SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT—HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR .../67531/metadc... · Rapaport Building,...
Transcript of SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT—HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR .../67531/metadc... · Rapaport Building,...
May 8, 2000
Mr. Dennis WaskiewiczU.S. Army Corps of EngineersNew England District696 Virginia RoadConcord, MA 01742-2751
SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT—HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR RESIDUALURANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN STORM DRAINS, RAPAPORTBUILDING, WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Waskiewicz:
Enclosed are 10 copies of the subject report which describes the dose calculations that theEnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Scienceand Education (ORISE) performed for the subject facility.
ESSAP appreciates the opportunity to have worked with the USACE on this project. Please contactme at (865) 576-5073 or Eric Abelquist at (865) 576-3740 should you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
(Original Signature on File)
Timothy J. VitkusSurvey Projects ManagerEnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
TJV:klp
Enclosure
cc: W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAPE. Abelquist, ORISE/ESSAPFile/405
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FORRESIDUAL URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN STORM DRAINS
RAPAPORT BUILDINGWINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
Prepared by
Timothy J. Vitkus
Environmental Survey and Site Assessment ProgramRadiological Safety, Assessments and TrainingOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117
Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of EngineersNew England District
FINAL REPORT
APRIL 2000
This report is based on work performed under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.
ORISE 00-0575
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FORRESIDUAL URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN STORM DRAINS
RAPAPORT BUILDING WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
Prepared by: Timothy J. Vitkus (Original Signature on File) Date: 4/19/00 T. J. Vitkus, Survey Projects ManagerEnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
Reviewed by: R. Dale Condra (Original Signature on File) Date: 4/24/00 R. D. Condra, Laboratory ManagerEnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
Reviewed by: Ann T. Payne (Original Signature on File) Date: 4/25/00 A. T. Payne, Quality Manager Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
Reviewed by: Eric W. Abelquist (Original Signature on File) Date: 4/30/00 E. W. Abelquist, Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
Reviewed by: W. L. Beck (Original Signature on File) Date: 5/3/00 W. L. Beck, Program DirectorEnvironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the following staffmembers:
FIELD STAFF
J. R. MortonT. D. Herrera
LABORATORY STAFF
R. D. CondraJ. S. CoxW. P. Ivey
CLERICAL STAFF
K. G. DavisD. K. Herrera
K. L. Pond
ILLUSTRATOR
T. D. Herrera
iRapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Site History and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Assumptions for Dose Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dose Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iiRapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1: Location of the Rapaport Building Warehouse Site—Windsor, Connecticut . . . . 9
FIGURE 2: Plot Plan of the Rapaport Building Warehouse (circa 1930), Windsor, Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FIGURE 3: Building C, Storm Drains—Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
iiiRapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Uranium Concentrations in Sediment Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ivRapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µCi/cm3 microcuries per cubic centimeterµR/h microroentgens per hourµg/day micrograms per dayµg/m3 micrograms per cubic meterAEC Atomic Energy CommissionANL Argonne National LaboratoryCE Combustion Engineering, Inc.cm centimetercm3 cubic centimeterDOE U.S. Department of EnergyECC Environmental Chemical CorporationESSAP Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Programg/cm3 grams per cubic centimeterg/day grams per dayGEI Grove Engineering, Inc.g/m grams per meterg/µg grams per microgramkg kilogramsm meterm3 cubic metersmg/day milligrams per daymR milliroentgenmrem milliremmrem/y millirem per yearmR/h milliroentgens per hourmrem/day millirems per daymrem/pCi millirem per picocurieNRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationpCi/g picocuries per grampCi/m3 picocuries per cubic meterUSACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT FORRESIDUAL URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN STORM DRAINS
RAPAPORT BUILDING WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the hazard assessment activities conducted for the exterior storm
drains located in the parking area of the Rapaport Building in Windsor, Connecticut. This report
addresses residual uranium concentration levels that were identified in storm drain sediments during
the designation survey of the facility (ORISE 1998).
Previous and current regulatory guidance provides for the release of property without radiological
restrictions, provided that the residual contamination does not pose a potential present or future
exposure risk in excess of the specified dose limit. For comparison of the dose calculations provided
in this report, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission codified a dose limit of 25 mrem/y (NRC
1997). This assessment is based on site-specific data and plausible use scenarios.
SITE HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
Combustion Engineering, Inc., (CE) has operated a facility in Windsor, Connecticut as a contractor
for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), for nuclear reactor and fuel projects since 1955. It was during 1955 that CE leased the
Rapaport Warehouse (specifically the C Building) for use as a temporary fuel manufacturing facility
for the Navy's nuclear program until completion of the current CE facility at 2000 Day Hill Road
(Figure 1). Although activities at the C Building only occurred for approximately one year, CE
served as a direct contractor to the DOE for over a decade and a subcontractor to other firms for a
number of projects involving the use of varying enrichments of uranium.
The Rapaport Warehouse was initially constructed in 1920 for tobacco storage by P. Lorillard
Company, Inc. and consists of three attached buildings identified as A, B, and C (Figure 2). Building
C was used from May 16, 1956 into early 1957 for the manufacturing of two prototype fuel
2Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
assemblies—one from natural uranium and one from fully enriched uranium—to validate the
manufacturing process before moving the activities to Building 3 at the current CE Windsor site
(ABB 1998). The first floor accommodated the fuel manufacturing processes, which included
melting metallic uranium, vapor blasting, acid cleaning, forming, welding, and machining, while the
third floor housed the health physics laboratory. Local exhausts were directed to both the inside and
outside of the building. During the period of fuel manufacturing, a number of accidents were
reported, including a uranium fire which occurred while attempting to drill an ingot without
sufficient cooling liquid (CE 1956). This fire was quickly extinguished and the resulting floor
contamination was removed. It is believed that the majority of material was moved in and out of the
facility at the loading platform on the building’s south side, although smaller items were also carried
through the door on the north side. Building C was later used for storage of contaminated equipment
from reactor critical experiments and Navy fuel manufacturing equipment at the Windsor site.
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE) performed a radiological scoping survey of the Rapaport Building
site in March 1998 on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This survey identified
low levels of enriched uranium within a storm drain’s sediments. This storm drain, referred to as
the south storm drain, is located beneath the parking area on the south side of Building C. Residual
uranium concentrations within the sample were 36.00 pCi/g for U-234, 1.29 pCi/g for U-235, and
0.8 pCi/g for U-238, based on alpha spectrometry analysis (Table 1). These values equate to a total
uranium concentration of 38 pCi/g and a U-235 enrichment of approximately 20%.
As a result of this, ESSAP was subsequently requested to confirm the uranium concentration within
the storm drain. Therefore, an ESSAP representative returned to the site on November 18, 1998 and
resampled the south storm drain and two additional drains (Figure 3).
The south storm drain is located east of the loading dock and measures approximately 0.5 meters (m)
× 0.5 m and is approximately 1.8 m in depth. The depth of the sediment contained at the bottom of
the drain was estimated as 0.15 to 0.30 m. Total sediment volume was estimated at 0.08 cubic
meters (m3). Both inlet and outlet pipes into the drain were noted and appear to run west to east.
The pipe was assumed to intersect the sanitary sewer line that is located on the east end of the
3Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
property running perpendicular to the storm drain in a north-south orientation. A definitive
determination could not be made at the time of this investigation as to whether the storm drain
discharged to the sanitary line or to the flood plain area located directly east of the Rapaport
Building. This second sampling effort confirmed the presence of enriched uranium in the sediment
of the south storm drain (Table 1, Sample ID #7). The second storm drain sampled is associated
with the PI valve pit (a pit containing the water main connection and main valve to the building)
located immediately west of the loading dock. This structure measured approximately 1 m × 1 m
and was approximately 2.5 m deep. Sediment contained in the bottom of the structure was
approximately 0.15 m in depth. Enriched uranium was also identified within the PI valve pit
sediments although at lower levels than what was identified in the south storm drain. The third drain
sampled was the southwest storm drain and was constructed identically to the south storm drain. The
sampling did not identify uranium levels distinguishable from expected background within the
southwest storm drain. The uranium results for these samples are also shown in Table 1.
As a result of this investigation, the USACE contracted Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC)
to remove the sediments from the south storm drain and to perform a dye tracing study to determine
the storm drain line outlet. The results of the dye study showed that the storm drain line discharged
to the sanitary sewer line (ECC 2000).
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the hazard assessment were to evaluate the possible dose that could result to a
maximally exposed individual under plausible use scenarios.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS
Two scenarios were initially considered as plausible, the intruder scenario and the hypothetical
worker removing the drain line. Because the drains themselves are not occupiable, the intruder
scenario was not considered as plausible. Therefore, only the hypothetical construction worker
removing the drain line was evaluated as this scenario was considered to be both the most
conservative and the most likely.
4Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
Conservative dose estimation techniques were used to calculate the per day dose to the hypothetical
construction worker who would excavate the sediment (which has since been removed) from the
storm drain pit, excavate the pipe, manually section and remove the pipe from the ground, tamp each
section of pipe to dislodge sediment, and loiter in the area of the dislodged sediment pile.
The source term was derived from the following assumptions:
` 7.6 centimeter diameter pipe (3 inch), 40 meters (4000 centimeters) in length
Pipe volume = _ × r2 × h = (3.14) × (3.8 cm)2 × (4000 cm) = 1.8E5 cm3
` Pipe is half-full of sediment (sediment density assumed to be 1.8 g/cm3); the volume of
sediment calculated to be in the pipe was:
` Storm drain measures 50 cm × 50 cm with 30 cm of sediment which equates to 7.5E4 cm3
of sediment for a total sediment volume = 1.66E5 cm3
Note: This material was removed during the ECC site investigations (ECC 2000)
` 8-hour work day
` Mass loading factor of 600 µg/m3 (ANL 1993a)
` Ingestion rate of 100 mg/day (ANL 1993a)
` Breathing rate of 20 m3/8-hour work day
` External exposure at a point 30 cm above the ground 70 cm distance from the sediment pile
` Uranium concentrations were 36.00 pCi/g for U-234, 1.29 pCi/g for U-235, and 0.80 pCi/g
for U-238
` Inhalation dose conversion factors (all values used are for Y inhalation class) of 0.13
mrem/pCi for U-234 and 0.12 mrem/pCi for both U-235 + progeny and U-238 + progeny
(ANL 1993b)
` Ingestion dose conversion factors of 2.6E-4 mrem/pCi for U-234 and 2.5E-4 mrem/pCi for
both U-235 + progeny and U-238 + progeny (ANL 1993b)
5Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
DOSE CALCULATIONS
The total effective dose equivalent was calculated by summing the daily dose that would result from
inhalation, ingestion, and direct exposure for each uranium isotope. Calculations for each parameter
are provided below:
INHALATION
The following calculations provide the airborne concentration levels and inhalation dose:
Airborne Concentrations
U-234: (36.00 pCi/g) × (600 µg/m3) × (1E-6 g/µg) = 2.16E-2 pCi/m3
U-235: (1.29 pCi/g) × (600 µg/m3) × (1E-6 g/µg) = 7.74E-4 pCi/m3
U-238: (0.80 pCi/g) × (600 µg/m3) × (1E-6 g/µg) = 4.8E-4 pCi/m3
Inhalation Dose Rate
U-234: (2.16E-2 pCi/m3) × (20 m3/8-hour) × (8-hours/work day) × (0.13 mrem/pCi) =
5.6E-2 mrem/day
U-235: (7.74E-4 pCi/m3) × (20 m3/8-hour) × (8-hours/work day) × (0.12 mrem/pCi) =
1.86E-3 mrem/day
U-238: (4.8E-4 pCi/m3) × (20 m3/8-hour) × (8-hours/work day) × (0.12 mrem/pCi) =
1.15E-3 mrem/day
_______________
_ = 5.9E-2 mrem/day total dose from inhalation during storm drain and pipe excavation activities.
6Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
INGESTION
The following calculations provide the dose that would result from ingestion of the sediment:
Ingestion Dose Rate
U-234: (36.00 pCi/g) × (0.10 g/day) × (2.6E-4 mrem/pCi) = 9.36E-4 mrem/day
U-235: (1.29 pCi/g) × (0.10 g/day) × (2.5E-4 mrem/pCi) = 3.23E-5 mrem/day
U-238: (0.80 pCi/g) × (0.10 g/day) × (2.5E-4 mrem/pCi) = 2.00E-5 mrem/day
__________________
_ = 9.9E-4 mrem/day total dose from ingestion during storm drain and pipe excavation activities.
EXTERNAL EXPOSURE
The external exposure dose calculations were determined by modeling using the computer software
program Microshield (GEI 1995).
Exposure Rate
The total sediment volume was assumed to be stockpiled and the modeling performed based on a
cylindrical geometry with the radionuclide inventory calculated from the concentration levels
provided in the assumptions. The original total sediment volume estimate of 1.66E5 cm3—this value
conservatively includes the sediment volume that was originally found in the storm drain pit—was
modeled as a cylinder measuring 60 cm high with a radius of 30 cm. The radionuclide inventory was
calculated as 6.48E-5 µCi/ cm3 for U-234, 2.32E-6 µCi/ cm3 for U-235, and 1.44E-6µCi/ cm3 for U-
238, based on sediment density and uranium concentrations.
The exposure rate at a point that is a distance of 70 cm from the pile and at 30 cm above the ground,
including buildup, is 1.5E-5 mR/h. For the assumed 8-hour work day the direct external exposure
was calculated as 1.2E-4 mR. Because the conversion from mR to mrem is essentially unity, the
direct exposure dose rate is estimated at 1.2E-4 mrem/day.
7Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
CONCLUSIONS
When the values calculated above are summed, the total estimated dose rate is 6.0E-2 mrem/day with
the predominate pathway, inhalation, accounting for 98% of the dose. Ingestion and direct exposure
account for less than 2% and less than 1% of the total dose, respectively. Therefore, the total
effective dose equivalent for the hypothetical construction worker, for an assumed project duration
of 30 days, to excavate and remove the storm drain and associated piping is conservatively estimated
at 1.9 mrem for the period. Extension of the exposure period to a standard work year of 2000 hours
(250 days) results in an annual dose of 16 mrem/y. However, this exposure duration is considered
to be unrealistic because of the minor scope of the assumed project.
For a member of the general public, with the assumption the pipe is left in place, the primary dose
pathway would be from direct exposure. Background exposure rates in the Windsor area average
10 µR/h (ORISE 1998). The conservative estimate for direct exposure for the hypothetical worker
from the sediment was 1.5E-5 mR/h (1.5E-2 µR/h). This level is a small fraction of background.
In addition, the shielding effects of the soil and asphalt over the pipe and greater distance from the
sediment in the storm drain (upwards of 250 cm versus the 70 cm distance that was modeled) would
further significantly reduce any potential direct gamma exposure.
The results of these conservative estimations show that the potential for present or future dose due
to the residual radioactive material within the storm drains is minimal and that leaving this material
in place does not pose a significant risk to either the hypothetical construction worker (assumed
maximally exposed individual) or to a member of the general public.
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
FIGURES
Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
TABLE
13Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
TABLE 1
URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT SAMPLESRAPAPORT BUILDING STORM DRAINS
WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
Location/Sample IDaRadionuclide concentration (pCi/g)
U-234 U-235 U-238
South Storm Drain/2 36.00 ± 3.96b 1.29 ± 0.19 0.80 ± 0.13
South Storm Drain Resample/7 15.18 ± 1.76 0.46 ± 0.14 0.18 ± 0.10
PI Valve Pit/8 2.30 ± 0.28 0.12 ± 0.04 0.83 ± 0.12
Southwest Storm Drain/9 0.78 ± 0.12 0.04 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.10
aRefer to Figure 3.bUncertainties are total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.
14Rapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut (0405) - April 19, 2000 essap\projects\0405_CE Rappaport\hazardassessmentfinalrpt.wpd
REFERENCES
ABB Support Services (ABB). Letter to T. Vitkus (ORISE) from John F. Conant (ABB). Windsor,CT. January 22, 1998.
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling the Impactsof Radioactive Material in Soil. Argonne, IL; April 1993a.
Argonne National Laboratory. Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material GuidelinesUsing RESRAD, Version 5.0. Argonne, IL; September 1993b.
Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE). Health Physics Startup Report. Windsor, CT; August 10, 1956.
Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC). Final Project Completion Report, Project ActionRapaport Building, Windsor, Connecticut. Bloomfield, NJ; February 18, 2000.
Grove Engineering, Inc. (GEI). Microshield Version 4.2 User’s Manual. Rockville, MD; February1995.
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Revision 0—Radiological Survey of theRapaport Building Warehouse, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Windsor, Connecticut. Oak Ridge,TN; July 1998.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for LicenseTermination. 62 Federal Register 39058. Washington, DC; July 21, 1997.