ML12339A484
| ML12339A484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2011 |
| From: | Environmental Protection Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22152, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 EPA 600-R-11-014 | |
| Download: ML12339A484 (30) | |
Text
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
In the Matter of:
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NRC000046-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 NRC000046 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Submitted: March 30, 2012 Rejected: Stricken:
Other:
EPA 600/R-11/014 l May 2011 l www.epa.gov/ord Empire Abrasive Blast NVac for Radiological Decontamination TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT Of"ce of Research and Development National Homeland Security Research Center
EPA 600-R-11-014 May 2011 Technology Evaluation Report Empire Abrasive Blast NVac for Radiological Decontamination United States Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268
'LVFODLPHU
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and Developments National Homeland Security Research Center, funded and managed this technology evaluation through a Blanket Purchase Agreement under General Services Administration contract number GS23F0011L-3 with Battelle. This report has been peer and administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of a specific product.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
John Drake National Homeland Security Research Center Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268 513-569-7164 drake.john@epa.gov ii
)RUHZRUG The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds responsibilities associated with homeland security events: EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for decontamination following a chemical, biological, and/or radiological (CBR) attack. The National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) was established to conduct research and deliver scientific products that improve the capability of the Agency to carry out these responsibilities.
An important goal of NHSRCs research is to develop and deliver information on decontamination methods and technologies to clean up CBR contamination. When directing such a recovery operation, EPA and other stakeholders must identify and implement decontamination technologies that are appropriate for the given situation. The NHSRC has created the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP) in an effort to provide reliable information regarding the performance of homeland security related technologies. TTEP provides independent, quality assured performance information that is useful to decision makers in purchasing or applying the tested technologies. TTEP provides potential users with unbiased, third-party information that can supplement vendor-provided information. Stakeholder involvement ensures that user needs and perspectives are incorporated into the test design so that useful performance information is produced for each of the tested technologies. The technology categories of interest include detection and monitoring, water treatment, air purification, decontamination, and computer modeling tools for use by those responsible for protecting buildings, drinking water supplies and infrastructure, and for decontaminating structures and the outdoor environment. Additionally, environmental persistence information is also important for containment and decontamination decisions.
NHSRC is pleased to make this publication available to assist the response community to prepare for and recover from disasters involving CBR contamination. This research is intended to move EPA one step closer to achieving its homeland security goals and its overall mission of protecting human health and the environment while providing sustainable solutions to our environmental problems.
Jonathan G. Herrmann, Director National Homeland Security Research Center iii
$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV Contributions of the following individuals and organizations to the development of this document are gratefully acknowledged.
8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\ (3$
John Drake Emily Snyder Sang Don Lee Lukas Oudejans David Musick Kathy Hall Eletha Brady-Roberts Jim Mitchell 8QLYHUVLW\RI7HQQHVVHH
Howard Hall 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\¶V,GDKR1DWLRQDO/DERUDWRULHV
%DWWHOOH0HPRULDO,QVWLWXWH
iv
&RQWHQWV
Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... ii Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv Abbreviations/Acronyms .............................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Technology Description ........................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Experimental Details ................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Experiment Preparation ................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Concrete Coupons ................................................................................................. 5 3.1.2 Coupon Contamination ......................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Measurement of Activity on Coupon Surface ...................................................... 7 3.1.4 Surface Construction Using Test Stand ................................................................ 7 3.2 Evaluation Procedures ..................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control........................................................................................ 10 4.1 Intrinsic Germanium Detector ....................................................................................... 10 4.2 Audits ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2.1 Performance Evaluation Audit ............................................................................ 11 4.2.2 Technical Systems Audit .................................................................................... 12 4.2.3 Data Quality Audit .............................................................................................. 12 4.3 QA/QC Reporting .......................................................................................................... 12 5.0 Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 Decontamination Efficacy ............................................................................................. 13 5.2 Deployment and Operational Factors ............................................................................ 14 6.0 Performance Summary........................................................................................................... 17 6.1 Decontamination Efficacy ............................................................................................. 17 6.2 Deployment and Operational Factors ............................................................................ 17 7.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 19
v
)LJXUHV Figure 2-1. Blast NVac as assembled for testing (left). Closeup of Blast NVac vacuum head (right). ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2. Blast NVac abrasive grit reservoir, HEPA filter, and collection drum. ................... 4 Figure 3-1. Demonstration of contaminant application technique. .............................................. 6 Figure 3-2. Containment tent: outer view (left) and inner view with test stand containing contaminated coupons (right). ................................................................................... 7 Figure 3-3. Operator applying Blast NVac to concrete coupon. ................................................. 9 Figure 5-1. Test coupon surfaces before (left) and after (right) treatment with the Blast NVac. ............................................................................................................ 14
7DEOHV Table 3-1. Characteristics of Portland Cement Clinker Used to Make Concrete Coupons ........ 5 Table 4-1. Calibration Results - Difference from Th-228 Calibration Energies ...................... 10 Table 4-2. NIST-Traceable Eu-152 Activity Standard Check .................................................. 11 Table 5-1. Decontamination Efficacy Results........................................................................... 14 Table 5-2. Operational Factors Gathered from the Evaluation ................................................. 16 vi
$EEUHYLDWLRQV$FURQ\PV
ANSI American National Standards Institute ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BQ Becquerel Cs cesium cfm cubic feet per minute cm centimeters DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DF decontamination factor DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DOD Department of Defense EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Eu europium ft feet HEPA High Efficiency Particle Air IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers INL Idaho National Laboratory keV kilo electron volts mg milligram mL milliliter L liter m meter m2 square meter
µCi microCuries NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology ORD Office of Research and Development
%R percent removal PE performance evaluation psi pounds per square inch QA quality assurance QC quality control QMP quality management plan RDD radiological dispersion device RML Radiological Measurement Laboratory RSD relative standard deviation TSA technical systems audit TTEP Technology Testing and Evaluation Program Th thorium
vii
([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) is helping to protect human health and the environment from adverse impacts resulting from acts of terror by carrying out performance tests on homeland security technologies. Through its Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP), NHSRC evaluated the performance of the Empire Abrasive Blast NVac (hereafter referred to as the Blast NVac) and its ability to remove radioactive cesium (Cs)-137 from the surface of unpainted concrete.
([SHULPHQWDO3URFHGXUHV. The Blast NVac is a heavy duty abrasive grit blasting technology that removes bound Cs from a surface by blasting away the concrete surface. Eight 15 centimeter (cm) x 15 cm unpainted concrete coupons were contaminated with approximately 1 microCurie
(µCi) of Cs-137 per coupon and allowed to age for seven days. The amount of contamination deposited on each coupon was measured using gamma spectroscopy. The eight contaminated coupons were placed in a test stand (along with one uncontaminated blank coupon) that was designed to hold nine concrete coupons in a vertical orientation to simulate the wall of a building. Each coupon was treated with the Blast NVac, and the decontamination efficacy was determined by calculating both a decontamination factor (DF) and percent removal (%R).
Important deployment and operational factors were also documented and reported.
5HVXOWV The decontamination efficacy attained by the Blast NVac was evaluated for each individual concrete coupon used during the evaluation. When the decontamination efficacy metrics (DF and %R) of the eight contaminated coupons were averaged together, the average
%R for the Blast NVac was 97 +/- 2% the average DF was 58 +/- 52. Hypothesis testing was performed to determine if there were significant differences among the %R values determined for the coupons in each row (top, middle, and bottom) of the test stand. No differences were found.
Following the manufacturers recommendations, the Blast NVac was used with size 24 aluminum oxide abrasive grit. The rate at which the Blast NVac was used to decontaminate a vertical surface was approximately 2.7 square meters (m2) per hour, with significant visual surface destruction and some secondary waste. The texture of the concrete surface is not relevant to the efficacy of the Blast NVac and similar blasting technologies. Battelle observed that, because of the aggressiveness with which the abrasive grit removes concrete surfaces, irregularities within the surface would not impact the effectiveness of the technology. The Blast NVac required a source of compressed air that provided at least 400 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air flow at a pressure of 120 pounds per square inch (psi). An Ingersoll-Rand 75902 diesel-powered air compressor was the only source of power required for the operation of the Blast NVac. Such a large air compressor is not a common piece of equipment. Therefore, the size and availability of the compressor required may limit the locations where the Blast NVac can be used.
viii
A very limited evaluation of cross-contamination was performed. During an actual decontamination of a vertical surface, the higher elevation surfaces would likely be decontaminated first, possibly exposing the lower elevation surfaces to secondary contamination.
To simulate an actual scenario, one uncontaminated coupon was placed in the bottom row of the test stand and decontaminated using the Blast NVac in the same way as the other coupons.
Following decontamination using the Blast NVac, this uncontaminated coupon did not exhibit measurable activity, suggesting that cross contamination was minimal. It should be noted that very small amounts of blasting abrasive grit (individual grains) were found throughout the containment tent and there was some abrasive grit that collected at the base of the test stand.
ix
,QWURGXFWLRQ
The U.S. Environmental Protection reviewed reports. All evaluations are Agencys (EPA) National Homeland conducted in accordance with rigorous Security Research Center (NHSRC) is quality assurance (QA) protocols to helping to protect human health and the ensure that data of known and high environment from adverse effects quality are generated and that the results resulting from acts of terror. NHSRC is are defensible. TTEP provides high-emphasizing decontamination and quality information that is useful to consequence management, water decision makers in purchasing or infrastructure protection, and threat and applying the evaluated technologies and consequence assessment. In doing so, in planning clean-up operations. TTEP NHRSC is working to develop tools and provides potential users with unbiased, information that will improve the ability third-party information that can of operational personnel to detect the supplement vendor-provided intentional introduction of chemical, information. Stakeholder involvement biological, or radiological contaminants ensures that user needs and perspectives on or into buildings or water systems, to are incorporated into the evaluation contain or mitigate these contaminants, design so that useful performance to decontaminate affected buildings information is produced for each of the and/or water systems, and to dispose of evaluated technologies.
contaminated materials resulting from clean-ups. Under TTEP, NHSRC recently evaluated the performance of the Empire NHSRC, through its Technology Testing Abrasive Blast NVac (Langhorne, PA; and Evaluation Program (TTEP), works hereafter referred to as the Blast NVac) in partnership with recognized testing in removing radioactive isotope Cs-137 organizations; stakeholder groups from concrete. A peer-reviewed test/QA consisting of buyers, vendor plan was developed according to the organizations, and permitters; and requirements of the quality management through the participation of individual plan (QMP) for TTEP. The evaluation technology developers in carrying out generated the following performance performance tests on homeland security information:
technologies. The program evaluates the performance of homeland security
- Decontamination efficacy, defined as technologies by developing evaluation the extent of radionuclide removal plans that are responsive to the needs of following use of the Blast NVac, stakeholders, conducting tests, collecting and the possibility of cross-and analyzing data, and preparing peer- contamination.
1
- Deployment and operational factors, This evaluation took place from August including the approximate rate of 11, 2009 until October 13, 2009. All of surface area decontamination, the experimental work took place in a applicability to irregular surfaces, radiological contamination area at the skilled labor requirement, utility U.S. Department of Energys Idaho requirements, portability, secondary National Laboratory (INL). This report waste management, and technology describes the quantitative results and cost. qualitative observations gathered during this evaluation of the Blast NVac. The contractor, Battelle, and EPA were responsible for QA oversight. The Battelle QA Manager conducted both a technical systems audit (TSA) and a data quality audit of the evaluation data.
2
7HFKQRORJ\'HVFULSWLRQ
The following description of the Blast Figure 2-1 shows the Blast NVac NVac is based on information provided blasting gun used during this evaluation.
by the vendor and was not verified The photograph on the right clearly during this evaluation. shows the inner blasting head and the vacuum shroud surrounding the blasting Blast NVac is a heavy duty abrasive grit head. Figure 2-2 shows (from left to blasting technology that also collects the right) the abrasive grit reservoir, the high spent abrasive grit by means of a efficiency particle air (HEPA) filter, and blasting head surrounded with a vacuum the abrasive grit collection drum situated collection shroud. During this on a skid. The Blast NVac can also be evaluation, the Blast NVac was used equipped to recycle abrasive grit with size 24 aluminum oxide abrasive continuously, but that feature was not grit. The Blast NVac was powered used during this evaluation in order to entirely by compressed air. An Ingersoll- minimize the amount of equipment at Rand 75902 diesel-powered air risk of becoming contaminated with compressor provided approximately 400 radiological material. Therefore, the cubic feet per minute (cfm) of abrasive grit was blasted and collected compressed air at approximately 120 for disposal in the collection drum. All pounds per square inch (psi). The Blast components in Figure 2-2 were NVac is plumbed to provide not only an successfully protected from adequate amount of compressed air to contamination and were returned perform the abrasive grit blasting but following the evaluation.
also adequate suction to perform the abrasive grit recovery. The air compressor was not provided by Empire Abrasive, but is considered a required utility for operation of the technology. In addition, while not tested as part of this evaluation, the Blast NVac came equipped with blasting heads shaped specifically for work in corners.
3
)LJXUH%ODVW1¶9DFDVDVVHPEOHGIRUWHVWLQJ OHIW &ORVHXSRI%ODVW1¶9DF
YDFXXPKHDG ULJKW
)LJXUH %ODVW1¶9DFDEUDVLYHJULWUHVHUYRLU+(3$ILOWHUDQGFROOHFWLRQGUXP
4
([SHULPHQWDO'HWDLOV
([SHULPHQW3UHSDUDWLRQ (ASTM) Standard C 150-71 specifies that tricalcium aluminate account for 3.1.1 Concrete Coupons less than 8% of the overall cement clinker (by weight). The cement clinker The concrete coupons were prepared used for the concrete coupons was 4.5%
from a single batch of concrete made tricalcium aluminate (Table 3-1). For from Type II Portland cement. The Type I Portland cement the tricalcium ready-mix company (Burns Brothers aluminate content should be less than Redi-Mix, Idaho Falls, ID) that supplied 15%. Because Type I and II Portland the concrete for this evaluation provided cements differ only in tricalcium the data which describe the cement aluminate content, the cement used clinker used in the concrete mix. For during this evaluation meets the Type II Portland cement, the American specifications for both Type I and II Society for Testing and Materials Portland cements.
7DEOH&KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI3RUWODQG&HPHQW&OLQNHU
8VHGWR0DNH&RQFUHWH&RXSRQV
&HPHQW&RQVWLWXHQW 3HUFHQWRI0L[WXUH
Tricalcium Silicate 57.6 Dicalcium Silicate 21.1 Tricalcium Aluminate 4.5 Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite 8.7 Minor Constituents 8.1 The wet concrete was poured into 0.9 4 centimeters (cm) thick, 15 cm x 15 cm meter (m) square plywood forms with square, and had a surface finish that was the exposed surface floated to allow consistent across all the coupons. The the smaller aggregate and cement paste concrete was representative of exterior to float to the top, and the concrete was concrete commonly found in urban then cured for 21 days. Following environments in the United States as curing, the squares were cut to the shown by INL under a previous project desired size with a laser-guided rock sponsored by the U.S. Department of saw. For this evaluation, the floated Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced surface of the concrete coupons was Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and used. The coupons were approximately 5
U.S. Department of Homeland Security The aerosol delivery device was (DHS).2 constructed of two syringes. The plunger and needle were removed from the first 3.1.2 Coupon Contamination syringe and discarded. Then, a compressed air line was attached to the Eight coupons were contaminated by rear of the syringe. The second syringe spiking individually with 2.5 milliliters contained the contaminant solution and (mL) of aqueous solution that contained was equipped with a 27 gauge needle, 0.26 milligrams (mg)/liter (L) Cs-137 as which penetrated through the plastic a solution of cesium chloride, housing near the tip of the first syringe.
corresponding to an activity level of Compressed air flowing at a rate of approximately 1 microCurie (µCi) over approximately 1 - 2 L per minute created the 225 cm2 surface. Application of the a turbulent flow through the first Cs in an aqueous solution was justified syringe. When the contaminant solution because even if Cs were dispersed in a in the second syringe was introduced, particle form following a radiological the solution became nebulized by the dispersion device (RDD) or dirty turbulent air flow. A fine aerosol was bomb event, morning dew or rainfall ejected from the tip of the first syringe, would likely occur before the surfaces creating a controlled and uniform spray could be decontaminated. In addition, of fine liquid droplets onto the coupon from an experimental standpoint, it is surface. The contaminant spray was much easier to apply liquids, rather than applied all the way to the edges of the dry particles, homogeneously across the coupon, which were taped (after having surface of the concrete coupons. The previously been sealed with polyester liquid spike was delivered to each resin) to ensure that the contaminant was coupon using an aerosolization applied only to the surfaces of the technique developed by INL (under a coupons. The photographs in Figure 3-1 DARPA/DHS project2) and described in show this procedure being performed detail in the test/QA plan, and then using a nonradioactive, nonhazardous allowed to age for seven days. aqueous dye to demonstrate that the 2.5 mL of contaminant solution is effectively distributed across the surface of the coupon.
)LJXUH'HPRQVWUDWLRQRIFRQWDPLQDQWDSSOLFDWLRQWHFKQLTXH.
6
3.1.3 Measurement of Activity on control (QC), as described in the test/QA Coupon Surface plan, was employed and certified results were provided.
Gamma radiation from the surface of each concrete coupon was measured to 3.1.4 Surface Construction Using Test quantify contamination levels both Stand before and after evaluation of the Blast NVac. These measurements were made To evaluate the decontamination using an intrinsic, high purity technologies on vertical surfaces germanium detector (Canberra LEGe (simulating walls), a stainless steel test Model GL 2825R/S, Meriden, CT). stand was fabricated that held three rows After being placed in the detector, each of three concrete coupons. A test stand, coupon was measured until the average approximately 9 feet (ft) x 9 ft, was activity level of Cs-137 from the surface erected within a containment tent. The stabilized to a relative standard deviation concrete coupons were placed into of less than 2%. Gamma-ray spectra holders so their surfaces extended just acquired from Cs-137 contaminated beyond the surface of the stainless steel coupons were analyzed using INL face of the test stand. Eight of the nine Radiological Measurement Laboratory coupons placed in the test stand were (RML) data acquisition and spectral contaminated with Cs-137, which has a analysis programs (PCGAP, Idaho half-life of 30 years. One National Engineering and Environmental uncontaminated coupon was placed in Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID; the bottom row of the test stand and INEEL/EXT-2000-00908; decontaminated using the Blast NVac in http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications the same way as the other coupons. This
/Documents/3318133.pdf). Radionuclide coupon was placed there to observe activities on coupons were calculated possible secondary contamination based on efficiency, emission probability caused by the decontamination higher on and half-life values. Decay corrections the wall. Figure 3-2 shows the were made based on the date and the containment tent and the test stand duration of the counting period. Full loaded with the concrete coupons.
RML gamma counting QA/quality
)LJXUH&RQWDLQPHQWWHQW RXWHUYLHZ OHIW DQGLQQHUYLHZZLWKWHVWVWDQG
FRQWDLQLQJFRQWDPLQDWHGFRXSRQV ULJKW
7
(YDOXDWLRQ3URFHGXUHV were blasted in this manner to simulate
an approach that would likely be taken The containment tent consisted of two in an actual decontamination event, rooms. One room contained the test where higher wall surfaces would be stand to hold the contaminated coupons decontaminated first because of the and the other room (the shorter part of possibility of secondary contamination the tent as shown in Figure 3-2) held the lower on the wall.
collection drum. The abrasive grit hoses (both blasting and vacuum) connected to The flow of abrasive grit was controlled the blasting head in the room with the by a trigger on the blasting head; the test stand through a small opening in the vacuum flow was controlled by an on/off tent wall between the two rooms. The valve near the abrasive grit reservoir.
abrasive grit reservoir and air Therefore, the vacuum ran during the compressor were located outside the entire evaluation and the abrasive grit containment tent. The positive pressure flow was easily turned on and off blasting hose was connected directly to between coupons. Each coupon was the blasting head through a small blasted for approximately 30 seconds.
opening in the outer tent wall, through However, the operator made certain he the smaller room, and also through a had covered the entire surface before small opening in the tent wall between progressing to the next coupon, so the the two rooms. The vacuum line was actual times for eight out of nine connected first to the collection drum coupons ranged from 22 to 35 seconds.
and then to the collection shroud One coupon had taken 80 seconds surrounding the blasting head, through because of periodic diminished flow of the same openings in the tent. Each of abrasive grit. The pressure conditions the tent openings was taped closed during blasting were 66 psi on the around the hoses. Figure 3-3 shows the blaster and 50 psi for the vacuum (as smaller diameter blasting hose and the measured on the gauges near the larger diameter vacuum hose connecting abrasive grit reservoir). The temperature to the blasting head as the operator and relative humidity were recorded applies the Blast NVac to a concrete before and after the approximately one coupon. hour test. These conditions did not vary significantly in the room where the The nine concrete coupons in the test evaluation was performed. Over the stand were blasted with the Blast NVac duration of testing, the temperature was starting with the top row and working steady at 19.8 °C and the relative from left to right, then proceeding to the humidity was 36%.
middle and bottom rows. The coupons 8
)LJXUH2SHUDWRUDSSO\LQJ%ODVW1¶9DFWRFRQFUHWHFRXSRQ
9
4XDOLW\$VVXUDQFH4XDOLW\&RQWURO
QA/ QC procedures were performed in using thorium (Th)-228 daughter gamma accordance with the program QMP and rays at 238.6, 583.2, 860.6, 1620.7, and the test/QA plan for this evaluation. 2614.5 kilo electron volts (keV). This calibration was performed three times
,QWULQVLF*HUPDQLXP'HWHFWRU throughout the evaluation and documented by the RML. Table 4-1 The germanium detector was calibrated gives the difference between the known once each week. The calibration was energy levels and those measured performed in accordance with following calibration. The energies were standardized procedures from the compared to the previous 30 calibrations American National Standards Institute to confirm that the results were within (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical three standard deviations of the previous and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).3 In calibration results. All the calibrations brief, detector energy was calibrated fell within this requirement.
7DEOH&DOLEUDWLRQ5HVXOWV+/-'LIIHUHQFHIURP7K&DOLEUDWLRQ(QHUJLHV
&DOLEUDWLRQ(QHUJ\/HYHOV NH9
(QHUJ\ (QHUJ\ (QHUJ\ (QHUJ\ (QHUJ\
'DWH
8-25-2009 -0.005 0.014 -0.031 -0.199 0.031 9-21-2009 -0.003 0.009 -0.040 -0.125 0.015 10-13-2009 -0.003 0.008 -0.011 -0.180 0.020 Gamma ray counting was continued on Section 3.1.3. Final spectra and all data each coupon until the activity level of that comprise the spectra were sent to a Cs-137 on the surface had a relative data analyst who independently standard deviation (RSD) of less than confirmed the "activity" number arrived 2%. This RSD occurred within the initial at by the spectroscopist. When both the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of counting for all the coupons spectroscopist and an expert data analyst measured during this evaluation. The independently arrived at the same value final activity assigned to each coupon the data were considered certified. This was a compilation of information process defines the full gamma counting obtained from all components of the QA process for certified results.
electronic assemblage that comprise the "gamma counter," including the raw data and the spectral analysis described in 10
The background activity of the concrete coupons was determined by analyzing $XGLWV nine arbitrarily selected coupons from the stock of concrete coupons used for 4.2.1 Performance Evaluation Audit this evaluation. The ambient activity level of these coupons was measured for RML performed regular checks of the at least two hours. No activity was accuracy of the Th-228 daughter detected above the minimum detectable calibration standards (during the time level of 2x10-4 µCi on these coupons. when the detector was in use) by Because the background activity was not measuring the activity of a National detectable (and the detectable level was Institute of Standards and Technology more than 150 times lower than the post- (NIST)-traceable europium (Eu)-152 decontamination activity levels), no standard (in units of Becquerel, BQ) and background subtraction was required. comparing to the accepted NIST value.
Results within 7% of the NIST value are Throughout the evaluation, a second considered to be within acceptable measurement was taken on 10 coupons limits. The Eu-152 activity comparison in order to provide duplicate is a routine QC activity performed by measurements to evaluate the INL, but for the purposes of this repeatability of the instrument. Half of evaluation the activity comparison the duplicate measurements were serves as the performance evaluation performed after contamination prior to (PE) audit, an audit that confirms the application of the decontamination accuracy of the calibration standards technology and half were performed used for the instrumentation critical to after decontamination. Five of the the results of an evaluation. Table 4-2 duplicate pairs showed no difference in gives the results of each of the audits activity levels between the two applicable to the duration of the measurements; the other five duplicate evaluation. All results are below the pairs had a difference of 2% between the acceptable difference of 7%.
two measurements, within the acceptable difference of 5%.
7DEOH1,677UDFHDEOH(X$FWLYLW\6WDQGDUG&KHFN 5HODWLYH
1,67$FWLYLW\ ,1/50/ 3HUFHQW
'DWH %4 5HVXOW %4 'LIIHUHQFH
8-18-2009 124,600 122,400 2%
9-10-2009 124,600 122,600 2%
10-12-2009 124,600 122,300 2%
11
4.2.2 Technical Systems Audit 4$4&5HSRUWLQJ
A TSA was conducted during testing at Each assessment and audit was INL to ensure that the evaluation was documented in accordance with the performed in accordance with the test/QA plan and the QMP. The Battelle test/QA plan and the TTEP QMP. As QA Manager prepared the draft part of the audit, the actual evaluation assessment report and sent it to the Test procedures were compared with those Coordinator and Battelle TTEP Program specified in the test/QA plan and the Manager for review and approval. The data acquisition and handling procedures Battelle QA Manager then sent the final were reviewed. No significant adverse assessment report to the EPA QA findings were noted in this audit. The Manager and Battelle staff.
records concerning the TSA are stored indefinitely with the Battelle QA Manager.
4.2.3 Data Quality Audit The Battelle QA Manager verified all of the raw data acquired during the evaluation and transcribed into spreadsheets for use in the final report.
The data were traced from the initial raw data collection, through reduction and statistical analysis, to final reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results.
12
(YDOXDWLRQ5HVXOWV
'HFRQWDPLQDWLRQ(IILFDF\ representing the extent of
decontamination accomplished by a The decontamination efficacy of the technology. The %R gives the extent as Blast N Vac was measured for a percent relative to the activity and the contaminated coupons in terms of DF is the ratio of the initial activity to percent removal (%R) and the final activity or the factor by which decontamination factor (DF). Both of the activity was decreased. These terms these measurements provide a means of are defined by the following equations:
%R = (1-Af/Ao) x 100% and DF = Ao/Af where Ao is the radiological activity DF ranged from 12 to 178. The coupon from the surface of the coupon before with the DF of 178 was observed to have application of the Blast NVac and Af is exhibited a relatively high DF as the rest radiological activity from the surface of of the coupons had DFs that were the coupon after treatment. While the substantially lower. The very high DF DFs are reported in Table 5-1, the was caused by the extremely low post-narrative describing the results focuses decontamination activity for that on the %R. coupon. It is not clear why the coupon was decontaminated more extensively Table 5-1 gives the %R and DF for the than the others.
Blast NVac. All coupons were oriented vertically. The target activity for each of Paired t-tests were performed to the contaminated coupons (pre- determine whether location (top, middle, decontamination) was within the or bottom) on the test stand affected the acceptable range of 1 µCi +/- 0.5 µCi. The decontamination efficacy. No significant overall average (plus or minus one difference between any of the rows was standard deviation) of the contaminated found. The bottom middle coupon was coupons was 1.17 µCi +/- 0.04 µCi, a not contaminated to test the possibility variability of 3%. The post- of cross-contamination. Activity of the decontamination coupon activities were uncontaminated coupon was measured less than the pre-decontamination after the Blast NVac had been applied activities showing an overall reduction to all nine coupons. No activity was in activity. The %R (calculated as detected on that coupon, suggesting that described above) averaged 97% +/- 2% cross-contamination due to the and the DF averaged 58 +/- 52. Overall, application of the Blast NVac was the %R ranged from 92% to 99% and the minimal.
13
7DEOH'HFRQWDPLQDWLRQ(IILFDF\5HVXOWV
&RXSRQ
/RFDWLRQLQ 3UH'HFRQ$FWLYLW\ 3RVW'HFRQ$FWLYLW\
7HVW6WDQG &L&RXSRQ &L&RXSRQ 5 ')
Top left 1.19 0.007 99 178 Top middle 1.19 0.026 98 46 Top right 1.15 0.028 98 41 Center left 1.14 0.094 92 12 Center middle 1.19 0.015 99 82 Center right 1.24 0.033 97 38 Bottom left 1.12 0.028 98 40 Bottom right 1.14 0.042 96 27
$YHUDJH
6WG'HY
'HSOR\PHQWDQG2SHUDWLRQDO at the right has been removed by the
)DFWRUV Blast NVac and the aggregate layer of concrete has been exposed. This is A number of operational factors were evidenced by the large pieces of gravel documented by the Blast NVac and sand that are visible. Because of the operator. One of the factors was damage extensive surface removal, the to the surface of the concrete coupons. effectiveness of the Blast NVac will Figure 5-1 shows photographs of a have to be weighed against the amount coupon before and after blasting with the of surface damage caused by the Blast NVac. The surface of the coupon decontamination technology.
)LJXUH7HVWFRXSRQVXUIDFHVEHIRUH OHIW DQGDIWHU ULJKW WUHDWPHQWZLWKWKH
%ODVW1¶9DF
Another important factor to consider is of personal protection was required by the personal protection of the technology the INL RCTs because of the likelihood operators. During this evaluation, the of airborne radiological contamination radiological control technicians required due to the act of blasting. However, the operators to wear full anti- each situation will need to be considered contamination personal protective independently by local RCTs to equipment that included a full face determine the proper level of personal respirator with supplied air. This level protection.
14
Table 5-2 summarizes qualitative and inserted into the test stand. Some of the quantitative practical information gained information given in Table 5-2 could by the operator during the evaluation of differ if the Blast NVac were applied to the Blast NVac. All of the operational a larger surface or surfaces made up of information was gathered during use of different types of concrete.
Blast NVac on the concrete coupons
15
7DEOH2SHUDWLRQDO)DFWRUV*DWKHUHGIURPWKH(YDOXDWLRQ 3DUDPHWHU 'HVFULSWLRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ
'HFRQWDPLQDWLRQ Technology Preparation: Upon initial receipt, it took 1.5 days to get the components UDWH assembled and the abrasive grit valve to function properly. Initially, we provided approximately 250 cfm of compressed air, however that flow rate did not allow the proper function of the abrasive grit valve. Once we provided approximately 400 cfm of compressed air at 120 psi the valve began to function well.
Application: Approximately 30 seconds per concrete coupon for most coupons during this evaluation corresponds to an application rate of 2.7 m2/hour; less or more time per coupon may result in different levels of radiological decontamination.
$SSOLFDELOLW\WR Irregular surfaces will not be a problem for the Blast NVac as the abrasive grit LUUHJXODUVXUIDFHV blasting is an aggressive decontamination technique, thus removing the surface of the concrete and making the operation of the Blast NVac independent of the surface characteristics of the concrete. In addition, while coupon configurations other than a flat square were not tested as part of this evaluation, the Blast NVac came equipped with blasting heads shaped for work in corners and was designed to maintain the ability to recover the abrasive grit following blasting.
6NLOOHGODERU Adequate training would likely require approximately one hour. In addition to the UHTXLUHPHQW assembly and operation of the Blast NVac, topics would need to include precautions unique to pressurized blasting, the theory of operation, and troubleshooting.
The operator experienced a significant level of exertion as he completed the evaluation. The weight of the Blast NVac, in combination with the additional weight and awkwardness of the attached blasting and vacuum hoses, increased the level of effort required to use the Blast NVac. Depending on what row of the test stand is being used, the operator was required to bend over, stand on the floor, or stand on a ladder. These factors will exclude some people from operating the Blast NVac.
However, most people who are used to performing physical labor should not have any problem operating the unit.
8WLOLWLHVUHTXLUHG 400 cfm compressed air at 120 psi is the sole utility requirement.
([WHQWRISRUWDELOLW\ The limiting factors of portability for the Blast NVac will include the availability of 400 cfm compressed air (longer hoses may require higher flow/pressure air and vacuum). In addition, the skid containing the abrasive reservoir and HEPA filter is approximately 3 ft by 8 ft and weighs several hundred pounds. Therefore, it is a factor that would have to be considered to allow for portability.
$PRXQWRIVSHQW Following blasting of nine coupons, approximately 20 pounds of abrasive grit was EODVWLQJPHGLD used and approximately 5 pounds of concrete waste was collected.
6HFRQGDU\ZDVWH An estimated 95% of the abrasive grit was collected by the vacuum. There was very PDQDJHPHQW little dust visible during the evaluation. However, very small amounts of blasting abrasive grit (individual grains) were found throughout the containment tent including at the base of the test stand. This abrasive was vacuumed up at the close of the evaluation. The radiological control technicians overseeing the evaluation determined that there was no secondary-contamination due to this wide distribution of small amounts of abrasive grit. The activity of the grit and dust collected by the vacuum or vacuum filter was not measured quantitatively. However, given the effectiveness of the Blast NVac, presumably the waste had significant activity levels.
6XUIDFHGDPDJH Surface removed and aggregate exposed. See description and photograph in text.
&RVW As evaluated, the price of the Blast NVac would be $11,840. This price includes the blasting equipment only and not the compressed air required for operation or the blasting grit.
16
3HUIRUPDQFH6XPPDU\
This section presents the findings from the Blast NVac and similar blasting the evaluation of the Blast NVac for technologies. Battelle observed that, each performance parameter evaluated. because of the aggressiveness with which the abrasive grit removes concrete
'HFRQWDPLQDWLRQ(IILFDF\ surfaces, irregularities within the surface would not impact the effectiveness of the The decontamination efficacy (in terms technology. The Blast NVac required a of %R) attained by the Blast NVac was source of compressed air that provided at evaluated for each individual concrete least 400 cfm of air flow at a pressure of coupon used during the evaluation. 120 psi. An Ingersoll-Rand 75902 When the decontamination efficacy diesel-powered air compressor was the metrics (DF and %R) of the eight only source of power required for the contaminated coupons were averaged operation of the Blast NVac. Such a together, the average %R for the Blast large air compressor is not a common NVac was 97 +/- 2% the average DF was piece of equipment. Therefore, the size 58 +/- 52. Hypothesis testing was and availability of the compressor may performed to determine if there were limit the locations where the Blast significant differences among the %R NVac can be used.
values determined for the coupons in
each row (top, middle, and bottom) of A very limited evaluation of cross-the test stand. No differences were contamination was performed. During an found. actual decontamination of a vertical surface, the higher elevation surfaces
'HSOR\PHQWDQG2SHUDWLRQDO would likely be decontaminated first,
)DFWRUV possibly exposing the lower surface to secondary contamination. To simulate an Following the manufacturers actual scenario, one uncontaminated recommendations, the Blast NVac was coupon was placed in the bottom row of used with a size 24 aluminum oxide the test stand and decontaminated using abrasive grit. The rate at which the Blast the Blast NVac in the same way as the NVac was used to decontaminate a other coupons. Following vertical surface was approximately 2.7 decontamination, this uncontaminated m2 per hour, with significant visual coupon did not exhibit measurable surface destruction and some secondary activity suggesting that cross waste. The texture of the concrete contamination was minimal. While surface is not relevant to the efficacy of cross-contamination on the test stand 17
seemed to be minimal, very small throughout the containment tent and amounts of blasting abrasive grit there was some abrasive grit that (individual grains) were found collected at the base of the test stand.
18
5HIHUHQFHV
- 1. ASTM Standard C 150-07, 3. Calibration and Use of Germanium Standard Specification for Portland Spectrometers for the Measurement Cement. ASTM International, West of Gamma Emission Rates of Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org, Radionuclides. American National 2007. Standards Institute. ANSI N42.14-
- 2. Radionuclide Detection and 1999. IEEE New York, NY (Rev.
Decontamination Program. Broad 2004).
Agency Announcement 03-013, U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD)
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, classified program.
19
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