EPA/600/R-21/027 | August 2021
www.epa.gov/emergency-response-research
United States
Environmental Protectior
Agency
oEPA
EPA's Geospatial Tools for
Managing Large Volumes of
Radiological Waste
Office of Research and Development
Homeland Security Research Program
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
EPA's Geospatial Tools for Managing Large Volumes of Radiological Waste - 21254
Timothy Boe*, Paul Lemieux*, Emily Snyder*, Molly Rogers**, and Colin Hayes**
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA
** Eastern Research Group, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27560 USA
ABSTRACT
Large-scale disasters have the potential to generate a significant amount of waste. For example, Hurricane
Katrina and the Joplin Missouri tornado resulted in 100 million and 1.5 million cubic yards of waste,
respectively. Man-made chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) incidents either by way of
terrorism, war, or accidents have the potential to generate as much or more waste, including some form of
hazardous waste. Recovery will likely be profoundly impacted by waste management issues and the
strategies selected to manage them. The quantification, segregation, transportation, and storage of waste
can be an arduous and costly undertaking. Furthermore, these processes are intricately linked with other
decisions made throughout the recovery timeline. Therefore, the remediation, including waste
management, must be holistically considered. Understanding these complex interactions can be facilitated
by using models and tools that adhere to the "system-of-systems" approach.
To better understand and predict waste management issues, the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) is developing a suite of tools and resources for
planning and response/recovery purposes. Due to the anticipated scarcity of GIS experts during these high
impact, low probability incidents, these tools are intended to be operated by a user base with only a
minimal amount of GIS expertise. EPA's Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST) is a is a planning tool
for estimating the potential volume and radioactivity levels of waste generated by a radiological incident
and subsequent decontamination efforts. WEST supports decision makers by generating a first-order
estimate of the quantity and characteristics of waste resulting from a radiological incident, and allows the
user to evaluate various decontamination/demolition strategies to examine the impact of those strategies
on waste generation. EPA's Waste Staging and Storage Site Selection Tool uses spatial information and
analysis techniques to help identify and prioritize potential locations for staging and storing waste. The
tool analyzes siting criteria for a specified geographic area to identify candidate sites and their total
available land surface areas. The tool was developed to help decision makers better understand potential
options for staging and storing waste and to illuminate potential capacity constraints when conducting
planning efforts. Beyond identifying where waste may be staged or stored is the need to evaluate
considerations related to the resource demands associated with transporting and disposing of waste.
EPA's All Hazards Logistics Tool calculates the cost and time to manage the transportation and handling
of a user-specified quantity of waste and allows users to run routing scenarios with user-defined
destinations. Factors specific to waste type, hauling rates, and acceptance rates allow users to explore
options and evaluate constraints to improve preparedness for managing large volumes of waste.
This paper will feature a hypothetical radiological incident with the purpose of modeling the implications
of staging and transporting large volumes of waste. The findings of this paper will highlight the cost-
benefit aspects of decisions when determining optimal waste staging locations and routes, environmental
and mitigative considerations, and best practices.
INTRODUCTION
1
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Large-scale disasters have the potential to generate a significant amount of waste. For example, Hurricane
Katrina (2005) and the Joplin Missouri tornado (2011) resulted in 100 million and 1.5 million cubic yards
of waste, respectively [1]. Man-made chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) incidents
either by way of terrorism, war, or accident have the potential to generate as much or more waste,
including some form of hazardous waste.
Recovery is profoundly impacted by waste management issues and the strategies selected to manage them
[2]. The quantification, segregation, transportation, and storage of waste can be an arduous and costly
undertaking. Furthermore, these processes are intricately linked with the decisions made throughout the
recovery timeline [3], Therefore, the remediation, including waste management, must be holistically
considered. To better understand and predict waste management issues, the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) is developing a suite of tools and
resources for planning, response, and recovery purposes. These capabilities seek to address the entire
waste paradigm, to include decontamination waste estimates, identification of potential staging areas, and
logistical and resources constraints associated with waste disposal.
This paper will present the application of EPA's waste management tools to a case study that features a
hypothetical nuclear power plant contamination incident. The results of this case study will provide
insight into the impacts of various decontamination and waste management decisions, including a series
of observations, potential bottlenecks, and research gaps.
METHODOLOGY
Systems Approach
For wide area incidents, decisions related to the decontamination, waste management, and disposal
strategy will affect the cost, duration, and effectiveness of the response. The process of understanding
how these response activities influence one another and contribute to the overall solution is referred to as
a systems approach. The systems approach recognizes that each response activity is coupled with another,
where decisions made for one response action impact decisions and options that exist for another. For
example, this dynamic is observed where the amount of waste to be managed is profoundly impacted by
the decontamination strategy that is selected, or when waste management constraints may drive
decontamination decisions. As decisions are made, the resource demand may increase or decrease
(typically the former) in scale. With time, operationally driven decisions drive or tip the balance in favor
of more resources. This approach typically causes remediation to become resource intensive in terms of
cost and time (e.g., a specific decontamination method is costly, but is quicker). While EPA waste tools
encourage a sequential or phased approach to cleanup (i.e., decontamination, waste estimation, and
disposal), the tools compile and display results in a way that allows users to see the "big picture" and how
minute changes in these approaches can greatly impact each individual response activity.
This "big picture" approach facilitates planning through scenario-based analyses that can increase
preparedness, identify problematic scenarios, and ultimately identify effective solutions in advance of an
incident. The systems approach seeks to balance the overall resource demand by leveraging the system as
a whole and predicting an optimal outcome, which in return provides greater insight and improves
decision making. The tools presented below embody this method by allowing the users to see how their
decisions impact other operations (e.g., the need to decontaminate in situ due to limited capacity to
stage/store waste) with regard to resource demand (e.g., cost and time).
2
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Software
Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST): A GIS-based tool designed to help decision makers and
planners better understand the impact these mechanisms have on waste management considerations. To
scope out the waste and debris management issues resulting from a radiological response and recovery
effort, it is critical to understand not only the quantity, characteristics, and level of contamination of the
waste and debris but also the implications of response and cleanup approaches regarding the quantity and
rate of waste generation. WEST is capable of modeling key non-conventional "niche" waste streams that
may offer opportunities for significant cost savings or are problematic for various reasons [3], Fig. 1
below illustrates the general workflow of the tool.
Create/Manage
Waste
Scenarios
I
(0
a
o
if
1/1
in
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
allows users to designate one or more areas within a geographic area of interest, specify attributes and
rationale for selection, and save the output for use with other tools or analyses. Fig. 2 below illustrates the
general workflow of the tool.
Fig. 2. Staging Tool Workflow [3]
Waste Logistics Tool: The Waste Logistics Tool is a GIS-based tool for estimating the resource demands
associated with transporting large quantities of waste. The tool allows users to: (1) interact with
geoprocessing tools, map layers, datasets, and other data types, and connect them to a process; (2)
iteratively process feature class modifications or attribute tables in a workspace; (3) visualize the
workflow through a task-based user interface; and (4) leverage multiple geoprocessing tools that handle
processing steps that are coded using Python scripting [1], The results are output into a Microsoft Excel
dataset that captures the scenario conditions, computational results, and references to default factors used.
Fig. 3 illustrates the overall tool design. The tool is organized into a sequence of steps that guide the user
through providing necessary inputs and specifying selections to calculate estimated resource demands for
transporting and disposing of waste.
4
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Routing Network Dataset
Local
Load local network dataset for travel
modes and routing
Online
Reference an online network dataset (e.g., Esri's
ArcGIS Online) for travel modes and routing)
Scenario Layers
Incident Area
Define area of interest
Support Area
Define incident support
Barriers
Specify areas and/or
roads to avoid
Routing Layer
Facilities
Evaluate waste
management facilities
for support
Analyze routing options and estimated distance and travel time
c
£
Estimated Resource Demands
Q_
Facilities
Costs
Time
Facilities accepting waste
Calculate transportation and
Estimate the time to
quantities
disposal costs
complete disposal activities
Fig. 3. Waste Logistics Tool Workflow [1]
Data Sources
WEST: uses externally supplied GIS shapefiles describing the affected area in terms of radionuclide
deposition per unit area; WEST currently utilizes three geographic study regions, with Zone 1
representing the area with the highest levels of contamination, Zone 2 representing the area with a
moderate level of contamination, and Zone 3 representing the area with the lowest level of contamination.
The tool uses Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Hazus infrastructure databases to
identify what types and sizes of buildings fall inside the contaminated areas as well as describing the
materials of construction and building contents. The user must define the description of the contaminants
in terms of deposition activity and contaminating radionuclides for each of the Zones 1, 2, and 3 as well
as "decontamination strategy" that describes decontamination approaches for different types of materials
(e.g., asphalt, concrete, etc.) and locations inside and outside buildings (e.g., roofs, interior floors, etc.)
Site Selection Tool: consists of multiple sources that are regarded as key considerations for identifying
candidate staging sites that includes environmental and geographical considerations. These
geographically driven essential criteria drive the core suitability analysis parameters. ArcGIS was used to
develop a land suitability analysis model, incorporating data layers representing the essential selection
criteria, including land use/land cover (LULC), slope, surface water, roads, and soil group. These layers
can be downloaded from reliable sources such as those listed in Table I; however, the tool contains the
flexibility to use any higher quality data that users may find locally [4],
5
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
TABLE I. Site Selection Tool Data Inventory [4]
Essential Layer
Source
Suitable
Not Suitable
Land Use/Land
Cover
National Land Cover
Dataset
Developed, Open
Space
Developed, Low
Intensity
Barren Land
(Rock/Sand/Clay)
Dwarf Scrub
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Sedge/Herbaceous
Open Water
Perennial Ice/Snow
Developed, Medium
Intensity
Developed, High
Intensity
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Lichens
Moss
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
Slope
Derived from Digital
Elevation Models
(DEMs)
< 10% change in
elevation
> 10% change in
elevation
Surface Water
(Distance from
Water)
U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), National
Hydrography Dataset
(NHD)
> 500 m
< 500 m
Road (Distance
from Road)
U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT)
National Transportation
Dataset (NTD)
200 m - 500 m
< 200 m and > 500 m
Soil Infiltration
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Soil
Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO)
Downloader
Hydrologic soil groups
C, D, or C/D
Hydrologic soil groups
A^ B, A/D, or B/D
Waste Logistics Tool: requires two external datasets to operate: 1) A routing network is required to
calculate both distance and travel time for routes that are identified. The tool also leverages Esri's
Network Analyst toolbox to perform network analyses. Facility routes are ranked based on the attributes
and configuration of the network dataset selected by the user. ArcGIS Online defaults to ranking by
distance. Users manually adjust any rank order presented in the results output to reflect different routing
priorities; 2) Default facility data are provided with the tool [1]. The inventories of facilities that are
included are consistent with facility inventories that are available with related HSRP tools such as the
EPA's Incident Waste Decision Support Tool (I-WASTE). Table II provides a description of the facility
inventories that are included with the tool [1].
6
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
TABLE II. Waste Logistics Tool Data Inventory
Facility Type1
Source
Notes
Radiological
I-WASTE (Updated: December 22, 2016)
Includes commercial and federal
radioactive waste facilities (11
facilities)
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) C Hazardous
Waste
EPA's RCRAInfo Database2 (Updated: 08-
15-2019)
Only Active facilities (23
facilities)
RCRA C Hazardous
Waste with Low-
Activity Radioactive
Waste (LARW)
Authority
I-WASTE and RCRAInfo Database
RCRAInfo facilities were cross-
referenced with I-WASTE
facilities that previously flagged
LARW (4 facilities)
Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW)
Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level
Data (HIFLD) - Solid Waste Landfill
Facilities, Updated: 08-09-2018
Only Active facilities (1,684
facilities)
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
HIFLD - Solid Waste Landfill Facilities,
Updated: 08-09-2018
Only Active facilities (1,600
facilities)
SCENARIO
The hypothetical scenario occurred at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, 40 miles SW of Fort Worth,
TX. Coolant was lost in one of the units resulting in failed fuel. Pressure rapidly increased in the
containment building, which was then followed by a leaking emergency escape hatch seal. The
containment building failed, resulting an unmonitored ground level release of airborne radioactive
material. Although an array of radioisotopes would be released under these conditions, Cesium 137 (Cs-
137) was selected as the principal source of contamination due to its long half-life and relevancy to other
radiological incidents (e.g., radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) and nuclear weapons).
A hypothetical contamination plume, defining the extent and defined levels of Cs-137 surface
contamination, was developed based on: 1) the initial source term; 2) the scenario meteorological
conditions (clear skies and wind out of the SW at 10 miles per hour); and results from a previous national
level exercise. Fig. 4 shows the hypothetical plume impacting the Dallas Fort Worth area.
1 Some facilities can accept more than one waste type (e.g., MSW and C&D).
2 Based on facilities with Process Code = D80 Landfill, identified via
https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/rcrainfo/search.html (Last accessed: 09/26/2019).
7
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
©
Si ^Denton
\ V @
[199|
i>d
Fig. 4. Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Hypothetical Scenario Deposition Map
To ease generation of waste estimates and analysis of various options for waste staging, transportation,
and disposal within the tools, three zones of contamination were defined. This zone demarcation is
consistent with the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center's plume modelling outputs designed
to give information on projected radiological contamination to the response community. For each zone
the following contamination levels were assumed: zone 1 = 270,000 microcuries per square meter
((j,Ci/m2), zone 2 = 2700 jiCi/nr, and zone 3 = 270 (xCi/m2. These are illustrated by different colors in Fig.
4 (e.g., zone 1 appears as red, zone 2 as orange, and zone 3 as yellow). Zones 1, 2, and 3 cover an area of
240, 550, and 2100 square miles, respectively.
CASE STUDY
This case study will present two separate decontamination approaches and their resulting waste totals in
response to the hypothetical scenario described above. The case study will further explore the impacts of
these approaches on the staging and logistics of waste. All plausible outcomes associated with
decontamination technology efficacy, waste minimization, health and safety impacts, policy decisions that
affect remediation options, or the characteristics of the contaminated waste will not be included in this
case study. These outcomes must be weighed together in conjunction with waste management.
The decontamination approach is described as follows: Scenario 1 (SI): dry decontamination; and
Scenario 2 (S2): wet decontamination. Specifics of the decontamination approach are detailed in Table
III. In general, SI emphasizes dry decontamination technologies (i.e., chemical removal methods);
whereas, S2 emphasizes wet decontamination methods (i.e., abrasive removal methods).
TABLE III, Decontamination Approach by Scenario
Scenario (S)
Approach
Limited wash water
8
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
SI: Dry
Decontamination
Soil removal: 6 inches
Decontamination: machine assisted for zone 1, soil
inversion for zone 2 and zone 3
Demolition: zone 1: 90%, zone 2: 10%, zone 3: 0%
S2: Wet
Decontamination
Unlimited wash water
Soil removal: simulated 12 inches
Decontamination: machine assisted for all three
zones
Demolition: zone 1: 90%, zone 2: 10%, zone 3: 0%
Decontamination and Waste Estimation
EPA's WEST was used to generate waste estimate based on the decontamination approach defined in
Table III. The results of SI: dry decontamination and S2: wet decontamination are shown in Tables IV
and V, respectively. The total solid and aqueous waste generated from SI totaled 3.09E+07 m3 and
1.48E+07 m3, respectively; whereas, the total soil and aqueous waste generated from S2 totaled 2.00E+08
m3 and 5.27E+08 m3. The amount of waste generated under S2 was an order a magnitude higher in
comparison to SI. This outcome emphasizes the use of dry decontamination methods (when feasible),
potential resource constraints (i.e., some geographical areas might lack wash water availability), and wash
water reuse and waste minimization methods.
TABLE IV. SI: Dry Decontamination
Zone Number
Solid Waste
Volume (m3)
Aqueous Waste
Volume (m3)
1
2.33E+07
3.87E+06
2
7.38E+06
9.09E+06
3
2.13E+05
1.86E+06
Total
3.09E+07
1.48E+07
TABLE V. S2: Wet Decontamination
Zone Number
Solid Waste
Volume (m3)
Aqueous Waste
Volume (m3)
1
2.33E+07
1.42E+07
2
3.77E+07
9.08E+07
3
1.39E+08
4.22E+08
Total
2.00E+08
5.27E+08
The composition of waste by volume for SI and S2 is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The volume of
ground decontamination waste (i.e., waste derived from outdoor surface decontamination) accounted for
the majority of the waste stream for both scenarios. Given the decontamination methods prescribed under
9
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
S2 (i.e., increased soil removal depth and emphasis on wash water methods), the volume of ground
decontamination waste was much greater when compared to the building decontamination and demolition
waste volumes.
Fig. 5 . SI Composition of Total Waste, by Volume
3% 2%
Fig. 6. S2 Composition of Total Waste, by Volume
Waste Staging
The EPA's Waste Staging Tool was used to identify potential staging areas for temporarily storing waste.
For the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, it was assumed waste would be staged within the plume
(i.e., the area evacuated) in order to limit the spread of contamination to potentially clean environments.
These staging areas were not limited in proximity by infrastructure, homes, or businesses. Given that
these areas are already assumed to be contaminated, all soil types were accepted. The results of this
analysis are shown in Fig. 7.
10
-------
WM2021 Conference. March 7-1L 2021, Phoenix. Arizona, USA
LJ
ss
^McKjroev
Mineral Wells Dallas Mesquite
Weatherford ^Fort Worth AmiftQp ° ° Terrell
53
Cedar
Creek
Reservoir
Fig. 7. Staging Option 1
The overall mean suitability score for the selected area was 2.38 (on a scale 1-5, 5 being most optimal).
This can be further down selected (i.e., ignonng areas that scored below a given suitability score). Those
areas that scored >= 4 are shown as a blue color in Fig. 7. The selected areas have a total solid waste
capacity 6.83 E - OS m3 and an aqueous waste capacity of 1.07E+08 m\ The selected areas exceed the total
waste generated by SI, but they lack the aqueous waste capacity for S2. SI may allow for a more
restrictive approach when considering optimal staging area (i.e., urban areas can be avoided and areas
with permeable soils excluded). An example of this modified approach is shown in Fig. 8. The total
estimated solid and aqueous waste capacity for this scenario is 5.97E+08 m and 9.34E+07 m3,
respectively. This modified approach would still accommodate the amount of waste generated under SI.
Fig. 8. Staging Option 2
11
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
In an effort to accommodate the waste capacity generated under S2, a larger waste staging area (i.e.,
locations outside of the evacuated area) was considered. Fig. 9 shows the extent and potential sites
(shown in blue). This approach used the same parameters as the previous scenario as shown in Fig. 8
(above) (i.e., avoid urban areas and exclude permeable soils). The total capacity for solid and aqueous
waste was 6.28E+09 m3 and 9.84E+08 m\ respectively. This expanded scenario provides the necessary
capacity estimated under S2.
Transportation of Waste
The EPA's Waste Logistics Tool was used to estimate potential disposal options and the associated
resource demand (e.g., cost and time). To illustrate the impacts policy and disposal options can have on
the overall cleanup effort, two separate transportation and disposal options were evaluated. Transportation
option 1 sought to dispose of 100% of the solid and aqueous waste at hazardous waste facilities within the
continental United States (CONUS). Figs. 10 and 11 show potential disposal facilities (shown as stars)
and routes for solid and aqueous waste, respectively. The total amount of waste generated under SI far
exceeded the total aggregated capacity of all hazardous waste facilities in the CONUS. When considering
10% of the SI solid waste, a total of 128,699 shipments, costing $302 million, and 2.5 years would be
needed to process waste using the five nearest hazardous waste facilities. The aqueous waste scenario
resulted in a similar outcome. A total of 2,300 shipments, costing $11 million, and 17 days would be
required to process approximately 10% of the waste generated under S1 using all available hazardous
waste facilities (23) capable of handling aqueous waste in the CONUS. The tool predicted a total of 268
facilities would be needed to dispose of the 3.09E+07 m3 of aqueous waste generated under SI. The
results of S2 provided a near impossible outcome. Both the estimated solid and aqueous waste totals far
exceeded the hazardous waste capacity in the CONUS (i.e., <5% of the total waste could be accounted for
per the entire CONUS capacity).
Fig. 9. Staging Option 3
12
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Chihuahua
Torredn Monterrey
Fig. 10. Transportation Option 1 Soid Waste3
Boston
New York
o
^Washington
Fig. 11. Transportation Option 1 Aqueous Waste
In order to expand the total waste capacity, an alternative approach was evaluated. Transportation option
2 considered the use of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills located in the state of Texas to dispose of
100% of the solid waste4. Fig. 12 shows potential disposal facilities (shown as stars) and routes for solid
and aqueous waste, respectively. All of the waste generated under SI could be processed. Transportation
option 2 would require 100 facilities (totaling 1,063,300 shipments) costing approximately $1 billion and
one year to complete. Similar to transportation option 1, S2 resulted in an improbable outcome due to the
cost and lack of disposal options for aqueous waste. While the state of Texas might have the MSW
capacity to account for the total S2 solid waste, the resources necessary to decontaminate the impacted
areas might be dwarfed in comparison to the resources required to transport and dispose of waste.
3 The circled area on the map represents the outline of the plume shown in Figure 4.
4 This is a purely speculative decision for scenario development purposes and does not reflect EPA policy. It is
highly unlikely that the waste generated near zone 1 would be accepted for MSW disposal.
13
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Fig. 12. Transportation Option 2 Solid Waste
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented two separate decontamination approaches and their resulting waste totals as a result
of a hypothetical nuclear power plant incident. The paper further explored the various stages of waste
management and the potential impacts to the recovery process. The following bullets summarize the
observations and gaps identified by this case study:
Decontamination in response to a radiological incident should be considered as a dominating
factor when optimizing waste management strategies. Decisions made during decontamination
can have significant and lasting impacts on the recovery timeline. Furthermore, the results of this
case study emphasize the importance of modeling outcomes prior to implementing them in the
real world. Hence, care should be taken when selecting a decontamination strategy and the
technologies employed within, not only for its efficacy, but also for the resource requirements and
the resulting waste.
The waste staging decisions are often made in situ. The results of this case study demonstrated
that waste staging capacity will likely be driven by what the decision makers and the inhabitants
deem as appropriate criteria for selecting potential sites. Modifications to these criteria can have
significant impacts on the staging capacity and determine whether the selected decontamination
approach is plausible. Planning personnel should consider evaluating multiple sites and criteria
(i.e., best- and worst-case scenarios) to include defendable justifications for their selections.
Is it essential to consider both the transportation of waste and the capacity of disposal facilities
receiving the waste. In some situations, the resources necessary to accommodate the logistics of
waste (i.e., transportation and disposal) might exceed that of decontamination. Large scale
disasters may necessitate creative solutions that could include expanding staging sites beyond
contaminated areas, converting staging sites to permanent disposal facilities, utilizing MSW sites
to store "very" low level waste, and implementing waste minimization technologies. It should be
noted that even though the logistics of waste was considered at the end of the waste management
process, it determined whether the scenario resulted in a plausible outcome. In brief, successful
14
-------
WM2021 Conference, March 7-11, 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
outcomes associated with decontamination and staging should not be acted upon until the
disposal process has been fully explored.
The authors acknowledge that this case study did not consider all plausible outcomes,
decontamination technology efficacy, health and safety impacts, policy decisions that affect
remediation options, or the characteristics of the contaminated waste. These outcomes must be
weighed together in conjunction with waste management. Furthermore, the burden of disposal
might be significantly reduced by emphasizing waste minimization technologies. Waste
minimization was not considered as part of this case study due to the lack of data and modeling
capabilities.
The methodology and results presented here might be one of the first instances of modeling a radiological
incident from the inception of waste (i.e., decontamination) through completion (i.e., various processes of
staging and disposal). The outcomes proved potentially untenable and the decontamination decisions
made without regard to waste management (and its processes), might overwhelm the nation's ability to
respond and recover to a wide area radiological incident.
DISCLAIMER
The research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract EP-C-16-015 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. It has been subjected to
review by the Office of Research and Development and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
REFERENCES
1. Boe, T., P. Lemieux, M. Rodgers, P. Dziemiela, and C. Hayes. All Hazards Waste Logistics Tool.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/B-20/132, 2020.
2. Demmer, R.L., Large Scale, Urban Decontamination; Developments, Historical Examples and
Lessons Learned, in Proceedings of the WM07 Conference2007: Tucson, A Z.
3. Lemieux, P., D. Schultheisz, T. Peake, T. Boe, and C. Hayes, Waste Estimation from a Wide-Area
Radiological Incident: The Impact of Geography and Urban Footprint, in WM2016 Conference2016:
Phoenix, AZ.
4. Boe, T., P. Lemieux, and M. Rodgers, Waste Storage and Staging Site Selection Tool. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC, EPA/600/X-19/105, 2020.
15
-------
vvEPA
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
------- |