skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Authorized Limit Evaluation of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Used for Vapor-Phase Remediation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California

Abstract

This report provides a technical basis for establishing radiological release limits for granular activated carbon (GAC) containing very low quantities of tritium and radon daughter products generated during environmental remediation activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This evaluation was conducted according to the Authorized Limit procedures specified in United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOE, 1993) and related DOE guidance documents. The GAC waste is currently being managed by LLNL as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mixed waste. Significant cost savings can be achieved by developing an Authorized Limit under DOE Order 5400.5 since it would allow the waste to be safely disposed as a hazardous waste at a permitted off-site RCRA treatment and disposal facility. LLNL generates GAC waste during vapor-phase soil remediation in the Trailer 5475 area. While trichloroethylene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the primary targets of the remedial action, a limited amount of tritium and radon daughter products are contained in the GAC at the time of disposal. As defined in DOE Order 5400.5, an Authorized Limit is a level of residual radioactive material that will result in an annual publicmore » dose of 100 milliroentgen-equivalent man per year (mrem/year) or less. In 1995, DOE issued additional release requirements for material sent to a landfill that is not an authorized low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Per guidance, the disposal site will be selected based on a risk/benefit assessment under the As-Low-As-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA) process while ensuring that individual doses to the public are less than 25 mrem in a year, ground water is protected, the release would not necessitate further remedial action for the disposal site, and the release is coordinated with all appropriate authorities. The 1995 release requirements also state that Authorized Limits may be approved by DOE field office managers without DOE headquarters (EH-1) approval if a reasonably conservative dose assessment demonstrates that: (1) Public doses will not exceed one mrem per year individually or 10 person-rem/year collectively; (2) Appropriate record keeping and data collection procedures are in place; (3) Copies of the release evaluation and procedures are properly maintained; and (4) Coordination with all applicable state and federal agencies is documented. Based on the above guidelines, this report uses one mrem/year for individual members of the public and 10 person-rem/year for the collective population as upper-bound doses for the determination of Authorized Limits.« less

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
902251
Report Number(s):
UCRL-TR-227240
TRN: US0702915
DOE Contract Number:
W-7405-ENG-48
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANT EFFECTS ON LIVING ORGANISMS AND BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS; 12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND NON-RACIOACTIVE WASTER FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; ACTIVATED CARBON; ALARA; DAUGHTER PRODUCTS; GROUND WATER; LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS; RADON; RELEASE LIMITS; REMEDIAL ACTION; RESOURCE CONSERVATION; SANITARY LANDFILLS; SOILS; TARGETS; TRITIUM; WASTES

Citation Formats

Devany, R, and Utterback, T. Authorized Limit Evaluation of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Used for Vapor-Phase Remediation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.2172/902251.
Devany, R, & Utterback, T. Authorized Limit Evaluation of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Used for Vapor-Phase Remediation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California. United States. doi:10.2172/902251.
Devany, R, and Utterback, T. Thu . "Authorized Limit Evaluation of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Used for Vapor-Phase Remediation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California". United States. doi:10.2172/902251. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/902251.
@article{osti_902251,
title = {Authorized Limit Evaluation of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Used for Vapor-Phase Remediation at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California},
author = {Devany, R and Utterback, T},
abstractNote = {This report provides a technical basis for establishing radiological release limits for granular activated carbon (GAC) containing very low quantities of tritium and radon daughter products generated during environmental remediation activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This evaluation was conducted according to the Authorized Limit procedures specified in United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOE, 1993) and related DOE guidance documents. The GAC waste is currently being managed by LLNL as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mixed waste. Significant cost savings can be achieved by developing an Authorized Limit under DOE Order 5400.5 since it would allow the waste to be safely disposed as a hazardous waste at a permitted off-site RCRA treatment and disposal facility. LLNL generates GAC waste during vapor-phase soil remediation in the Trailer 5475 area. While trichloroethylene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the primary targets of the remedial action, a limited amount of tritium and radon daughter products are contained in the GAC at the time of disposal. As defined in DOE Order 5400.5, an Authorized Limit is a level of residual radioactive material that will result in an annual public dose of 100 milliroentgen-equivalent man per year (mrem/year) or less. In 1995, DOE issued additional release requirements for material sent to a landfill that is not an authorized low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Per guidance, the disposal site will be selected based on a risk/benefit assessment under the As-Low-As-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA) process while ensuring that individual doses to the public are less than 25 mrem in a year, ground water is protected, the release would not necessitate further remedial action for the disposal site, and the release is coordinated with all appropriate authorities. The 1995 release requirements also state that Authorized Limits may be approved by DOE field office managers without DOE headquarters (EH-1) approval if a reasonably conservative dose assessment demonstrates that: (1) Public doses will not exceed one mrem per year individually or 10 person-rem/year collectively; (2) Appropriate record keeping and data collection procedures are in place; (3) Copies of the release evaluation and procedures are properly maintained; and (4) Coordination with all applicable state and federal agencies is documented. Based on the above guidelines, this report uses one mrem/year for individual members of the public and 10 person-rem/year for the collective population as upper-bound doses for the determination of Authorized Limits.},
doi = {10.2172/902251},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jan 11 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Jan 11 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • In this project, particulates generated from various conventional and laser machining processes involving graphite composite materials were characterized. Airborne particulate were examined with both phase-contrast light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy to determine the physical size and morphology of the particles and to search for respirable-size graphite fibers. Chemical species generated from laser machining were isolated, identified, and quantified by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry. Particulates collected on filters from air sampling of the machining process were chemically extracted and analyzed to determine if significant adsorption of the volatile species had occurred onto these particles. Portions of the extract were also evaluatedmore » for mutagenicity using the Ames test. The majority of the chemicals identified were polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Toxicological review of these chemicals revealed toxicities ranging from irritation to carcinogenicity. Exposure limits have been established for only a few of the identified chemicals. At the source of generation, the concentrations of the carcinogens phenanthrene and pyrene were in excess of the allowable limits. Engineering control measures for various postcuring operations were discussed. Several policy issues, including exposure limit for graphite fibers and composite dust, regulation of laser machining operations, and treatment of graphite composite waste materials were addressed. 17 refs., 73 figs., 25 tabs.« less
  • This report examines the historic potential of two properties of the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL): the facility itself and a known historic archeological site, CA-SJO-173H, the Carnegie town site, contained within LLNL Site 300 in San Joaquin County, California. The history and development of LLNL is presented in Section 3 of the report, while Section 4 is devoted to the Carnegie historic site. Section 5 discusses aspects of the LLNL Livermore Site, as well as the Carnegie town site, in relation to the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places contained inmore » 36 CFR 60.4. Preliminary evaluations of National Register eligibility are presented. The recommendations contained in Section 6 define an appropriate avenue to permit the Department of Energy to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office, culminating in Determinations of Eligibility and Effect, if necessary, for the properties in question.« less
  • This report examines the historic potential of two properties of the US Department of Energy`s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL): the facility itself and a known historic archeological site, CA-SJO-173H, the Carnegie town site, contained within LLNL Site 300 in San Joaquin County, California. The history and development of LLNL is presented in Section 3 of the report, while Section 4 is devoted to the Carnegie historic site. Section 5 discusses aspects of the LLNL Livermore Site, as well as the Carnegie town site, in relation to the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places contained inmore » 36 CFR 60.4. Preliminary evaluations of National Register eligibility are presented. The recommendations contained in Section 6 define an appropriate avenue to permit the Department of Energy to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office, culminating in Determinations of Eligibility and Effect, if necessary, for the properties in question.« less
  • The objective of this report is to summarize OHM's evaluations of the alternatives as well as costs associated with the various remedial alternatives necessary to abate the contamination problems identified with the hydrocarbon leakage at the site. The evaluations and findings summarized in this report are based on the data and conclusions presented in the previously submitted related report prepared by OHM and titled ''Site Investigation Hydrocarbon Leak Near Building 403 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California.'' 1 fig., 14 tabs.
  • The Department of Energy Livermore Site Office requested a technical review of remedial alternatives proposed for the Building 812 Operable Unit, Site 300 at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The team visited the site and reviewed the alternatives proposed for soil remediation in the draft RI/FS and made the following observations and recommendations. Based on the current information available for the site, the team did not identify a single technology that would be cost effective and/or ecologically sound to remediate DU contamination at Building 812 to current remedial goals. Soil washing is not a viable alternative and should not bemore » considered at the site unless final remediation levels can be negotiated to significantly higher levels. This recommendation is based on the results of soil washing treatability studies at Fernald and Ashtabula that suggest that the technology would only be effective to address final remediation levels higher than 50 pCi/g. The technical review team identified four areas of technical uncertainty that should be resolved before the final selection of a preferred remedial strategy is made. Areas of significant technical uncertainty that should be addressed include: (1) Better delineation of the spatial distribution of surface contamination and the vertical distribution of subsurface contamination in the area of the firing table and associated alluvial deposits; (2) Chemical and physical characterization of residual depleted uranium (DU) at the site; (3) Determination of actual contaminant concentrations in air particulates to support risk modeling; and (4) More realistic estimation of cost for remedial alternatives, including soil washing, that were derived primarily from vendor estimates. Instead of conducting the planned soil washing treatability study, the team recommends that the site consider a new phased approach that combines additional characterization approaches and technologies to address the technical uncertainty in the remedial decision making. The site should redo the risk calculations as the future use scenario has changed for the site. As a result, the existing model is based on very conservative assumptions that result in calculation of unreasonably low cleanup goals. Specifically, the review team proposes that LLNL consider: (1) Revising the industrial worker scenario to a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) for a site worker that performs a weekly walk down of the area for two hours for 25 years (or an alternative RME if the exposure scenario changes); (2) Revising the ESSI of 2 mg U per kg soil for the deer mouse to account for less than 0.05 of the total ingested uranium being adsorbed by the gut; (3) Revising bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for vegetation and invertebrates that are based on 100 mg of soluble uranium per kg of soil, as the uranium concentration in the slope soil does not average 100 mg/kg and it is not all in a soluble form; and (4) Measuring actual contaminant concentrations in air particulates at the site and using the actual values to support risk calculations. The team recommends that the site continue a phased approach during remediation. The activities should focus on elimination of the principal threats to groundwater by excavating (1) source material from the firing table and alluvial deposits, and (2) soil hotspots from the surrounding slopes with concentrations of U-235 and U-238 that pose unacceptable risk. This phased approach allows the remediation path to be driven by the results of each phase. This reduces the possibility of costly 'surprises', such as failure of soil treatment, and reduces the impact of remediation on endangered habitat. Treatment of the excavated material with physical separation equipment may result in a decreased volume of soil for disposal if the DU is concentrated in the fine-grained fraction, which can then be disposed of in an offsite facility at a considerable cost savings. Based on existing data and a decision to implement the recommended phased approach, the cost of characterization, excavation and physical treatment of the contaminated materials is roughly estimated to be one third to one fourth of the cost of the current baseline treatment. This is an estimated cost; the actual cost of the project will be sensitive to actual soil/sediment volumes that can be refined with the results from characterization studies. The technical team encourages the site to promote a more holistic approach during remediation of contaminated sediments at Site 300. It is true that the presence of low levels of residual DU on the steep slopes may stress the ecosystem, as it is not possible to block the exposure of resident biota. It is clear that remediation of the primary source areas will reduce potential effects to humans. However, the site should consider that excavation of the slopes will profoundly disrupt the ecosystem and it may take decades to recover.« less