&EPA
EPA/600/R-14/209 | August 2014 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Results of Literature Review and
Technology Survey of Source
Reduction and Waste Minimization
Techniques Applied to a Wide
Area Radiological Incident
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
August 2014
EPA/600/R-14/209
Results of Literature Review and Technology Survey of Source
Reduction and Waste Minimization Techniques Applied to a Wide
Area Radiological Incident
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Homeland Security Research Center
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
DISCLAIMER
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 processes described in this document do not rely on and do 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
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
SEARCH STRATEGY 2
RESULTS 5
CONCLUSIONS 20
REFERENCES 20
ii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms
137Cs cesium-137
AC Activated Carbon
AMS Aerial Measuring System
ASPECT Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology
CBR chemical, biological, or radiological
CBRNIAC Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear Defense Information Analysis Center
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CI/KR critical infrastructure/key resources
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
FAST FIELDS Analysis and Sampling Tools
FIELDS Field EnvironmentaL Decision Support
FWHM full width at half maximum
GAC granular activated carbon
GEM Gamma Emergency Mapper
GIS geographic information system
GM Geiger-Miiller
GPS global positioning system
HazMat hazardous material
HDIAC Homeland Defense and Information Analysis Center
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HPGe high-purity germanium
ICEM International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste
Management
IND Improvised Nuclear Device
INMM Institute of Nuclear Materials Management
IOC isotope of concern
ICV in-container vitrification
ISV in-situ vitrification
IX ion exchange
KIWI An array of eight-2-inch x 4-inch x 16-inch sodium iodide detectors
LAGS large area gamma spectroscopy
LLRW low-level radioactive waste
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPP Nuclear Power Plant
NTIS National Technical Information Service
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDD Radiological Dispersal Device
RID radionuclide identifier
RO reverse osmosis
SAM Surveillance and Measurement
-------
SCI
Science Citation Index®
SGS
Segmented Gate System
S/S
stabilization/solidification
SME
subject matter expert
SSCT
Small System Compliance Technology
UASI
Urban Areas Security Initiative
WAC
Waste Acceptance Criteria
WARRP
Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program
Abbreviations
cm
centimeter(s)
cps
counts per second
Cs
cesium
Ge
Germanium
h
hour(s)
keV
kiloelectron volt(s)
LaBr3
Lanthanum Bromide
lb
pound(s)
MeV
megaelectron volt(s)
mrem
micro roentgen equivalent man
Nal
Sodium Iodide
HSv
microsievert(s)
iv
-------
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The threat of a wide-area urban event with the potential for significant public health and economic
impact is of national concern. A joint agency effort occurred in 2012 and 2013 to understand the state of
national readiness more fully and prepare better for improved response capabilities in the area of
remediation and recovery following such an event. This effort involved the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Two of the agencies, EPA and DHS, took concrete steps to lead this effort that was part
of the Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program (WARRP).
WARRP was designed to develop guidance to reduce the time and resources required to recover a wide
urban area (specifically, the Denver Urban Areas Security Initiative [UASI]) following a chemical,
biological, or radiological (CBR) 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.
It was anticipated that a wide-area Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) ("dirty bomb" attack) under the
parameters of the WARRP-developed RDD scenario, could result in tens of millions of tons of
contaminated solid waste and billions of gallons of contaminated liquid waste. Generally, physical
damage outside the blast zone of a radiological dispersal device (i.e., dirty bomb) 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 (the meaning of the
terms "contaminated" and "uncontaminated" will be decided by the cleanup goals and waste
acceptance criteria [WAC] of the disposal facilities). Cesium-137 (137Cs) is a radioactive source that could
be used in the construction of an RDD, and was the primary isotope of interest for the WARRP
radiological scenario, a Subject Matter Expert workshop held in Denver in August 2012 (1), a subsequent
Standard Operating Guideline (SOG) document with technical recommendations (2), and therefore this
literature survey.
It should be recognized that safety is the overarching objective for a radiological cleanup. It should not
be implied that limiting cost is an end in itself. Once a strategy (or potentially more than one) has been
identified that will meet the appropriate safety criteria, cost is an important discriminator and may be
critical to the ability to actually implement the chosen strategy in a way that preserves the desired level
of safety. There are three primary objectives for waste management to help manage RDD cleanup costs:
(1) waste minimization, (2) waste segregation by material and radiological activity, and (3) cost-effective
treatment and disposal of each waste stream.
• Waste minimization. Examples of waste minimization are: (1) removing two inches of soil rather
than five inches when 137Cs contamination resides mainly in the top two inches (sod cutting); (2)
composting organic wastes and vegetative wastes to reduce waste volume; and (3) employing
surface scarification techniques from buildings or other surfaces 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
area of highest contamination ("hot zone") separately from waste with lower levels of -radioactivity
(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
1
-------
significant efficiencies in time and cost while at the same time ensuring long-term protectiveness of
the waste managed.
• 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.
It is possible that most, if not all, of the waste generated from an RDD incident will likely be classified as
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), although the legal categorization of this waste is by no means
assured. LLRW is 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 varying amounts of
radioactivity. In general practice, LLRW does not include naturally occurring radioactive material but
does include man-made material. The cost of the disposal of massive quantities of waste in an LLRW
repository and the impact on the available future capacity for the facility may make implementation of
such a strategy unrealistic.
A key component of effective waste handling and cost savings will be to identify which waste will need
to go to a LLRW repository versus a local disposal facility and to identify recommended
minimization/disposal/treatment pathways. The amount of waste that needs LLRW disposal will need to
be minimized by screening activity level and proper segregation.
Waste screening technologies could be tied to the WAC levels. 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.
A systems approach that includes waste management, in addition to decontamination, is needed to
develop effective and efficient cleanup strategies. Contaminated item (and radionuclide) characteristics
and types will generally dictate the cleanup method used. Waste can be minimized by identifying waste
with an activity level below a site-specified level that would allow it to be sent to a non-LLRW disposal
facility, such as a RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill, or even allow it to be recycled.
This report describes the details of a literature search for source reduction and waste minimization
technologies that could be used for a radiological incident. The general approach was to gather
information on existing packaging, segregation, and screening technologies directed at radiologically
contaminated waste and debris.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A very broad-based literature and internet search was conducted for potentially applicable technologies
using a list of key words directed at radiologically contaminated waste, debris, and wastewater. The
literature search was conducted using the database provider Dialog, which searches more than 500
databases of comprehensive published scientific and engineering articles. The search also included the
Nuclear Plant Journal and Japan Atomic Energy Agency.
As part of the Dialog search, the following specific databases were searched because they were most
likely to describe technologies that would address the consequences of an RDD incident.
• Energy Science & Technology (formerly DOE ENERGY) is a multidisciplinary file containing
2
-------
references to basic and applied scientific and technical research literature. The information is
collected for use by government managers, researchers at the national laboratories, and other
research efforts sponsored by DOE.
• The Inspec database provides more than 11 million abstract and index records from more than
4,000 journals and serials; more than 2,200 conference proceedings; and thousands of books and
book chapters, reports, and dissertations. More than 20,000 U.S. and United Kingdom patents
published between 1968 and 1976 are included. Inspec content is obtained from quality- or peer-
reviewed scientific and engineering literature written in any language that falls within the subject
scope of the database.
• The NTIS: National Technical Information Service database consists of summaries of U.S.
government-sponsored research, development, and engineering, plus analyses prepared by federal
agencies or their contractors. Unclassified, publicly available, unlimited distribution reports are
made available from agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, DoD,
DOE, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and some 240 other agencies. Additionally, some state and local
government agencies contribute summaries of their reports to the database. NTIS also receives
information from the National Aerospace Laboratory in Japan and Micromedia in Canada, among
others.
• The Ei Compendex database is a version of Engineering Index, which provides information from the
world's engineering and technological literature. Ei Compendex provides coverage of more than
4,500 journals and selected government reports and books worldwide. Subjects that are part of Ei
Compendex include: civil, energy, environmental, geological, and biological engineering; electrical,
electronics, and control engineering; chemical, mining, metals, and fuel engineering; mechanical,
automotive, nuclear, and aerospace engineering; and computers, robotics, and industrial robots. In
addition to journal literature, this database contains more than 480,000 records of published
proceedings of engineering and technical conferences formerly indexed in Ei Engineering Meetings.
• SciSearch® contains all of the records published in the Science Citation Index" (SCI*), plus additional
records in engineering technology, physical sciences, agriculture, biology, environmental sciences,
clinical medicine, and the life sciences. SciSearch® indexes all significant items (articles, review
papers, meeting abstracts, letters, editorials, book reviews, correction notices, etc.) from more than
6,100 international scientific and technical journals.
• Wilson Applied Science & Technology Abstracts provides comprehensive information of more than
400 English-language scientific and technical publications. Non-English-language periodicals are
indexed if English abstracts are provided. Content includes trade and industrial publications, journals
issued by professional and technical societies, and specialized subject periodicals, as well as special
issues such as buyers' guides, directories, and conference proceedings.
• Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts provides information on research and applications
across the field of physics and conductivity. The database covers all aspects of theory, production,
and application of solid state materials and development, as well as the new high- and low-
temperature superconductivity technology.
• Inside Conferences is produced by the British Library. The database contains details of all papers
given at every congress, symposium, conference, exposition, workshop, and meeting received at the
British Library Document Supply Centre since October 1993. Each year, over 16,000 proceedings are
indexed, covering a range of subjects published as serials or monographs. Over 500,000
bibliographic citations for individual conference papers are added annually. Most records are in
English, with many languages represented in the source documents.
The search also accessed information in the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense
3
-------
Information Analysis Center [(CBRNIAC, now Homeland Defense and Information Analysis Center
(HDIAC)], (3) which contains over 3.5 million documents. Hundreds of technical articles were identified
in the search. The titles (and often the abstracts) for all items found in the search were examined. Those
articles with the most likely relevance to the project (based on broad applicability to reduction of waste
volumes from a radiological incident) were further examined and are listed below.
The following search strategies were used for the initial technical literature search. The search
methodology involved looking at broad search terms such as: "radioactive screening waste
minimization/' "radioactive segregation waste minimization/' and "radioactive soil segregation." These
terms were coupled with more-focused search terms such as: "CANBERRA Falcon 5000/' "segmented
gate system/' and "Berkeley SAM-940." Output from these searches is listed in Section 3, Results. The
search strategy was also broad in a geographic sense as it was not limited to studies conducted in the
United States but also included studies conducted worldwide.
Draft results from the literature search were organized in an Excel file and distributed to participants of
the WARRP Subject Matter Expert (SME) Meeting, hosted by EPA's National Homeland Security
Research Center in Denver, Colorado, on August 14-15, 2012 (1). One purpose of the SME Meeting was
to identify existing radiological waste screening and segregation technologies that might be brought to
bear under the RDD scenario to identify potential ways to adapt the technologies to the situation.
During the SME Meeting, additional feedback was solicited on the technology features from government
(state and federal), military (regional), and industry experts in the area of radiological waste to ensure
that all types of technologies covering a variety of waste streams were considered in the literature
review.
Therefore, in addition to the primary technology search conducted before the meeting, additional
literature searches were conducted based on SME feedback following the meeting. Examples of search
terms are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Examples of Search Terms based on SME Meeting Feedback
Additional Search Terms
turf or sod cutters
high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
vacuums
soil washing + radioactive
parking lot washer or street sweeping of
sweepers
removal + vegetation + radioactive
grass cutting or lawn mowing or mower
biomass + radioactive + waste minimization
"triple" dig or plow + radioactive
soil removal + radioactive + waste
minimization
detection + radioactive + waste
minimization
gamma spectroscopy
plasma arc + vitrification
mechanical + radioactive + waste minimization
dust suppression
The additional search strategy considered radiologically contaminated materials, particularly soils;
however, other matrices were considered. These potential waste streams include: soil, biomass, building
interior contents, building exterior materials, concrete, asphalt, and asbestos or lead-contaminated
waste. Attempts were made to identify technologies that currently exist for soil screening and
segregation, but were adaptable or developed for other types of matrices.
4
-------
In addition to the search strategies presented above, the following key words were added for waste and
debris technologies as part of the final literature review:
• Manual survey
• Automated survey
• Composting of organic matter (for biosolids)
• Dig and haul
• Scarification
• High-pressure washing
• Incineration
• Cementitious stabilization/Solidification
• Waste repository
• Waste analysis plan
• Waste acceptance criteria
• Scabble/scabbling
• Strippable coating
• Chelating Agents
• Ion Exchange (IX)
• Reverse Osmosis
• Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal (ED/EDR)
• Membrane Filtration
• Conventional Filtration
• Activated Carbon (AC)
• Evaporation (Passive or Active)
RESULTS
One conclusion that was reached at the SME Meeting was that rather than focusing on a single
technology or two, a technology toolbox approach or "waste minimization scheme" should be followed
to identify different methods and technology options, realizing that each one might potentially be used
depending on the situation.
Relevant literature articles are grouped below according to the associated radiological technology
identified. The technologies are each classified into four categories:
• Screening and characterization: Determining the identity, location, physical characteristics, and
initial quantity of contamination of the radioactive material through the use of survey equipment.
These technologies include:
> Manual Survey
> Automated Survey
• Mitigation: Removing contamination from an original location, fixing contamination in place, or
covering contamination. Contamination removal often requires removal of the substrate on which
the contamination exists. These technologies include:
> Dig (plow)
> Lawn Mowing and Removal of Cuttings
> Dust Suppression
> Composting of Organic Matter
> Sod Cutter
> Selective Removal of Vegetation
> HEPA-Filtered Vacuum Cleaning
5
-------
> High Pressure Washing
> Street Sweeping
> Scarification
• Segregation and waste management: Sorting and processing waste (to separate contaminated from
uncontaminated material and low-activity from high-activity material), reducing waste volumes, and
ultimately treating and disposing of waste. These technologies include:
> Soil Washing
> Segmented Gate System
> Plasma Arc Vitrification
> Cementitious Stabilization/Solidification
> Large-Scale Dig and Haul
> incineration
• Wastewater cleanup technologies: 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 decay products from wastewater
that is produced as a secondary waste. These technologies include:
> Chelating Agents
> Ion Exchange
> Reverse Osmosis
> Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal
> Membrane Filtration
> Conventional Filtration
> Activated Carbon
> Evaporation
It was not the goal of this literature review to focus on decontamination methods or method variations
for radiological decontamination of hard surfaces. The literature covers RDDs, nuclear power plant (NPP)
accidents, and improvised nuclear device (IND) fallout type contamination and therefore the specific
performance of the technology will not only vary due to site specific conditions but also the type of
contamination.
Table 2 lists the various source reduction, mitigation, and waste minimization technologies and
associated published literature.
6
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Manual Survey The CANBERRA Falcon 5000 (4), 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 (5). The
Falcon 5000 gamma analysis software is designed to suggest radionuclides
from the library as soon as a significant peak is found in the spectrum (6) and
can distinguish gamma rays that are within approximately 1.5 keV of each
other (7). 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. This device has been purchased by EPA and is available through
EPA/Office of Radiation and Indoor Air in Las Vegas.
Operational Energy Range: 20 keV to 3.0 MeV
Sensitivity: Not Reported
Precision: full width at half maximum (FWHM) - resolution: < 2.0 keV at 1332
keV; <1.0 keV at 122 keV
Manual Survey The Surveillance and Measurement (SAM)-940 system is a radioactive isotope
identification device used to support remedial activities by pairing its ability to
identify isotopes of concern (lOCs) with its sensitive detection capability. A
built-in alarm informs the user of the presence of activity above a set
threshold. The system is suggested to reduce disposal costs for radioactive
waste by allowing prompt remediation of targeted areas that have been
identified as having lOCs and eliminating multiple visits to sites by declaring an
excavation site clear of lOCs before demobilizing from the site. The unit can be
modified to display isotopes instantly as they are detected in the environment
(8).
The SAM Defender (standard resolution) and SAM Resolver (high resolution)
are portable systems, developed to provide simple operation for Emergency
Response, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security applications (9). The SAM-
940 system is owned by several EPA Regions.
Operational Energy Range: 18 keV - 3 MeV
Minimum Detectable Amount (MDA): 2x2 inch Nal detector is 0.00299 piSv/h
Sensitivity: Not Reported
Accuracy: 97 % Identification confidence level in 2 seconds
Precision: 7 % resolution
7
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Manual Survey The FLIR Systems identiFINDER is a hand-held digital signal-processing gamma
spectrometer used for the location, measurement, and identification of
sources or contamination of gamma radiation. Many models of the
identiFINDER are available, and every version is portable, lightweight, and able
to rapidly detect, quickly locate, accurately measure, and precisely identify
gamma- emitting radionuclides. The identiFINDER is equipped with two
battery packs for both rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries and
download and analysis software. In a comparison with two other commonly
used hand-held radioisotope identifiers, the identiFINDER did not perform as
well in certain performance parameters such as accuracy and sensitivity at
greater distances (i.e., lower 137Cs radiation levels). However, the identiFINDER
reported the best gamma energy response range (15 keV to 3 MeV) (10). The
identiFINDER has been deployed worldwide; a next-generation instrument,
the identiFINDER 2, is also commercially available (11).
Operational Energy Range (gamma) 20 keV-3 MeV
Sensitivity: (137Cs) >500 cps per piSv/h (100 pirem/h)
Precision: Gamma Sodium Iodide (Nal): typical resolution <8 % at 662 keV;
Gamma Lanthanum Bromide (LaBr3): typical resolution <4 % at 662 keV
Manual Survey The ORTEC Micro-Detective-HX is a portable hand-held HPGe-based
radioisotope identifier (12). The unit weighs less than 16 lb (7.3 kg), is water
resistant, and has a larger nuclide library than its heavier predecessor, the
Detective-EX (25.9 lb [11.7 kg]). Two detectors determine the gamma dose
rate over a wide range from <0.05 piSv/h to >10000 nSv/h, a dose-rate range
of approximately six decades. For lower dose rates, below ~20 nSv/h, the dose
rate is determined from the Germanium (Ge) detector spectrum. For dose
rates above this value, the internal Geiger-Miiller (GM) tube is used. The dose
rate uncertainty is greater than (-50 % to +100 %), and the unit alarms at dose
rates >10,000 piSv/h (fixed maximum threshold). The predecessor of this
technology was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In
2006, DHS awarded a contract to AMETEK (13) to develop a high-resolution
portable radiation detection system (i.e., the Micro-Detective-HX) to be used
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, public safety officials, and other first
responders to screen vehicles and search public facilities for radioactive
materials.
Manual Survey The BetaCage is a low-background atmospheric-pressure neon drift chamber
with a high degree sensitivity to emitters of low-energy electrons and alpha
particles. The BetaCage fills a gap in existing screening technologies that are
insufficiently sensitive to such particles. The BetaCage design accepts nearly
all alphas and low-energy electrons from the sample surface while allowing
rejection of residual background (14). The design involves an atmospheric-
pressure neon time-projection chamber optimized for the detection of <200
keV electrons and multi-megaelectron volt alpha particles. The BetaCage is
still in prototype form (15).
8
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology
1 Notes/Abstract
Manual Survey
Large Area Gamma Spectroscopy (LAGS) utilizes a gamma spectral analyzer
suspended over a slab upon which soil is spread out to a uniform depth. A
counting period of approximately 30 minutes is used to obtain a full-spectrum
analysis for the isotopes of interest. This technology may be useful to detect
isotopes in low-level waste and low-level mixed waste (16).
Automated
Survey
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 (17). 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.
Automated
Survey
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.
This ground-based survey, 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 inch x 4 inch x 16 inch sodium
iodide crystals (with ability to add four more), and up to three 3 inch x 3 inch
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 readings are collected closer to the source, so the
system can obtain more sensitive readings. Both systems are tied to a central
computer and modem, allowing data to be produced and transmitted while
the survey is still in progress (18).
Some of the most common applications for airborne gamma-ray spectrometry
surveys include contamination mapping and detection (i.e., 137Cs) and
emergency response (19). More than 140 deployments have been made since
2001. These deployments have included responses to natural disasters (e.g.,
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike) and environmental emergencies
(e.g., BP oil spill, Las Chonchas wildfires, site characterizations for Superfund
sites) (18), which were primarily for detection of chemicals rather than
radiological contamination.
9
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Automated Another robust aerial measurement system is the U.S. Department of Energy
Survey (DOE) Aerial Measuring System (AMS) 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 of
an array of eight-2-inch x 4-inch x 16-inch sodium iodide detectors). The KIWI
uses the same system used on a helicopter but is mounted on a four-wheel
drive vehicle instead. Unlike the AMS helicopter, the KIWI is about three feet
above the ground and has a detector field of view approximately 10 feet in
diameter. The KIWI gives a high-spatial resolution mapping of contamination
(20). This system must return to base and land; then the data must be
downloaded and then processed and analyzed.
Dig (plow) Plowing [21, 22) 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 to 90 centimeters (cm) or more 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 and may also make
contaminants available for plant uptake. 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. Deep plowing in particular may be more effective, with
a report showing that uptake from deeper placement of contaminated soil
was one-tenth of the uptake from shallow placement over a period of four
years. 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.
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
and sand addition for remediation.
10
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Lawn Mowing & The effectiveness of removing contaminated ground cover (such as grass) or
Removal of agricultural crops is highly dependent on the partitioning of the contaminant
Cuttings between the plants, the roots, and the soil. Generally, no mowing or crop
removal methods have removed more than 75 % of fallout from a
contaminated area. Sod cutting and soil removal might, 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 (21). 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. 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.
In an RDD event, some urban areas will have a large amount of contaminated
grass. Mowing the lawn to remove the adhered contamination with the grass
clippings has been shown to be an effective means of reducing radioactive
dose (23). However, most lawn mowers would be unsuitable for this kind of
cleanup because they have no way to capture the contamination particles; the
contamination would simply be resuspended and not removed for disposal.
However, at least one method was developed to help deal with mowing
contaminated lawns. Thermo Nuclear Services developed a lawn-mowing
system that is equipped with a gamma-ray detection system on the mower
discharge chute (24). When the detection system senses a contaminated
section of grass clippings, it actuates a gate (similar to the larger segmented
gate system [SGS] soil conveyer) and diverts the contaminated clippings to a
secure, HEPA-filtered container.
Dust Suppression Many different dust suppression techniques are available to control the
resuspension of contaminated particles within an urban environment. Some
of these techniques have been adapted from the asbestos remediation
industry, such as using a water-misting spray cannon to control airborne
radioactive contamination during facility demolition (25). Other more
advanced methodologies make use of sticky substances such as glycerin or
latex, to fix contamination in place (26). One novel method of dust control
uses an engineered wax to trap and control contamination (27). These
techniques can be effective at reducing airborne contamination and
resuspension of contamination during manipulation of contaminated debris
such as mowing lawns, pruning contaminated trees, or removing
contaminated facility sections.
11
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Composting of Composting may also be a viable alternative for some niche waste streams
Organic Matter from an RDD incident such as food waste (28).
The U.S. military and others have found that through composting soils, some
organic contaminants can be destroyed from munitions-contaminated soils,
providing evidence that the composting of this type of contaminated soil is a
cost-effective and environmentally sound method for volume reduction of
some waste streams (29). Note that composting reduces volume of the overall
matrix (not really the contaminants in the case of radiological contaminants).
Sod Cutter A sod-cutting machine was tested to evaluate its usefulness in the radiological
reclamation of small lawn areas. Reclamation effectiveness was determined to
be dependent on blade depth, soil moisture content, and mass loading of
fallout constituents (30). Other studies addressing decontamination of soil and
prevention of radionuclide runoff have involved methods such as deep
plowing, placement of a sorbing layer under contaminated soil, and the
construction of the Vector Industrial Complex for treatment and disposal of
radioactive wastes generated by various decontamination procedures (31).
Turf cutting in the zone close to Chernobyl showed a clear distinction in the
effectiveness of radionuclide decontamination between podzolic and peaty
soils. Removal of the upper five centimeters of soil was substantially more
effective in peaty soils (32). An Agricultural Research Service study found that
removing two inches of soil was effective in removing 80-90 % of radioactive
surface contamination (21). 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 (33).
Certain species of plants and vegetation absorb higher concentrations of
radioactivity, partly due to their physical characteristics (21).
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 (33).
Removing contaminated mulches or vegetation varieties by type can be quite
effective overall. For example, when contaminated wheat-straw mulch was
removed, over 90 % of the contamination was removed with the mulch. As
part of the same study, the removal of contaminated Bermuda grass mulch
removed 30 % of the contamination when two tons per acre of mulch were
removed and 60 % when five tons per acre were removed.
Selective
Removal of
Vegetation
12
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Soil Washing 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 (34). Soil washing is most
appropriate when soils consist of less than 25 % silt and clay and at least 50 %
sand and gravel (35). Depending upon soil matrix characteristics, soil washing
can allow for the return of the clean coarse fractions of soils to the site (36).
Soil washing will generally not be cost effective for soils with fines (silt/clay)
content in excess of 30 to 50 % (36). 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 (37).
HEPA Filtered HEPA vacuum cleaning is an effective method of removing contaminated
Vacuum Cleaning particles. Vacuuming is often used to remove the debris left behind by high-
pressure washing and street sweeping (33). This method is particularly
effective if the material has not interacted with the matrix (via leaching,
adsorption, or cation exchange, for instance). In one case, a small vacuum
street sweeper was used to remove contamination from a clipped meadow,
resulting in the removal of approximately half the contamination (after
sweeping twice). After the initial two sweeps, further sweeping/vacuuming
was ineffective (21). Some studies have shown a consistently high (typically 95
%) removal of contamination using vacuum cleaning alone for a simulated
nuclear fallout particle from concrete (38). Other projects have shown
effective use of vacuum cleaning for streets and other large flat surfaces (23,
39). Vacuum cleaning has also been practiced as part of a more extensive
cleaning system - for example, scabbling, shot peening, water blasting, or grit
blasting tools-with greater success than vacuum cleaning alone (40, 41).
High-Pressure High-pressure washing is largely effective in removing contamination from
Washing some surfaces, particularly surfaces 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 disposed of. Methods that collect
wastewater, such as spin-jet devices, are currently being assessed as a way to
address this limitation (33). 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 (42).
13
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Street Sweeping Street sweeping is a practical method for cleaning widespread contamination
because street sweeping uses equipment that is already available and does
not damage the surface (43). Street sweeping can leave the majority of
radioactive particles behind unless vacuuming or washing occurs
simultaneously (22). Sweeper dust can have a high concentration of
radioactivity (44). This high concentration of radioactivity causes a significant
issue from the resuspension of contamination. 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
(21).
Segmented Gate An SGS is a radioactive soil waste minimization system. The SGS uses a series
System (SGS) of conveyer belts that pass excavated soil under radiation detectors.
Uncontaminated soil passes through the conveyer without activating a "gate."
The conveyer is timed and instrumented so that when the system 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 (45). The SGS potentially could be modified for other
well-subdivided media such as asphalt or extruded concrete. 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 (46). However,
the SGS provided significantly less efficiency under two conditions: when the
soil was thoroughly contaminated (very uniform contamination throughout
the section of soil removed), such as with windblown contamination on soil,
and when the soil contained large amounts of vegetation (45). The SGS has
been useful for processing plutonium-contaminated soil at Johnson Atoll (47),
the Painesville, Ohio, Metal Recycling Project (48), and several DOE sites (49).
By providing area-specific "pictures" of contamination levels, excavation could
be performed in a manner that would not mix highly contaminated soil with
low to moderately contaminated soil. This procedure has minimized the effect
of mixing all soil together during the excavation process and has resulted in a
higher overall volume reduction of contaminated soil. Use of the SGS has been
shown to be cost-effective at segregating (rather than removing and
disposing) some soil matrices (50). The SGS can function as a stand-alone
technology, or it can be coupled with other soil treatment technologies. The
SGS is currently offered by Eberline Services (51).
Scarification While scarifiers and scabblers are effective in removing layers of
contaminated concrete, the process is repetitious and can generate airborne
contaminants (52). 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 (53).
14
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Plasma arc Vitrification uses a heat source to create a molten bath of glass-forming
Vitrification materials into which waste materials can be dissolved to become an integral
part of the glass. During the process, organic compounds are destroyed by the
high temperatures required for vitrification. Once the glass product cools and
solidifies, any contaminants that were not destroyed or volatilized are
immobilized (54). Different vitrification technologies include the Joule-heated
melter furnace, plasma arc centrifuge treatment, plasma hearth process,
plasma arc melter furnace, in-situ vitrification (ISV), and in-container
vitrification (ICV).
AMEC's GeoMelt ICV has been used to treat diverse types of mixed LLRW. The
GeoMelt vitrification process immobilizes radionuclides in an extremely
durable glass waste form. The process is flexible, allowing for treatment of
aqueous, oily, and solid mixed waste, including contaminated soil (55). In
2004, the process was selected by DOE to further treat low-activity radioactive
waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The ICV melter was integrated with
a full-scale, 10,000-liter dryer. The performance of the process exceeded all
disposal performance criteria (56).
Plasma arc melting is a vitrification technology that uses an electric current to
convert contaminated soil and wastes into stable glass and crystalline
products. The process can accommodate a wide range of soil and waste types
and debris, which eliminates the need for handling, sorting, and size-reduction
of bulk radioactive waste (57).
Common problems associated with vitrification systems include inadequate
design considerations due to the complexity of such systems, leakage,
clogging of melt, and corrosiveness of waste materials. In addition, due to the
high temperature of the operation, thermal cycling could result in damage to
refractory, expansion of melter joints, or even fire (54). Vitrification is most
suitable for liquid radioactive waste. Drawbacks include high initial investment
cost, high operational cost, complex technology requiring highly qualified
personnel, and high specific energy consumption. ISV is not suitable for liquid
wastes but is most effective with diverse bulk solid wastes. However, a
considerable limitation in ISV is the need to pretreat the waste to be vitrified
(58).
Cementitious Cementitious stabilization/solidification (S/S) is a widely used technique for
Stabilization/ treating and disposing of hazardous waste and LLRW (59). Cementitious
Solidification materials may include cement, ground granulated blast furnace 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 (60). Cement-based systems have been used to treat
low-level waste from nuclear power plants for decades (61). This method can
also be used to treat radioactive contaminated soils, sediment, or sludge. Soils
or wastewater can be solidified, locking in contaminants in low-permeability,
high-strength blocks
15
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Notes/Abstract
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 (21). The
contaminated earth is then moved with earth-moving machines into piles or
buried in depressions or trenches (62). 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. Large-scale dig/haul may be a stand-alone method or
may be used with another method like the SGS.
Incineration Incineration has become a largely effective and efficient process at nuclear
power plants for waste streams that have a combustible component, but
further improvements still need to be made in some areas (e.g., control of
ultrafine particles). Incineration can allow from 50 to 80 % or more of solid
radioactive waste to be burned efficiently, greatly reducing the volume of
waste (63).
Chelating Agents Zeolites are well-established chelating agents that remove radioactive
components from aqueous waste streams. Considerable research and some
implementations have taken place using zeolites for radioactive waste site
remediation and decontamination of waters containing radionuclides (64).
Misaelides et al. (65) presented information with general environmental
applications for zeolites, but also included 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. 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 (66, 67).
Just as the ability of zeolites to remove radionuclides varies with the specific
zeolite, the characteristics of clays vary with type of clay and the locality from
which the clay comes (68).
Bentonite clay, 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 (69). Campbell and
Davies (70) 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 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).
Technology
Large-scale Dig
and Haul
16
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Ion Exchange (IX) Ion Exchange (IX) systems exist that effectively remove radioactive 137Cs. An IX
system assembled at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant site was
reported to achieve a cesium removal goal of 99.9 % and be responsible for 70
% of the radioactivity removed from the wastewater, although details of the
exact process and IX resin were not provided (71). Care should be taken when
relying purely on vendor-supplied data with insufficient background to assess
the reliability of the data.
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 % (72).
Reverse Osmosis Reverse Osmosis (RO) is an effective treatment method for the removal of
cesium from contaminated wastewater and nuclear liquid wastes. Another
study found that RO membrane removal performance of cesium reduced the
concentration of cesium, strontium, and iodine by greater than 99% in high-
salinity water (73). A number of commercially available products employ RO
for control of strontium in drinking water. Four were tested in USEPA's
Environmental Technology Verification program (74). Natural strontium was
effectively removed (97 to greater than 99 %). RO has also been found to be
effective in decontamination processes with a large number of radioisotopes
(75).
ED/EDR uses an IX membrane to separate ionic contaminants. EDR consists of
stacks of EDR membranes arranged in lines that 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 Small
System Compliance Technology (SSCT) for radium and may also be effective in
removing uranium. ED/EDR has also been identified as an option for 137Cs
removal (76, 77).
Electrodialysis/
Electrodialysis
Reversal
(ED/EDR)
17
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Membrane Membrane filtration is often used as a pretreatment for surface water, sea
Filtration water, or contaminated effluent before other processes such as RO or other
membrane systems. More specifically, 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
Plutonium Treatment Facility (78). 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. A small study was undertaken 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 %, depending on the concentration of a specific ligand, resorcinarene.
Semi-permeable membranes have been demonstrated to be effective in
reducing the volume of wastewater containing cesium and cobalt (79, 80). An
inorganic nanofiltration membrane was used to treat LLRW and found to be
effective (81).
Conventional Standard coagulation/flocculation was found to be an ineffective treatment
Filtration technique for the removal of 137Cs from water; however, sequential
precipitation, using copper ferrocyanide, was found to be an effective
treatment method for removing 137Cs and other radionuclides from liquid
wastes (79, 82). This small-scale study was undertaken to treat low to
intermediate-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.
18
-------
Table 2. List of Technologies from Literature Survey
Technology I Notes/Abstract
Activated Carbon
(AC)
Evaporation
(Passive or
Active)
AC is made from organic materials with high carbon content such as wood,
coconut, lignite, and coal, and the type of source material significantly impacts
the adsorptive properties of the resulting AC (79, 82). 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 ACs, based on the 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 (83, 84), granular AC (GAC) was found to be
effective for cobalt removal [up to 99 %, but at pH below typical drinking
water treatment and at two-hour empty bed contact times (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 %) (85). The article suggests that radium was
not adsorbed onto the GAC. As a filter medium (for conventional filtration),
GAC would not be expected to be effective. Finally, based on isotherm 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
(79, 82).
"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. Common thermal
evaporation systems can include vacuum distillation or spray-drying.
Evaporation could be used to achieve two different endpoints. First,
nonvolatile 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 the feed stream, would be clean except for volatile radionuclides. Thus, the
bulk of the extracted groundwater could likely be more easily disposed.
Second, the concentrated waste stream could be reduced to dry solids and
disposed of as solid radioactive waste (86).
19
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Many effective methods of characterizing and reducing the volume of waste from a widespread
radiological contamination event have been developed and are commercially available. Some of the
well-known published methods include the SGS and simple and advanced identification and
characterization methods such as the CANBERRA Falcon 5000 or ASPECT systems. These methods are
well documented and supported by the literature. Other methods, such as removal of vegetation and
the use of fixatives and sod cutters, are intuitively practical methods of waste mitigation from a
radiological contamination event but are not as well-documented in the literature. Also, data on their
effectiveness (or at least a conceptual approach) may be available but not published at this time.
In many cases, literature searches revealed that many of the technologies and methodologies identified
have undergone preliminary evaluation or have been used for DOE legacy sites (e.g., segmented gate
system) but would have to be field-tested during an RDD, IND, or NPP accident response to fully
evaluate their effectiveness and application. Some of these methods deserve additional investigation
since they could be deployed rapidly during an RDD incident. In addition, opportunities exist for
technology development as well as the integration of existing equipment and techniques into a "toolbox
approach" to facilitate waste minimization activities during an RDD incident.
This literature search has been used to develop the SOG Document (2) and is being used to inform
future research plans. One observation that arose from this effort was that source reduction, mitigation,
containment, and waste minimization are concepts that are inextricably linked when dealing with a
wide-area radiological remediation effort, and this knowledge is an important concept to keep in mind
as research, planning, and response efforts move forward.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA, "WARRP Decon-13 - Waste Screening and Waste Minimization Methodologies Project -
Subject Matter Expert (SME) Meeting Summary Report" EPA 600/R-13/007 (2013)
2. U.S. EPA, "Standard Operational Guideline: Technologies to Improve Efficiency of Waste
Management and Cleanup After an RDD Incident" EPA/600/R-13/124 (2013)
3. U.S. DoD, "Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC)"
h ttp://www.cbrniac. apgea. army.mil/ Last Accessed: June 24, 2014.
4. Canberra Industries, "Falcon 5000® Portable HPGe-Based Radionuclide Identifier"
http://www.canberra.com/products/hp radioprotection/pdf/Falcon-SS-C38597.pdf Last
Accessed: June 10, 2014.
5. A. Bosko, S. Croft, S. Philips, Plutonium Isotopic Analysis Using FALCON 5000: A Portable HPGe
Based Nuclear Identifier, presented at the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) -
Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 2008.
6. C. Israelson, M. Andrasevic, K. Berg, A. Bjerkborn, S. Bjerre Andersen, K. Breddam, H.
Hannesson, A. Hougaard, B. H0jgaard, T. Hybertz Andersen, B. Jelstrup Andersen, P. Mylius
M0ller, L. Pedersen, H. Roed, H. N. Waltenburg, Radiological security measures in the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. Oral Presentation, presented at the
Third European IRPA Congress, Helsinki, Finland, June 14-18 2010.
7. M. L. Dennis, E. S. Shamsaldin, J. R. Cochran, "Iraq Liquid Radioactive Waste Tanks Maintenance
and Monitoring Program Plan" Report No. SAND2011-6549 (Sandia National Laboratories, 2011)
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2011/116549.pdf.
8. C. T. Brock, Real Time Data for Remediation Activities, presented at the WM2011 Waste
Management Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, March 7-11 2011.
20
-------
9. Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation (BNC), "Model 940 Radioactive Isotope Identification Device
Surveillance and Measurement (SAM)"
http://www.berkeleynucleonics.com/resources/SAM940 datasheet.pdf Last Accessed: June 10,
2014.
10. CBRNE Technologies Corp., "Evaluation of Three Hand-held Radioactive Isotope Identifiers"
http://www.livoniafirefiQhters.com/docs/Radiation%20lsotope%20ldentifier%20Evaluation%200
8-ll-08.pdf Last Accessed: June 10, 2014.
11. FUR®, "identiFINDER® Portable, Hand-held Radiation Protection"
http://as.flir.com/detection/radiation/handhelds/identifinder Last Accessed: June 10, 2014.
12. ORTEC, "Micro-Detective-HX Technical Specifications" http://www.ortec-
online.com/Solutions/hand-held-radioisotope-identifiers.aspx Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
13. paidContent, "Department of Homeland Security Selects AMETEK to Supply Portable Radiation
Detection System" http://finance.paidcontent.org/paidcontent/news/read?GUID=323055 Last
Accessed: October 11, 2012.
14. R. W. Schnee, D. R. Grant, K. Poinar, A. Ahmed, S. R. Golwala, Screening Surface Contamination
with BetaCage, presented at the Conference: LRT 2006: Topical workshop on low radioactivity
techniques, March 2007.
15. Z. Ahmed, S. R. Golwala, D. R. Grant, M. Kos, R. H. Nelson, R. W. Schnee, B. Wang, BetaCage: an
Ultra-sensitive Screener for Surface Contamination, presented at the American Institute of
Physics, AIP Conference,, Sudbury, Canada, August 28-29 2011.
16. J. A. Roybal, R. Conway, B. Galloway, E. Vinsant, P. Slavin, D. Guerin, Waste Reduction by
Separation of Contaminated Soils During Environmental Restoration (SAND-98-0529C),
presented at the DOE Pollution Prevention Conference, Seattle, Washington, June 2-4 1998.
17. US EPA, "Field Environmental Decision Support Team (FIELDS) "
http://www.epa.gov/reaion5fields/ Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
18. US EPA, "ASPECT Gamma Emergency Mapper (GEM)" www.epaosc.net/aspectgem Last
Accessed: October 11, 2012.
19. J. Cardarelli, M. Thomas, T. Curry, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Airborne Gamma
Spectrometry System for Environmental and Emergency Response Surveys, presented at the
Proceedings of the SPIE 7812, Imaging Spectrometry XV, August 2010.
20. US DoD, "Specialized Radiological Monitoring and Hazard Assessment Capabilities " DRAFTDoD
3150.08-M (Developed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical,
and Biological Defense Programs/Nuclear Matters (ASD(NCB/NM), 2013)
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/narp/Radiation Data/Specialized Radiological.htm.
21. USDA ARS, "Treatments for Farmland Contaminated with Radioactive Material" Agriculture
Handbook No. 395 (Agricultural Research Service (ARS)/USDA, 1971)
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87209094/PDF.
22. IAEA, "Cleanup of Large Areas Contaminated as a Result of a Nuclear Accident" Technical
Reports Series No. 300 (International Atomic Energy Agency, 1989) http://www-
pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/trs300 web.pdf.
23. T. Ulvsand, K. G. Andersson, J. H. Hansen, J. Preuthun, K. Sinkko, G. Svennerstedt, S. Uhnger,
"Early actions in decontamination after nuclear power accidents, guidelines for planning" P21-
209/97 (Raeddningsverket, SE-651 80 Karlstad, 1997)
24. E. T. Bramlitt, N. R. Johnson, A mower detector to judge soil sorting, presented at the 17th
annual U.S. Department of Energy low-level radioactive waste management conference,
Phoenix, Arizona, December 12-14 1995.
21
-------
25. E. R. Lloyd, M. B. Lackey, J. M. Stevens, L. C. Zinsli, Open Air Demolition of Facilities Highly
Contamination With Plutonium, HNF-32414-FP, presented at the 11th International Conference
on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management (ICEM), Belgium,
September 2-6 2007.
26. L. M. Kostelnik, J. R. Kriskovich, J. W. Maresca, J. L. Tripp, R. L. Demmer, An Improved Fogging
Method to Prevent the Release of Airborne Radionuclide Contamination from Ductwork During
Decontamination & Decommissioning-8287, presented at the WM2008 Conference, Phoenix,
AZ, February 24-28 2008.
27. E. E. Carter, B. D. Welty, Molten wax as a dust control agent for demolition of facilities,
presented at the 2007 Waste Management Symposium - Global Accomplishments in
Environmental and Radioactive Waste Management, Tucson, Arizona February 25 - March 1
2007.
28. NRPB, "Management Options for Food Production Systems Affected by a Nuclear Accident -
Task 1: Radionuclide Behaviour during Composting" NRPB-R328 (National Radiological
Protection Board, 2001)
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb C/1194947372801.
29. US EPA, "Innovative Uses of Compost: Composting of Soils Contaminated by Explosives"
EPA530-F-97-045 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997)
http://www.epa.gov/compost/pubs/explosn.txt.
30. W. C. Cobbin, W. L. Owen, "Development and Test of a Sod-Removal Procedure for Moist Lawns
Contaminated by Simulated Fallout" USNRDLTR965 (Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory,
1965)
31. I. F. Vovk, V. V. Blagoyev, A. N. Lyashenko, I. S. Kovalev, Technical Approaches to
Decontamination of Terrestrial Environments in the CIS (former USSR), Sci. Total Environ. 137,
49 (September, 1993).
32. T. Zeevaert, A. Bousher, "Restoration Techniques: Characteristics and Performances" RESTRAT -
WP3 (Nuclear Fission Safety Programme of the European Commission, 1998)
http://www.hzdr.de/projects/RESTRAT/DOCS/TD34.pdf.
33. J. Cardarelli, Fukushima: Long-Term Recovery Lessons Learned, presented at the WARRP
Capstone Event, Denver, CO, September 13 2012.
34. US EPA, "A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing" EPA 542-F-96-002 (1996)
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/soilwash.pdf.
35. US EPA, "Technology Reference Guide for Radioactively Contaminated Media" EPA 402-R-07-
004 (2007) http://www.epa.gov/rpdwebOO/docs/cleanup/media.pdf.
36. ITRC, "Work Group Metals in Soils Work Team Soil Washing Project Technical and Regulatory
Guidelines for December 1997 "
htto://www.itrcweb.ora/Guidance/GetDocument?documentlD=50 Last Accessed: June 4, 2014.
37. US EPA, "Superfund record of decision amendment: Hanford Site -100 Area (USDOE) 100-BC-l,
100-DR-l, & 100-HR-l OUs, Benton County, WA" EPA/541/R-97/044 (Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, 1997)
38. E. Snyder, R. James, R. Demmer, Simulated Pressure Washing for Removal of IND Fallout
Particles, presented at the U.S. EPA Decontamination Research and Development Conference,
November 2011.
39. M. Moring, M. L. Markkula, "Cleanup techniques for Finnish urban environments and external
doses from Cs-137 - modelling and calculations" Code: 9820910, EDB9719 (Finnish Centre for
Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK), 1997)
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/ Public/28/058/28058940.pdf.
22
-------
40. R. Demmer, E. Snyder, J. Drake, R. James, Understanding Contamination; Twenty Years of
Simulating Radiological Contamination, presented at the WM2012 Conference, Phoenix,
Arizona, February 26 - March 1 2012.
41. US DOE, "LTC America's, Inc. PTC-6 Vacuum System (Metal): Baseline Report" DOEVMCY32260 -
5851 ( Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,
1997)
42. US EPA, "Technology Evaluation Report: River Technologies LLC 3-Way Decontamination System
for Radiological Decontamination " EPA/600/R-11/015 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2011)
43. A. Paajanen, J. Lehto, "Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from the Cleanup of Large Areas
Contaminated in Nuclear Accidents" Project KAN-2; 1992:524 (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research
Program 1990-93, 1992)
44. J. Lehto, "Cleanup of Large Radioactive-Contaminated Areas and Disposal of Generated Waste"
TemaNord 1994:567 (TemaNord, 1994)
45. R. Patteson, The Accelerated Site Technology Deployment Program/Segmented Gate System
Project (SAND2000-2285C), presented at the Spectrum 2000 Conference, Chattanooga,
Tennessee, September 24-28 2000.
46. K. Moroney, J. Moroney, J. Turney, Processing Plutonium-Contaminated Soil on Johnston Atoll,
Radwaste Magazine 1, (July, 1994).
47. R. W. Doane, R. H. Grant, "Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil Cleanup Project; 7
February-30 April " AD-A-318567/5/XAB (Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1994)
48. N. Fatherly, M. O'Neill, A. Glemza, Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) W. R.
Grace Feasibility Study (FS) Alternative Development Process Challenges and Successes,
presented at the WM'08: Waste Management Symposium 2008, February 24-28 2008.
49. R. G. Post, Technology and Programs for Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental
Restoration, presented at the Waste Management '94: Working Towards a Cleaner
Environment, February 27-March 3 1994.
50. M. Cummings, S. R. Booth, "Remediation of Uranium-Contaminated Soil Using the Segmented
Gate System and Containerized Vat Leaching Techniques: A Cost Effectiveness Study" LA-UR-96-
2663 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1996)
51. Eberline Services, "Eberline Services: Field Services" http://www.eberlineservices.com/field.html
Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
52. R. Noyes, Nuclear Waste Cleanup Technology and Opportunities. Noyes Publications (Devon, UK,
1995), pp. 471, ISBN: 081551381X.
53. J. Heiser, T. Sullivan, "Decontamination Technologies Task 3: Urban Remediation and Response
Project Prepared for New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene" BNL-82389-2009
(Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2009) http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/45491.pdf1.
54. US DOE, "Waste Vitrification Systems: Lessons Learned" Report Number 8063 (U.S. Department
of Energy, 1999) http://www.hss.energy.gov/sesa/analvsis/ll/WasteVit.pdf.
55. K. Finucane, B. Campbell, The Treatment of Mixed Waste with GeoMelt In-Container
Vitrification, presented at the Waste Management 2006 Symposium - WM'06, Tucson, Arizona
February 26-March 2 2006.
56. K. S. Witwer, E. J. Dysland, J. S. Garfield, T. H. Beck, J. Matyas, L. M. Bagaasen, S. K. Cooley, E. M.
Pierce, D. S. Kim, M. J. Schweiger, Hanford's Supplemental Treatment Project: Full-Scale
Integrated Testing of In-Container-Vitrification and a 10,000 Liter Dryer, presented at the
WM2008 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, February 24-28 2008.
57. B.-Y. Min, Y. Kang, P.-S. Song, W.-K. Choi, C.-H. Jung, W.-Z. Oh, Study on the Vitrification of
Mixed Radioactive Waste by Plasma Arc Melting, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 13, 57 (2007).
23
-------
58. IAEA, "Application of Thermal Technologies for Processing of Radioactive Waste" IAEA-TECDOC-
1527 (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006)
59. Geo-Solutions Inc., "In Situ Stabilization / Solidification" http://www.geo-solutions.com/what-
we-do/technologies/soil-mixing/in-situ-stabilization Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
60. US EPA, "Stabilization/Solidification Processes for Mixed Wastes" EPA 402-R-96-014 (Center for
Remediation Technology and Tools, U.S. EPA, 1996)
61. C. M. Wilk, "Applying Solidification/Stabilization for Sustainable Redevelopment of
Contaminated Property" http://www.pollutionengineering.com/articles/88027-pca-s-s-
whitepaper Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
62. IAEA, "Technologies for remediation of radioactively contaminated sites" IAEA-TECDOC-1086
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 1999)
63. V. M. Efremenkov, "Radioactive waste management at nuclear power plants (IAEA Bulletin,
4/1989)" http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull314/31404683742.pdf Last
Accessed: June 4, 2014.
64. US EPA, "Potential Nano-Enabled Environmental Applications for Radionuclides" EPA 402-R-09-
002 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, 2009)
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=P1005GRl.txt.
65. P. Misaelides, F. Macasek, T. J. Pinnavaia, C. Colella, Natural Microporous Materials in
Environmental Applications. P. Misaelides, F. Macasek, T. J. Pinnavaia, C. Colella, Eds., (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1999).
66. D. W. Oscarson, R. L. Watson, H. G. Miller, The interaction of trace levels of cesium with
montmorillonitic and illitic clays, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 275, 503
(1987).
67. P. Rajec, K. Domianova, Cesium exchange reaction on natural and modified clinoptilolite
zeolites, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 275, 503 (2008).
68. F. A. Ugur, H. Sahan, E. Tel, Sorption Studies of Cs+ on IIlite, Balkan Physics Letters 19, 223
(February 22, 2011).
69. M. Galambos, J. Kufcakova, P. Rajec, Adsorption of cesium on domestic bentonites, Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 281, 485 (2009).
70. L. S. Campbell, B. E. Davies, Experimental Investigation of Plant Uptake of Caesium from Soils
Amended with Clinoptilolite and Calcium Carbonate Plant and Soil 189, 65 (1997).
71. Kurion Inc., "Wastewater Treatment at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant"
http://www.kurion.com/applications/separation/fukushima Last Accessed: June 11, 2014.
72. J. B. Pickett, W. E. Austin, H. H. Dukes, Highly Selective Nuclide Removal From the R-Reactor
Disassembly Basin at the SRS, Facilities Decontamination and Decommissioning Program
Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Aiken, SC 29808., presented at the WM'02 Conference,
Tucson, AZ, February 24-28 2002.
73. T. Sasaki, J. Okabe, M. Henmi, H. Hayashi, Y. lida, Cesium (Cs) and Strontium (Sr) Removal as
Model Materials in Radioactive Water by Advanced Reverse Osmosis Membrane, Desalination
and Water Treatment 51, 1672 (2013).
74. US EPA, "Environmental Technology Verification Program" www.epa.gov/etv Last Accessed:
June 4, 2014.
75. W. H. Bond, Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis (Liquid Treatment Systems), presented at the
Annual DOE LLWMP Participants Information Meeting, Denver, CO, August 31 1982.
76. J. L. Greatorex, Werner Glass Research Division IONICS INC., Advanced Study of Milk
Decontamination by Electrodialysis. (OCD Work Unit No. 32158. Postattack Research Division,
Office of Civil Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., 1965).
24
-------
77. US EPA, "Containment and Disposal of Large Amounts of Contaminated Water: A Support Guide
for Water Utilities" EPA 817-B-12-002 (EPA Office of Water, 2012)
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/emerplan/upload/epa817bl2002.pdf1.
78. B. F. Smith, "Actinide Separations for Advanced Processing of Nuclear Waste: Annual Report
1993" LA-UR-93-4017 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1993)
79. US EPA, "Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT)"
http://water.epa.pov/scitech/datait/databases/wcit/index.cfm Last Accessed: June 4, 2014.
80. A. A. Svittsov, S. B. Khubetsov, K. Volchek, Membrane Treatment of Liquid Wastes from
Radiological Decontamination Operations, Water Science and Technology 64, 854(2011).
81. K. H. Choo, D. J. Kwon, K. W. Lee, S. J. Choi, Selective removal of cobalt species using
nanofiltration membranes, Environmental Science and Technology 36, 1330 (2002).
82. US EPA, "Drinking Water Treatability Database"
http://iaspub.epa.aov/tdb/paaes/general/home.do Last Accessed: June 4, 2014.
83. A. Netzer, D. Hughes, Adsorption of Copper, Lead and Cobalt by Activated Carbon Water
Research 18, 927 (1984).
84. A. Sulaymon, A. Balasim, J. Al-Najar, Removal of Lead, Copper, Chromium, and Cobalt Ions onto
Granular Activated Carbon in Batch and Fixed-bed Adsorbers, Chemical Engineering Journal 155,
647 (2009).
85. W. Brinck, R. Schliekelman, D. Bennett, C. Bell, I. Markwood, Radium-removal Efficiencies in
Water-treatment Processes, J. AWWA 70, 1 (1978).
86. G. P. Flach, "Evaluation of Evaporation Technologies for Treating Contaminated Groundwater
(U)" WSRC-TR-2002-00432 Rev. 0. (Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site,
Aiken, SC, 2002) http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2002432/tr2002432.pdf.
-------
SEPA
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
------- |