow continued
occupancy until final cleanup is completed, or it may allow critical infrastructure (CI) to
be quickly reopened or key resources (KR) to be accessed.
• Dig and haul, demolition, and removal of contaminated materials for disposal. These
techniques are proven, effective methods for removing radioactive material and cleaning
an area for reoccupancy. In addition, when done properly, these methods assist waste
segregation efforts. They are also labor-intensive, are relatively costly, and generate
large volumes of waste.
• Thin-layer soil surface removal. Under certain circumstances, significant radioactive
material may exist only in the top few inches or centimeters of soil. Soil removal
technologies and methodologies that remove a thin layer of topsoil may significantly
reduce contamination while limiting waste volume, cleanup time, cost, and restoration
effort. Removal may be accomplished by employing manual techniques such as sod
cutting and hand digging or by using modified excavation equipment operated by highly
skilled operators.
• Foliage removal. Foliage may collect significant concentrations of contamination. Early
removal of foliage may reduce radioactive material and immediate exposure while
generating a homogeneous waste stream that can be handled and treated separately.
Foliage removal may also be considered periodically after initial cleanup. If trees remain
in the area, it is possible for them to take up residual radioactivity, so the leaves in
subsequent years may also need to be analyzed.
• Physical cleaning of hard surfaces. Vacuuming, high-pressure washing, and similar
techniques may reduce (possibly significantly) contamination without damaging or
destroying the surface. Vacuuming may collect small particles or dust; if coupled with a
filter, care should be taken during filter removal to avoid exposure to radioactive
material. Aqueous cleanup is expected to generate aqueous waste streams that may need
to be addressed subsequently through treatment and/or disposal.
• Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces. Scabbling, grinding,
scarification, grit blasting, and other similar techniques, which remove a thin layer of the
surface of objects, may remove significant amounts of radioactive contamination while
generating less radioactive waste than demolition.
• Chemical cleaning or other treatments of hard surfaces. Foams, acids, chelating agents,
fixatives, and strippable coatings may remove or control some (usually not all) surface
contamination, but these treatments have some potentially important applications for
reopening CI and mobilizing KR pending completion of final cleanup and subsequent
clearance. Surface treatments may also be used in applications where contamination is
already low or where exposure is low.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
• Waste volume reduction. The use of waste volume reduction technologies, including
incineration, may reduce waste handling and disposal demands.
• Waste stabilization. Waste stabilization technologies, such as in situ vitrification,
generally result in a reduction of hazardous constituent mobility. Depending on the
technology used, wastes that have been stabilized in place may pose lower health risks,
particularly when shielding of radioactive contamination is also employed.
• Soil burial. Burying contaminated surface soils deeper in the soil (e.g., through plowing)
or covering them with a layer of clean soil or concrete may reduce human and animal
exposure to radioactivity. Soil burial needs to consider the implications for possible
movement of contamination in the subsurface.
• Composting. Composting is a methodology for turning organic wastes, possibly
contaminated with low-level radionuclides (foliage, but mainly animal carcasses), into
wastes that can then be buried or placed into a landfill. Subsurface transport of
contaminants needs to be considered.7
• Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction. Cleanup, particularly aqueous-based cleanup
techniques, may generate large volumes of water that present treatment, storage, and
disposal issues. Techniques such as ion exchange, filtration, reverse osmosis, and
evaporation may potentially separate, concentrate, or remove the specific radiological
contaminant or its daughter product from wastewater that is produced as a secondary
waste.
• Other technologies. Other technologies were considered which may potentially have
application to RDD incidents. These other technologies include soil washing and the
"segmented gate system."
• No Action. Performing no action may be an option in the near term. Generally, no action
should be considered where (1) contaminant concentrations are too high to allow timely,
cost-effective cleanup and the area is temporarily evacuated or permanently abandoned;
(2) concentrations are so low that they do not pose an unacceptable risk; (3) exposures
are very low, cleanup is very costly, and higher-concentration areas are a higher priority;
(4) contaminated historical structures may be destroyed if cleanup is undertaken; or
(5) other management or engineering controls can be applied until the need for future
action can be assessed.
Generally, physical damage outside the blast zone is expected to be minimal; the amount of
blast-related debris is likely to be relatively small compared to the amount of undamaged
contaminated materials. It may be possible to systematically segregate contaminated waste,
which includes debris, from uncontaminated waste from an RDD incident.8
7 Burial options for large quantities of animal carcasses are extremely limited.
8 The terms "contaminated" and "uncontaminated" will be decided by the cleanup goals and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) of
the disposal facilities.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
2. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
This SOG is based on several planning assumptions related to the appropriate and effective use
of existing waste cleanup, reduction, and management technologies and methodologies in the
event of a radiological incident. It is important to understand the basic nature of a radiological
incident and the factors that guide cleanup and recovery following the incident. It is also
important to understand that as part of the WARRP program, this document is based on the
scenarios specifically developed for the Denver UASI, with the intent of potentially being
adapted more broadly for use in other urban areas.
2.1 Nature and Consequences Of an ROD Radioactive materials are widely used in
Attack medicine, agriculture, industry, and research;
there are also sources that are not secure or
DHS National Planning Scenario 11 describes a are not accounted for. For these reasons, it is
hypothetical radiological attack with an RDD in a generally easier to obtain materials for dirty
moderate-to-large U.S. city (DHS, 2006). bombs than materials used to construct a
nuclear explosive device. Furthermore, far less
technical knowledge is needed to build and
An RDD ("dirty bomb") consists of radioactive deploy an RDD compared to a nuclear device
material combined with conventional explosives. (FEMA, 2012).
Cesium-137 (137Cs) is a radioactive source that
could be used in the construction of an RDD. 9 These devices are designed to use explosive force
to disperse the radionuclide over a large area, such as multiple city blocks. The explosive effect
of the RDD is likely to kill more people in the immediate area of the blast than would the
radiological effect of the device, and such attacks are intended primarily to produce
psychological, economic, and political harm rather than physical harm by inducing panic and
terror in the target population and denying use of an area because of radioactive contamination.
Most injuries from an RDD incident are likely to occur from the explosion of the bomb (heat,
debris, and force); such attacks immediately affect individuals close to the site of the explosion
and contaminate nearby areas with large amounts of radioactive particles. Health risks from an
RDD attack include the trauma associated with being caught in the explosion itself and the
potential for increased risk of cancers attributable to (1) long-term exposure to increased
amounts of residual radiation and (2) acute inhalation of high concentrations of contaminated
particles.
2.2 Estimated Waste Quantities and Radioactivity Levels Under the WARRP RDD
Scenario
The RDD scenario described for the Denver urban area involves two RDD attacks: one at the
U.S. Mint in downtown Denver, Colorado, and another at the Anschutz Medical Campus in
Aurora, Colorado. The scenario assumes that tens of thousands of people are exposed at various
levels and that hundreds immediately die from blast-related trauma. The primary fallout area is
within tens of miles of the blast, although some of the radiological agent may be carried
hundreds of miles. The downtown release scenario potentially impacts more than 20 square miles
and 32,000 buildings (which include 82 million square feet of indoor space), while the Aurora
release scenario impacts fewer buildings and people but contaminates a much larger area (DHS,
2012a). Both bombs were identical in explosive power and amount of radioactivity, but the
9 A DHS fact sheet on RDDs is available at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrarv/assets/prep radiological fact sheet.pdf
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
difference in the plumes is due to the entrainment of contamination by the high-rise downtown
Denver buildings.
The scenario discussion presented focuses on the U.S. Mint (downtown Denver) scenario. In this
scenario, higher concentrations of 137Cs were deposited immediately around and downwind of
the blast. Figure 1 shows the release scenario and levels of contamination at the U.S. Mint. (In
the Aurora scenario, the cesium was spread out over a far larger area.)
Based on this scenario, some tools that EPA has been developing to assist in wide-area
remediation activities were used to estimate the quantity and residual activity of the waste
generated from the hypothetical RDD incident at the U.S. Mint as described above. The Incident
Waste Assessment and Tonnage Estimator (I-WASTE) tool (EPA, 201 la) was used to estimate
the building contents, and the Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST) (EPA, 2012a) was used to
estimate building stock, building composition and square footages, and the makeup of the
outdoor areas. WEST makes extensive use of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (Hazus-MH) loss estimation model (FEMA, 2010).
Information on personal protective equipment (PPE) waste generated from response operations
was based on information derived from the Bio-response Operational Testing and Evaluation
program (Lemieux et al., 2011).
In the discussion on the following pages, the estimated contamination levels are used solely for
development of the discussions on the quantity, makeup, and residual radioactivity of the waste.
The estimated contamination levels should not be construed to be cleanup levels. For example,
the 15-millirem-per-year dose level used to determine what is contaminated is not specified as a
cleanup level by any federal program. In this scenario, there may be extensive contamination
beyond the drawn plumes, and areas outside the drawn plumes may require decontamination as
well.
.
"• a-em-Yr
(U lrem-Yr
DO.Srwi-Yr
• 0,
• 25mrem-Yr
• 15mrem-Yr
Figure 1. WARRP RDD scenario releases at U.S. Mint.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
A major wastewater treatment plant that serves approximately 1 million people in Denver and
the surrounding area is situated within the plume impact zone shown in Figure 1.10
Contamination in this area may impact the ability to receive and treat wastewater. For combined
systems, rain water runoff could transport the contaminant to the wastewater treatment plant;
while, for separate systems, storm drains could also disperse the contaminant outside the area
impacted by the plume. If wastewater treatment is compromised, downstream water intakes for
drinking water systems could be more highly contaminated than the facility is able to
handle. This might necessitate implementing a temporary pre-treatment step or even shutting
down the downstream water intakes and providing drinking water from another source.
Figure 2 shows the estimated number of affected structures in the primary contaminated area, by
building use. The following assumptions about the affected infrastructure were used: (1) the
number of schools and hospitals was determined from the Hazus-MH model output; (2) all small
wood buildings and mobile homes were assumed to be residences; (3) the rest of the general
building stock was assumed to be offices (99%) and hotels (1%); and (4) percentage breakdowns
of building size were assumed to be small (50%), medium (30%), and large (20%) (FEMA,
2010).
Based on these assumptions, two different hypothetical remediation scenarios were developed
using WEST to investigate the impact of different decontamination and demolition strategies on
the total amount and characteristics of the waste. Both scenarios assume that all affected areas at
15 millirem or higher were remediated. It is likely that areas contaminated at levels below
15 millirem will also be remediated, but for the purposes of this hypothetical waste estimate,
they were not included. The "Extensive Decontamination" option included a significant amount
of demolition and washing of outdoor areas, coupled with extensive interior decontamination.
The "Limited Decontamination" option included less demolition, washing, and interior
decontamination than the "Extensive Decontamination" option. Some of the following figures
demonstrate the impact of these two hypothetical scenarios.
Figure 3 shows the estimated quantities and sources of waste from the affected areas. Figure 4
shows the estimated composition of the waste from the affected areas. Figure 5 shows the
estimated average activity of the waste generated from the cleanup. Figures 3 through 5 also
illustrate the differences between the "Extensive" and "Limited" decontamination strategies. It
must be noted that due to the overwhelming quantities of certain categories of waste materials
potentially generated from the outlying regions of the plume, the differences between the two
decontamination strategies chosen for this example may not appear to be significant for some
categories of waste generated closer to the blast point. In addition, it must be noted that the
WEST tool, in its current incarnation, assumes that whatever cleanup process is used achieves
the stated cleanup goals, which may not be the case, particularly when comparing disparate
cleanup approaches.
Note that the upper end estimate ("Extensive Decontamination" option) of 3 billion gallons of
liquid waste from demolition and decontamination operations shown in Figure 3 represents
roughly 4% of Denver's annual water usage, suggesting that delivery of wash water in quantities
necessary for the cleanup may be problematic, and that finding ways to reuse wash water and
10
The wastewater treatment plant is just south of the intersection of 1-76 and 1-270.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
minimize its discharge as wastewater may be a critical aspect of the response. In addition, the
waste estimate suggests that most solid waste was generated from only a few streams, with soil,
concrete, ceiling tile, carpet, electronics, furniture, and paper constituting a significant fraction of
the waste.
Had Scenario - Number of Structures
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
Figure 2. WARRP ROD scenario - estimated number of contaminated structures in area
bounded by <15-millirem contamination zone.
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Rad Scenario - Waste Source
l.E+10
l.E+09
LIQUIDS (Total = 1.5 -3 billion gallons)
SOLIDS (Total = 16-21 million tons)
l.E+08
l.E+07
Limited Decon
Extensive Decon
Figure 3. Estimated quantities and sources of waste from WARRP ROD scenario in area bounded by <15-millirem
contamination zone.
10
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Rad Scenario - Waste Distribution
Limited Decon
Extensive Decon
Figure 4. Estimated breakdown of solid waste from WARRP ROD scenario in area bounded by <15-millirem contamination
zone.
11
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Estimated Activity
2500
2000
m
E 1500
7-*.
1
• 1000
500
0
LIQUIDS (Total = 1.5 -3 billion gallons)
SOLIDS (Total = 16-21 million tons)
Limited Decon
Extensive Decon
Figure 5. Average estimated activity concentration of waste from WARRP ROD scenario in area bounded by <15-millirem
contamination zone.
12
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
2.3 Focus on Recovery
Recovery requires timely and cost-effective cleanup approaches, including waste management
and minimization. The cleanup and waste management decisions made by decision-makers can
expedite or delay recovery. Therefore, decision-makers should begin to plan for the long-term
recovery almost immediately.
The National Response Framework (NRF) provides guidance for response functions immediately
following a disaster. Federal disaster recovery efforts are guided by the National Disaster
Recovery Framework (NDRF). The NDRF complements the NRF because it supports the
transition from response to recovery.n The NDRF provides six scalable recovery support
functions (RSFs) that facilitate a community recovery effort by linking local, state, tribal, and
federal governments; the private sector; and voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations
in a long-term recovery plan.
To support national recovery planning, the jurisdictions comprising the Denver urban area
partnered with the State of Colorado, the military, the private sector, non-governmental
organizations, the DHS, and other federal agencies to develop a disaster recovery framework
known as the Denver UASI All-Hazards Regional Recovery Framework (DHS, 2012b). The
development of the framework came about through WARRP and was aimed at enhancing the
wide-area recovery capabilities of the Denver UASI. This framework lays the foundation for a
regional and collaborative recovery approach and is intended to align with the NDRF. The
Denver UASI identified 11 RSFs, which help guide the recovery process.
Table 1 lists the RSFs for the federal recovery and the Denver UASI frameworks.
Table 1. Federal and Denver UASI Recovery Support Functions
NDRF RSF
1. Community Planning and Capacity Building
2. Economic Development
3. Health and Social Services
4. Housing
5. Infrastructure Systems
6. Natural and Cultural Resources
Denver UASI RSF12
1. Cultural and Natural Resources
2. Debris Management
3. Economic Development
4. Fatality Management
5. Identify, Stabilize, and Maintain Infrastructure and
Property
6. Post-Disaster Housing
7. Prioritization of Cleanup
8. Public Health and Medical Services
9. Public Information and Messaging
10. Public Safety
11. Volunteer and Donation Management
11 The NDRF is consistent with the vision set forth in the Presidential Policy Directive-8, National Preparedness, which directs
FEMA to work with interagency partners to publish a recovery framework.
12 The Denver UASI includes Prioritization of Cleanup as RSF No. 7; however, at the federal level, cleanup is part of the NRF,
not the NDRF.
13
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
For each RSF, the framework lays out the scope; roles and responsibilities of local, state, tribal,
and federal partners; and key assumptions and considerations that should be addressed in the
short term, intermediate term, and long term for successful recovery. In the Denver UASI, most
jurisdictions have comprehensive emergency operations plans outlining the actions that will be
taken during the response phase of any emergency. Recovery planning is in its infancy across the
Denver UASI and in the nation, but coordinating with other emergency disaster plans will
facilitate effective recovery.
Within the Denver UASI framework, a number of existing state and regional plans support the
RSFs (DHS, 2012b). Regional plans address mass fatalities, natural hazard mitigation, and public
health. At the state level, emergency plans address disaster housing, natural hazard mitigation,
emergency operations, and disaster recovery. The expectation is that federal and state agencies
and other organizations in Denver will consult this framework to guide the development of
recovery plans for their areas of responsibility.
3. RESPONSE MANAGEMENT AND AGENCY ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES
In the United States, all levels of government- federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local-respond
to disasters. Incident management refers to how incidents are managed by government officials,
between multiple agencies and jurisdictions, and between phases of response (i.e., prevention,
protection, and response and recovery. This SOG addresses the response and recovery phases.)
Federal agencies provide critical assistance to state, tribal, and local response organizations in
the event of a disaster that overwhelms state and local capabilities. For RDD incidents, the roles
and responsibilities of local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal governments and private entities
are set out in the NRF, Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex (NRIA), and NDRF. This includes
the roles of primary federal radiological response and support agencies such as DOE, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DoD, HHS, EPA, DHS, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) is
a multi-agency response asset to assist state and local officials with monitoring, assessment, and
health guidance for nuclear/radiological incidents. DOE leads the FRMAC for the initial
response. EPA leads the FRMAC for long-term response.13'14 The NRF's Emergency Support
Function (ESF) 10 supports oil and hazardous materials response, including assessment and
cleanup of radiological contamination from an RDD incident and management of contaminated
wastes. EPA is the coordinating agency and a primary agency, along with the U.S. Coast Guard
for ESF 10. EPA also has statutory and regulatory authorities under CERCLA and the NCP for
cleanup of hazardous materials, including radiation, which may also apply to RDD incidents.
ESF 3 supports public works and engineering-related functions for domestic incident
management. DHS is the primary agency for providing ESF 3 recovery support, which includes
debris removal and disposal assistance.15 The management of contaminated debris, including
radiological contamination, will be a joint effort with ESF 10.
13 The National Nuclear Security Administration provides more information about FRMAC at:
http://www.nnsa.energv.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/emergencvoperationscounterterrorism/respondingtoemergencies/consequence
managem-1.
14 Coordinating agencies are listed in Table 1 of NRF's NRIA:
http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/orig/femaj3dfs/pdf/emergencv/nrf/nrf_nuclearradiologicalincidentannex.pdf
15 Debris may include livestock or poultry carcasses and/or plant materials. For more information on ESF 3, see:
http://www.fema. gov/pdf/emergencv/nrf/nrf-esf-03 .pdf
14
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Response to an RDD will be managed using the incident command system (ICS) based on the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) (DHS, 2008a). ICS is a standardized, on-scene,
all-hazards incident management approach allowing its users to adopt an integrated yet flexible
organizational structure to match the complexities and demands of single or multiple incidents.
ICS allows facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications to be integrated
and operated within a common organizational structure. ICS coordinates response among various
jurisdictions and public and private entities and establishes a common process for planning and
managing resources. ICS includes both Command Staff and General Staff. General Staff is
broken into four sections: (1) Operations, (2) Planning, (3) Logistics, and
(4) Finance/Administration. A Unified Command (UC) is typically used for the command
function of multi-jurisdiction ICS response; a UC consists of the appropriate local, state, and
federal incident commanders representing the principal jurisdictions and lead agencies. It has
proven to be a highly effective means of managing multi-jurisdictional responses. A strong,
coordinated UC will be instrumental in overcoming the challenges of radiological waste
management. Figure 6 shows an example of the ICS/UC structure following an RDD incident.
Command Staff
Public Information
Officer
Safety Officer
Liaison Officer
l_*=T
_______^______
Operations
Section Chief
MHMMMM
IFIan
Sectioi
Logistics
Section Chief
. Fi.ns»nce'
Administration
Section Chief
Figure 6. Example of incident command structure for RDD incident.
Because waste management is a major RDD response challenge, the ICS will have Operations
and Planning Sections that are assigned waste management-related responsibilities. The ICS
organizational structure may include, for example, a Disposal Division or Group in the Waste
Management Branch of the Operations Section and a Waste Management Group in the
Environmental Unit of the Planning Section. The Operations Section Waste Management Branch
is responsible for collecting, staging, characterizing, documenting, shipping, and/or treating all
wastes generated or collected on-site during field activities, including radiological wastes, solid
wastes, liquid wastes, and other hazardous materials generated by such activities. Waste
management can also include on-site disposal and design and fabrication of temporary or
15
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
permanent storage/disposal facilities. The Planning Section Waste Management Group is
responsible for conducting waste planning, identifying waste treatment and disposal options,
obtaining appropriate waste disposal approvals, etc.
In responding to a radiological incident, the Environmental Unit should include or consult with
state waste regulators, federal waste regulators (including the EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery [ORCR] and NRC waste personnel), private waste stakeholders
(including local officials), and private disposal facilities in waste planning. Cleanup and waste
planning discussions should also include state water regulators and local wastewater and
drinking water treatment facility operators.
4. OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS
Unlike chemical and biological agents, which can usually be altered or destroyed to eliminate or
reduce toxicity and infectivity, radiological materials cannot be destroyed. Like chemical
contamination that poses a carcinogenic risk, radionuclides are also carcinogenic. The
carcinogenic risk posed is related to concentration and exposure. Limiting one or the other to
levels that do not pose an unacceptable risk may be achieved through a number of mechanisms.
Minimizing exposure through radiological decay over time, increasing the distance of
contamination to the receptor, or increasing the shielding of radionuclides are accepted practices
for reducing exposure and risk from radiation and may potentially be used in this situation.
While the focus for response and recovery after an RDD attack will be on cleanup, effective
strategies for waste management will also be required. These strategies include screening, source
reduction, decontamination, recycling, segregation, storage, treatment, and handling.
Implementing these strategies will expedite and minimize cleanup by improving cleanup
efficiency, reducing waste volume, maximizing the segregation of waste into homogeneous
waste streams, and separating higher-activity materials from lower-activity materials. Waste
management is an integral part of cleanup planning and response operations during all phases of
response and recovery, from notification to reoccupancy. Table 2 provides an overview of a
response and recovery effort across several phases of activity after a wide-area RDD incident.
The selection of cleanup and waste management technologies will depend on radionuclide,
indoor contamination versus outdoor contamination, contaminated surface, substrate, the extent
and concentration of contamination, public risk and exposures, value of property, shorter versus
long-term objectives, cleanup goals, and more.
16
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Table 2. Phases of Response and Recovery Effort Following a Wide-area ROD Incident
16
Response and Recovery
Crisis Management
Notification
Receive
information on
radiological
incident
Identify suspect
release sites
Notification of
appropriate
agencies
First Response
Initial threat
assessment
Hazardous
material
(HazMat) and
emergency
actions
Forensic
investigation
Public health
actions
Screening
sampling
Determine
radiological
contaminant
Risk
communication
Consequence Management
Remediation/Cleanup
Characterization
Characterization of
marker radionuclide
Characterization of
affected site(s)
Site containment
Continue risk
communication
Characterization
environmental
sampling and
analysis
Initial risk
assessment
Clearance goals
Decontamination
Decontamination
strategy
Remediation Action
Plan
Worker health and
safety
Site preparation
Source reduction
Waste disposal
Decontamination of
sites or items
Decontamination
verification
Clearance
Clearance environ-
mental sampling
and analysis
Clearance decision
Restoration/
Reoccupancy
Renovation
Reoccupation
decision
Long-term
environmental
and public health
monitoring
Annex A contains a list of potential assessment, cleanup, and waste management technologies
that may be applicable in response to an RDD incident. For a wide-area event, response
personnel may use many of these technologies in different situations for different applications.
These technologies are not interchangeable. Many have very specific or limited applications.
These techniques may need to be modified to account for the exact incident location, local
geology, and climate (weather patterns). The purpose of Annex A is to provide a general list of
technologies that may be operationally useful for an RDD incident. These technologies are
assessed to determine whether they are likely to achieve the desired end state, are adaptable to
the situation, and are deployable.
Table 3 uses the Response and Recovery timeline from Table 2 to show when the cleanup and
waste management methods and technologies listed in Section 1.3 and in Annex A may apply.
16 Adapted from Figure 3, Draft, "Planning Guidance for Recovery Following Biological Incidents " (DHS/EPA. Developed by
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on
Decontamination Standards and Technology. (DHS, 2009). The only deviation from the original table is the reference to RDD-
specific details (e.g., determine radiological contaminant).
17
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Table 3. Technologies and Methodologies to Consider During Recovery Effort
Notification and First
Response
Characterization
Decontamination
Clearance
Restoration/
Reoccupancy
Enhanced Surveying
A-1 Manual Survey, A-2 Automated Survey
Hot Sfjot Removal
Physical cleaning of hard surfaces
Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces
I
A-9 Street Sweeping,
I A-10 Vacuuming,
A-11 High-Pressure Washing
Chemical cleaning or other
treatments of hard surfaces
Dig and haul, demolition, and
removal of contaminated
materials for disposal
i
Foliage Removal; Composting
A4 Lawn Mowing & Removal of Cuttings,
A-8 Selective Removal of Vegetation
Thin-layer soil surface removal
A-5 Sod Cutter
M Soil Burial
A-14 Composting of Organic Matter Waste Stabilization
Wastewater Cleanup or Volume Reduction
No Action
A-3 Dig (plow)
hing
A-6 Scarification
Waste volume reduction
A-12 Segmented Gate System,
A-13 Soil Washing,
A-15 Plasma arc Vitrification,
A-16Cementitious
Stabilization/Solidification,
A-17 Incineration,
A-18 Chelating Agents, A-19 Ion Exchange,
A-20 Reverse Osmosis,
A-21 Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal
A-22 Membrane Filtration, A-23 Conventional Filtration
A-24 Activated Carbon (AC), A-25 Evaporation (Passive or Active)
I I
18
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
The technologies in Table 3 are grouped into three categories:
• Screening and characterization: Determining the identity, location, and physical
characteristics of the radioactive material. Survey equipment will be useful throughout
the characterization stage but can also be part of the clearance stage.
• Mitigation: Removing contamination from an original location, fixing it in place, or
covering it. Contamination removal often requires removal of the substrate on which the
contamination exists. These technologies and methodologies would generally fall under
the decontamination stage.
• Segregation and waste management: Sorting and processing waste (to separate
contaminated from uncontaminated material), reducing waste volumes, and ultimately
treating and disposing of waste. These technologies and methodologies would generally
fall under the decontamination stage and potentially into the reoccupancy stage.
It should be clarified that for the purpose of this SOG, characterization screening is an upfront
activity and is not referenced as such during the clearance stage. The clearance stage is often
referred to as final status or release surveys, which are performed after remediation has been
conducted (the term "clearance" is used in this document for consistency with the document
from which Table 2 was derived). Clearance is defined as the process of determining that a
cleanup goal has been met for a specific contaminant in or on a specific site or item. Generally
occurs after decontamination and before reoccupancy. Also, the distinction between mitigation
and segregation and waste management is somewhat artificial. Most technologies could be listed
under either and could be used at the same time during cleanup.
To develop effective and efficient cleanup strategies, a systems approach should generally
address decontamination and waste management together. A number of decontamination
methods have been developed for different material/contaminant systems over the past 50 years.
Many are simple physical methods, such as abrasion or vacuuming, while others are advanced
physical methods, such as plasma cleaning or light ablation. Many other methods use chemicals,
with a few strippable coatings and chemical gels also employed. Overall, more than 100 different
decontamination methods or method variations, are offered by different vendors. Table 4
presents a selection of different decontamination technologies that have been considered
specifically for radiation decontamination of hard surfaces. These technologies are commercially
available and most are applicable for use on various building substrates or critical infrastructure
(such as roads and bridges). Many of the technologies in Table 4 have been tested by EPA's
National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC); results from this testing provided the
basis for the technology's relative effectiveness for the removal of radioactive cesium
contamination from standard Portland cement substrate listed in Table 4. During these tests,
every effort was made to compare different technologies on a "level playing field" and evaluate
effectiveness as well as labor and equipment requirements (EPA, 2012b). Inclusion of any
commercial products, companies, or vendors is for informational purposes only. EPA and its
employees do not endorse any products, services, or enterprises.
When selecting technologies, decision-makers should consider operational and logistic aspects
such as staging location (e.g., away from high-risk populations), equipment types, potential for
exposures to workers, space requirements, the amount of material that has to be treated, waste
19
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
volume generated, and coordination among utilities. The selection will also be based on the
availability of specialty equipment, chemicals, and materials and the skill and training
requirements for operators and other workers. Many of the technologies require specialized
equipment, uncommon materials, proprietary chemicals, and/or very skilled operators in order to
achieve desired results and cost savings.
Table 4. Decontamination Technologies and Relative Effectiveness
Selected Technologies Applicable to ROD Decontamination ]
Decontamination Equipment Tested by EPA
Technology Category for Cesium Removal
Water Blasting
Abrasive Grit
Grinding
Grinding
Grinding
C02 (Cryogenic) Pellet Blasting
Scabbling
Scarification
Spalling
Milling
Vacuuming
Ultrasonic Cleaning
Plasma Cleaning
Light Ablation
Electrokinetic
Strippable Coating
Strippable Coating
Strippable Coating
Chemical Gel
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
CS Unitec - sanding
ICS- diamond
ICS- wire brush
Was not tested
Was not tested
Was not tested
Was not tested
Was not tested
Tested for "loose" type contamination only
(Rivertech)
Was not tested
Was not tested
Was not tested
Was not tested
CBI Polymers (DeconGel®)
Isotron (Orion®)
Bartlett(StripcoatTLC-Free®)
Argonne SuperGel®
Water
Simple Green®
Allen-Vanguard SDF®
Environment Canada UDF
EAI - Environmental Alternatives, Inc. RRII
EAI - Environmental Alternatives, Inc. RRI
Intek Technology ND-75
Intek Technology ND-600
Radiation Decontamination Solutions, LLC. (liquid)
Radiation Decontamination Solutions, LLC. (foam)
••••H
ME
VE
ME
VE
LE
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
VE
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
ME
VE
LE
VE
LE
LE
ME
ME
VE
VE
ME
ME
ME
ME
VE- Very Effective (70-1 00%)
ME- Moderately Effective (50-69%)
LE - Less Effective (0-50%)
20
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
5. WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste management, including storage, treatment, and final disposal, will be one of the most
significant costs and greatest challenges associated with RDD incident cleanup. Millions of tons
of contaminated solid and liquid waste may require staging, segregation, cleanup, and disposal.
NRC and EPA guidance on radioactive waste may assist in the development and implementation
of appropriate waste management strategies after an RDD incident.
This section addresses the general challenges associated with waste management following an
RDD incident. Because of these challenges, it is critical that decision-makers begin waste
planning immediately and establish a site-specific waste plan before an incident occurs. The first
step is to engage state waste regulators, federal waste regulators, private waste stakeholders
(including local officials, waste transporters, and private disposal facilities), state water
regulators, and local wastewater and drinking water treatment facility operators. Decision-
makers should also contact licensed LLRW disposal facilities, especially the facility nearest the
incident, and local and state regulators for those facilities. While this SOG identifies cleanup and
waste management technologies and methodologies, it is not intended to help responders write a
site-specific waste plan; the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response can assist
decision-makers in developing such a plan.
Effective waste management planning will reduce overall costs, expedite cleanup, and reduce
public exposure and risk. RDD wastes must be managed consistent with relevant local, state,
tribal, and federal regulations. Currently, options for the disposal of LLRW in the United States
are limited. In the event of a wide-area RDD, other disposal options, including in-state disposal
options, may need to be considered and/or developed to handle the huge quantities of wastes.
Planners should be aware of provisions in their state regulations that allow for expedited
regulatory approval in the event of an emergency.
There are three overarching objectives for waste management to help manage RDD cleanup
costs: (1) waste minimization, (2) waste segregation by material and radiation "activity," and
(3) cost-effective treatment and disposal of each waste stream. Given the expected volume of
wastes, RDD wastes need to be managed quickly and safely, and management efforts must be
consistent with relevant local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal laws.
• Waste minimization. Examples of waste minimization are: (1) removing 2 inches of soil
rather 5 inches when 137Cs contamination resides mainly in the top 2 inches (sod cutting);
(2) composting organic wastes and vegetative wastes to reduce waste volume; and,
(3) employing surface scarification techniques to remove surface contamination without
removing the whole substrate.
• Waste segregation. Examples of waste segregation are: (1) removing and managing
vegetation, soils, and contaminated structures separately; and, (2) handling and staging
waste from cleanup of the hot zone separately from lower-activity wastes (separate by
activity). Segregation will minimize wastes and enable alternate disposal pathways to be
used for the lightly contaminated materials. Waste segregation has the potential to
achieve significant efficiencies in time and cost while at the same time ensuring long-
term protectiveness of the waste managed.
21
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
• Treatment and disposal. Examples of potentially cost-effective treatment or disposal
options are: (1) developing in-state disposal options for lower-activity contaminated
materials; and (2) employing effective techniques for separating, concentrating, or
removing the specific radiological contaminant from wastewater.
Fortunately, in the event of an RDD incident, it should be possible to systematically and cost-
effectively remove and segregate wastes (except in the immediate area of the blast zone, where
collapsed buildings, damaged streets, and the debris field tend to make segregation more
difficult.) A typical soil cleanup involves tree and shrub removal, building demolition as needed,
and soil removal. Other steps for building contents, siding and roofing, asphalt and cement, etc.,
can be added. Not only does this allow for waste segregation, it has proven to be generally more
efficient.
All waste and debris removal activities (e.g., staging area management and coordination) will be
conducted by the UC (state and local agencies, as well as other federal agencies) and will be
consistent with or coordinated with waste management plans developed as part of the RDD
incident preparation.1? Plans developed before the incident may need to be modified to meet the
needs of the specific incident. In some cases, RDD waste planning may involve developing new
permitting procedures and new disposal facilities. In all cases, RDD waste management will
involve creating nearby temporary staging and storage locations. Regulations and permitting
procedures for these activities may need to take advantage of state authorities that allow for
emergency approvals. Most state regulations allow for such emergency approvals.
In response to a large-scale RDD incident, resources such as equipment and personnel are
expected to be assigned to various staging areas to join teams or to be deployed. Some limiting
factors for scaling this type of deployment include the availability of resources, the number and
size of staging areas, and physical constraints such as the actual size of the site. Engineering
controls, monitoring, and area and space requirements also should be considered as part of the
effort.
Waste is expected to be generated as soon as the first responders arrive at the site; therefore,
interim sites where contaminated waste and debris can be temporarily staged should be quickly
identified. During the early phase, waste management should consist of supporting first
responders by removing debris that could cause an immediate threat to public safety (e.g.,
unstable structures), clearing roadways, and removing fallen limbs and curbside debris that may
hinder emergency vehicle movement along access pathways and egress routes. Disposable PPE
waste will also be generated during the early, intermediate, and late phases of the response.18
Handling, treating, and disposing of decontamination water and other contaminated water will be
an immediate challenge.
It will also be important to identify and determine, early on, available waste management
facilities and to determine and establish waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for those facilities. If
site personnel know the WAC ahead of time, field surveys could create a site model that
17 As part of the Liberty RadEx exercise, a comprehensive waste management plan was developed for RDD wastes, including
options for waste staging and disposal for all waste streams.
18 Despite the waste minimization focus, it is not likely that responders will reuse PPE that is potentially contaminated.
22
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
correlates portions of the site with the WAC for the various disposal facilities and level of hazard
associated with the waste (low, very low, etc.). Furthermore, waste screening technologies could
also be tied to the WAC levels. From there, facility-specific WAC information may be used to
plan for waste sampling/characterization, packaging, and transportation.19 WAC should take into
account the radiological, physical, and hazardous (if present) characteristics of the waste. For
example, free liquids could be an issue in the case of sludges and with soil/debris where water
was used for dust suppression. Because of the potentially massive amount of waste that may be
generated, WAC for municipal solid waste landfills (regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]) may be considered because not all waste may be
classified as contaminated material that needs to be shipped to a low-level waste facility.
Contaminated waste and debris volumes from an RDD incident could be significantly larger than
the volumes of LLRW typically generated annually in the United States from decommissioning
activities, DOE cleanup activities, and nuclear power production by the public and private
sectors combined. This further emphasizes the importance of segregating waste by radiological
content and knowledge of available disposal options. Not all of the waste from an incident will
need to be handled as LLRW. However, the concentrations may be high enough that it would be
prudent to either dispose of the higher-level contamination in a LLRW licensed facility, even if it
is not determined to be LLRW, or design and build a local unit that will provide for long-term
waste management. Given that much of the waste will be only slightly contaminated, local
disposal options that can provide the necessary level of protection should be considered or
developed (in-state and, preferably, in the contaminated area.) This approach may be a more
efficient use of resources and expedite cleanup. Other challenges include inadequate on-site
space for water storage and for treatment and storage of secondary waste (e.g., sludges, loaded
zeolite, filter media) produced from cleanup activities.
Other potential factors affecting waste management decisions are: (1) incident location and
distance to a disposal facility, (2) transportation modes serving the site and disposal facility (rail,
truck, vessel), (3) types of waste, (4) volume of the waste, (5) properties of the waste (physical
characteristics, hazardous/nonhazardous characteristics), (6) status of appropriate permits and/or
licenses that would allow facilities to accept the waste, (7) design of the disposal facility
receiving the waste, (8) performance of the treatment or disposal facility (a history of leaking
contaminants, etc.), (9) capacity, (10) proximity to populations, including populations that may
be disproportionately impacted by contamination, (11) timing for state, local, territorial, tribal,
and disposal facility approval, and (12) public acceptance, including acceptance in the impacted
area, acceptance at waste receiving facility (perhaps in another state), and acceptance along the
transportation routes. The first five factors generally drive transportation and disposal costs,
while the remaining factors would be considered in determining whether waste would be shipped
to a given facility (Beckman et al., 2011).
6. RDD INCIDENT RESPONSE PLANNING
A critical element of the response is that data acquired be of sufficient quality to support the
decision being made. Federal agencies have now agreed to use the Uniform Federal Policy for
19 An example of facility-specific WAC information is available at: http://energvsolutions.com/customer-portal/clive/waste-
acceptance-criteria
23
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
90
Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) Workbook. This Workbook may be used by
decision-makers to assist with the preparation of QAPPs for environmental data gathering
activities.
Standard good management procedures should be used to demonstrate implementation of an
effective quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program, including personnel training and
qualification, document control, records management, work processes, design control,
procurement, inspection and acceptance testing, and management and independent assessments.
The data quality objectives process is routinely used for developing a project specific QA/QC
program (EPA, 2000). QA/QC is needed for waste management/waste minimization activities
performed after an RDD incident. If a waste management plan has been implemented, a QA/QC
component should be set up as part of that plan.
7. AVAILABLE RESOURCES
The following additional resources are available to help coordinate waste
management/minimization efforts:
• Worker health and safety considerations will be accounted for in the Health and Safety
Plan that will be written in the first few days following the RDD incident. The Health and
Safety Plan will contain health and safety information (such as appropriate PPE to be
worn) for personnel working on waste management activities to ensure that all work
conducted during cleanup and disposal is performed as safely as possible with full
consideration and awareness of potential risks. Because waste management personnel
will be working with radioactive materials, a personnel decontamination plan will be part
of the Health and Safety Plan.
• Environmental sampling and monitoring of radioactive wastes and debris should be
integrated into the Planning Section. FRMAC monitoring and sampling procedures
(DOE, 2012a and 2012b) will be used during the early and intermediate phases of the
response. Use of these methods may be continued through the late phase, if appropriate.
Several guidance documents such as the EPA RCRA sample and analysis protocol or the
Environmental Response Laboratory Network protocol may potentially apply to this
sampling (EPA, 201 Ib). Field instrumentation is expected to be used during many of the
waste management activities, including waste segregation, contamination control,
personnel monitoring, and transportation surveys. Laboratory analysis should be done to
support waste management/minimization, storage, and shipping activities. The
Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols (MARLAP) Manual (EPA
et al., 2004) presents an approach to producing radioanalytical laboratory data that meet a
project's data requirements.21 EPA has also published "Selected Analytical Methods for
Environmental Remediation and Recovery (SAM)" (EPA et al., 2012c).
• Training should be an essential component of waste management associated with an
RDD response. Training should be one of the sub-units already established as part of the
ICS, under the umbrella area of Planning. Specific types of training should be provided
This Workbook can be accessed at: http://www.epa. gov/fedfac/pdf/ufp_wbk_0305 .pdf.
21 MARLAP is the radioanalytical laboratory counterpart to the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual.
24
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
by EPA on-scene coordinators (OSCs) or other federal, state, tribal, or local emergency
response staff.22 In addition, EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
have examples of procedures that local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal agencies could
follow to manage and minimize waste and to help train waste management personnel.
These procedures focus on the type of screening/surveys to be conducted with specific
technologies and on safety precautions to be taken.
8. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Emergency managers across the country are keenly aware of the need for public involvement and
public acceptance, regardless of the type of disaster. Radiation adds an additional level of public
concern. Most people do not know what to expect if radioactive source material is released into
the environment, but they will fear and assume the worst. The risks, even small risks, may be
exaggerated due to the public's lack of familiarity with radiation. Engaging, educating, and
listening to the public is critical to public acceptance of cleanup and disposal decisions and will
be one of the biggest challenges. Successful recovery following an RDD incident hinges on
public acceptance of cleanup and waste decisions. As part of the Liberty RadEx exercise, a
committee of Philadelphia citizens was able to reach consensus on their own cleanup
prioritization, local storage, and disposal (DHS, 2012a). Public acceptance also depends on the
involvement and ownership of the outcome; if waste is being shipped across the country, a larger
public audience and sphere of private-sector stakeholders should be taken into account.
The disposal of waste following an urban RDD incident is expected to be a critical component of
the overall response and recovery effort. An ongoing community involvement program is
appropriate to solicit public input for the decisions that are being made. The public should be
kept informed and their input sought related to planning and decision-making about waste
management, including transportation and disposal considerations.
It can be assumed that an RDD incident will receive intense media attention, with both national
and local media reporting live within hours of its onset. Once a response is initiated, the local
community should be notified that there will be ongoing monitoring to maintain a state of
awareness of the extent of the contamination. This notification may involve public
announcements via radio, television, website, newspaper, and signage announcing that a
radiological incident has occurred and outlining what safety precautions or voluntary measures
should be taken as part of the response.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Crisis & Emergency Risk
Communication program provides guidance on messaging and public information during a
radiation disaster (CDC, 2011). FEMA has also published communications guidance for
emergency responders and federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials communicating
with the public in the immediate aftermath of an improvised nuclear device detonation or a
nuclear power plant incident in the United States (FEMA, 2013a, 2013b).
22 The recovery team of the Colorado OEM ensures that state and federal support are provided in an efficient and timely manner
throughout the disaster recovery process.
25
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
More guidance on communications, messaging plans, and outreach strategies for disaster
response and recovery can be found in DHS's Emergency Support Function (ESF) 15 Standard
Operating Procedures (DHS, 2008b). During the recovery phase, all public information and
communications are coordinated through ESF #15 External Affairs (which supports all RSFs
during the transition to recovery). In general, waste management personnel should be trained to
refer any press or other project-specific inquiries to the Public Information Officer within the UC
designated for the response. Safety is a primary issue, as are mental and physical well-being.
Knowing how to access assistance makes the process faster and less stressful.
9. REFERENCES
Beckman, I, H. Honerlah, N. Fatherly, A. Lombardo, M. O'Neill, and AJ. Glemza (2011).
Disposal of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Wastes - Weighing
the Options - 11536. WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ.
Available at: http://www.wmsym.org/app/201 lcd/papers/11536.pdf.
CDC (2011). Communication and Public Information in Radiation Disasters. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, July 2011.
http://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/webinarinfo.asptfRad.
DHS (2012a). WARRP Summary Report and Presentations. Department of Homeland Security.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/homeland/docs/warrp_report.pdf.
DHS (2012b). Denver UASI All-Hazards Regional Recovery Framework, Version 1.0.
September 13, 2012. Department of Homeland Security. Available at:
http://www.warrp.org/Recoverv%20Framework-WARRP-Aug%2029-2012.pdf.
DHS (2009). Planning Guidance for Recovery Following Biological Incidents. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Developed by the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's National Science and Technology
Council, Subcommittee on Decontamination Standards and Technology. Draft. May 2009.
DHS (2008a). National Incident Management System. Department of Homeland Security.
December 2008. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf.
DHS (2008b). Emergency Support Function #15 - External Affairs Annex. Department of
Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency. January 2008. Available at:
http ://www.fema. gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-15 .pdf.
DHS (2006). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Planning Scenarios, Version
21.3, Final Draft, March 2006. Available at: http://publicintelligence.net/national-planning-
scenarios-version-21-3-2006-fmal-draft/.
DOE (2012a). Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center Monitoring Manual
Volume 1, Operations DOE/NV/25946-1554 July 2012.
26
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
DOE (2012b). Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center Monitoring Manual
Volume 2, Radiation Monitoring and Sampling DOE/NV/25946-1558 July 2012.
EPA (2012a). Radiological Dispersal Device (ROD) Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST)
Version 1.2 (Final Report, Spreadsheet, GIS Scripts). EPA-600/R-12/594.
EPA (2012b). Homeland Security Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website.
Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si lab search results.cfm?fed org id= 1253&address=nhsrc/si/&view=de
sc&sortBv=pubDateYear&showCriteria=l&count=25&searchall='dirtv%20bomb'%20OR%20ce
sium%20OR%20'RDD'%20OR%20'radiological%20dispersal%20device'%20OR%20'radiologic
al%20dispersion%20device.
EPA (2012c). Selected Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery
(SAM). Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=245280&fed_org_id=1253&add
ress=nhsrc/si/&view=desc&sortBy=pubDateYear&showCriteria=l&count=25&searchall='Stand
ardized%20Analvtical%20Methods'%20OR%20'Selected%20Analvtical%20Methods'%20OR%
20SAM%20OR%20'analvtical%20methods'. Accessed June 18, 2013.
EPA (201 la). I-WASTE (Incident Waste Assessment and Tonnage Estimator). Available at:
http://www2.ergweb.com/bdrtool/1 ogin.asp. Accessed November 5, 2012.
EPA (201 Ib). Radiation Focus Area. Environmental Response Laboratory Network, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Web site. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oemerlnl/radiation.html. Last updated August 2, 2011.
EPA et al. (2004). Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols (MARLAP)
Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department
of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Institute of Standards and
Technology. Document Nos. NUREG-1576, EPA402-B-04-001A, NTIS PB2004-105421. July
2004.
EPA (2000). Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/G-4 EPA/600/R-96/055
Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC
20460 August 2000.
FEMA (2013a). Improvised Nuclear Device Response and Recovery: Communicating in the
Immediate Aftermath. Federal Emergency Management Agency. June 2013. Available at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7659. Accessed June 27, 2013.
FEMA (2013b). Communicating During and After a Nuclear Power Plant Incident. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. June 2013. Available at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7651. Accessed June 27, 2013.
27
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
FEMA (2012). Radiological Dispersion Device. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Available at http://www.ready.gov/radiologi cal -di sper si on-
device-rdd. Last updated November 1, 2012.
FEMA (2010). HAZUS-MH Version 1.4. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Available at: http://www.usehazus.com/forums/viewthread/132/# 143.
Lemieux, P., J. Wood, T. Nichols, C. Yund, E. Silvestri, J. Drake, S. Minamyer, M. lerardi, M.
Meltzer, B. Amidan and S. Rossberg (2011). BOTE Preliminary Results: Cost Analysis.
Presentation for EPA's Decontamination R&D Conference, November 1-3, 2011.
28
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
This page is intentionally left blank.
29
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
ANNEX A
Technology Descriptions
A-1
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
A-2
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
This Annex describes assessment, cleanup, and waste management technologies that enable the segregation,
separation, or reduction of waste and may be applicable in response to a Radiological Dispersal Device (ROD)
incident. These technologies, methodologies, and options are also assessed against the following criteria, which
were selected with the ultimate goal of protecting public health while making most efficient use of resources:
• Safety, health, and environment: If the technology were implemented, could the health and safety of
workers and the public be put at risk (e.g., would workers be required to operate heavy equipment, or would
workers or the public be exposed to hazardous or combustible materials)? If implemented, could the
technology compromise environmental resources at the site and in the surrounding area? Would protective
equipment be required to keep humans safe or to protect natural resources?
• Time to implement: How quickly could the technology be set up and operational after an ROD attack?
• Technical performance: How effective is the technology at meeting its goal (waste characterization, waste
cleanup, etc.)? Is it more (or less) effective under certain circumstances or for certain contaminants? Even if
the technology were effective, would its implementation lead to any adverse effects?
• Availability: How readily available are the necessary equipment, materials, and workforce? Is the
equipment commercially available or easy to adapt, or is it nonstandard, custom-built equipment? How
skilled would the workforce have to be?
• Costs: Relatively speaking, how costly would it be to implement the technology? Would expensive
equipment and/or a trained, highly skilled workforce be required? Would the technology need to be
conducted for a long period of time to meet its goal? (Any dollar amounts provided are estimates and are
not intended to be definitive totals.)
• Process waste: Does the technology produce any residual solid, liquid, or airborne pollutants, other than
the waste form, that may require treatment or disposal?
• Throughput: What is the relative rate at which a process or technique is performed, and how quickly can
the technology achieve its desired goal?
During the Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program (WARRP) Decon-13 Subject Matter Expert (SME) Meeting
held on August 14 -15, 2012, several technologies listed in this Annex were scored against each criterion and
assigned a low/not advantageous (red), medium/neutral (yellow), or high/advantageous (green) designation. Data
have been presented consistently in a standard format to facilitate comparisons between technology options (see
Table A-1). These results are being carried forward in this Annex; however, these designations should only be
considered the opinion of the SMEs attending the meeting and are not prescriptive in nature. Wastewater
cleanup/waste minimization technologies were identified as an element of the overall project after the SME meeting;
hence, their color coding was not developed until later. The criteria and discussion for the other types of technologies
from the SME Meeting were used to prepare the color coding in this Annex.
Color coding is based on discussions with U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff who were involved with
the WARRP Decon-13 project. The colors derived from the SME Meeting were reexamined across all technology
areas and were adjusted if needed. The criteria can be subjective or objective and can be impacted by several
factors, including (1) type of radionuclide; (2) type of surface or bulk media (e.g., buildings, soil, roads, trees, water or
other liquids); and (3) desired cleanup level endpoint. As stated in the main report of this SOG, many of the
technologies and methodologies would also have to be field-tested during a response to fully evaluate effectiveness
and application. The designation "A-#" in the Table of Contents directs the reader to that technology in this Annex.
Inclusion of any commercial products, companies, or vendors is for informational purposes only. EPA and its
employees do not endorse any products, services, or enterprises. Similarly, exclusions or absence of specific
references is merely an indication that information related to that entity was not readily available during the
development of this informational document.
A-3
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Annex Table of Contents
A-1. Manual Survey A-5
A-2. Automated Survey A-7
A-3. Dig (Plow) A-9
A-4. Lawn Mowing A-10
A-5. Sod Cutter A-11
A-6. Scarification A-12
A-7. Large-Scale Dig and Haul A-13
A-8. Selected Removal of Vegetation A-14
A-9. Street Sweeping A-15
A-10. Vacuuming A-16
A-11. High-Pressure Washing A-17
A-12. Segmented Gate System A-18
A-13. Soil Washing A-19
A-14. Composting of Organic Matter A-21
A-15. Plasma Arc Vitrification A-22
A-16. Cementitious Stabilization/Solidification A-23
A-17. Incineration A-25
A-18. Chelating Agents A-26
A-19. Ion Exchange (IX) A-28
A-20. Reverse Osmosis A-30
A-21. Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal (ED/EDR) A-32
A-22. Membrane Filtration A-34
A-23. Conventional Filtration A-36
A-24. Activated Carbon (AC) A-38
A-25. Evaporation (Passive or Active) A-40
A-4
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Manual Survey
One of the first steps in remediation of a contaminated area is surveying the area, possibly with a portable meter.
Surveying can be used to characterize the site to plan decontamination strategies and methods. Manual survey can
consist of two types of configurations: the manual movement of the detector system with the manual recording of
data (e.g., radiation measurement, location, etc.) and the manual movement of the detector system with automated
data collection (e.g., radiation measurements, location, etc.). Manual survey provides information on the extent of
radiological contaminants, the level of contamination, and other data.1 Manual survey units are available and can
detect alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. The Falcon 5000 is gamma only (radionuclide identifiers are almost always
gamma detectors). Manual, gross, rate detectors like the Eberline R02A are beta/gamma detectors. Thermo
Scientific Electra units with a scintillation probe quantify alpha, beta, and gamma. Beta/gamma detectors usually
have the small tubular Geiger-Mueller detector. Alpha detectors may have the large aluminized Mylar® (silver color)
window. This is true only for alpha probes based on zinc sulfide, silver activated detector crystals. Plastic scintillators
and gas flow alpha proportional counters do not require the same type of covering. Most of the instruments used in
this methodology are of the Geiger/Mueller or Scintillation type. They are able to rapidly measure low-level quantities
of radioactivity and radioactive dose rates.
Other types of radiological detection include the CANBERRA Falcon 5000, a portable radionuclide identifier (RID)
based on a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector (energy range of 20 kiloelectron volts [keV] to 3.0 megaelectron
volts [MeV]). The CANBERRA Falcon 5000 uses a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector paired with a low-noise,
electrical cooler using Pulse Tube cooling technology that can achieve the energy resolution needed for isotopic
measurement. The unit is field-portable, does not require liquid nitrogen cooling, and covers a wide energy range.2
Test measurements have concluded that the Falcon 5000 can be used successfully for isotopic measurements of
uranium and plutonium in sealed sources such as waste drums filled with various matrix materials. The Falcon 5000
comes pre-configured with a default nuclide library, but it can be edited or loaded with a different library as the
application requires. The library can be managed in the field and can be tailored to specific applications by defining
the type of analysis and then adjusting the parameters of the calculation.
Enhanced surveying; hot spot removal. Also relevant to all listed technologies.
While manual or hand-held instruments can be effective, they can put the individual holding the device at risk for
contamination. However, some of the manual systems can be set up and left unattended during a data collection
period. Manual surveys provide fast results, saving money and time compared to samples sent to a laboratory for
analysis.
G. Jfe$*
Figure A-1. Examples of manual survey in use.3'4
Involves manual use of equipment in a contaminated environment; however, some manual systems can
be set up to run unattended.
Surveys can be mobilized quickly in radiological event.
•This is an accepted standard for performing surveys and may even provide superior performance to
automated surveys.
Widely available. Manual instruments are dispersed to many fire and police departments.
1http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN/ANL%20Course/Day 3/Characterization-Hansen.pdf
2 Bosko, A, S. Croft, and S. Philips (2008). Plutonium Isotopic Analysis Using FALCON 5000: A Portable HPGe Based Nuclear Identifier.
Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) - Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 2008.
3 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/11/pictures/l 11111-nuclear-cleanup-struggle-at-fukushima/#fukushima-daiichi-
nuclear-reactor-remediation-baseball 43449 600x450.jpg
4 Demmer, Rick. Waste Segregation Methodologies. US EPA WARRP Workshop. Idaho National Laboratory.
A-5
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Manual Survey
Uses a large amount of skilled manual labor, time to complete survey is slow, and can be costly.
No secondary (notably liquid) waste is generated.
Typically not a rapid, automated process.
A-6
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-2
Automated Survey
Description
Automated survey consists of a powered device or mechanically driven movement detector system with automated
data collection (e.g., radiation measurement, location, etc.). Mechanically driven detector systems generally require
a pilot or driver to be physically present in the vehicle. While this limits the likelihood of the individual being
contaminated, it does still potentially expose the person to external radiation. An automated survey helps provide
information on the extent of radiological contaminants, the level of contamination, and other data.1 Automated
survey methods typically use similar instrumentation (often thallium activated sodium iodide (Nal/TI) gamma
detectors) to manual survey techniques, but utilize unique data acquisition software and geospatial analysis to
characterize large areas rapidly. An automated survey can be operated remotely, minimizing worker exposure while
providing information on position and relative strength of gamma-ray radiation fields.1
Survey tools, like Field Environmental Decision Support (FIELDS) Analysis and Sampling Tools (FAST), can
perform real-time continuous field data collection and assessment, integrating data from portable hazardous material
(HazMat) field instruments, global positioning system (GPS) data, geographic information system (GIS), mapping,
database storage, and analysis. FAST is a Windows PC application that can map the relevant data for viewing within
ArcGIS, Google Maps, or other applications for further data processing.2 A more sophisticated technology in this
field is the Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT) system developed for the
EPA. ASPECT, a remote sensing technology that employs standoff radiological (and chemical) detection, can
screen the surface area for gamma and neutron sources at high speeds and return quality-assured data within
minutes to the decision-makers.
Based on the ASPECT system, EPA has a ground-based survey technology used to detect and measure
radioactivity. The "Asphalt" system is utilized on the ground through a survey via all-terrain vehicle, pickup truck,
sport utility vehicle, or other type of vehicle. The system utilizes eight 2"x4"x16" sodium iodide crystals (with ability to
add four more), and up to three 3"x3" lanthanum bromide crystals. This ground-based system has greater resolution
and sensitivity than other systems, including hand-held devices, due to the size of the crystals. The products are the
same from either the air or the ground. However, this ground-based technology is more effective than airborne
systems because samples are collected closer to the source, and the system can obtain more-sensitive readings.
These systems are only as effective as the vehicle that carries them. The ground-based system must also return to
base to download information before producing data products, whereas the airborne system is tied to a central
computer, allowing data to be produced while the flight is still in progress.
Another robust aerial measurement system is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Aerial Measuring System
airplane- and helicopter-based automated survey of gamma-emitting radionuclides. This system consists of five
fixed-wing aircraft and three helicopters stationed at three locations in the United States. The detector systems can
be mounted on other aircraft (e.g., U.S. military aircraft in Japan) or ground vehicles (Kiwi configuration.)
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Enhanced surveying; hot spot removal. Also relevant to all listed technologies.
Effectiveness
EPA's FAST technology can also provide rapid, cost-effective, and high-quality decision support in remediation and
contamination site cleanup. ASPECT is an efficient way of screening an area and can effectively improve the
response and characterization of a large-scale event.
Illustration
Figure A-2. Samples of automated survey in use.
3,4
1 http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN/ANL%20Course/Day 3/Characterization-Hansen.pdf
2 http://www.epa.gov/reqion5fields/
3 http://news.nationalaeographic.com/news/enerav/2011/11/pictures/l 11111-nuclear-cleanup-struaale-at-fukushima/#fukushima-daiichi-
nuclear-reactor-remediation-baseball 43449 600x450.jpg
4 Demmer, Rick. Waste Segregation Methodologies. US EPA WARRP Workshop. Idaho National Laboratory.
A-7
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-2
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
~
Throughput
Automated Survey
Automated surveys could provide "remote," operator-removed-from-direct-exposure type application.
automated equipment eliminates some safety concerns for this task. Mechanically driven detector systems
generally require a pilot or driver to be physically present in the vehicle; while this limits the likelihood of
the individual being contaminated, it does still potentially expose the person to external radiation.
May not be easily implemented. Only a few of these systems available.
Generally good performance. May be less reliable than manual techniques.
Not widely available. Only a few of these systems available.
Some methods are very expensive, some use expensive robotic or other equipment.
No secondary (notably liquid) waste is generated.
Can be rapid (as in the case of large area "flyovers").
A-8
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-3
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Dig (plow)
Plowing is a remediation method for mixing or covering contaminated soil with clean soil; however, it does not
remove contamination but rather moves it to a deeper layer of soil. By mixing or covering these soils, this method
also reduces exposure and risk. Plowing involves a tractor-drawn trenching plow, which is used to invert a thick layer
of soil, placing the top layer of soil at the bottom and moving the deeper, clean layers to the top.1 This method puts
contaminated soil deep enough into the ground that exposure is limited, including to the lower boundaries of crop
root systems. Deep plowing digs down up to 90 centimeters (cm) or greater beneath the surface. A similar concept
uses hand-held tools (i.e., shovels) to dig up the surface dirt and rebury it well below the surface while bringing fresh
topsoil to the surface. "Triple-Digging" (practiced in areas around Chernobyl in the 1990s) involves a simple, manual
(shovel)-based approach that reburies contaminated soil deeper in the ground and replaces it with uncontaminated
soil. Placing contamination at depth may also result in contaminant transport to groundwater and ultimately surface
water. It may also make contaminants available for plant uptake.
Soil burial.
This method does not always result in perfect turnover of soil, risking some mixing of clean and contaminated soils.1
Further study is still necessary, though it appears that the type of soil and crops grown also affect the impact of deep
plowing. Effort will also increase with depth. This method can be effective in reducing the potential for direct contact
with contaminated materials on the soil surface, external radiation from surface contamination, and pickup by
shallow-rooted crops. 1 Deep plowing in particular may be more effective, with a report showing that uptake from
deeper placements of contaminated soil was one-tenth of that from shallow placement over a period of 4 years. 1
The same report also shows that deep plowing to 50 cm in contaminated soil reduced the uptake of radiation by oats
up to 60%, while plowing up to 30 cm had little effect. However, this method can be costly and ineffective in reducing
the uptake of radioactivity for deep-rooted crops.1 Many deep-plowed soils can also produce poor crops because of
low fertility, high acidity, soluble salts, or poor texture, which would take years of nutrient additions and sand.2
fc"^IHI
Figure A-3. Plowing can protect shallow rooted crops from contamination, but can also
reduce soil health.3 Plowing or digging can also be done by hand.4
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance I
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Could cause excessive levels of airborne contamination. Burying wastes in soil profile or covering with
concrete may reduce exposures.
Typically not employed in the early stages of a
radiological event.
Does not remove contamination, but moves contamination below the surface level. This practice affects
lower radiation dose, but does not decontaminate the lower soil.
Widely available (uses tractors and shovels).
Could be expensive because it is a manual labor technology with integral use of survey equipment.
No secondary (notably liquid) waste is expected.
Requires significant time to perform for manua
digging.
1 http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/trs300 web.pdf
2 http://naldc.nal. usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
3 http://todav.aqrilife.org/2012/06/20/mininq-cleanup-benefits-from-texas-am-expertise/
4 Demmer, Rick. Waste Segregation Methodologies. US EPA WARRP Workshop. Idaho National Laboratory.
A-9
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-4
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Lawn Mowing & Removal of Cuttings
One-fourth to one-half of radioactive materials are often carried on green crops. In an urban environment, much of
that contamination may be removed by mowing lawns and collecting and removing grass cuttings. Directly removing
biomass makes it possible to remove the majority of the contamination, depending on the density of the vegetation.
This method involves cutting the grass or vegetation to remove this contaminated material. Sometimes this step is
necessary before soil removal can take place.
Foliage removal; composting.
Removing contaminated ground cover (such as grass) or agricultural crops is generally inadequate because
contaminated material would inevitably fall to the soil. 1 Generally, no mowing or crop removal methods have
removed more than 75% of fallout from a contaminated area. Sod cutting and soil removal should therefore be
follow-on actions. However, mowing can be useful as it typically removes ground cover plants, which tend to carry
greater amounts of radioactivity once removed.1 Assuming soil removal is not necessary, removing contaminated
crops via lawn mowing may not be as effective as removal via forage chopper or direct-cut forage harvester. Crop
removal takes a significant amount of time, but necessary equipment is widely available. Removing ground cover or
crops also raises the question of where to dispose of the contaminated plant material, which has not received
substantial study to this point.1 A disadvantage of using lawn mowers to remove the contaminated vegetation is the
resuspension of contaminants from that vegetation that may occur. In one test, resuspension was minimized by the
use of an instrumented mowing device that diverted contaminated clippings into a high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA)-filtered collection system but allowed uncontaminated materials to pass into a different container.
,.4^f
%.
I
Figure A-4. Lawn mowing cuts grass or vegetation in order to remove contaminated
material.
This technology has not been rigorously studied in terms of the type of filtration system that could be
Badapted for this application. Health and safety plans must account for adequate filtration of airborne
contamination to ensure worker safety.
1 Quick implementation will improve effectiveness; effectiveness is significantly reduced after rain has
occurred or if grass has already been cut post-deposition.
Technical BOnly the contaminated grass blades and not even all of the vegetation can be removed. Significant
Performance I (contamination in the sod and soil are left behind. Resuspension of contamination could occur.
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Lawn mowers and crop removal equipment are widely available.
Lawn mowing is a very inexpensive practice when compared to more sophisticated technologies.
1 No liquid waste is generated; however, some dust may be created.
1 Lawn mowing is a quick and straightforward method and should be achieved quickly.
1 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
A-10
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-5
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Sod Cutter
Radioactive materials are often transported through vegetative cover and settle in the ground, making the removal of
surface layer soil a potentially important endeavor and therefore making a sod cutter an important tool in
remediation. A mowing machine first removes the grass. A sod cutter is then used to loosen and separate the first
4-5 cm (up to 15 cm) of soil. In this method, the thickness of the surface layer can be specifically set based on
surveys of levels of radioactivity versus depth, and the amount of waste can be reduced.1
Thin-layer soil surface removal.
An Agricultural Research Service study found that removing 2 inches of soil was effective in removing 80-90% of
radioactive surface contamination.2 However, individual sod cutters cannot remove huge quantities of soil/vegetation
and are also dependent on the soil type and local geology characteristics such as surface unevenness, presence of
rocks, soil texture, moisture content, and vegetation cover.1'3
•y
Figure A-5. Sod cutter used to loosen soil, which will be removed later by larger
equipment.
iThis technology has not been rigorously studied in terms of the type of filtration system that could be
Badapted for this application. Health and safety plans must account for adequate filtration of airborne
contamination to ensure worker safety.
May only be used after evaluation of the contamination penetration (may take significant time).
Doesn't remove all of the contamination.
Some sod cutters are available in each city, but availability is not widespread.
Labor costs may be high, units are not prohibitively expensive.
No liquid waste is generated; however, some dust may be created.
Relatively slow. May require significant time to perform each pass of the cutting and retrieval of the sod.
1 CAPT John Cardarelli II. Fukushima: Long-Term Recovery Lessons Learned. WARRP Capstone, September 13-14, 2012.
2 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
3 International Atomic Energy Agency. Technologies for remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. IAEA-TECDOC-1086, June, 1999.
A-11
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-6
Scarification
Description
Scarifiers and scabblers are mechanical tools used for pummeling, scraping, and thus removing (or abrading)
surface layers of contaminated concrete. They can be used either manually (by hand) or as part of a machine. As
part of a machine, scarifier heads can have several carbide tips that can work on large-surface floor or wall
applications. Scabblers often make use of vibrating pneumatically driven "needles" of about 1/8" diameter, carbide-
tipped steel. The most common scabblers typically can remove about 1/16" of surface at a single pass.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces.
Effectiveness
While scarifiers and scabblers are effective in removing layers of contaminated concrete, the process is repetitious
and can generate airborne contaminants.1 One test using scabbling and cutting, completed approximately 11 years
after the Chernobyl event, removed two 1-cm layers from an asphalt roadway to reduce contamination and dose in
the area.2 This technology may remove significant amounts of radioactive contamination while generating less
radioactive waste than demolition. When used by hand, the labor is slow and intensive, and when done without
engineering controls (shrouding or vacuums), can result in worker exposure to radiation or contamination. More
modern equipment uses automated systems and vacuum retrieval for more efficient contamination control.
Illustration
Figure A-6. Scarification equipment can consist of large-scale equipment
to smaller hand-held scabblers.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Modern equipment uses specialized shrouding and vacuum attachments to provide more efficient
contamination control. HEPA vacuums collect the fine dust produced during the scarifying process. With
such protection, scabbling can be done without increasing airborne exposure. Health and safety plans
must account for adequate filtration of airborne contamination to ensure worker safety.
Time to
Implement
Setup takes significant time on some larger scarifiers.
Technical
Performance
Typical application may be repeated until contamination is removed.
Availability
Larger scarifiers could be considered specialized equipment and are not widely available; however,
smaller-application scabblers, including hand-held versions, are available.
Costs
Large scarifiers can be very expensive (several $100K).
Process
Waste
Dust may be generated. Does not introduce water, chemicals, or abrasives into the waste stream.
Throughput
Not as rapid as less invasive techniques but often quicker than total removal.
1 Noyes, Robert. Nuclear Waste Cleanup Technology and Opportunities.
2 http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/45491 .pdf
A-12
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Larc
haul
and
into
bulk
Larc
syst
ave
debt
direc
Dig
Larc
How
mixi
Technology A-7
Large-scale Dig and Haul
Large-scale equipment, versus the smaller-scale sod cutter, for example, can be used in larger areas in digging and
hauling greater quantities of contaminated soils. This method can include equipment such as graders, bulldozers,
and rotary, elevating, and pan-type scrapers.1 The contaminated earth is then moved with earth-moving machines
into piles or buried in depressions or trenches.2 Typically, this procedure removes up to several feet of soil (and
buildings above grade) versus just a few inches of localized soil.
Large-scale dig/haul may be a stand-alone method or may be used with another method like the segmented gate
system (SGS) (See technology A-12). If used alone, the debris is hauled directly to a landfill; this operation becomes
a very expensive option with thousands of trucks (millions of highway miles) and much landfill space involved. If
debris is hauled to an SGS (staged near the event), a much shorter haul can be performed and much less waste is
directed to the landfill.
Dig and haul, demolition, and removal of contaminated materials for disposal.
Large-scale wholesale use of this technique can be virtually 100% effective at removing contaminated structures.
However, the use of this technique typically limits the opportunity for waste minimization by destroying buildings and
mixing contaminated and uncontaminated debris.
Figure A-7. Large-scale dig and haul equipment, versus smaller-scale equipment,
removes greater amounts of soil or landmass.
3,4
Could cause excessive levels of airborne contamination. Control of dust produced during demolition would
be needed. Burying wastes deeper in the soil or covering them with a layer of clean soil or concrete may
reduce human and animal exposure.
c
—p
Usually applied only after careful consideration. Removal may be rapid, but staging is time-consuming.
Total removal of buildings and soils can be very effective at decontamination of area; not effective at
reducing waste.
Many contractors are available to do this kind of job.
These types of applications can be very costly, especially in terms of waste disposal (typically a very costly
part of the job).
Liquid waste generation can be a large part of this job if water sprays are used to reduce airborne
contamination.
Often can be a slow process removing whole facilities.
1 http://naldc.nal. usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
2 International Atomic Energy Agency. Technologies for remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. IAEA-TECDOC-1086, June, 1999.
3 http://www.mma1 .com/enviro/what/remDesign.php
4 http://www.countvhire.co.uk/news.asp
A-13
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-8
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Selective Removal of Vegetation
Certain species of plants and vegetation absorb higher concentrations of radioactivity, partly due to their physical
characteristics.1 Some contaminants that have deposited on vegetative matter may remain at least until the first
precipitation event. Removing certain types of vegetation or selected parts can aid in remediation efforts. For
example, lichen in the Fukushima area was found to contain higher radioactive concentrations and therefore needed
to be removed from tree bark by high-pressure washing.2 Lichens containing cesium were also found in gutter
systems. In housing areas, garden trees may also need to be trimmed or removed. Much of the contamination is
located in the leaves, as they are a predominant cover for the tree or bush and much more likely to concentrate the
contaminants.
Foliage removal; composting.
Removing contaminated mulches or vegetation varies by type, but can be quite effective overall. For example, when
contaminated wheat-straw mulch was removed, over 90% of the contamination was removed with the mulch.1 As
part of the same study, the removal of contaminated Bermuda grass mulch removed 30% of the contamination when
2 tons per acre of mulch were removed and 60% when 5 tons per acre were removed.
_jJr "^(^ ' : --•
nfa
ill
Figure A-8. Workers remove contaminated leaves and select vegetation.3'4
Health and safety plans must account for adequate filtration of airborne contamination to ensure worker
safety.
Typically performed later, not earlier, in decontamination approach (more selective and not gross
decontamination method).
Only removes contamination left in leaves or bushes. This may not remove significant dose levels.
May be performed with commonly available tools.
Does not use expensive tools or highly skilled labor.
Liquid waste may be generated if vegetation is washed or if suppression spray is used to control airborne
resuspension.
Selective removal implies slow and deliberate actions; selecting and removing pieces is typically more
time-consuming than taking out whole trees/forests.
1 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
2 CAPT John Cardarelli II. Fukushima: Long-Term Recovery Lessons Learned. WARRP Capstone, September 13-14, 2012.
3 http://e360.vale.edu/feature/as fukushima cleanup begins long-term impacts are weighed/2482/
4 http://www.phillyburbs.com/mv town/palisades/widespread-power-outages-in-bucks-montco/article 9d843abe-1 aea-5404-9cc5-
30ac12ecd649.html
A-14
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-9
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Street Sweeping
Street sweeping may be used after a contamination event to begin the decontamination process. Street sweeping is
a practical method for cleaning widespread contamination because it uses equipment that is already available, and it
does not damage the surface.1 Unskilled personnel can deploy this technique as well without extensive planning.2
Often, a high-powered sprayer or individuals with brushes will clean sidewalks and roads after radiological or
contaminated substances are swept clean.3 Minimization of reaerosolization of contaminants would be an important
operational consideration for using this technology.
Dhysical cleaning of hard surfaces.
This method of remediation must also involve attention to dust and effluents as a result of sweepers disturbing
potentially radioactive particles. Street sweeping can leave the majority of radioactive particles behind, unless
vacuuming or washing occurs simultaneously.2 Sweeper dust can have a high concentration of radioactivity.4 This
high concentration of radioactivity causes a significant issue from the resuspension of contamination. The benefit of
using the street sweeper must be carefully weighed against the spread of contamination. Incorporating vacuum
Drush techniques can make this a more effective technique.2 More intensive procedures, such as sandblasting or
abrasive blasting, have been proven to be more effective than street sweeping alone. Another study used a sweeper
on soil, with its steel bristles removing 75% of the contamination from moist soil with a thin layer of contamination.
Another sweep removed up to 90% of the contamination. The same sweep with plastic bristles would have been less
effective because the plastic bristles could not cut as well through vegetation.5 This technique becomes much less
effective after a rain event or after months of delay in cleanup.
JPP
^" I
^^^^^•^•^•d
wggjgg
•ft •
Hfiu
^ pQfcp
Figure A-9. A street sweeper cleans the street surface without breaking the concrete.
This type of equipment has not been widely deployed with adequate filtration to protect workers from
airborne contamination. Shielding workers from the concentrated contaminant in the collection vessel
(when coupled with a vacuum) also should be considered.
Equipping existing sweepers could take months.
In some cases, street sweeping has been shown to be only marginally effective at removing contamination.
Generally widely available (municipally and commercially).
Does not require highly skilled labor. Cost of units may be expensive, but may be lower if a government
agency is supporting recovery.
May generate significant dust and wastewater during implementation.
Relatively rapid to operate. Should be able to cover a lot of area.
1 Paajanen, A., and Lento, J. 1992. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from the Cleanup of Large Areas Contaminated in Nuclear Accidents.
Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Program 1990-93. Project KAN-2.
2 http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/trs300 web.pdf
3http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=1856&catid=26&subcatid=162
4 Lehto, J. Cleanup of Large Radioactive-Contaminated Areas of Disposal of Generated Waste. Final Report of the KAN2 Project. TemaNord
1994:567. February, 2004.
5 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
A-15
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-10
Vacuuming
Description
Vacuuming is often used to remove the debris left behind by high-pressure washing and street sweeping.1 Other
vacuums can be incorporated into street-sweeping vehicles. Vacuuming is usually recommended for the final
cleanup of remediation areas after materials have been dried and contaminated materials removed. In situations like
this, some vacuums can also incorporate HEPA filters. HEPA vacuums are especially recommended for cleanup of
dust that may have settled in other areas outside the remediation area.2 Using certified HEPA-filtered vacuum
cleaners is a proven method of removing contamination without spreading it via resuspension. However, most
vacuum cleaners available at retail outlets are not certified to reduce resuspension.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces.
Effectiveness
Vacuuming is an effective way to clean up small particles or dust in the final stages of remediation. However, if using
a HEPA filter, care must be taken to ensure that the filter is installed correctly, so that air passes through the filter
when in use. Remediation personnel must also take care when removing the filter, using proper gear to avoid
exposure to the contaminated materials captured. Disposal of the filter requires further care, using well-sealed,
impervious plastic bags.2 In one case, a small vacuum street sweeper was used to remove contamination from a
clipped meadow, resulting in the removal of about half the contamination (after sweeping twice). After the initial two
sweeps, further sweeping/vacuuming was ineffective.3
Illustration
Figure A-10. Street sweepers with vacuum attachments allow contaminated
dust and debris to be collected.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Health and safety plans must account for adequate filtration of airborne contamination to ensure worker
safety. Shielding workers from the concentrated contaminant in the collection vessel also should be
considered.
Time to
Implement
zquipping existing sweepers with vacuum attachments and HEPA filtration systems could take months.
Technical
Performance
n some cases, where contamination has moved into concrete and asphalt, vacuuming has been shown to
be only marginally effective at removing contamination. Vacuum or sweeping machines might be useful
unless the contaminant had been frozen into the surface.
Availability
Costs
(Generally widely available (municipally and commercially).
Does not require highly skilled labor. Cost of units may be expensive, but may be lower if a government
agency is supporting recovery.
Process
Waste
Contaminated filters. May generate significant dust and wastewater during implementation.
Throughput
Vacuum cleaning of "hot spots" can be a slow process.
1 CAPT John Cardarelli II. Fukushima: Long-Term Recovery Lessons Learned. WARRP Capstone, September 13-14, 2012.
2 http://www.epa.gov/mold/i-e-r.htmltfHEPA Vacuum
3 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF
4http://www.maxwell.af.mil/photos/mediagallerv.asp?gallerylD=6&?id=-1&page=94&count=48
A-16
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-11
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
High-Pressure Washing
High-pressure washing involves washing surfaces with high-pressure water at various temperatures. This method
can use hot water washers or rotating brushes in decontaminating surfaces such as roofs, walls, streets, or other
affected surfaces.
Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces.
High-pressure washing is largely effective in removing contamination from some surfaces, particularly those of a
nonporous nature. However, high-pressure washing requires the use of prodigious amounts of water and can
generate similarly prodigious amounts of contaminated wastewater, which must be effectively collected and disposec
of. Methods that collect wastewater, such as spin-jet devices, are currently being assessed as a way to address this
limitation.1 Water can also be treated with zeolite to remove the radioactivity. Pressure-washing would not be
effective on surfaces that are damaged, such as partially damaged roofs. These surfaces would need to be manually
attended to. Water washing also has the drawback that some soluble radionuclides (particularly cesium) can be
carried farther into the substrate, preventing further cleanup.
While some water washing systems have proven effective at removing contamination, the effect of the water flushing
should be carefully considered; soluble cesium contamination has been shown to attach more tenaciously to
concrete substrate because of imbibition (driving the contamination further into the surface). Recent EPA testing of a
rotating water jet technology (3-Way Decontamination System, River Technologies, LLC, Forest, VA) on concrete
surfaces revealed modest removal levels (36%) of 137Cs applied as an aqueous solution.2 High pressure washing is
not difficult. Collection and treatment of rinsate is the challenge.
IBirl^
Figure A-11. Using pressure washing as a mitigation technology/' J
Pressure washers may spread (resuspend) contamination or potentially drive contamination deeper into
porous surfaces. Working with high-pressure, hot-water equipment can be hazardous, but mitigation with
a modest amount of training on use of equipment and use of proper PPE would likely be adequate.
Equipment is available for purchase at home improvement stores. Training personnel to use equipment
properly should take approximately an hour.
Has been shown not to be highly effective against "fixed" contamination.
Common equipment, available for purchase in every city.
May require highly skilled labor. Consider the cost of the vacuum, pressure washer, and discharge pump.
Cost of units may be lower if a government agency is supporting recovery (typically under $10K).
Bcreates airborne contamination and generates a significant amount of wastewater during implementation.
^Requires special handling of runoff wastewater, which would require highly specialized equipment that may
require engineering performed on a situation-by-situation basis.
Could be used effectively over large surfaces with minimal resource requirements. The secondary waste
concern could eliminate the benefits if the wastewater cannot be disposed of appropriately.
1 CAPT John Cardarelli II. Fukushima: Long-Term Recovery Lessons Learned. WARRP Capstone, September 13-14, 2012.
2 http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntrvld=232549
3 http://www.drizit.co.za/cleanup high pressure.php
A-17
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-12
Segmented Gate System
Description
An SGS is a radioactive soil waste minimization system using a series of conveyer belts that pass excavated soil
under radiation detectors. The conveyer is timed and instrumented so that when it detects a contaminated soil area
among a large number of uncontaminated areas, it activates a "gate" at the end of the conveyer belt to remove only
that area or section of the whole. The SGS is useful for radioactive soil waste and potentially could be modified for
other, well-subdivided media such as asphalt or extruded concrete.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Other technologies.
Effectiveness
Several projects have shown that the SGS may provide a significant waste reduction, with an average soil waste
reduction of 97% shown in most projects.1 Preliminary technology assessments as part of a 1995 DOE program
indicated that processing radionuclide-contaminated soils through physical separation using advanced sensors was
cost-effective and could significantly reduce the volume of soil requiring either further treatment or off-site disposal.
Further study demonstrated the ThermoRetec SGS unit to separate clean and contaminated soil for four different
radionuclides: plutonium, uranium, thorium, and cesium.2 The SGS provided significantly less efficiency in two cases
(1) if the soil was thoroughly contaminated (very uniform contamination throughout the section of soil removed) such
as with windblown contamination on soil, and (2) if the soil contained large amounts of vegetation.2 In some of these
cases, the efficiency of segregation of contaminated from uncontaminated soil dropped to less than 50%. SGS does
not have performance data available for an RDD-type application.
Illustration
Figure A-12. Clean soil removed from the white building housing the SGS, and the SGS
detector systems shown on a conveyer belt.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Requires special heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) (typically the system is within a "tent").
Time to
Implement
Not readily available and takes time for skilled operators to set up.
Technical
Performance
Has performed waste reduction at very high efficiencies in some applications.
Availability
Very few (fewer than five) of these units are available in the United States.
Costs
These units may cost over $1M to set up and operate.
Process
Waste
Minimal liquid waste is generated, but some portions of the equipment may need periodic decontamination
Throughput
Once operating, this equipment can process several hundred tons of soil per day.
1Moroney, K., J. Moroney III, J. Turney, etal. (1994). Processing plutonium-contaminated soil on Johnston Atoll. Radwaste Magazine, 1(3) July
1994.
2 Patteson, R. (2000). The Accelerated Site Technology Deployment Program/Segmented Gate System Project. Spectrum 2000 Conference,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, September 24-28,2000. Report No. SAND2000-2285C.
A-18
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-13
Soil Washing
Description
Soil washing uses a mechanical process involving water to remove pollutants and contaminants from the soil. Soil
washing is considered feasible for the treatment of a wide range of contaminants, including radionuclides. Soil
washing is often used in combination with other treatment technologies, as soil washing is primarily focused on
reducing the contaminants found concentrated in relatively small masses of material. The more concentrated the
material, the more cost-effective the soil washing will be. Soil washing separates the fine silt and clay particles from
coarser sand and gravel, with contaminants adhering to the silt or clay particles. The process facilitates the transfer
of chemical contaminants from the soil surface to the water, which can be separated and treated further.1 After the
process is complete, the sand and gravel are nontoxic and can be used as backfill, and the other volumes of
particles that contain contaminants are disposed of according to the appropriate regulations. The wash water must
be treated on- or off-site, depending on the contaminants present.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Other technologies.
Effectiveness
Soil washing is most appropriate when soils consist of less than 25 percent silt and clay and at least 50 percent sand
and gravel.2 Depending upon soil matrix characteristics, soil washing can allow for the return of clean coarse
fractions of soils to the site at a very low cost.3 Soil washing will generally not be cost effective for soils with fines
(silt/clay) content in excess of 30 to 50 percent.3 Other characteristics, such as moisture content, particle size
distribution, contaminant concentrations, and solubilities, also affect the efficiency and operability of a soil-washing
machine.4 Completion of pilot-scale treatability studies for soil washing to reduce contaminated soil volumes
demonstrated that this treatment process is not cost effective for liquid radioactive effluent sites and therefore is not
considered a treatment option for soil volume reduction prior to disposal.5 Soil washing equipment is transportable
and can operate on the site if necessary.1 Earthline Technologies operates a 10-ton-per-hour chemical extraction soil
washing plant for the removal of uranium-contaminated soil. Soil treatment using chemical (carbonate) extraction
reduced the volume of contaminated material requiring off-site disposal and lowered total project costs associated
with soil remediation from $45 million off-site disposal to $25 million foron-site processing and treatment. This soil
washing process is applicable to other radionuclide contaminants.6 Soil washing works best in tandem with another
treatment technology rather than as a stand-alone system, since it does not usually reduce contamination 100%.1 It
unproven for an ROD incident.
Illustration
Figure A-13. Soil washing machines can operate on-site to decontaminate soils.7
Safety, Health
& Environment
Requires special HVAC (typically the system is within a "tent").
Time to
Implement
Not readily available and takes time for skilled operators to set up. As for any ex-situ technology, there are
space requirements for the treatment system.
Technical
Performance
Soil-washing systems have to be customized for specific contamination characteristics (e.g., soil size
distribution, radionuclide types, and concentrations). Has some efficacy issues and may leave soil "sterile,"
unable to support vegetation.
Availability
Very few of these units are available in the United States.
1 http://www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/dutchboy/factsheets/what%20is%20soil%20washing.pdf
2 EPA. Technology Reference Guide for Radioactively Contaminated Media. EPA 402-R-07-004, October 2007
http://www.epa.gov/rpdwebOO/docs/cleanup/media.pdf
3 www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/GetDocument?documentlD=50
4 EPA. Technology Screening Guide for Radioactively Contaminated Sites. EPA402-R-96-017, November 1996.
5 http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/91 OONU6W.PDF
6 http://www.umasssoils.com/abstracts2001/tuesday/radionuclide.htm
7 http://www.decnv.com/EN/techniques/soil and groundwater
A-19
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Costs
Process
Waste |
Throughput
'echnologyA-13
Soil Washing
Operation costs could be substantial. This would be an extremely expensive waste reduction method if
used to treat the vast quantities of soils generated by an ROD.
Process generates significant quantities of liquid waste requiring disposal; however, some waste solutions
could be reused after treatment.
Once operating, this equipment can process several hundred tons of soil per day.
A-20
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1 4
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Composting of Organic Matter
Composting is a way of managing lower-activity organic wastes to prepare for ultimate disposal. A "bio-pile" must be
created in such a way as to provide the conditions for microbial growth through the presence of oxygen, water, and
nutrients. Pipes can be added to distribute oxygen throughout the pile. Nutrients or fertilizers can be added, while
keeping the pile moist. Although the radioactive contamination is not removed or destroyed in this process, the
quantity of residual organic matter may be naturally attenuated via the compost process. Application for composting
in an ROD scenario is for organic wastes (foliage but particularly animal carcasses with low levels of radiological
contamination), which are then reduced to a waste with much lower water content that can be disposed of in a landfill
or incinerator. Composting may also be a viable alternative for some niche waste streams from an ROD incident
such as food waste.1
Foliage removal; composting.
Composting achieves a mass reduction of 50 percent and a volume reduction of 50 to 90 percent. Monitoring
(specifically at a landfill) may be necessary to indicate levels of radioactivity at the higher end of this percentile since
all radionuclides are now part of the remaining 10 percent of the former "low level" material. Composting is most
effective in manageable sizes so that the conditions can be maintained. It can be carried out at commercial facilities
or in situ. Composting will not remove or reduce radiation in soils, thus no experience with radiological waste exists.
The U.S. military and others have found that through composting soils, some contaminants can be removed from
munitions-contaminated soils, providing evidence that the composting of this type of contaminated soil is a cost-
effective and environmentally sound clean-up method.2
^^B*3!£'
."^Bytj
fSpii
Figure A-1 4. Composting contaminated animal carcasses by mixing them with various
feedstock, can create clean, remediated soils.3
May leave materials loose and available for wind resuspension or attack from burrowing animals. Worker
safety needs to be considered during the "turning of piles" as part of in situ composting.
Not typically used in the early stages of decontamination.
Not shown to be effective at removing radiological contamination; may reduce overall volume of primary
waste form via microbial degradation.
Depending on the application (grass clippings vs. 100,000 head of cattle), composting may be performed
using less skilled workers.
Does not require expensive equipment.
Depending on the field condition, leachate produced could be collected and disposed of or reused in the
composting process.
Does not rapidly reduce waste volumes.
1 http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1194947372801
2 http://www.epa.gov/compost/pubs/explosn.txt
3 http://dhs.wifss.ucdavis.edu/headcontent/newsletter/20080ctober newsletter.php
A-21
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-15
Plasma arc Vitrification
Description
Dlasma arc torch vitrification is a process of disposing of wastes such as soils, debris, sediment, buried waste, and
metals into a relatively impervious matrix. A thermal plasma is an electrically conductive gas capable of generating
:emperatures up to 10,000 degrees Celsius.1 A plasma torch is used to heat ex-situ furnaces, which are used to
destroy contaminated waste.2 The high temperatures immobilize non-volatile chemical species into a non-leachable
matrix, making it appropriate for waste disposal.1 This method can be used in in-situ vitrification and remediation of
juried waste or contaminated soil, creating a rock-like mass that is resistant to leaching.3
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Waste stabilization.
Effectiveness
Plasma arc vitrification is a practice that can be implemented on a production scale.3 Plasma arc vitrification is
effective because of its ability to sustain high temperatures, operate in a variety of environments, reduce waste
volume, and maintain low gas throughput, as well as its flexibility to treat a variety of waste types.1 It is also
considered a permanent treatment technology, as opposed to other interim technologies. Plasma arc centrifugal
reatment in particular is effective in disposing of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) and other materials, despite the
Dresence of heavy metals and mixtures of organic materials, oils, metals, and water.4 However, this process does
not affect radioactivity, so volatile radionuclides trapped during the process will require further treatment and/or
disposal.5 This technology would have very limited, if any, value for an ROD incident for the very small amount of
mixed wastes. For the vast quantities of lower-activity waste, this waste reduction/stabilization method would be
extremely expensive.
Illustration
Figure A-15. Plasma arc systems for waste vitrification are effective.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Significant concerns about melter off-gas and volatile contaminant species. Also, melters have hazards
associated with ignition of organic species (and subsequent fires). Vitrification requires extensive federal
and state permitting and can be subject to dangerous fires.
Time to
Implement
Building and permitting a melter is very time-consuming.
Technical
Performance
Waste treated by vitrification has been shown to be very resistant to leach processes.
Availability
Only a few radioactive waste melters operate within the United States.
Costs
Vitrification systems are very expensive to build and operate. Vitrification processes are usually used only
for waste that has very high concentrations of radionuclides.
Process
Waste
Minimal liquid waste is produced from these processes.
Throughput
Melters are slow processes, the feed is mixed with "frit," and the waste loading is not high.
1 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p017705.pdf
2 http://www.aepi.army.mil/publications/sustainabilitv/docs/plasma-arc-oct28.pdf
3 http://www.containment.fsu.edU/cd/content/pdf/132.pdf
4 http://www.tms.org/pubs/iournals/iom/9910/womack-9910.html
5 EPA. Technology Screening Guide for Radioactively Contaminated Sites. EPA402-R-96-017, November 1996.
A-22
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1 6
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Cementitious Stabilization/Solidification
Cementitious stabilization/solidification (S/S) is a widely used technique for treating and disposing of hazardous
waste and LLRW. Cementitious materials may include cement, ground granulated blastfurnace slag, fly ash, lime,
and silica fume. Often, clays and additives are added to help immobilize contaminants or otherwise enhance the
waste forms that are produced as a result of this process.1 Commonly called "grouting," this technique uses cement-
Dased grout systems to immobilize contaminants. The cement lowers the solubility of the contaminants. This process
can take place in situ or ex situ.2 Cement-based "grout" systems have been used for many years, in many instances
for S/S radioactive waste of all levels. Cement-based systems have been used to treat low-level waste from nuclear
power plants for decades.3 This method can also be used to treat radioactive contaminated soils, sediment, or
sludge. Sulfur polymer cement (SPC) is a viable, non-cementitious "grouting" material that displays superior
radioactive waste stabilization. Despite its name, SPC is a thermoplastic material, not a hydraulic cement. It has a
relatively low melting point (120°C) and melt viscosity (about 25 centipoise), and thus can be processed easily by a
simple heated stirred mixer. Compared with hydraulic Portland cements, SPC has a number of advantages. Sulfur
Dolymer concrete compressive and tensile strengths twice those of comparable Portland cement concretes have
Deen attained. Full strength is reached in a matter of hours rather than several weeks. Concretes prepared using
SPCs are extremely resistant to most acids and salts. Sulfates, for example, which are known to attack hydraulic
cements, have little or no effect on the integrity of SPC. Because of these properties, modified SPC has been
proposed for use as a paving material and for the production of tanks, pipes, and other structures where durable
concretes are required.
Waste stabilization.
Cementitious materials have low processing costs, are compatible with many disposal scenarios, and can meet strict
processing and performance requirements. Attention must be given to characterizing the waste produced,
developing methods to treat the waste, and mixing the Cementitious mixtures correctly. Certain ingredients influence
tie volume of waste treated, which ultimately can have an effect on the lifetime disposal costs. Evaporation
Dretreatment may be necessary to control leachability as well. Ordinary Portland cement has been proven effective,
with improved compatibility, mechanical integrity, and chemical durability in housing wastes.
Figure A-1 6. Soils or wastewater can be solidified, locking in contaminants
in low-permeability, high-strength blocks.4
Have few safety and environmental hazards (with the notable exception of jet grouting at high pressures).
pementation processes usually have to undergo trials for product consistency and leachability. This
process typically comes after another process (like evaporation) and treats the higher-concentration
|"reject" solution.
1 Center for Remediation Technology and Tools, U.S. EPA. Stabilization/Solidification Processes for Mixed Wastes. Prepared under Contract
No. 2W-7520-NASA. EPA402-R-96-014. June 1996
2 http://www.cement.org/waste/wt ss.asp
3 http://www.cement.org/waste/wt apps radioactive.asp
4 http://www.qeo-solutions.com/what-we-do/technoloqies/soil-mixinq/in-situ-stabilization
A-23
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1 6
Technical
Performance
Considered a very robust waste form.
Cementitious Stabilization/Solidification
A 'I h'rt Bllniversally available. Cement is readily available in all parts of U.S. It is economical and can be purchased
in small or bulk quantities.
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Grouting costs could be much higher for larger volumes because of significant labor involved and cement
costs.
There is usually no secondary liquid waste produced in this process. The concentration of the S/S-treated
wastes may impact disposal options. Options may include using monofills (dedicated landfills) or treating
the waste in situ and leaving it in place.
Grouting hazardous waste is typically a "small batch" process.
A-24
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-17
Incineration
Incineration is a common method of disposal of contaminated or hazardous material. Incineration is also a potential
alternative for mixed hazardous/radioactive waste as well as contaminated biomass. Waste is first collected in bulk
(i.e., in boxes, bags, or drums). Waste might be cut, shredded, or crushed for volume reduction. Incineration works
Description by destroying hazardous materials and breaking them down into simpler chemical forms, eliminating liquids in the
wastes that could otherwise complicate waste management, decreasing waste volume, and even generating usable
energy.1 Throughout the process, ash is collected and handled remotely, then packaged in containers to await
storage or disposal
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Waste volume reduction.
Effectiveness
Incineration can allow up to 80% or more of solid radioactive waste to be burned efficiently, greatly reducing the
volume of waste.2 Incineration has become a largely effective and efficient process at nuclear power plants, but
'urther improvements still need to be made for other applications.2 The incineration process requires extensive
permitting and it may not be cost-effective to construct units specifically for an incident. Though commonly used,
ncineration can result in contamination through airborne radionuclide emissions, necessitating elaborate air pollution
control equipment. Few established incineration sites accept radioactive waste, so the capacity is limited.3 This
technology would have very limited, if any, value for an ROD incident for the very small amount of mixed wastes. For
the vast quantities of lower-activity waste, this waste reduction/stabilization method would be extremely expensive.
Illustration
Figure A-17. Waste is collected in bags or drums before being incinerated.4'5
Safety, Health
& Environment
Significant concerns about incinerator off-gas and volatile contaminant species; requires special permits.
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Incinerators are difficult to site because of off-gas issues and public acceptance. May require extensive
[permitting and not be cost-effective to build specifically for an incident.
Only combustible waste can be handled in this manner.
Availability
Few radioactive waste incinerators operate within the United States.
Costs
Costs are not as high as vitrification but are still significant. Capacity limitations are a much more severe
inhibition than cost.
Process
Waste
Dry waste (ash) is collected and handled remotely, then packaged in containers to await storage or
disposal. Liquid waste may potentially be generated from operations associated with the technology, which
may require subsequent treatment and disposal.
Throughput
Most incinerators require manual sorting of items, which slows the process.
1http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockev=000005FP.txt
2 http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Maqazines/Bulletin/Bull314/31404683742.pdf
3 http://www.uwgb.edu/safetv/envpolicies/
4 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/11/pictures/l 11111-nuclear-cleanup-struggle-at-fukushima/#fukushima-daiichi-
nuclear-reactor-remediation-waste 43457 600x450.jpg
5 http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2008/03/
A-25
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-18
Chelating Agents
Description
Chelating agents include zeolites, various types of clays, and other sorts of engineered materials. Some engineered
materials are quite novel and can have unique application in certain situations.1 Zeolites are a well-established
technology that removes radioactive components from aqueous waste streams. Zeolites are crystalline
aluminosilicates, compositionally similar to clay minerals, but differing in their well-defined three-dimensional nano-
and micro-porous structure. The selectivity of non-ionic adsorption mechanisms is related to this porous structure.
Ion exchange (IX) and non-ionic adsorption properties often occur simultaneously and are linked since the porous
structure controls the size of the radionuclide that can enter the pores and engage in IX. Considerable research and
some implementations have taken place using zeolites for radioactive waste site remediation and decontamination of
waters containing radionuclides.1 Misaelides et al. (1999) presented information with general environmental
applications for zeolites, but also contained information on the use of zeolites as radionuclide sorbents, including
investigation of natural zeolites and nuclear waste management in the case of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and the
sorption of heavy metals and radionuclides on zeolites and clays.2 In another evaluation, the inorganic IX media IE-
96 (synthetic zeolite) was chosen for cesium recovery because of its high sorption rate, high decontamination factor,
and IX capacity.3 Clays are a popular choice for decontamination because they are inexpensive and widely available.
Clays are ideal chelating agents for this purpose because cations with low hydration energy undergo dehydration in
the interlayer and promote layer collapse, and are thus fixed in the clay's interlayers.4
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup, volume reduction, or waste stabilization.
Effectiveness
Genera/ note. Chelating agents have a variety of applications, two of which are discussed below. Regardless of
application, it is important to note that the properties of natural zeolite and clays can vary considerably depending on
the specific deposit from which they were quarried, both as a result of mineralogy and the presence of naturally
occurring substances that affect, through a variety of mechanisms, the adsorption properties for the radionuclide.
Wastewater applications. Natural zeolites (e.g., clinoptilolite) can remove radioactive cations such as cesium from
low-level radioactive liquid waste. One study adapted natural zeolite sorbents and chemical precipitation to
decontaminate liquid low-level waste. Clinoptilolite was shown to have a high selectivity for 137Cs. In the absence of
potassium ions, native clinoptilolite removed other radionuclides very effectively from the liquid waste.5 Another
discussion of clinoptilolite, along with potential shortcomings of this zeolite including mineralogical variability even in
the same deposit, has been documented in the literature. This discussion also cited that clinoptilolite was used to
remove cesium and strontium from radioactive wastewater at the Sellafield plant in Great Britain.6 Just as the ability
of zeolites to remove radionuclides varies with the specific zeolite, it is well known that the characteristics of clays
vary with type of clay and the locality from which it comes.7 For instance, bentonite, in particular, has been
considered an ideal material for a deep geological repository for its high swelling ability, low hydraulic conductivity,
high cationic sorption capacity, and long-term stability.8 In other applications, vermiculite, illite, kaolinite, and
maylonite have been investigated.
In-place immobilization of soils. Regarding efficacy, though zeolites have had limited uses in environmental
remediation outside of their use in the nuclear industry for liquid radioactive waste management, they are seen as
having significant potential for environmental remediation.1 Campbell and Davies (1997) investigated plant uptake of
cesium from soils amended with clinoptilolite and calcium carbonate, based on the observation that 137Cs from the
Chernobyl accident remained in a bioavailable form in soils of Great Britain. As a potential remedial measure, the
1 EPA (2009). Potential Nano-Enabled Environmental Applications for Radionuclides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C. Document No. EPA 402-R-09-002. January. Available at:
http://nepis.epa.qov/Exe/ZvPURL.cqi?Dockev=P1005GR1.txt
2 Misaelides, P., F. Macasek, T.J. Pinnavaia, C. Colella (Eds.). 1999. Natural Microporous Materials in Environmental Applications. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
3 http://www.osti.gov/enerqvcitations/product.biblio.isp7osti id=6309190
40scarson, D. W., Watson, R. L, & Miller, H. G. (1987). The interaction of trace levels of cesium with montmorillonitic and illitic clays. Applied
Clay Science, 2(1), 29-39.
5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16563616
6 Rajec, P., & Domianova, K. (2008). Cesium exchange reaction on natural and modified clinoptilolite zeolites. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, 275(3), 503-508.
7 Ugur, F. A., Sahan, H., & Tel, E. (2011). Sorption Studies of Cs+on Illite.
8 Galambos, M., Kufcakova, J., & Rajec, P. (2009). Adsorption of cesium on domestic bentonites. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, 281 (3), 485-492.
A-26
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1 8 Chelating Agents
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
zeolite clinoptilolite was tested in a greenhouse pot experiment for its effectiveness in selectively taking up cesium
from two British soils: a lowland loam and an upland peat.9 Batch and dynamic leaching methods were used to
evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxyapatite (HA), illite, and zeolite, alone and in combination, as soil additives for
reducing the migration of 137Cs and uranium (U) from contaminated sediments. The current results demonstrate the
effectiveness of soil amendments in reducing the mobility of U and 137Cs, which makes in-place immobilization an
effective remediation alternative.10
IX
Figure A-1 8. Zeolites and clays are quarried in very large quantities.
•Most zeolites and clays, particularly those with current widespread uses, are regarded as a safe material. If
zeolite is in sodium form, sodium toxicity risk to soil and plants increases as cation exchange proceeds.
[Alternatively, soil quality could easily be monitored and appropriate amendments made.
Some technical development is usually required to demonstrate efficacy to meet desired criteria. Prior to
treatment for disposal, two pre-treatments— dewatering and size reduction— may be needed.
Most chelation processes can be engineered to achieve high efficiency. Zeolites and clays are a mature,
long-established technology. They are widely used for the treatment of radioactive waste streams and are
(under ongoing development.
Zeolites and clays are a bulk commodity and might be available in large quantities following a
contamination incident.
Some zeolites and engineered chelation agents are expensive (radionuclide-specific synthetics), while
others can be relatively cheap. Overall, the use of zeolites or clays can be less expensive than other
treatments.
Residuals from aqueous treatment using chelating agents may be radioactive waste and should be
disposed of appropriately. The residual generated by chelating agent processes is the spent regenerant.
Disposal of the spent regenerant most frequently will require discharge to a wastewater treatment facility.
Depending on the contaminant concentrations in the spent regenerant, it may be necessary to evaluate the
impacts on wastewater treatment plant discharges and disposal requirements. Radionuclides may become
so concentrated in the brine and the resin that they may require special handling and disposal procedures.
Systems may use disposable media that can be removed by a waste broker, and use the resin to
exhaustion (rather than regenerating), especially if disposal of liquid residuals to a wastewater treatment
plant is not an option.
A well-engineered zeolite or clay process can have a high throughput.
9 Campbell, L.S., and B.E. Davies. 1997. Plant and Soil. 189(1):65-74.
10 Seaman, J.C., T. Meehan, and P.M. Bertech (2001). Immobilization of cesium-137 and uranium in contaminated sediments using soil
amendments. J Environ Qual, 30(4):1206-13. July-August. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11476497
A-27
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-19
Ion Exchange (IX)
Description
IX in general is one of the most well-developed, common, and effective treatment methods for removing radioactive
ons from contaminated wastewater. As noted in the description of chelating agents, IX mechanisms can be
significant for these materials. IX in this description refers to materials for which the primary removal mechanism is
on exchange, often achieved through engineered resins. Some engineered materials are quite novel and can have
unique application in certain situations.1 Engineered resins can have more reproducible physical characteristics
such as pore size than naturally occurring chelating agents such as zeolites and clays, but can be more expensive.
X can remove low levels of radionuclides from drinking water. During IX treatment, water is passed through a resin
containing exchangeable ions. There are two types of IX: anion exchange and cation exchange. Anion exchange
resins generally exchange chloride for anionic contaminants, like uranium. Cation exchange resins generally
exchange sodium or potassium for cationic contaminants, such as radium and cesium. Mixed bed resins with cation
and anion exchange media in two layers are available for systems that need to remove both radioactive cations and
anions. IX is also effective for the removal of radionuclides that yield beta particles and photon emitters. In the
Radionuclides Rule, EPA has listed Best Available Technologies (BATs) and Small System Compliance
Technologies (SSCTs) for radionuclide treatment based on their efficiency at removing radionuclides from drinking
water. EPA has identified IX as a BAT and SSCT for radium, uranium, gross alpha, and beta particle (e.g., 90Sr) and
Dhoton emitters. It can remove up to 99 percent of these contaminants depending on the resin type, regeneration
requency, pH, initial concentration, and competing ions.1 IX resins are regenerated by a series of steps, including
jackwashing, brining, and rinsing, but removal efficiency and resin lifetime can be affected by regeneration.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of IX processes can be affected by scaling of minerals, chemical precipitants, and surface
clogging, all of which leads to resin fouling. In order to reduce such occurrences, appropriate pretreatment measures
such as filtration of suspended solids or addition of chemicals to reduce scaling may be practiced. Competition by
other ions (such as sulfate and ions associated with water hardness) can reduce the service capacity of the resin
Ded for the target radionuclide.1 Wastewater treatment processes exist that effectively remove radioactive 137Cs. An
X system assembled at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant site reported to achieve a cesium removal goal
of 99.9 percent and be responsible for 70 percent of the radioactivity removed from the wastewater, although details
of the exact process and IX resin are not provided.2 Such effectiveness is not unexpected because IX was used to
clean up legacy nuclear waste from an old reactor at the DOE's Savannah River Site with removal efficiencies up to
99 percent.3 Removal of uranium from water (contamination levels vary) by IX can be very effective (greater than 99
percent removal in most cases). The most common resin used for uranium removal was an anionic resin (Dowex or
Durolite). Based on another study involving bench-scale isotherm tests using groundwater, removal of 90Sr was
found to be very effective (greater than 99 percent removal in one case). Finally, removal of radium from water by IX
can be very effective (62 percent to greater than 99 percent removal). The most common resin used was a cationic,
Dolystyrene-based zeolite resin which performed equally well in the calcium, sodium, and hydrogen form. Another IX
medium commonly used was manganese greensand, which was equally effective (84 percent to 98 percent
•emoval).4
Illustration
Figure A-19. IX can be used for the removal of radioactive ions from contaminated
wastewater.
1 http://cfpub.epa.qov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Ion Exchange
2 http://www.kurion.com/applications/separation/fukushima
3 http://www.wmsym.Org/archives/2002/Proceedings/19/208.pdf
4 Drinking Water Treatability Database: http://iaspub.epa.aov/tdb/paaes/general/home.do
A-28
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-1 9
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Ion Exchange (IX)
llX systems have few safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real
hazardous chemicals, etc).
Systems can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the
laboratory, may take time.
Some IX systems have been proven to be highly efficient and are an industry standard for wastewater
cleanup and drinking water treatment.
May not be commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), but often can be quickly assembled. Many public water
Availability Htreatment systems have some IX capability, although different resins may be required to address the
radionuclide of interest.
- . [ llX systems are typically not expensive (though crystalline silicotitanate [CST], cesium-specific resin is very
| expensive); they are relatively simple to operate and may pose fewer long-lead permitting requirements.
Process
Waste
Throughput
Residuals from aqueous treatment using IX may be radioactive waste and should be disposed of
appropriately. The residual generated by IX processes is the spent regenerant. Disposal of the spent
regenerant most frequently will require discharge to a wastewater treatment facility. Depending on the
contaminant concentrations in the spent regenerant, it may be necessary to evaluate the impacts on
wastewater treatment plant discharges and disposal requirements. Radionuclides may become so
concentrated in the brine and the resin that they may require special handling and disposal procedures.
Systems may use disposable media that can be removed by a waste broker, and use the resin to
exhaustion (rather than regenerating), especially if disposal of liquid residuals to a wastewater treatment
plant is not an option.
An individual column could be slow, but many columns can be grouped together for large throughput.
A-29
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Description
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Effectiveness
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technology A-20 Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a pressure-driven membrane separation process. Water is forced through a membrane
with small pores by pressures ranging from 100 to 150 pounds per square inch (psi). RO removes many types of
arge molecules and ions from solutions by applying pressure to the solution when it is on one side of a selective
membrane. To be selective, this membrane should not allow large molecules or ions through the membrane's pores,
but should allow smaller components of the solution to pass freely. RO can remove low levels of radionuclides,
ncluding cesium, from drinking water and wastewater. The membrane is essentially non-permeable to the
contaminants, while treated water is collected on the other side. In the Radionuclides Rule, EPA has listed BATs and
SSCTs for radionuclide treatment based on their efficiency at removing radionuclides from drinking water. EPA has
dentified RO as a BAT and SSCT for uranium, radium, gross alpha, and beta particles and photon emitters. It can
remove up to 99 percent of these radionuclides, depending on the membrane type, pH, recovery, and initial
contaminant concentration.
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Membrane failure, which can allow contaminants to pass through to the finished water, is a key concern. For this
reason, systems will need to test the membrane for integrity. Direct methods measure the integrity of the membrane
and its housing through either pressure drop or markers and usually require taking the unit offline. Another significant
ssue with RO is membrane fouling and scaling. Hardness components such as calcium and magnesium can
precipitate scales and silica, which will decrease membrane efficiency. Colloids and bacteria can also foul the
membranes. Both fouling and scaling will increase the pressure drop, decreasing membrane life and increasing
energy costs.1 Some type of pretreatment is generally required to obtain acceptable membrane run times.
RO is an effective treatment method for the removal of cesium from contaminated wastewater and nuclear liquid
wastes.2 Another study found that RO membrane removal performance of cesium reduced the concentration of
cesium, strontium, and iodine by less than one hundredth in high-salinity water.3 Removal of radium from water by
RO can be very effective (87 percent to greater than 99 percent removal), while RO in most cases can effectively
remove greater than 90 percent of uranium from water. There are a number of commercially available products
employing RO for control of strontium in drinking water. Four were tested in USEPA's Environmental Technology
Verification program.4 Natural strontium was effectively removed (97 to greater than 99 percent). RO has also been
found to be effective in decontamination processes with a large number of radioisotopes.5
5|5p^g3S
Figure A-20. RO can remove radionuclides from a variety of waste streams.
33W safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real hazardous chemicals,
c.).
Can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the laboratory,
may take time. RO can be considered an advanced technology to operate, requiring skilled operator labor.6
RO units can be automated and compact, making them appropriate for small systems.
1 http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Treatment
2 Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT): http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/wcit/index.cfm
3 Cesium (Cs) and strontium (Sr) removal as model materials in radioactive water by advanced reverse osmosis membrane Takao Sasaki, Jun
Okabe, Masahiro Henmi, Hiromasa Hayashi, Yutaka lida Desalination and Water Treatment Vol. 51, Iss. 7-9,2013.
4 http://www.epa.gov/etv
5 Bond, W.H. (1982). Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis (Liquid Treatment Systems). Annual DOE LLWMP Participants Information Meeting,
Denver, CO, August 31,1982.
6http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Treatment
A-30
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-20 Reverse Osmosis
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Often has limited effectiveness for completely removing some radionuclides. Depending on various factors
(e.g., contaminant type, concentration, pH, etc.), supplemental treatment technologies may be necessary.
RO systems may not be COTS but often are able to be assembled quickly.
The high pressure required for RO means higher energy and capital costs for the membrane units. This
can be significant compared to other technologies, making RO one of the more expensive treatment
options. May pose fewer long-lead permitting requirements.
Residuals from aqueous treatment using RO may be radioactive waste and should be disposed of
appropriately. The residual generated by RO is the spent/used membrane. Most frequently, the spent
membrane will need to be disposed of in an appropriate class of landfill. Other treatment residuals
generated by RO may include "concentrated reject' from the concentrated side of the membrane. Liquid
disposal options may include direct discharge, discharge to a sewer system, discharge to a wastewater
treatment plant, and disposal to an underground injection control well. The concentration of radionuclides
in the liquid residual may impact disposal options due to the very high level of concentrated contaminants
(including radionuclides) removed from the water. This concentration will depend on the efficiency of the
RO unit.
Can be configured to have a high throughput. RO units can be automated and compact, making them
appropriate for small systems.
A-31
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-21
Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal
Description
zlectrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal (ED/EDR) uses an IX membrane to separate ionic contaminants. ED is an
electrochemical separation process in which ions are transferred through membranes from a less concentrated to a
more concentrated solution as a result of the flow of direct electric current. Contaminants are removed from the
solvent (water, in this case) through the membrane, as opposed to other membrane processes where the solvent
Dasses through the membrane and the contaminants are rejected by the membranes. In the EDR process, the
electrical polarity (anode and cathode) are periodically reversed to control membrane scaling and fouling. Polarity
reversal typically occurs two to four times per hour. When the electrical polarity is reversed, the product and
concentrate streams are also reversed. This prevents any of the flow compartments from seeing streams with high
dissolved solids for extended periods of time and aids in controlling fouling of the membranes. EDR consists of
stacks of EDR membranes arranged in lines and thus, make up the stages in an EDR system. Unlike the
nanofiltration and RO processes, the product from the prior stage is further treated in subsequent stages. The
concentrate from each stage is blended and wasted. ED/EDR has been identified by EPA as a SSCT for radium, and
may also be effective in removing uranium.1 ED/EDR has also been identified as an option for 137Cs removal.2'3
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
The units can be highly automated and require only monitoring of operational parameters and periodic maintenance.
ED/EDR may be an effective alternative for small systems that have multiple contaminants. ED/EDR membrane
systems frequently require some type of pretreatment to: (1) condition the water for optimum membrane
effectiveness, (2) modify the feed water to prevent membrane fouling and plugging, and (3) maximize the time
between cleanings and prolong membrane life. The type of pretreatment required depends on the feed water quality
and membrane type.
Illustration
Figure A-21. ED/EDR uses an IX membrane to separate ionic contaminants.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Few safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real hazardous chemicals,
letc.).
Time to
Implement
Can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the laboratory,
may take time. ED/EDR can be considered an advanced technology to operate, requiring skilled operator
labor.4 ED/EDR units can be automated and compact, making them appropriate for small systems.
Technical
Performance
Often has limited effectiveness for completely removing some radionuclides. Depending on various factors
(e.g., contaminant type, concentration, water temperature, etc.), supplemental treatment technologies may
be necessary.
Systems are generally available and can be quickly assembled.
The costs of these systems are relatively high compared to other radionuclide treatment options. Capital
costs are high and operating costs are increased by required acid washes for radionuclides and by
disposal costs.
1 http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Electrodialysis
2 Containment and Disposal of Large Amounts of Contaminated Water: A Support Guide for Water Utilities:
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecuritv/emerplan/upload/epa817b12002.pdf
3 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/626210.pdf
4http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Treatment
A-32
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-21 Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal
Process
Waste
Throughput
Residuals from aqueous treatment using ED/EDR may be radioactive waste and should be disposed of
appropriately. The residual generated by ED/EDR is the spent/used membrane. Most frequently, the spent
membrane will need to be disposed of in an appropriate class of landfill. Other treatment residuals
generated by ED/EDR may include "concentrated reject" from the concentrated side of the membrane.
Liquid disposal options may include direct discharge, discharge to a sewer system, discharge to a
wastewater treatment plant, and disposal to an underground injection control well. The concentration of
radionuclides in the liquid residual may impact disposal options due to the very high level of concentrated
contaminants (including radionuclides) removed from the water. This concentration will depend on the
efficiency of the ED/EDR unit.
Can be configured to have a high throughput. ED/EDR units can be automated and compact, making them
appropriate for small systems.
A-33
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-22
Membrane Filtration
Description
\lanofiltration, ultrafiltration, and microfiltration are all membrane processes commonly used in water treatment to
•emove small particles or soluble species. Similar to RO (see Technology A-20), they operate under the same
Drinciple as regular particle filtration, but the distinguishing feature between them is their effective pore size, and
:hus, the minimum size of particle that will be rejected by the membrane. Another distinction between these types of
membrane processes and RO is that RO membranes reject almost all materials with the exception of small soluble
organic species that are not otherwise considered even to be "particles", while other types of filtration allow larger
particles to pass through.1 Thus, these types of membranes may be more applicable when the radionuclide is bound
:o a particle, as may be the case when some types of chelating agents are employed first.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
A number of types of filtration methods are effective in removing contaminants from wastewater through membranes.
Nanofiltration and ultrafiltration have been investigated for the removal of radioactive species from aqueous waste
streams as an ultra low-level analytical tool to separate actinides from other ionic species in high-level radioactive
waste solutions, and as a possible treatment option for waste streams from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dlutonium Treatment Facility.2 In these applications, the nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes were coupled
with water-soluble chelating polymers (such as IX resins), but did not have the disadvantage of using organic
solvent-based extractants.3 A small study was undertaken in order to evaluate the separation of 137Cs from a sodium
salt excess medium utilizing nanofiltration. The removal efficiency of cesium was found to be between 75 and 95
percent, depending on the concentration of a specific ligand, resorcinarene 1.4 Semi-permeable membranes have
Deen demonstrated to be effective in reducing the volume of wastewater containing cesium and cobalt.5 An inorganic
nanofiltration membrane was used to treat LLRW and found to be effective.6 Membrane filtration is often used as a
pretreatment for surface water, sea water, or contaminated effluent before other processes such as RO or other
membrane systems. For example, membrane filtration is generally not very effective for the removal of uranium (less
:han 60 percent depending on the membrane type and pH). One study found 0.45-micron membrane filtration to
•emove 50 to 60 percent of uranium between pHs 6.5 and 9; however, membrane filtration followed
coagulation/flocculation and was suspected to be responsible for most of the uranium removal. Based on another
study, removal of cobalt(ll) from water by ultrafiltration was very effective when combined with a sulfonated polymer
up to 98 percent removal), and suggests that ultrafiltration without the use of polymers is not effective at cobalt
removal. As pH increased from 3 to 6, cobalt removal also increased.7
Illustration
Figure A-22. Filtration membranes can come in any number of forms depending
on the particle size and pore size.
1 EPA (2009). Potential Nano-Enabled Environmental Applications for Radionuclides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C. Document No. EPA 402-R-09-002. January. Available at:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPURLcgi?Dockev=P1005GR1.txt
2 Smith B.F. 1993. Actinide separations for advanced processing of nuclear waste: Annual Report 1993. Report LA-UR-93-4017, Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
3 Smith, B.F., T.W. Robinson, J.W. Gohdes. 1995. Water-Soluble Polymers and Composition Thereof. U.S. Patent DOE No. S-78,350.
4 Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT): http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/wcit/index.cfrn
5 Svittsov, A.A., Khubetsov, S.B., and Volchek, K. (2011). Membrane treatment of liquid wastes from radiological decontamination operations.
Water Science and Technology, 64 (4): 854-860.
6 Choo, K.H., Kwon, D.J., Lee, K.W., and Choi, S.J. (2002). Selective removal of cobalt species using nanofilfration membranes. Environmental
Science and Technology, 26(6)1330-1336.
7 Drinking Water Treatability Database: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tdb/pages/general/home.do
A-34
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-22 Membrane Filtration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Few safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real hazardous chemicals,
etc.).
Can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the laboratory,
may take time. Membrane filtration technologies can be considered an advanced technology to operate,
requiring skilled operator labor.8
High efficiency, but may have limited effectiveness for completely removing some radionuclides.
Depending on various factors (e.g., contaminant type, concentration, pH, etc.), supplemental treatment
technologies may be necessary.
Most membranes are typically specially built.
Filtration membranes are low cost and excellent chemical resistance. May pose fewer long-lead permitting
requirements.
Residuals from aqueous treatment using membrane filtration may be radioactive waste and should be
disposed of appropriately. The residual generated is the spent/used filters and filter materials. Most
frequently, the spent filters will need to be disposed of in an appropriate class of landfill. Other treatment
residuals may include "concentrated reject" from the concentrated side of the membrane. Liquid disposal
options may include direct discharge, discharge to a sewer system, discharge to a wastewater treatment
plant, and disposal to an underground injection control well. The concentration of radionuclides in the liquid
residual may impact disposal options due to the very high level of concentrated contaminants (including
radionuclides) removed from the water. This concentration will depend on the efficiency of the membrane
Can be configured to have a high throughput.
1 http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Treatment
A-35
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-23
Conventional Filtration
Description
Coagulation/filtration is one of the most common water treatment techniques used by larger water systems, used for
•emoving particulates and turbidity from surface water. A coagulant, typically either iron or aluminum salts (e.g.,
activated alumina, with polymeric materials) is added and mixed with the influent water. The larger particles formed
Dy coagulation are then removed from the water by filtration (typically sand, anthracite coal, or a combination of the
wo). Regular particle filtration will reject particles down to about the one micron (1,000 nanometer [nm]) size range.
f filtration to reject particles smaller than this limit is required, membrane separation should be considered.
Membrane filtration processes (see Technology A-22) are frequently used as an alternative to rapid sand filtration in
conventional treatment applications. In the Radionuclides Rule, EPA has listed BATs and SSCTs for radionuclide
treatment based on their efficiency at removing radionuclides from drinking water. EPA has identified
coagulation/filtration as a BAT and SSCT for uranium. It may remove up to 90 percent of uranium at pH 10 and may
be an attractive option for systems that already have a filtration process in place. This technology will likely be
considered only for surface water systems, and there are very few surface water supplies that have uranium. For
•adium, conventional treatment alone may be suitable for applications where influent concentrations are slightly
above the maximum contaminant limit and minimal removal is required. Radium removal is dependent on the initial
concentration, filtration/media type, coagulant used, and filter treatments. Another filtration option is pre-formed
Hydrous Manganese Oxide (HMO) filtration. Pre-formed HMO filtration has been identified by EPA as a SSCT for
radium. This technique adds a pre-formed manganese oxide to water to adsorb radium, which is then removed by
filtration. Pre-formed HMO filtration can remove up to 90 percent of radium and may be a good choice for systems
with existing filtration plants that can easily add HMO. Pre-formed HMO filtration has also been identified as an
option for removing 137Cs.1
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
Standard coagulation/flocculation was found to be an ineffective treatment technique for the removal of 137Cs from
water; however, sequential precipitation, using copper ferrocyanide, was found to be an effective treatment method
:or removing 137Cs and other radionuclides from liquid wastes. This small-scale study was undertaken to treat low to
ntermediate-level nuclear liquid wastes in India by means of sequential precipitation using a copper ferrocyanide
solution (created by adding potassium ferrocyanide, copper sulfate, and ferric nitrate together). The experiment used
samples of contaminated groundwater, contaminated deionized water, and also synthetic alkaline water.2 Note that
copper salts may present ecotoxicity concerns and deactivate wastewater treatment plant sludge.
:oagulation/filtration for uranium removal efficiency will depend on water quality parameters, especially pH, and also
on choosing the most suitable coagulant. While uranium removal is more efficient at a higher pH, turbidity removal is
not. At pH levels typically used in treatment plants, removal efficiencies are generally between 50 and 80 percent.
Based on one full-scale study examining both alum and ferric chloride, removal of 90Sr from water by conventional
treatment was not effective (0 percent removal). Removal of radium from water by conventional treatment alone is
not very effective (less than 44 percent).
Illustration
Figure A-23. Coagulation/filtration is used to remove particulates and turbidity from
surface water.
Safety, Health
& Environment
Few safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real hazardous chemicals,
etc.).
1 Containment and Disposal of Large Amounts of Contaminated Water: A Support Guide for Water Utilities:
http://water.epa.qov/infrastructure/watersecuritv/emerplan/upload/epa817b12002.pdf
2 Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT): http://water.epa.qov/scitech/datait/databases/wcit/index.cfrn
A-36
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-23 Conventional Filtration
Time to
Implement
Technical
Performance
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Throughput
Systems can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the
laboratory, may take time. Using this technology may require a highly skilled system operator.
High efficiency, but may have limited effectiveness for completely removing some radionuclides, like
cesium. Depending on various factors (e.g., contaminant type, concentration, pH, etc.), supplemental
treatment technologies may be necessary for radionuclide removal.
May not be readily available because they are typically specially built.
For systems that do not have existing filtration, the capital costs and advanced operator skill level required
may make the process impractical.
Treatment residuals generated by coagulation/filtration will include backwash water, coagulation solids
(sludge), and aged/ineffective filtration media. Liquid disposal options may include discharge to a
wastewater treatment plant or disposal to an underground injection well. Direct discharge may be possible
if the backwash water can be blended to significantly reduce radionuclide concentrations and total
dissolved solids. Aged/ineffective media may require disposal in an appropriate class of landfill.
Does not typically have a high throughput, but can be configured to have a high throughput.
A-37
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-24
Activated Carbon (AC)
Description
AC is commonly used to adsorb natural organic compounds, taste and odor compounds, and synthetic organic
chemicals during drinking water treatment. AC is an effective adsorbent because it is a highly porous material and
provides a large surface area to which contaminants may adsorb.1 AC is available in a variety of particle sizes, with a
common form being powdered activated carbon (PAC) that has smaller particle sizes than granular activated carbon
[GAG). GAC typically has a diameter ranging between 1.2 to 1.6 millimeters (mm) and is utilized in dedicated GAC
iltration units. PAC is added directly to treatment units to adsorb contaminants, often when a target contaminant is
only present occasionally (e.g., when indicated by external factors). The two most common options for locating a
GAC treatment unit in water treatment plants are: (1) post-filtration adsorption, where the GAC unit is located after
tie conventional filtration process (post-filter contactors or adsorbers); and (2) filtration-adsorption, in which some or
all of the filter media in a granular media filter is replaced with GAC. Existing rapid sand filters can frequently be
•etrofitted for filtration-adsorption by replacing all or a portion of the granular media with GAC. Retrofitting existing
nigh-rate granular media filters can significantly reduce capital costs since no additional filter boxes, underdrains,
and backwashing systems may be required. Primary factors in determining the required GAC contactor volume are
the (1) breakthrough, (2) empty bed contact time (EBCT), and (3) design flow rate. The breakthrough time is the time
when the concentration of a contaminant in the effluent of the GAC unit exceeds the treatment requirement.
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
AC is made from organic materials with high carbon contents such as wood, coconut, lignite, and coal, and the type
of source material significantly impacts the adsorptive properties of the resulting AC. In applying AC for contaminant
removal, it is important to consider the properties of carbon utilized in preliminary testing and in actual operation. As
many radionuclides are ionic, their potential for removal by many ACs can be limited unless the radionuclides are
complexed to an appropriate organic substance. However, some AC, based on their source, may have some IX
character, and AC may be pretreated to enhance its ability to remove ionic compounds. Based on limited bench-
scale and isotherm tests, GAC was found to be effective for cobalt removal (up to 99 percent, but at pHs below
typical drinking water treatment and at 2-hour EBCTs). The studies did not provide sufficient data to indicate whether
GAC would be feasible on a full-scale level. Based on study findings, cobalt removal by GAC is dependent on
contaminant concentration, EBCT, and media type. Based on another article, removal of radium from water by GAC
alone is not very effective (approximately 1 to 23 percent). The article suggests that radium was not adsorbed onto
the GAC. As a filter medium, like for conventional filtration, it would not be expected to be effective. Finally, based on
sotherm studies, adsorption of uranium in water by GAC can be very effective. One study showed that treating the
GAC with hydrophobic aerogels would enhance GAC adsorption. The type of GAC used in the studies was not
mentioned, so no conclusions could be drawn about the effectiveness of the GAC material type.
Illustration
Safety, Health
& Environment
Figure A-24.AC is made from organic materials with high carbon contents such as
wood, lignite, and coal, and can be used in water treatment
applications.
has few safety and environmental hazards (perhaps only moderate pressure, no real hazardous
(chemicals, etc).
Time to
Implement
Systems can be assembled quickly, but verification for the exact waste stream, often performed in the
laboratory, may take time. Using this technology may require a highly skilled system operator.
Technical
Performance
High efficiency, but may have limited effectiveness for completely removing some radionuclides, like
cesium. Depending on various factors (e.g., contaminant type, concentration, pH, etc.), supplemental
treatment technologies may be necessary for radionuclide removal. As a filter medium, like for
conventional filtration, it would not be expected to be effective.
1 Drinking Water Treatability Database: http://iaspub.epa.aov/tdb/paaes/treatment/treatmentOverview.do?treatmentProcessld=2074826383
A-38
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-24 Activated Carbon (AC)
Availability
Costs
Process
Waste
Many public water treatment systems have some AC capability (more often PAC), although different
materials may be required to address the radionuclide of interest.
PAC is applied to existing treatment units, so application costs are related to the quantity of material. For
GAC, the optimum bed depth and volume are typically selected after carefully evaluating capital and
operating costs associated with reactivation frequency and contactor construction costs. Depending on the
economics, facilities may have on-site or off-site regeneration systems or may waste spent GAC and
replace it with new. For systems that do not have existing GAC systems, the capital costs and advanced
operator skill level required may make the process impractical.
Residuals from aqueous treatment using AC may be radioactive waste and should be disposed of
appropriately. Spent PAC is removed by other treatment process units, and media within those units
should be disposed of appropriately. Spent GAC must be disposed of recognizing that contaminants can
be desorbed, which can potentially result in leaching of contaminants from the spent GAC when exposed
to percolating water, contaminating soils or groundwater. Due to contamination concerns, spent GAC
regeneration is typically favored over disposal. The three most common GAC regeneration methods are
steam, thermal, and chemical, of which thermal regeneration is the most common method used. Available
thermal regeneration technologies used to remove adsorbed organics from AC include: (1) electric infrared
ovens, (2) fluidized bed furnaces, (3) multiple hearth furnaces, and (4) rotary kilns.
n'Does not typically have a high throughput, but can be configured to have a high throughput. The carbon
usage rate determines the rate at which carbon will be exhausted and how often carbon must be
replaced/regenerated. Carbon treatment effectiveness improves with increasing contact times.
A-39
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Technology A-25
Evaporation (Passive or Active)
Description
ivaporation has been considered a potentially viable technology for concentrating water contaminated with
radionuclides. There are two primary types of evaporation technologies: passive and active. "Passive" evaporation
draws its energy source to vaporize water from a natural source, such as solar or wind. For example, an evaporation
pond will be warmed by solar radiation, and unsaturated air blowing over the pond surface may speed the
evaporation. "Active" evaporation employs an engineered source of energy, such as fossil fuel or nuclear power.
ommon thermal evaporation systems can include vacuum distillation or spray-drying. Evaporation could be used to
achieve two different endpoints. First, non-volatile solute contaminants (metals and most radionuclides) could be
greatly concentrated (e.g., 100:1), and the low-volume concentrate could be combined with other liquid radioactive
wastes in the separations area for subsequent treatment and disposal. The condensate stream, comprising 99% of
tie feed stream, would be clean except for volatile radionuclides. Thus, the bulk of the extracted groundwater could
ikely be more easily disposed. Second, the concentrated waste stream could be reduced to dry solids and disposed
of as solid radioactive waste.1
Relevance to
Section 1.3
Wastewater cleanup or volume reduction.
Effectiveness
Evaporation is highly effective at reducing the volume of wastewater, particularly dilute wastewater. Technologies
range from expensive and complex active systems (like spray drying or thin film evaporators) to simple, passive
methods (like evaporation ponds). They can provide high throughput and allow the effective segregation of non-
volatile radionuclides from decontamination wastes. Throughput of passive evaporation system can be high,
depending on their size and construction.
Illustration
Figure A-25. Passive and active wastewater evaporation systems have been proven to
remove radionuclides from wastewater.
Safety, Health
& Environment
For passive evaporation, the significant environmental concern is that if radioactive material is
concentrated, a large contaminated pond will result as the pond volume lessens. Monitoring this volume
reduction in the evaporation pond prior to actual treatment (i.e., supplemental treatment technologies) may
reduce this concern.
Time to
Implement
Air permitting may be an issue with active evaporation and could delay startup. For passive evaporation,
the land requirements are large, and evaporation ponds must be appropriately constructed to avoid
subsurface contamination via leaching.
Technical
Performance
Compared to pre-packaged passive/solar evaporation pond systems, active evaporation technologies are
well developed and readily available from commercial vendors. Technical feasibility is not an issue. Certain
passive technologies appear to be technically viable, but adequate performance cannot be guaranteed
ith high confidence.
Availability
:tive evaporation technologies are readily available from commercial vendors.
Costs
For either alternative, both capital and operating costs must be considered. This immediately puts
evaporation technologies at a financial disadvantage, as capital costs are significant for these alternatives.
Active evaporation is an energy-intensive process, due to the large heat of vaporization of water. Can also
mean high utility (heating) and maintenance costs.
Process
Waste
Subsequent stabilization or treatment and disposal of the sludge. Significant reductions in solid waste
disposal volumes could be achieved.
Throughput
ICan provide high throughput and allow the effective segregation of non-volatile radionuclides from
(decontamination wastes.
1 http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2002432/tr2002432.pdf
A-40
-------
Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste Management and Cleanup After an ROD Incident Standard Operational Guideline
Table A-1. Technology Summary of Color Coding Against Each Criterion
Criterion
Safety,
health &
environment
Time to
implement
Technology
CO
CM
Technical
performance
Availability
Costs
Process
waste
Throughput
Note: Color coding designations: Green = high/advantageous; Yellow = medium/neutral; Red = low/not advantageous
Enhanced surveying:
A-1. Manual Survey
A-2. Automated Survey
So/7 burial:
A-3. Dig (Plow)
Foliage removal; composting:
A-4. Lawn Mowing
A-8. Selected Removal of Vegetation
A-14. Composting of Organic Matter
Thin-layer soil surface removal:
A-5. Sod Cutter
Dig and haul, demolition, and removal of contaminated materials for
disposal:
A-7. Large-Scale Dig and Haul
Physical removal of surface layer of material from hard surfaces:
A-6. Scarification
A-10. Vacuuming
A-11. High-Pressure Washing
Physical cleaning of hard surfaces:
A-9. Street Sweeping
Waste volume reduction:
A-12. Segmented Gate System
A-13. Soil Washing
A-17. Incineration
Waste stabilization:
A-15. Plasma Arc Vitrification
A-16. Cementitious Stabilization/Solidification
Wastewater Cleanup or Volume Reduction:
A-18. Chelating Agents
A-19. Ion Exchange (IX)
A-20. Reverse Osmosis
A-21. Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal (ED/EDR)
A-22. Membrane Filtration
A-23. Conventional Filtration
A-24. Activated Carbon (AC).
A-25. Evaporation (Passive or Active)
A-41
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |