NUREG/CR-1272, Responds to Constituent Mc Krueger Inquiry Forwarded by 760902 Note Re Nuclear Waste Disposal Site at Maxey Flats, Ky.Nrc Evaluation,Requested by Governor Carroll,Found No Significant Health Problems.Draft NUREG/CR-1272 Encl
| ML20236E537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1976 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | Yatron G HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E074 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-235, RTR-NUREG-CR-1272 NUDOCS 8707310414 | |
| Download: ML20236E537 (60) | |
Text
'
s - u 0 / j. l Q /..H Cu O !. .lQ j NT UNITED STATES $ j g \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON hW g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566 \SO Yh i
ggp g p g tb 4 v4 1 l The Honorable Gus Yatron l United States House of, Representatives 'l Washington, D. C. 20515
^
Dear Congressman Yatron:
This is in response to your note of September 2, 1976 to Mr. Carlton Kammerer of the NRC Office of Congressional Affairs, enclosing the letter of your constituent, Marian C. Krueger, regarding a newspaper article on the nuclear waste disposal site at Maxey Flats, Ky.
The Maxey Flats site is a low-level radioactive waste burial facility operated by the Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc., under l license from the State of Kentucky. Kentucky is one of the
" Agreement States" which exercise licensing and regulatory )
{
authority over certain activities involving nuclear materials, l by agreement with the NRC. Difficulties with " migrating" radio-active materials at the site came to light in 1974, triggering intensive investigations by the State and the NRC, as well as the i Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture 4 l I am enclosing a report on NRC's and other studies which sets forth our assessment of the situation in detail. At the specific request of Governor Carroll of Kentucky, the MC undertook an evaluation, in 1975, of the potential impact on public health an'd safety from the migrating radioactivity and concluded that there was no significant problem assbciated with it. Improved operating procedures have been instituted by the licensee and close monitoring of the site and its environs is continuin'g.
The newspaper article deals with a particular fanner (of the area whose cows have been exhibiting unexplained symptoms of disease.
NRC staff has been in direct contact with the State concerning their investigation 6f the phenomenon. A health physicist, a veterinarian who is also a toxicologist, and an animal nutritionist .
i have been conducting the study. NRC staff was recently informed that, as a result of their examination of the soil and diet of the animals, the investigators have determined that the cows are
, suffering from a deficiency of certa'in minerals, phosphorus 4
8707310414 870728 PDR FOIA MINTONB7-235 PDR ,
I f
. i The Honorable Gus Yatron in particular, which they attribute to the unusual mineral composition of the soil where they craze. There is no evidence that the l'.axey Flats site or radioactive material are related in any way to the condition of the animals. Steps have been taken to correct, the deficiency in the anir.als' diet, though their full recovery is expected to take some time.
It is understandable that unusual events whose cause is not imediately evident will, when they occur in the vicinity of a nucTear facility, evoke the wonder and doubt expressed in the article and by your constituent. The reaction is intensified when that facility has experienced past problems in controlling all of the radioactivity within its boundaries. There is no complacency about these incidents, either on the part of the State authorities or the flP.C, ,
or other~ governmental bodies. The assurance that ifrs. V.ruecer questions is, I would submit, the product of the kind of diligence reflected in the enclosed report, in the continuino studies and surveys of the area, and in the thorough investigation of the ailing cattle. He do not assume that untoward events will not take place, !
but that, despite all precaution, they sometimes will. The I responsibility *ere assume is to minimize the likelihood of such events; to assure that public health and safety are protected before, during and after any such event; and to take steps to prevent its recurrence.
1 I hope these corrents and infomation are responsive to your request.
Sincerely,
,,,.,-
- j'
Enclosure:
Report on Kentucky Burial Site DISTRIBUTION:
W. J. Haber, EDO:SPB Central Files W. G. Dooly, EDO:SPB H. K. Shapar, ELD J. H. Cook, EDO:SPB CA(3) pflohaus,SP L. V. Gossick, EDO T. Dragonette, NMSS:FC EDOR/F(00878) /4 Jh: . t$ ###/R M G.Ertter(00878) ff2ag, pg/'fgow/Agg f/ p>c: b o ,,,c . EDO:SPB EDO:SPB ELD EDO CA
~ ' Do61y
~
~'
~HKShapar7 - ~ LVGoss'ick-
~
WJMaheFipnik~ .
,va=*
. w//.1.... . 4 . . . . . . .
om , 9/22/76_ $/76 9/ /76 9/ /76 9/ /76 ,
Forms AIC4I8 (Rev. P 53) ABCM 0240 W u. e2 eovsamassay paiunne oprica , era,..
i
______.________s________w
. SUmfARY .,
~ . i Kentucky' Burial Site *
, , l f
The l'.axey Flats, Kentucky commercial low-level vaste burial ground f is licensed and regulated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, an Agree- !
ment State. (License issued in October, 1962.) It is operated by the Iluclear Engineering Co., Inc. (NECO). During the,carly 1970's, Kentucky ]
i
. became concerned about on-site water management and the accumulation of i
. Water in completed trenches. Kentucky required' the licensee to institute a water management program which included" pumping water from trenches to )
= I above-ground storage tanks and installing an evaporator to concentrate the- '
pumped liquids'for disposal as solids.
- In October,1974, Kentucky informed the NRC of the preliminary results of, their special six-month environmental stu'dy at Maxey Flats. - (The site has sinec been studied 'by the NRC, at the request of Kentucky Governor Julian Carroll; and the EPA and USGS, under contract with Kentucky.)
Kentucky has continued their extensive environmental monitoring program .
and several EPA and USGS research studies are undcruay at the site. ,
~
- Kentucky concluded, on the basis of their special 6-month' study published in the to December,1974',
local environment, that the burial ground was contributing radioactivity .
but at levels which did not create a public 4
health hazard. They identified tritium, Co-60, Sr-89 and 90, Cs-134
- nnd 137, and Pu-238 and 239 in certain individual samples in the un- {
restricted environment. The levels ranged from slightly above back- i ground to orders of magnitud' c above background for certain individual {
sampics. j (The NRC, based on available Kentucky and licensec data con-corning acquatic releases calculated a maximum potential whole body ,
l
.radioactivity.
dose to persons in the area of 125 millirem per year including natural This dose does not represent actual human exposure. I It was based on the maximum levcis of radioactivity observed and 'the cost restrictive radionuclido mixture.) Kentucky recommended further
- studiesofattheir cance the findings.
site to assess the long-range health and safety signifi-Kentucky expanded their Radioactive Waste Disposal Environmental Study Design Committee to include members from 'other Kentucky and Federal ~
agencies and held a eccting in February, 1975 The NRC participated.
The Committee recommended a 6-point program for further studies at Itaxey Flats.
Kentucky initiated impic.T.cntation of. some of thosc studies and requested Federal fundin6 achistatice. Concurrently,
- Governor
.the site.
Carroll reque'sted the NRC to conduct an independent review of An NRC review group was appointed which reviewed information
. available about the site, conducted a site visit and met with Kentucky
.~. . .
- . e w
. ** 2
. e
\
and NECO officials. The NRC concluded on the basis of their study that there is no significant public health prob 1cm associated with the re-lease of radioactive material from the burial ground and that Kentucky .
q has been taxing appropriate action to implement the recommendations =ad.
. in their December, 1974 report. The NRC also made several recom=enda- '
tions principally dealing with methods to improve the water canagement program to minimize the potential for migration of radioactivity. Gove.-
nor Carroll was informed of the results of the NRC review in July, 1975 He subsequently issued a press release indicating the NRC was responsive
. to his request and directed the Kentucky Department for Human Resources to carry out the NRC's recommendations. ,The NRC also infermed Kentucky that the NRC would provide continuing technical assistance but was not abic to provide financial assistane to help carry out, the studies. The. j EPA has been taking and analyzing environmental sampics for Koritucky. 1 A January 14, 1976 EPA press release concerned an EPA report which presents Kentucky environmental data, describes varioua potential mi- j gration pathways and draws conclusions from EPA's analysis of the data. j NRC has revicwd the paper and provided comments to EPA. i The licensec (!!ECO) has conducted their own environmental conitoring program. NECO has previously taken exception with the significance of the findings of Kentucky and core recently with conclusions in the EPA report. NECO believes their data,, covering a longer period of tir:c, shows no trends toward increasing IcVels of environmental radioactivity .
and shows no real potential for human exposure to persons living in the area.
The Maxey Plats burial ground has sencrally been operated as the other commercini low-1cyc1 waste burial grounds are operated. Packaged wasto is dumped into trenches about 25 feet deep which is then covered with -
soil. When a trench is completed, it is capped with four feet of soil and a vegetation cover is established. Tric geological features of the burial site, not the packaging, is depended upon to assure containment j .
of the waste at the site. '
- I .
URC staff believe the burial ground is contributing r radioactivity to th'c local environment, but there is no significant public health probica assoc!ated with the release of caterial. NRC staff believe the State is taking appropriate action to improve conditions at the site by requiring the licensec to carry out and continually improve a water manasement program. Our most recent review of the Kentucky Acrec=ent program, con-ducted December 1-5, 1975, concluded the State is taking appropriate action regarding the NRC review group recoc .cr.dations and is continuing their efforts to improve the on-site water canasccent program.
- e l
l ,
o .
~ ' -
_ChronolorY of Ma ior Events at Maxev. Plats. Kentucky ,
Commercial Radioactive Waste Burial Ground -
Tite Fra~e . .
. 1962-1969 .
Introduction - -
f'9ntucky became the first Agreement State when they signed an Agreecent with the AEC in March, 1962. With the primary intention of encouragir.g nucicar industry in Kentucky, the Kentucky Atomic Energy Authority (no.:
the Kentucky Science and Technology Commission) pursued the concept of a radioactive waste disposal site in Kentucky. In October, 1962, the State issued a license to the Nuc1 car Engineering Company, Inc. to i operate h disposal site at Maxey Flats, Kentucky and the burial ground be'gan operation in March, 1963 The Nucicar Engineering'Co., Inc. 1 (NECO) had 'previously purchased the site (about 330 acres) and the j titic of the land was transferred to the State. .The State in turn i leased the land to HECO. For perpetual care, the Icase agreement con- {
tained clause stating that NECO would pay the State four percent of the charge por cubic . foot of waste buried. The State has about $160,000 in ]
the perpetual care fund at present and is negotiating with the licensec for increased burial charges. ,- *
, )
_ Site Description
- ' l The Maxey Flats site is located in Fleming County in the Northeastern portion of the State of Kentucky. As seen on a topographic cap, Maxey l Plats is a flat-top hill with steep sides. Throughout cost of the area the flat " top land" is in grass or crops and the steep hillsides are forested. This is true of the Haxey Flats burial site, the burial taking place on c1 cared flat land at the end of the fan-shaped mesa. '
The bottom land" at the ' foot of the cosa, some 250 to 300 feet below, also is in grass or crops. The area is concrally sparsely inhabited, .
., but there are small farms in the vicinity. , ,
Haxey Flats is underlain with nearly horizontal' beds of differing geo-logic units: . .,
- a. 2 f.o 4 fcct of soil .'
- b. D'ack to cray fissile shale (40 feet) ,
- c. Sandstone (40 feet) .
- d. Creen-gray shale (10 feet) . -
- c. Black to gray fissile shale (18 Teet) .
- f. Crcen-gray shalc (20 fcct) * '
Black to gray fisbile shale (190 feet)
- g.
- g
- a-
, , j ,
s . .\,
Host of the rocks in the area have visible jointing. The disposal trenches are located in the upper half of layer b.
with a scraper and are 300-600 Trenches are dus feet deep. feet long, 20-80 feet wide and 30-40 Evaluation
. The Maxey Plats site was chosen from several sit'es under consideration in Kentucky.
for the evaluation. 'The State Department of Health was principally responsible
- The geological, hydrologi' cal, and meteorological aspects of the site were studied and reviewed by the entucky State i
aU.S. Public Health Service, an independent geologist '
Ocological Testing firm.
j
.also take,n. Background radioactivity measurements were 1 j
i
)
and provided comments'to the State.The AEC also reviewed the application ' !
AEC's comments'wcre principally
. technical and handling techniques. in nature dealing with the applicant's proposed monitoring -
l The AEC also commented that firm conclusions
' , could not be drawn, on the basis of infor:ation contained in the appli-cation, concerning the geologic suitability of the proposed burial site ground water to surrounding streams.to assure there would not be tr a
of their evaluation, that the sito was suitable for the disposal ofThe Stat radioactive waste' and authorized,its use. ,
.19_70-1976 .
~ .
Through the burial ground. 1969 no major probicas were identified relating to operation of .
tion of the s'ite and the nc'ed for a. core extensive review o ground operation.
of radioactive material being buried at the site, and on-site w management probicos., -
, a byproduct material, 300 kilograms of special ons nucle of source material have'bcen buried at the site.In addition to coa- ,
mercially generated wastes from reactors, isotope users and fuel cycle facilitics,operations contract significant quantitics were buried atofthe plutonium site. and tritium from AEC 1
' during 1971 as the lic'ensee continu'ed to haver. proble se with lation or water in completed trenches. accumu-thStaff concern .
Tbe State instituted enforce- '
ment trollingaction on-sitebut the licensec continued water. to experience difficulty in con -
indicate that environment. the site might be contributing radioactivity o the local tin 1972
- trolling on-site water and NECO violated terms of their lice O ,
c .
6
.\
, i . -
\ ,
~ .
Kentucky Informs AEC of Results of Six-Month Study,
- Kentucky informed the AEC in October., 1974, of the preliminary results of their special six-month environmental study at the burial area. ,
In llovember, ,1974, AEC conducted a site visit, met with ' State officials and received a copy of a draft report documenting the purpose, scope
. and results of the study. The report contained information which -
. I indicated that radioactivity may be migrating from the burial ground !
and was being'dctceted in sampling wcils immediately adjacent to the I burial site and in water collected from unrestricted areas near the burial site. Th'e activity Icvels reported for unrestricted areas '
around the site execeded, in some cases, ambient 1cycls as well as Part 20 concentrations for relcases to unrestricted arcas. ,
In providing technical assistance to Kentucky, the AEC prepared' written '
conments on the dr art report. The AEC noted that the report *did not '
- ' appear to contain sufficient information to support all of the con-clusions, particularly whe~ther the site was creating a public health and safety problem. The AEC suggested that further comprehensive environmental studies should be conducted to provide a technical basis for determining whether and to what extent migration of radioactive '
l material was occurring and for assessing the health and safety aspects l .
of conditions at the site. During l'ovember and Deccaber, the AEC also
' participated in meetings with the State and the licensco concerning the report and the conclusions which could be drawn from the study.
NECO had taken exception with the conclusions in the State's report and had requested AEC assistance in resolving " differences of opinion" betwcon the Stato and NECO. IlECO belicycs their data, covering a longer period of time, shows no trends toward increasing Icycis of l .
environmental radioactivity and shows no real potential for human -
cxposure to persons living i.n the area.
- l The final report of the six-month study was released in December 1974 by the Kentucky Department for Human Resources. The report concluded that the burial ground was contributing, radioactivity to the environ-mont; that the activity detected did not create a public health
- hazard; and that further studies were necessary to determine to what
' extent nigration was cccurring and to assess the long-rance public health and safety significance of the findings. The report stated that tritium, Co-60, Sr-89 and 90, Cs-134 and 137, and Pu-238 and 239 were identified in certain individual sum'ples in the unrestricted on-vironment The icvels ranged fron slightly above background to orders of magnitude above background for certain individual samples.
- e l . . i'
. e l
- I
~
a S~ i
. i Following recommendations in the six-month report, the State expanded . j an existing Environmental Study Design Committee for the Maxey Flats '
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility and held a meeting of tha Committec
~
, in February 1975 The Committee consisted of representatives fro:
several State agencies: NECO, USGS, EPA, ERDA, and NRC. )
The purpose of !
the Committee was to recommend to the State, further environmental I studies to determ,ine the long-range significance,of the radioactivity
, detected in the site environs. The following six items were identified during the February meeting as the type of studies which should be con-2 ducted at the. site:
Priority I. , Hydrogeologic Study (Deep Geology) -
Priorit'y II Surface Study (Water runoff, meteorological data, {
and soil study irl the top one foot) 1 j
~ z Priority III Ucathered Zone Study (About'the top ten rect
.* of soil) ., , l Priority IV Definition of Source Term
- Priorit'y V Agricultural Pathways (Livestock, milk, garden crops)
- Priority VI Environmental Biological Pathways (Vegetation, stream biota, and non-domesticated sources of food). , .,
l T'he cost for these studies was estiraated by the Committee to be in excess of one million dollars. Thp State subsequently requested NRC and other Federal agencies to provide financial assistance to carry out these studies in May 1975
- He ucst for Indonendent NRC Review of Maxov Flats Buria) Ground -
On April 30, 1975, Kentucky Covernor Julian M. Carroll, rcquested the NRC '
to independently assess conditions at the site and to provide him with findings and recocnendations. An NRC review group was appointed which consisted of HRC staff knowledccabic in Agreement State. relationships, hydrology, and radiological assessment. The revi:W Group examined infor-mation recording the site, the State license hydroncological information l about the site,'the State's six-month report, the report of the State's Environmental Study Design Committee, State environmental monitoring .
data, NECO environmental monitoring data and actions being taken by the State and NECO. The review group also conducted an unannounced site visit.
as part of the review and met.with State and NECO officials. The Nisc .
e .
.*
- e *
. e ,
e
i
. . e '
,, (, .
.. e 1
~,
concluded, on the basis of their study, that there was no significant .
public health prob 1cm associated with the release of radioactive material, from the burial ground and that Kentucky has been taking appropriate action to icpleme'nt ,
month study report. the recommendations made in their December 1974 six'
- The NRC, based on available Kentucky and licensco data concerning aquatic releases, calculated a maximum potential whole body dose to persons present in the area of 125 millirem'per year in-cluding natural radioactivity. This dose does not represent actual hucan exposure. j It was based on the maximum' icvels of radioactivity detceted
'and the most restrictive radionuclides mixture. The NRC,also made several )
. recommendations' principally dealing with methods to improve the water l' management program to minimize the potential for migration of radi.o-activity.
in July 1975. Covernor Carroll was informed of the results of ,the NRC review The Governor subsequently issued a press release- indicating
. that the NRC was responsive to his request and directed the Kentucky Depart-ment for Human Resoure,cs to carry out NRC's recommendations.
The-NRC also informed Ken'tucky at that time that the NRC would provide. con-tinuing ance to technical hcip carryas'sistance out the further but was not able to provide financini assist-Study Design Committec. studies recommended by the Environmental Recent NRC Revicus of Kentucky Agreement Materials Pronram and
, _Asnessment of ifaxey Flats Burial Ground NRC staff believe the burial ground is contributing radioactivity to the local environment, but there is no significant public health problem .
associated with the release of material. NRC staf f belicyc the State is ..
. taking appropriate action to improve conditions at the site by requiring !
the If censec to carry out and continually improve a water management program.
Following review of their program in 1974, we recommended that 1
the State reassess NECO's wat'cr management program and initiate a program to establish ,the validity- of NECO's environmental monitoring data. ' . .
Our most recent *revicw of the Kentucky Agreement program, conducted Decceber 1-5, 1975, .
concluded the State is taking appropriate action re-Carding the recommendations made by the URC review group and is continuing their efforts to improve the on-site wate,r management program.
- Haxey Flats Site Studies . -
. t The State, NECO, EPA, and USGS have been conducting further studies at site since the State published thei'r six-mdnth report in Decetber 1974._the We understand the results of studies conducted by the State, epa, and USGS will be published in the near future. .
e e *
- e
, 4 S
_____________m------------- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ^ - - - - '- '- -
- s. -
g., . .
t .
' Recent EPA Report ,
A recent EPA pr, css release dated January .14,1976, concerned an EPA ;
report which ' presents Kentucky environmental data developed during the '
six-month study, describes.various potential migration pathways and draws conclusions from EPA's analysis of the data. _The EPA ~ report has been re-vicwed by the NRC and comments were provided to EPA. Our principal com-monts were that the report failed to give adequate emphasis to the public health and safety significance of the data and conclusions presented ar.d
- the paper was preliminary in nature since it presents several specific
! and general conclusions concerning pathways for the migration of plutonium based on data which the author concedes equally support other possibilities.
HRC staff believes that before attempting to predict the futore effective-ness of the Maxey Flats burial ground in containing radioactive material, the degree to which site operations and cach pathway presented in the report is contribut.ing radioactivity to the environment should be detor-mined.
6
. e 4
\
4 ,
- G .
- e .
O , .
8 .
i I
. 8 .
t .
' , 8
. Y , .
8 e
, S . . ,
l
, 4
- . i l s .
t 6
4 ,f e Qg - f)c/
L
/
- . ; 4< .. .g4 UNITED STATES i l
%g#*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h g f
< o WASHINGTON, D. C. 2R*
5 h Y
k . . . .. p# 004t L .
, F 0 o 1970 'd A/
l 1
- 1 The Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate i Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
I This is in reply to your letter of September 2,1976 to the Office I of Congressional Affairs of the NRC, which enclosed a letter to '
you from Walter Mercer, 3700 Olds Road, Oxnard, Calif. 93030.
Mr. Mercer sent a newspaper photograph of one of the trenches at the low-level radioactive waste burial site at Maxey Flats Ky.,
operated by the Nuclear Engineerin*g Co., Inc. This company is a licensee of the State of Kentucky under the " Agreement States" arrangement with the NRC, by which the State exercises licensing-and regulatory authority over certain activities involving nuclear materials. Mr. Mercer's note asks, "Can th.e above picture be i true?"
Without vouching for the authenticity of this particular news photo, we can verify that low-level wastes are usually disposed of in the manner depicted.
Several observations are in order about this method of dumping the wastes. Perhaps most important is the fact that the receptacles -- drums, casks, boxes, etc. -- are not intended or expected to provide impenetrable containment once the material is in the burial trench. The containers are designed to provide safe containment while the material is in transit; it -
is the function of the burial procedure and geology of the site to keep it secure thereafter. Another consideration is the safety of the workers who handle the material at the burial site: the less time they are exposed to the radiation emanating from the material, the less radiation they receive. Thus it is in the-interest of their health and safety to unload and bury the material without needless delay. It is also important to note that the material contained in the drums and crates is solid, so that a rupture in the container does n The waste in tii e trench is cove,ot redcause betweena leakage deposits of thewhen and, material.
filled, the trench is capped with compacted soil and vegetation is planted to prevent erosion.
4 7-~ Y '
1 1 :
l The Honorable Alan Cranston -
The release of low lovels of radioactivity at the site, discussed in the caption to the photo, has been the sub,iect of intensive-study and assessment by State and Federal authorities. I am enclosing a report on the event and actions taken by various parties concerned to rectify the situation and to monitor future developments. From our own investigation, undertaken at the request of Covernor Carroll of Kentucky, the NPC cnneluded that there was and is no significant public health problem associated with the release of radioactive material at the site. Improved operating procedures have been adopted by the licensee and close surveillance of the site and its environs continues. The most recent indications frnm the scene are that the radiation release has receded to a level near that of the radiation naturally present from the sun, other stars and elements of the earth.
I hope that you and Mr. liercer find this information responsive and useful.
Sincerely, Willian 1. DW Asuistant Eucli'd *Ad Icr Cra:sim .
)
Enclosures:
- 1. Report on Kentucky Eurial Site
- 2. Ltr to NRC fa Sen. Alan Cranston, dtd 9/2/76 blSTRIBUTION: .
W. J. Maher, EDO:SPB W. G. Dooly, EDO:SPB J.J1. Cook, EDO:SPB l '
l V. Lohaus, SP
- K. Dragonette. HMSS:FC ED0 R/F (00875) l G. Ertter (00875) l
' Central Files H. K. Shapar, ELD CA(3)
L. V.. Gossick, EDO l
Q,pg, xWSS:FC du'$ $moWMulWn cd.<g Pk/rc l EDO:SP8 ELD ED0
. r.c , n
. . _ g:.EDQSPB ..
CA . . . . . . -
. . . ,
- WJMaher:pmk WGDooly .. HKShapar........_.. . LVGoss ick .-._. -. -
9/
.~'22/J,6 9/AT/76 9/,/76 9/ /76 9/ /76 j
. ge .
v .
,- .. . SUhHARY . .
" ' 0' . .
-Kentucky' Burial Site The Maxey Flats, Kentucky commercial low-level waste burial ground i is licensed and regulated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, an Agree- i ment State. (License issued in October, 1962.) It is operated by the Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. (HECO). During the ,carly 1970's, Kentucky l'
~
became concerned about on-site water management and the accumulation of
. Water in completed trenches. Kentucky required'the licensee to institute a water management program which included
- pumping water from trenches to !
above-ground storage tanks and installing an evaporator to concentrate the-
- j pumped liquids'for disposal as solids. 1 1
1 In October,1974, Kentucky informed the NRC of the preliminary results of
, their special six-month environmental ctu'dy at Maxey Flats. (The site '
has sinec been studied by the NRC, at the request of Kentucky Governor i Julian Carroll; and the EPA and USGS, under contract with Kentuc'ky.) l Kentucky has continued their extensive environmental monitoring progra= .
and several EPA and USGS research studies are undcrway at the site.
. i Kentucky concluded, on the basis of their special 6-month study published in December,1974, that the burial ground was contributing radioactivity ,
.to the local environment, but at levels which did not create a *public !
health hazard. They identified tritium, Co-60, Sr-89 and 90, Cs-134 '
and 137, and Pu-238 and 239 in certain individual samples in the un-restricted environment. The 1cvels ranged from slichtly above back- {
grou1d to orders of magnitu'dc above background for certain individual
. samples. (The NRC, based on availabic Kentucky and licensec data con- l corning acquatic releases calculated a maximum potential whole body i
. dose to persons in the area of 125 millirem per year including natural I
. radioactivity. This dose does not represent actual human exposure.
It was based on the caximum levels of radioactivity observed and 'the most restrictive radionuclides mixture.) Kentucky recommended further studies at the site to assess the long-range health and safety signifi-cance of their findings. .
Kentucky expanded their Radioactive Waste Disposal Environmental Study Design Committee to include sembers from'other Kentucky and Federal agencies and held a bccting in February,1975 The NRC participated.
The Committee recommended a 6-point program for further studies at Haxey Flats. Kentucky initiated implementation of. some of these studies and requested Federal funding assistance. Concurrently,
- Covernor Carroll requested the NRC to conduct an independent review of
.the site. An NRC review group was appointed which reviewed information available about the site, conducted a site visit and met with Kentucky 4
i
,- i
. . + ,.
- ,2
- f.* j
'and NT,CO officials. The NRC concluded on the. basis of their study that 1
I there is no significant public health problem associated with the.re- '
lease of radioactive materi'al from the burial ground and that Kentucky I
has been taking appropriate action to impicment the recommendations.made ~
in their December, 1974 report. Tho'NRC also made several recom=enda- '
tions principally dealing with methods to improve the water. management program to minimize the potential for migration of radioactivity. Gover-nor Carroll was informed of the results of the NRC review in July. 1975. 2 He abbsequently . issued a press release indicating the NRC was responsive ' .-
. to his request and directed the Kentucky Department. for Human Resources to carry out the NRC's recommendations. The NRC also informed Kentucky
! that the NRC would provide continuing technical assistance but' was not abic to provide financial assistano to help carry. out the studf.cs. ' Th e - * '
EPA has been taking and analyzing environmental saciples for Koritucky.
A. January 14, 1976 EPA- press release concerned an EPA report which .
presents Kentucky environmental data, describes various potential mi-
.l gration pathways- and draws conclusions' from- EPA's analysis of the data; '
NRC has revi9wd the paper and provide'd comments to EPA. .
l
' The licensec (NECO) has conducted their-own environmental conitoring program. NECO has previously taken exception with the sigolficance of the findings of Kentucky and more recently with conclusions in the
- EPA report. NECO believes their data, covering a longer period of-tice, shows no trends toward increasing icvels of environmental radioactivity and shows no real potential for human exposure.to persons -living in the arca. ,
+ .'
The !!axey Flats burial ground has generally been operated as the other ;
commercial low-icyc1 waste burial grounds are operated. Packaged . waste is dumped into trenches about 25 feet deep which is then covered with
- soil. .
When a trench is completed, it is capped with four feet of soil , .
and a vegetation cover is established. Th'e geological features of the burial site, not-the packaging, is depended upon to assure co,ntainment of the , waste at the site. * '
- I .
HRC staff believe the burial ground'is contributing radioactivity, to thc '
local environment, but' there is no 'significant public health- probicm-
. associated with the release of material. NRC ' staff believe the State is taking appropriate action to improve conditions at 'the site by ' requiring. I the licensee to carry out and continually improve a water mannsement program.
Our most recent review of the Kentucky Agreement program, con-ducted December 1-5, 1975, concluded the state is taking appropriate action regarding the NRC review group recommendations and is continuing their ef' forts to improve the on-site water managecent program.
. e
- 1. e _ _ ___._._.__i__w
- s. .
- *^~ .
Chronolor.y of Ma.ior Events at Maxev. Flats. Kentucky ,
Conmercial Radioactive Waste Burial Ground
- s .
_ Tire Fra.e *
, 1962-1969 - '
_j
~
Introduction - -
Kentucky became the first Agreement State when they signed an Agreement with the AEC in March, 1962. L'ith the primary intention of encouraging 1'
nuclear industry in Kentucky, the Kentucky Atomic Encrgy Authority (now the Kentucky' Science and Technology Commission) pursued the concept of a radioactive waste disposal si,te in Kentucky. In October, 1962, the State issued a license to the Nucicar Engineering Company, Inc. to
- operate a disposal site at Maxey Flats, Kentucky and the burial ground be'gan operation in March,1963 The Nucicar Engineering'Co., Inc.
(NECO) had' prev $ously purchased the site (about 330 acres) and the titic of the land was transferred to the State. .The State in turn ]
1 cased the land to UECO. For perpetual care, the Icase agreement con-tained clause stating that UECO would pay the State- four percent of the charge per cubic , foot of waste buried. The State has about $160,000 in the perpetual care fund at present and is nosotiating with the licensec for increased burial charges. .
Site Description '
- T'hc Maxey Flats site is located in Fleming County in the Northeastern portion of the State of Kentucky. As seen on a topographic map, Maxey
~
Plats is a flat-top hill with stoop sides. Throughout most of the arca .
the flat " top land" is in grass or crops and the steep hillsides are forested. This is true of the Maxey Flats burial site, the burial taking place on cicared flat land at the end of the fan-shaped mesa. '
The " bottom land" at the foot of the mesa, some 250 to 300 feet below, '
also is in grass or crops. The area is generally sparsely inhabited,
.", but there arc small farms in the vicinity. , ,
Maxey Plats is underlain with nearly horizontal beds of differing sco-logic units * -
- n. 2 to k fcct of soil . .
- b. Black to gray fissile shale (40 feet) * *
- c. Sandstone (40 feet) .
- d. Crecn-gray shalc (10 Tect) . .
- c. Black to gray fissile shale (18 Yect) .
- f. Orcen-gray shalc (20 fect) '
- g. ,~
Black to gray fisbile s, hale (190 feet)
~
- 4 n
- I o -
.e *
- o - *
. . ,* *** 1. -
\
. 2 . *
.\
s .
~
s -
Host of the rocks in the area have. visible jointing. The disposal trenches are located in the upper half of layer b. Trenches are dug j with a scraper and are 300-600 feet long, 20-80 feet wide and 30-40 'l feet deep. .
Evaluation.
- k The Maxey flats site was chosen from several sit'es under consideration '
in Kentucky.
- The State . Department of Health was principally responsible :
for the evaluation. The geological, hydrological, and meteorological
' aspects of the site were studied and reviewed by the Kentucky State ]
J 0cological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
- U.S. Public Health Service, an independent geologist hired by NECO, and a Ocological Testing firm. Background radioactivity' measurements were also tske,n., The AEC also reviewed the application ' submit.ted by NECO and provided comments'to the State. AEC's comments *were principally *
~
technical in nature dealing with the applicant's proposed monitoring -
, and handlin5 techniques. The AEC also commented that firm conclusions could not be drawn, on the basis of information contain~cd in the appli-cation, concerning the geologic suitability of the proposed burial site l
to assure there would not be transport of radioactive materials through -
~
, $round water to surrounding streams. The State concluded, on the basis of their evaluation, that the site was suitabic for the disposal of radioactive waste'and authorized,its use. .
_1970-1976 .
t Through the burial1969 ground.no major probicos were identified relating to operation .of In 1970, Kentucky staff expressed concern about opera-
! tion of ground operation.the s'ite and the ne'ed for a. core extensive review of the burial ?
This concern was based on the increasing quantitics of radioactive material being buried at the site, and on-site water . -
management problems.,
- About 3 million cubic feet of waste containing 1-1/2 million curies of byproduct material, 300 kilograms of special nucicar material and 50 tons of source material have'bcen buried at the site. . In addition to com'-
mercially generated wastes from reactors, isotope users and fuel cycle facilitics, significant quantitics of plutonium and tritium from AEC .
contract operations were buried at the site. Staff concern increased -
L during 1971 as the lic'ensee continued to have prob 1 cms with the accumu-1ation of water in completed trenches.
Tbc State instituted enforce-cent action trolling on-site water.
but the lleensee continued to experience difficulty in con
- In 1972 environmental monitoring data began to.
Indicate that the site might be contributing radioactivity to the local-environment. The licensee continued to experienco difficulty in con- -
tro311ng on-site water and HECO violated terms of their license. .
, s. . .
3 ,
In September *1972, the State issued an order against NECO for non-coop 11ance and willful violation of conditions of the license relating
' to water in coopicted trenches, burial of unauthorized material, and -
disgsal of liquid wastes directly to solid waste disposal trenches.
Following issuance of th'c order, the licensee was permitted ' to operate the waste burial t,ite for, the disposal of, solid 9astes only. The licensee was required to file an irrevocabic 1ctt.cr of credit for .
$500,000. This letter of credit was in lieu of a performance bond to
, , assure compliance with the terms of the order.. .
Action taken by NECO to control water prob 1 cms included the pumping of. water from t'renches into above-ground storage tanks and the instal-lation of an evaporator to concentrate the liquids' for disp'osal as '
solids. -
_ Environmental 11onitorinn I ,
The State and NECO have conducted environmental monitoring programs at -
l Eaxey Flats since 1962.
The routine. State program consisted of. monthly trips to co11cet sampics from natural streams, wells, springs, including
' drainage and scopage from all sides of the site- These sampic points .
' ranged up to approximately two miles in distance from the site. In l
November 1973, the State instituted a.special six-conth environmental monitoring study tn identify the source and scope of.the increased Icycis of environmental radioactivity previously identified in the-site cnvirons. .
. ,EarTY AEC Rev$cw of Kentucky's Anrcement Ifaterial Pronram and the -
. Maxcv Flats Burial Cround , ,
The ABC revicued liccnsing and/or inspcction files conccining HECO'as
- part of the review of Xcntucky's agreement =aterials program in 1971, 1972, 1974 and 1975. Site visits were conducted in 1964, 1973, 1974 and
'. 1975._ ,
The earlier reviews had included a discussion.of the initial- .-
action status of the burial ground and environecntal. monitoring pro-grams.
- During 1972, the AEC conducted a review of the actions Kentucky was* taking in connection with the September 1972 order against NECO
- and a site visit was conducted in April 1973 The review and ' site .
visit showed that Kentucky was requiring NECO to take necessary cor- -
rcetive action and that environmental monitoring data showed no radio-
, activity in the environment in excess of acccptable standards. ,
O -
e
? . .. *
~
- . l l
8' , .
l
- p. .
n e
- s
, }
Kentucky Informs AEC of Results of Six-Month Study .
. t Kentucky informed the AEC in October, 1974, of the preliminary results of their special six-month environmental study at the burial area. ,
I In llovember, .1974, AEC conducted a site visit, met with ' State officials ' /
. and received a copy of a draft report documenting the purpose, scope and results of the study. The report contained information which
- indicated that radioactivity may be migrating from the burial ground and was being' dctccted in sampling wclls immediately adjacent to the burial site and in water collected from unrestricted areas near the i burial site. Th'e activity Icycls reported for unrestricted areas j
around the site execeded, in some cases, ambient levdis as well as Part l 20 concentrations for releases to unrestricted areas.
- s
- . (
In providing technica'l assistance to Kentucky, the AEC prepared' written comments on the draft report. The AEC noted that the report ~did not '
~
appear to contain sufficient information to support all of the con- I i
clusions, particularly whether the site was creating a public health and safety problem. The AEC suggested that further compechensive i environmental studies should be conducted to provide a technical basis for determining whether and to what extent migration of radioactive ' {
l materjal was occurring and for assessing the health and safety aspects of conditions at the site. Durinc !!ovember and December, the AEC also j participated in meetings with the State and the licensec concerning i the report and the conclusions which could be drawn from the study. l HECO had taken exception with the conclusions in the State's report '
and had requested AEC assistance in resolving " differences of opinion" betwcon the Stato and 11ECO.. IlECO believes their data, covering a longer period of tirne, shows no trends toward increasing 1cycls of environecntal radioactivity and shows no real potential for human -
)
l cxposurc to persons living in the arca.
- The final report of the six-month study was released in December 1974 by the Kentucky Department for Human Resources. The report concluded that the burial ground was contributing radioactivity to the environ-ment; that the activity detected did no't create a public health * '
hazard; and that further studies were necessary to detc,rnine to what
' extent migration was occurring and to assess the loncorange public health and safety significance of the findings. The report stated that tritium, Co-60, Sr-89 and 90, Cs-134 and 137, and Pu-238 and 239 Worc identified in certain individual sam'ples in the unrestricted en-vironment The levels ranged fron slightly above background to orders of magnitude above background for certain individual sampics. '
9 g e
- s. . .
- o. . . . . .
5- -
Following recommendations in the six-month report, the State expanded .
an existing Environmental Study Design Committee for the Maxey Flats ,
Radioactive 'laste Disposal Facility and. held a meeting of the Co=mittec ,.]
in Febru'ary 1975 The Committec consisted of representatives from several State a5encies: NECO, USGS, EPA, ERDA, and NRC. The purpose of the Committee was to recommend to the State, further environmental l studies to determine.the long-rance significance,of the radioactivity I detected in the site environs. The following six items were identified 5
. during the February meeting as the
- typc'or studies which should be con-ducted at the, site: , .
. e Priority'I Hydroscologic Study (Deep Coology) -
. 1 Priorit'y II Surface Study (Water runoff, meteorological data, -
and soil study in the top one foot) . .
.- 1 Priority III Weathered Zone Study (About*the top ten feet
.. of soil) . .,
Priority IV Definition of Source Term Priorit'y V Agricultural Pathways (Livestock, milk, garden crops) -
Priority VI Environmental Biologicci Pathways (Vegetation, stream biota, and non-domesticated sources of food) l
- the cost for these studies was estimated by the Committee to be in excess l
of one million dollars. The State subsequently requested NRC and other l
Federal agencies to provide financial assistance to carry out these studies in Hay 1975
- Recuest _for independent NRC Review of Maxov Flats Burial Ground
to independently assess conditions at the site and to provide him with findings and recommendations. An NRC review group was appointed which consisted of NRC staff knowledgeable in Acrecment State relationships, hydrology, and radiological assessment. The review group examined infor-mat.fon regarding the site, the State license hydroccological information .
about tho' site,'the State's six-month repqrt, the report of thc. State's Environmental Study Design Committee, State environmental nonitoring .
data, NECO environmental monitoring data and ' actions being taken by the State and NECO. The review group also conducted an unannounced site visit as part of the review and met.with State and NECO officials. The NnC .
O ,e . , .
I e . {
s -
~6-
..~. l s . .
V .
1 l
.. \
concluded, on the basis of their study, that there was no significant l public health probica associated with the release of. radioactive material.
from the burial ground and that Kentucky has been taking appropriate . l action to impicme'nt the recommendations made in their December 1974 six- *
. month study report. The NRC, based on available Kentucky and licensee l i
data concerning aquatic releases, calculated a maximum potential whole body dose to persons present in the area of 125 millirem per year in-cluding natural radioactivity. This dose does not represent actual hucan :
exposure. It was based on the maximum' Icvels of radioactivity detceted
,. and the most restrictive radionuclides mixture. The NRC,also made several
. recommendations' principally dealing with methods to improve the water management program to minimize the potentici for migration of radi,o-activity.
in July 1975. Covernor Carroll was informed of the results of the NRC review
^
l The Covernor subsequently issued a press release indicating l
. that the NRC was responsive to his request and directed ,the Kentucky Depart-ment for Human Resoure,cs to carry out NRC's recommendations. .
The NRC also informed Ken'tucky et that time that the NRC would provide con-tinuing technical as'sistance but was not abic to provide financial assist- i ance to help carry out the further studies recommended by the Environmental Study Design Cotunittee.
Jtecent NRC Reviews of Kentucky Anrcement Materials Pronram and *
, Assessment of !!axey Flats burial Ground . .
HRC staff believe the burial ground is contributing radioactivity to the local environment, but there is no significant public health probico associated with the release of material. NRC sta f f belicvc the State is . ..
. taking appropriate action to improve conditions at the site by requiring the licensec to carry out and continually improve a water managccent program.
Following review of, their program in 1974, we recommended that the State reassess NECO's water management program and initiate aSprogram to establish ,the validity of NECO's environmental monitoring data, ' . .
Our most recent' review of 'the Kentucky Agreement program, conducted -
December 1-5, 1975, concluded che State is taking appropriate action re-carding the recommendations'mcdc by the NRC review group and is continuing their efforts to improve th.: on-site wato,r manage:nent program. '
Maxey Flats Site Studies ,
The State, HECO, EPA, and USGS have been conducting further studies at the site since the State published their six-adnth report in Decetber 1974.
We understand the results of studies conducted by the State, EPA, and USGS vill be published in the near future. -
s -
. e.
, , . . g*
g',> .
<j <
- s< . .
l
. . s. '
. - e -
.g .
. . . . j
. s .
]
Recent EPA Reriert , ,
l
. A recent EPA press release dated January 111, 1976, concerned an EPA report which ' presents Kentucky environmental data developed during the six-month study, describes various potential migration pathways and draws conclusions from EPA's analysis of the data. The EPA report has been re-
\
viewed by the NRC and comments wure provided to EPA. Our principal com-3 monts were that the report failed to give adequate emphasis to the public health. and safety significance of the, data and conclusions presented ar.d
'the paper was peclininary in nature since it presents several specific and general conclusions concerning pathways for the migration of. plutonium based on data which the author concedes equally support other possibilities.
HitC staff believes that before attempting to predict the future effective- _
i ness of the Maxey Flats burial ground in containing radioactive material, the degrec to which site operations and cach pathway presented in the
, report is contributing radioactivity to the environment .should be deter-- '
mined.
l i
- ?
i
. r .
.. 1 ,
j
. i
. . V . .
, , . j
..~
t . .
. 3 4 . . .
3 - -
i f
I ALAN CRANSTOR cALyoseur .
'31Cnifeb hies Senafe September 2, 1976 Ack To. Office of Congressional Liaison
- Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Washington, DC 20555 Enclosure from:
Mr. Walter Mercer 3700 Olds Road Oxnard, California ?3030 Re: I Please comment on the disposal of radioactive power plant wastes as shown in the enclosed photograph.
, )
I forward the attached for'your consideration.
l Your report, in duplicate, along with the return ,of f the enclosure 1 will be appreciated.
Sincerely, 804
, Al n Cranston Please address envelope to:
Senator Alan Cranston - l Senate Office Building s,uecGC.IN p washington, D.C. 20510 '
pcte,,_] ,
, Att: I Jim Forcier- )
$ h h ^ h *~ %,ppy
\ ?
f 4 L 8 3,
. . ;; ?
c l
? '
y .
, l
'nQG .W;y *'
u . ' ' -
'.x-- '-
e us ..
z: -
w :
M, .-43. +. . i ,.. wpf.,*~ 7 ..
, ~ , .
. . . . -, , 'y l
s'.: . J: i
) t '. .. .
. M *,. ,
s ~\ ' .,, ~~, ..,- .
r;. :. .'..f.c;e .--. .
% J.. '
y M g. !, . .;.
\
1
(~~p *-
x j ;
';,~. .
- , f
', , .\., '. . , ,
- . :', ft)
&h.,, $ < (, ,A '. ' y?. g .. ,
,1 , . .
j ),-s f,z0:~-f; et o ,
4,4 p
i . -
' ; f;' ; . -~,:
m' ' / Q^ *', ;.
k
~.' ' f-
. '~
,m, .
~s
.-:;f,-}
m
- s. i .. + - . s ., n l
. ) 1y%
{ - .N"{:>. b r v- %
, . 7,.:.
%.k.,.c .
- r. ? <
.: P. . 'V .-G ? '
i
- N ,'. '?/ lq' .l'
$s > jyg
, 9_~ j'j, 4r,)'% },> g- \ y 5} .?:
< i '
. j/,.
t-
',%Cs. Gh[,p7]'94, *gr '
4%.i !
l
. ,' t. , \p .,- ' ."cf..d. ,;.. q.: i .b ' ,'. '%m .' -
4 .. ik
.~~ l
?? V. .(%* /,:; :.. . j ' ,, ,fP.
- '0 ;
/ t ~. ?.%
' ' ~
e Y
}'*\f,j.~.',,s%';N. fQ
, A. .
- Yh) .,,
N -b 1 a p >* '
. h, ,,er,, \q N
\ ,
,\y*4~m .1.. % ,. <- f) ..
l .4,. .
r p t
)
- .,/-
, . 't 1
'\.__ .( . \ r .s . . _; )/* * \. t
.w.3, .. Q)' $. i*g~Dtsj '
.;4 THIC !S HOW nuclear power plants dump deadly radioactive materials af ter use. This is the dump of Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc., in Maxey Flats, Ky. It contains Plutonium, )
l Stron:ium 90 and oths killer isotopes, whl;h are now leak- i ing out of the trenchei-SS f
J
. 4
, .y
/ .
y e gI /
, y Y{WW .
j J
i x
3 f' 4 \
.( *
- i e '
s i 4 '
y A u>d N a '
l
. d' OD 0 2 2f .
< 0 )(' , 0 0 p .
l I
i t , g s O
)
m
- NUREGIc(4 lE -l p *1a GC-TR-79-1023 I
^
p
.C
\
SUBSURFACE RADAR PROFILING FIELD TESTS AT LOW-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE BURIAL SITES:
(
MAXEY FLATS, KENTUCKY AND BEATTY, NEVADA ;
fGFEl ~77) \
]g# 5 Eh BC" R. BEERS i R. MOREY DATE PUBLISHED:'sMARCH 1980 ,
'x_.__...'
l GE0-CENTERS, INC.
381 ELLIOT STREET NEWTON UPPER FALLS ,
MASSACHUSETTS 02164 i PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEAFH U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNDER CONTRACT NO. NRC-04-79-190
-- a
d
-. -j NUREG-1272 GC-TR-79-1023 ]
i 1
)
SUBSURFACE RADAR PROFILING FIELD TESTS AT -
LOW-LEVELNUCLEARWASTEBURIALSITES:
MAXEY. FLATS, KENTUCKY AND BEATTY., NEVADA l
l l
1 R. BEERS ;
l R. MOREY GE0-CENTERS, INC .
PREPARED FOR.THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
i L_ . _)
4 Abstract A' ground penetrating radar system has been evaluated in two field tests at Maxey Flats, Kentucky and Beatty, Nevada, the sites.of low-level radioactive waste storage facilities.. The locations of trenches, buried debris, and other subsurface disturbances were. determined; and the re-sults were compared with data from other measurements: both--
remotely sensed and ground truthed. The radar system proved effective in determining trench parameters to a depth of 25',
locating buried metallic barrels, and specifying anomalous
~
areas; however, interpretation was often ambiguous and re-stricted to the subjective opinion of experts. Further research in the. areas of characterization and systematic data processing is recommended.
S l
l
. +v
( -
1 L- _--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Executive Summary subsurface radar profiling is a non-intrusive remote-sensing technique applicable to:
a) the assesement of prospective radioactive waste storage sites b) the verification of proper burial operations, and c) the location of buried debris for retrieval or remedial action.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is sup-porting a multi-phace research and development effort to characterize existing radar systems in the field and to eval-uate their usefulness to waste management programs.
This report summarizea the results of two field tests: one at Maxey Flats, KY and another at Beatty, NV. In both cases experimental objectives were met; where deficiencies in sys-tem performance were observed, additional research for cor-rection has been recommended.
II. Subsurface Radar Subsurface radar, also known as video pulsed radar and ground penetrating radar, enits an electromagnetic pulse (EM) into ;
the ground and detects and records the reflections from sub-i surface interfaces and objects. Penetration depths of cur- l rent commercial systems vary from 3-30 meters depending.upon ;
EM frequency and the water content of the' soil; other soil conditions, e.g. temperature, density, and porosity, like-wise affect propagation. The amplitude and phase of the re- ;
flected signal are functions of the respective changes in the !
dielectric constant and conductivity at the interface. Re- {
flections from metallic objects, e.g. burial containers, are ;
easily detected and identified. Such a system, characterized ;
and calibrated, can determine the location and depth of a sub- j surface disturbance and determine whether or not it is metal- ;
lic. A block diagram of a typical system is shown in Figure A. An example of a hard copy output of L data record is shown i in Figure B. l III. Maxey Flats Field Test j I
The first phase of the program involved the deployment of a .l 6
commercially available ground penetrating radar system to an existing low-level radioactive waste storage site, where measurements sufficient to evaluate the system were made.
Approximately 4,000 meters of the Maxe Flats site ;
were surveyed. DatawereindexedaccordIngtoagridsystem j set up especially for this field test. The data were analy- !
zod and all significant anamolies were noted and referenced l l iii i l
1
a .
f r
u m W*
s.
i 2
,1 a _ -. * . .
Ms
, = 0 u_ , e r
e , . * .
- mh. 7 s
1 m A . -
'I -
p 8 * .C N dl $
..*~.-
M-
, k . .
hR -.-
cT n '*
'.s.k'?_8 0
e 8 Me
, a ., .
T r _ s r
~
'.~
i . M"<.N 1 e . ' s' T
- ye: a M _
k r
J;
..l
?:
h1 -
7
- A e
r e . ,M a
s
.51'-
0 9
1 N
- nw t
d '. i*
y 7 _- . d i r k e
R $
b i I G
- ~: G- c u
_+
E r u
.s**1 3 OO t e ' ,'i
's-:' ~
- 2 n
R M'
MvnW -
i d
t s :
n i_
' ' -- N G
Q'++-
K e
3 L y U s '4J.z!!
8 s
.. o.:
- .i
).1f* 0
- -, lC r
1 2
t l
s a
X I
}
1 a
.' .*.gj N F W"wa
- -u
. . '.'..i- y N =
{~ .
1 i e
wM 71 )
i ..f-
- .Q+ 022 x
a I_ sr ' e ' .'
i.
's'-
.l : M< N s r
) M
.j.
4
[1 y " 5' e 9
' 1 ;. ~ t lI l 0 e 6 a ; J, c i
3 m 2 m
o 4
-.. ., aR3 T; N 2
(
W EI
_ % r,. *A n i _
- .g$
- .x;**
, - l 's
.,_- t e
c n
a i e
n l _
s L
" L T - _'- -
i m
.~J4 .{ 0 D
}*
- %, , e : , ' ,
4 2 l o r
[I ;.- ' .m .
N t
a n
f T _ *g.G i
G . ':a o d i
i z r
- %f '
i r
o o
c 7 y!
'. &' 0 H e
- s. > e '
_*.
- i J 5 R
, . (:. ;
I 2
'*. 2.::-
G.
n.
m*- ;; y. N t a
V I i
S1.y it2 haJ - gj -
, . O1 ' . ': a-D a
R I N' * ~ l :
t
-. ~i
'- l 1w -
t -
ps? . 0 a g.lI ?,
l
. 8 i :
i*
3 6 c 6 - :. 2 i N p 2- .
g:'.l.
i i
- U:
- ?
T y
i i - . '- ) . 0
. Ws 4.t e , 8
- . * , -: . ..'n.
.;&* s s.
7 2
B g% y ,
,l i i t
'it l e
-- .: ' ' &s-L N e r
u
, ' i, di- w- .__ . -
'?1'.t, i
g M.Xw
' 4.W'
.0 S
. s. F
. g%W* ; 'i .. ;
T
' . 'i W . ghK' y&:;0 fhn. 0 i
- . Q
. e 1- 8. t ,
2 2_ _ F
.h r % ;M
= .lI
e d
u n
o m t s
d e k - " d u l n d5 n m b ) u n1 a a ) n h a - s e b nw c s" s o wo 0 e n o h r od n e r1 g o ol t p d o s s n o r i l i p
- i t t o f a t o e , '
t e e t l ol a f s d t 21 a g g s e m o e (( i s r r d vh y r d w d t t a a n at r o S_ t e 2" ee a e s t t a rpe f T et 4 y nn r g i s" ge v n L ea r oo r " o o o ,8- d i U f r t e t t e a 7 m n n h ,
S u a v ss c t 1 y t ay h E 3* dd a y , ,
a 6" i a t R a k ,
nn f o t r l l l wtl u d s cl l aa r n a e i i cf ac r I D n oaa rii ss u s
v o s
o oy t
T ad , t s d asd l i rr ss y e ,
nhl pn d
n R 2 u re e uu s a g d d d at cia T q ot t oo u l r u e e p h u ni aa uu o c a m t t l ed cl o D el t mm nn l t c c id e i
_ r N e e i i a t e a a o reok
_ G U wh gt t t t m s k s p p saensc O nn o c o
_ t c rff i m m p yopo a
R eu aoo oo n o o o o o ot at ol t
G B m TSS CC A M R L C C T aL stb a
d d e
_ d - nl -
h ef ab f ) s s s s s s )
t si i ecs t t t t t t k u
_ pd )h s ril e e e e e e c
_ r a t t s y l e g g g g g g o
. t e
. l h ego l tl r r r r r r r l l t wnp a nar a a a a a a b d r oi e( m) et a t) ) t t) t) t ') t) cw no ,r ok d eb y k y y y y y e
_ uo ) ( l tl nc nm oa coaoaoa oaoa n
_ oM N d as a) ao e e nl onl nl nl nl nl o r O eei nd l pmt
,c ,c ,c
_ gd I rl rngu eb eos ,cl ab l
,c ,
cl t as n L T ul eiim g d ra l en l el el e l el end d a AA ti t s re nf w( avgeavavav avavgn
- n as N T af an n an i niinninini niniia GE eemofi l o s gt sogt gt gt gt gt ss
_ e I R f r i o t ,ns i c ti cicic i cic rm SP gs sugs sus us u r ,tnah c
_ t t got susuge
_ aa R nd nic d nd d d d d d ng
_ dD RE oaeit e on ot e k nonk nk nk n k nk nor
_ a AT je rrpj ra rcj aoraaoaoa o aoaora r: DN areaeb tS t eb ect sececec ecectl
_ r AI MafVd o S( Sl o W(S( W(W(W( W( W( S(
mo R(
_ ot
_ rc
_ f a r E
_ st C
_ t n N l o EE e e e uc RR 9 999 00 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 n n n
_ s UE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o o
_ ee GF -
n n n rt I E i FR d d f s o y o o
_ R R
_ nb i n 6 6
_ o '
sd U n n i e R 'n n n , o o e e e
_ rd T ooo i i l l l
_ ai pv iii t t o o o
_ DD t t t a a H H H mo N0 aaa v v or U1 1
'd d d, iii a a t t t C p OT d dd ddd c d c d d s s s
_ RE GM R o ooo RRR oo aaa x o x o o o o o
- RR RRR E R E R R P P P I
_ 9 999 89 378 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E 0 66 6 34 222 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 L 2 22 2 33 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 B
A ,
W, WWW, , ,
WW, ,
WWW ,
W, W ,
W, W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W, T 0 235 34 11 1 8 2 6 7 0 4 8 3
_ 3 777 99 8 8 B 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 2
. 2 222 00 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 N NNN NN NNN N N N N N N N N
_ N O S '
S S S I I 1 1 1 77 888 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
_ T I 222 22 333 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
_ A
_ C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ O r rrr rr rrr r r r r r r r r L T TTT TT T.T T T T T T T T T T
. km' .
\ .]
1 l
I l
f e IO FT, MARMER8,6-46 j E MONUMENTS (TRENCH MARMER8)
$URVEY L',7,ry, Vg
- , LINES 'sussuRFact utTALuc oeJtcTs N 5, 7- 'i;- .9._ sussuRaact 0187URsANCE NEAR SURFACE Ot$TURBANCE l
'\
I e .'
h 4-
[ ,",*','g',
- 1. 3_
/'/ -s' DEEP
. ., , . : . ., ' . : . } ;,,7. ,/
l
~
i ?_ ' '>)' ,., ,
)
1- (
a e i
4's e 4's s e so ss a so . e G q
9 il 12 13 D 5 S INSIDE ARE A
'/////
NEAR SURFACE METALLtC 00 JECT - . . _- -
,-.[* . . s, l ..
~l~ ~ .
}
c W' DEEP ,,- _,--- ,.8",,
l
, ** *. ',' l. e...
,...,a. 9 4
-e - i
_. .= ._-_-- -. -- - , . ...:. . . , . , .
/ _ :-
_-. _=-- . . . . . . .
,..9 l
l i
f
i a
l r-PlPE OR TEhePORARY FENCE CAgt,E 6-EXCAVATION
)-
I
! s- t
.q.,97,,i, e AR nfJ. -
1
' ~
$NM / SURFACE
$* .;.'ll ll,i Q,R*. <
, s-
'., *:0. f
- . ?. ?lTZ, :.'. '.. ,:'.'
- i:', / j
///
e_
// g.
- . g
- g. -
/;'f',**- l-l'.lh**;'
.. s :p 2'- e' OEEP h l*- 4' DEEP ~
u-.
i
_, ma I
5 E 2'O E l'S E l l'O E S- l .i 4 2 I r 6.
}
~
. : ,. y I
- .~.
, , ' ,l.',......
~~;-- 3*-4' DEEP . -l -
]
, *8.,'*,
k ,8'DEP
.. k.h. ! '*."."" ,
' ; .'," . s'* 4' DEEP .c !
..-o..',."
.. ~ Z.
l
' * *, ,l'e * -
i s.a Primary fence represents the northern most boundary of the nuclear section of the Beatty Waste Storage Site.
Numbered monuments indicating the nordiern ends of the burial trenches are shtwn Survey lines (-2 & -1) scanned norther 1 ends of the trenches.
Survey lines (+1 through +7) scanned ;1e suspect area to the north of the trenches. ! e' The temporary enclose fencearea.
the suspect i
was erected by NE@ after the USGS discovery to TI PERTURE CARD Also Available on
. Aperture Card i
Figure C: Survey Results Showing Measured Subsurface Anomalies and. Buried Material, ix 1
- 1 " ' ' " ~ - * '
TABLE QF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary jjj
' List o'f Figures xii List of Tables xiy 1
I. Introduction Subsurface Remote Sensing 1 II.
2 II.1 Electrical Methods 2 II.2 Seismic Methods 3 II.3 Magnetic Methods II.4 Gravitational Methods 3 3
II.5 Radioactive: Methods Subsurface Radar Profiling '4
.III.
III.1 Electromagnetic Properties of Soil and Rocks 6 I III.2. Radar Instrumentation 6 III.3 Data Collection Procedures 8 Applications 8 III.4 Experimental Objectives 9 l IV.
V. Description of Waste Storage Sites' 10 V.1 Description of Maxey Flats Waste Storage Site 10 V.2 Beatty. Waste Storage Site 11 VI. Field Operations 17 VI.1 Field Operations at Maxey Flats, KY 17 VI.2 Field Operations at Beatty, NV 17 VII. Data Analysis Techniques 23- 1 VII.1 Analysis of Data from Maxey Flats, KY 23 ;
l VII.2 Analysis of Data from Beatty, NV 25 VIII. Discussion of Results 25 VIII.1 Results from Maxey Flats, KY 25 VIII.2 Discussion of Results from Beatty, NV 28-VIII.3 Generic Results 36 41 IX. Conclusions and Recommendations X. Summary 43
]
44 I XI. References i
xi !
. .. j
l l
List of Figures i
1 Figure Page l l
l 1 The relative dielectric constant, c', the relative 7 !
dielectric loss c" and the los's tangent tan 6 as j a function of frequency for a silty clay soil at a water content of 15% (g H 2 0/g soil) , (Af ter Hoekstra and Delaney, 1974) 2 Block Diagram of an Impulse Radar 8 3 Portion of Maxey Flats Waste Disposal Site 12 ,
Showing Location of Trenches 4 Aerial View of the Waste Disposal Site Near- 13 Beatty, Nevada 5 Aerial View of Nuclear Waste Section of Disposal 14 Site Beatty, Nevada (radar survey lines superimposed) 6 Facility Layout: Nuclear Waste Trenches (North 15 l Section) at the NECO Site Near Beatty, Nevada ;
Showing USGS Access. Trench and Tunnel Complex !
- j 7 Maxey Flats Grid System 18 8 Detailed Survey Grid of the Area to the North 22 l of the Old Nuclear, Burial Area - Beatty, Nevada. I (solid lines with arrows represent actual survey lines) 9 Typical Data Record from Line W269, Maxey Flats, Ky. 24 l l
10 Radar Profile of Sandstone Block in Trench #27, 26 )
Maxey Flats, Ky. l 11 Radar Profile Showing Three Buried Waste Containers 27 in Trench #35.
12 Radar Profile Showing "No-Target" and " Target" Areas. 30 13 Radar Profile From Low-Frequency Experimental Antenna 31 Showing the Outline and Bottoms of Three Trenches at Maxey Flats, Ky.
xii
1 I
I l , List of Figures (continued)
Figure Page 14 Radar Reflection Data, Inside Fence, Line -1, Showing 32 Disturbances at the Locations of Trenches 3, 13, &l2.
Metallic Object is Evident in Trench 13.
1 15 Radar Reflection Data, Excavation Area, Line 4S, 34 Showing Signals from Buried Barrels Near Markers 21-22. .
1 16 Radar Reflection Data, Outside Fence, Line 2, Showing 35 Man-Made Disturbances Along Projections of Several l Trenches.
17 Survey Results Showing Measured Subsurface 39 I Anomalies and Buried Material.
1 I
l l
l l
1 h
a 4
xiii
. I
- List of Tables Tablo Page 1 Approximate VHF Electromagnetic-Parameters of 5 Typical Earth Materials i
2 Nominal Trench Parameters North Section of 16 l Nuclear Burial Site-Beatty, Nevada
)
3 Radar Survey Locations (in order of acquisition) 19 !
l 4 Comparison of Results from Radar and Ground 29 I
. Truth Data, j I
l I
l I
4 4
xiv 8
- ~ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _
l l
l I
l I. Introduction !
Subsurface radar profiling is a non-intrusive sensing techni-l que applicable to:
- 1) the assessment of prospective radioactive j waste storage sites,
- 2) the verification of proper burial' procedures, and l i
- 3) or therem'edial locationaction, of buried debris for retrieval where records may be deficient. i I
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is sup- l porting a multi-phase research and development effort to char-acterize subsurface radar systems in both hardware and software, ,
and to evaluate their usefulness in waste management programs. ]
This report summarizes the results of two field tests: one !
at Maxey Flats, KY, and another at Beatty, NV. Included are: )i j
- 1) this introduction
- 2) review of existing subsurface remote sensing techniques, l
- 3) description of the subsurface radar profiling system, l
- 4) statement of experimental objectives, l
/
- 5) descriptions of the survey sites,
- 6) field operations, {
- 7) data analysis ^ techniques l
- 8) discussion of results, and
- 9) conclusions and recommendations II. Subsurface RemoteSensing 'l The geophysical sciences have a long history of development and use of subsurface remote sensing technology. Following i is a brief description of available techniques and an assess-ment of their application,t,o the waste management programs. )
All methods involve the measurement of one or more physical properties, e.g., conductivity, of the underlying soil; any ;
change in measured value corresponds to a subsurface " anomaly" l which may be associated with naturally occurring variations in geology, trenching and backfilling, or the presence of
" targets", such as waste containers. The principal effort in geophysical site investigations is the interpretation of l these anomalies and their significance.
Methods currently used in subsurface geological investigations are as follows:
(A) Electrical (B) Seismic (C) Magnetic
(D) Gravitational, and (E) Radioactive II.1 Electrical Methods Included among electrical methods are resistivity , electro -
magnetic, and ground penetrating radar techniques. The lat-ter, the subject of this paper is described later in a separ-ate section.
The electrical resistivity method is designed to provide in-formation on formations or objects exhibiting anomalous elec-trical conductivity. It is used in engineering geophysics to map bedrock and in groundwater studies to determine salin-ity. Nurmally, four electrode arrays are used at the surface; one pair for introducing current into the earth, and the other for the measurement of the potential associated with the cur-rent. Inhomogeneities in the conductivity of subsurface ma-terials cause distortions in the current flow which in turn give rise to changes in the measured potential. As the array '
is moved across the terrain, a resistivity " map" can be gener-ated.
Electrical resistivity is a low resolution method used pri-marily to detect large conductivity anomalies. However, if a disposal trench is backfilled with a material electrically different from the original soil, or if there is a quantity of highly conductive objects within the trench, then the presence of the trench may be detectable. On the other hand, the outline of the trench cannot be determined, closely spac-ed trenches cannot be resolved, and the presence of metal fences or buried pipes or cables will cause interference.
Electromagnetic methods.use a. magnetic field generated by passing an alternating current through aloop of wire. This l primary field causes induced or eddy currents to flow in
- closed loops within conductive materials. Th'ese currents generate a secondary magnetic field which, along with the primary field, is measured with an induction magnetometer, using a simple coil as a receiver.
This is a low resolution technique that may determine the presence of a conductive object, but not its size or depth.
Again, the presence of background metallic objects, e.g.,
fences and cables, adversely influences the results.
II.2 Seismic Methods Seismic procedures involve the input of acoustical energy l
i
)
1 into the earth by means of explosives, hammer impacts-, or vi- 1 brators.- The' radiated energy is reflectedLfrom various sub- l surface layers or objects, and the reflected signals are de- ,
{
tected and recorded. i Seismic techni. ques have been. developed to a high degree by the petroleum industry and have recently'been adopted in enginer- f ring applications. The method is relatively deep probing,'
q but of poor spatial resolution. It is of probable.value in !
siting applications, and may be of use to the high-level waste programs; however,.it is of questionable value for the'loca- !
tion of specific buried debris.
II.3 Magnetic Methods Magnetic geophysical methods involve the measurement of the earth's magnetic field as a function of position.- Variations i in magnetic field are attributableLto changes cNE structure or I
magnetic susceptibility in certain' materials such as near sur-face rocks. In mining exploration, magnetic methods are em-ployed for direct location of ores containing magnetic ma-terials. However because of conditions at. waste disposal sites, there appears to be no useful application of this tech-n1'gue.
- j II.4 Gravitational Methods I
The gravitational geophysical method detects and measures ')
l minute variations in the earth's gravitational field associ-l ated with near surface variations in density. Measured as~a f function of position, gravitational results could' detect i large voids or subsurface objects having'significantly dif- ]
ferent densities than the host soil. Again, because of pre-valling conditions at waste storage sites, the method appears to be of little use. ,
II.5 Radioactive Methods j Since the sources of interest at a waste disposal site are, by' definition, radioactive, gamma ray detectors offer the promise of the direct and immediate location of buried ma-terial. Two complementary techniques are commonly used; gross gamma detection using hand held survey instruments, and-isotopic identification using portable gamma energy' spectrum-analyzers. Gross Gamma Detection measures the gamma ray ex-posure levels or count rate as a function of position. Typi-cal gamma exposure backgrounds range from 6 to'15 uR/hr (mi- 1 croRoentgens/ hour) at one' meter above the surface, with levels as high as 25 uR/hr in some western regions. 'Since.commerci-- q
i l
j I
ally available instruments are capable of detecting and loca- j lizing gamma ray signals as low as 10-25% above background, {
it is a simple matter to detect and localize surface areas ;
exhibiting exposure levels as low as 30 uR/hr, levels well !
below those that might be considered hazardous. )
i l
llowever, the shielding provided by the backfill is usually l sufficient to preclude the detection of many,.if not most, of the buried debris; some of which could . represent a sub-
, surface hazard. Gamma energy Spectrum Measurements utilize I
either low resolution (NaI) or high resolution (instrinsic Ge
! or GeLi) detectors to locate and identify subsurface radio- !
active material. If the gamma intensity is high enough, i.e., {
l measurable with gross gamma detectors, the low energy resolu- !
tion (10%) system is usable. More commonly, however, a high resolution (1%) system is positioned at discrete grid locations and a detailed (one-half hour or more) spectrum is collected. l In this manner, very small amounts of radiation reaching the surface can be detected above the background to uniquely identify gamma photopeaks indicating the presence of man- !
made radionuclides. )
l
' Spectral measurements are extremely sensitive, but are time l consuming to apply. Used in conjunction with the gross gamma i I method, however, an excellent assessment can be made of any l surface hazard, caused by subsurface debris. Again, how-l ever, the shielding effect of the overlaying soil allows the possibility of not detecting a subsurface source that is
);
contributing to a subsurface hazard, e.g., migration to )
water supplies, j i
III. Subsurface Radar Profiling Subsurface radar or video pulsed radar (VPR) emits an electro-magnetic (EM) pulse in'to the ground and detects and records j the reflections from subsurface interfaces and objects to 1 depths from 3 to 30 meters depending upon soil and rock con-ditions. The distribution and concentration of water is the .
primary influence on the propagation and reflection of EM waves in the ground. Other soil conditions, such as temper-ature, density and porosity also influence propagation and reflection. In addition, buried objects, e.g., metallic canisters, reflect radar signals. Careful analysis of the reflected pulse, combined with a knowledge of the EM prop-erties of the soil, can reveal such information as percent j water content, density variations, and the location and depth of buried objects.
A summary of the physical properties of common media which affect the propagation and attenuation of EM signals is shown l in Table 1.
l l
) -
, Table 1 Approximate VHF Electromagnetic Parameters of' Typical Earth Materials i
Approximate Approximate-Electrical Dielectric-Consta'nt'c'
~
Conductivity
- Material o (mho/m) (Farad / Meter)
Air 0 1
~4 -2 81 Fresh. Water 10 to 3x10 Sea Water. 4 81
~
-3 Sand " Dry" 10 to 10 .4 to 6
~
Sand, Saturated 10~4~.to 10 30 (Fresh Water)
-3 ~
10 Silt, Saturatta 10 to 10 (Fresh Water) t
~
Clay, Saturated 10~1~ to 1 8 to 12 (Fresh Water)
-3 Dry, Sandy, Flat 2 x 10 10 Coastal Land'
-3 Marshy, Forested 8 x 10 12 Flat Land
-2 Rich Agricultural 10 15 Land, Low Hills Pastoral Land, 5 x' 10 -3 13 Medium Hills and Forestation
~4 ~
Fresh Water Ice 10 to 10 4
~ ~
Permafrost 10 to 10 . 4 to 8
-8 Granite ' (Dry) 10 5
~9 Limestone (Dry) ., 10 7 e
4
III.1 Electromagnetic Properties of Soils and Rocks The attenuation and reflection of an electromagnetic signal are determined by the dielectric properties of rocks and soils.
The dielectric properties of earth materials vary considerably with the frequenc'y of the probing signal, water content, and the composition end structure of the soils and rocks.
Soils and rocks are a heterogeneous inixture of different com-ponents, such as water, air and mineral' matter. Dielectric mixing theories relate the behavior of a heterogeneous mixture to the dielectric properties of the constituents.
Two parameters are required to deLcribe the interaction of EM radiation with earth materials; the effective relative diel-c', and the effective relative dielectric loss ec tric consta,2nt, factor, c".2 The ratio of these two quantities is defined as the loss tangent:
tan 6 = c", ,
The effective relative dielectric constant, c', of earth ma-terials determines the velocity of propagation, v ,, of the EM signals:
v" = /c' E ,
1 where c is the velocity in free space (3x10em/sec)
Further, these dielectric properties, c'and c", are strongly dependent upon water content, as shown in Table 1, and fre-quency, as show in Figure 1.
III.2 Radar Instrumentation l Attenuation of electromagnetic energy at high frequencies (10 to 10 2* Hz) in soils and rocks limits the usefulness of 6
I radar as a ground probing technique. However, because of the j desire to detect relatively small subsurface changes and small objects, high resolution is necessary. Figure 1 indicates that there is a " radar window" centered at 10e HZ for a typi-8 cal soil. At frequencies greater than about 3 x 10 Hz, the i attenuation increases rapidly and therefore, the depth of penetration is limited to tens of centimeters. At frequen-cies less than 10 7 Hz, the wavelength (30 meters in air) is too long to provide the needed resolution.
One of the more successful ground penetrating radar techniques is th6 impulse radar method wherein a narrow impulsive signal that contains a broad spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies l
l There are over forty trenches and several special pits at the site. The trenches were generally unlined and their dimen-sions ranged from 150 to 680 feet in length,.10 to 75 feet in width, and 9 to 30 feet in depth. The majority of wastes are contained in steel drums while other packagings include wooden and cardboard boxes. The disposal site is relatively flat, except for some mounding over the trenches, and gener-ally cleared of vegetation.
Figure 3, supplied by Dames and Moore, shows the approximate location and dimensions of the trenches and pits and the pre-sent surface elevations.
V.2 Beatty Waste Storage Site The Beatty Waste Storage Site, the first privately operated facility in the United States, is owned by Nuclear Engineering ;
Company (NECO) of Louisville, Kentucky. Established in 1962, the site is located near Beatty, Nevada, more than 100 miles north of Las Vegas. Originally licensed by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the facility currently oper- !
ates under license from the State of Nevada. 1 By January, 1971, a nuclear burial area consisting of 12 long trenches on the north-central sector of the site had been filled with more than 40,000 curies of low-level waste includ-ing approximately 40 Kg of special nuclear material (SNM). As the trenches were excavated and filled, various temporary markers were placed to define their extent. In 1975, in an '
effort to standarize and upgrade the marker system, a new set of permenent monuments was installed at the head and foot of each of these 12 trenches. Table 2 summarizes the dimen-sions and history of these trenches as described on the monu-ments. An aerial photogr.aph of the site, taken in 1976, is shown in Figure 4 with an enlargement of the nuclear disposal area shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 is an engineering drawing of the location of the 12 trenches with their monuments. j As part of'a research effort during October, 1979, the USGS l began digging a trench-tunnel complex under the Beatty burial I site to measure the potential leaching or migration of buried ;
material. Beginning the excavation from the north (see Fig- l ure 6) and proceeding south under the center of the old burial ground, the USGS team encountered five barrels of low-level waste approximately 50 feet beyond the established burial area and its fenced boundary.
Therefore, various experimental teams brought in by the USGS, )
NRC, DOE, the State of Nevada, and NECO undertook a variety of measurements in an effort to better define the location of buried materials.
f .
s
% ,s f- -, -
s s ,,,- . ., -
g 4 h/
s.
D f, --- -, 2'--%-[ ' N . . g ,kYA %jg$lNyj~ f . = ~ %
~
M'~'.,,!' !
'[ - { i'
}r C' ,'
.yp%[~',},,' ' ",, Ql f
Q i-
'i ,
(h,1 i $N n
s
's 3.
'l v
.,t, lv ,- i v
,s% , , _ . xy q t-
- i. ,
f* \ i"N'J
NYb}. Y , .; *i n ? b n
$n/k?y .u .m k I
A, / \ l~(f L '_l. ,w f M w
~ I
.'; k l fqllj..w,e c l,k "3 ep tc 7 4 ,, , ..au t...
Ap.Q> s , ,e 0. s \nj p q. i.. [. .i,. - , , [l/
\'i ' C.;.a. _ ,,, _~.m.p ny. ;.ib MI~.], ._;.
. !l o W. ~, ;'.oyll,j,3 sd >
~ ~ .
,I .tir - ). rWQ-
~ .
- ,g a
7,! ,. / / (,j
-w
. I ? I,,,,
s.- s - ex xs - ......,s,.~~,,'e..._=s s
-~~
...4, .! +
/1 w t f.,
.ip
- l
. i, . , - , s, .~. .
s
'N rt...... ,%.
. --. r ~ - - ,, w y ~j c
.i, g
,g4p , nlf s , , , _
g j3
.. %*l% + . f, ay ^*N d/k .N *"*8 y
/ (ll , ,4!f i N( ['.*l'j.l'jf' <
1 .. p ,,
f[gg-]:.lIfy'yy,,,,0 ,' N N &,,
M
\.,{j-.;Q"'!
,, i:
,,{.,l&N:/;4jf '
.ll t i l.l.i L;.
l ; fllQ lL..l L ~
i- V t / $1 j
lll ' l-l:l ' Lib;l;l.' I q.v.;
ii y\ q
- - iIl.W. p;u ' h
, wjj k V ;Q ll' ' &.\ . J i ', G
' l i. .QQp t l ii- y(:Cy,
. al , \l'lJ O %..
l N S E.!4 d.[fd.I l W$Iilf[.[w r = p l .\ ! ! ,
11 ,
V J' l '
Ry t ,t - A l, o y dNN sw lf
/
- G.Y.a. --i .
~
~~. -. x w.- ' 4\
I i@
n:.
.%:,9
',o jj j
i iy w.,,,
.w
~~ ww -- . n~i =m _w >
m , n, n.r - m,,-_:
2- &. m.4
.; ;g n 7
N.; 7n l;\ y 3._ ~.
f., .\yti .r.%y
... (:
n nny
' , - ,,l , f G &.',
,i. :'j' f f ,: j f Ctj ,
_=T.wG}==i=ff' jf' ' .,;,a 1/N p.:7T ~ -. '-p -
~
W =i=7 = Q7. 2 ~ .n.d s, ; // ,~ e.: .m =., 1,sp,e v</ ~-, 3m ; a..;..N s [p i
i~ --w4 s.~_ -, ymt -c.v:.
y-
>. /.-
. w/ ,, _,...3:r,;w,O
- L g.. .r
. n .:-
"-e.ca.- w.w 4,,
/l i. ,
i,
> 1 ~ > %j e,. ,/', J'w,, y ,, 3. ,/..
c i
~ - - - (; __ _.J g 73
? q_9e =& Qf< vW. ' x ':4_.x : ::?m ?;s\ m-y.
i L,q nlh. y..q' _-
. ._ -- _ 1 s. .. .
-a '\
r -~ Vs.,
', m,J l , ~.,' /
',\
y -n
,// ,// < ,
,;y/
,-y rw .y b;
,. y ~q
~
o . . ,,
' f, ' ,
~2' \
.** b.=~ / j,
/ J'{:gY~ -;.&.y , ,/'f v;&f f(: 'fhy'ljg.;.a. __ g 9 x h? .-, f =^~^~llff.h ....
f}
/ /-) ',
iu im , Q', .:
n/} b
<=/,7;fy:.%-~,y m m,,,
mm.
..
- a .
y* tim.v. / u i:.s.gg
/ .
2
\
- s ,
s' ,
g,# 1,
$ gg
l There are over forty trenches and several special pits at the site. The trenches were generally unlined and their dimen-sions ranged from 150 to 680 feet in length, 10 to 75 feet in width, and 9 to 30 feet in depth. The majority of wastes are contained in steel drums while other packagings include wooden and cardboard boxes. The disposal site is relatively flat, except for some mounding over the trenches, and gener-ally cleared of vegetation.
Figure 3, supplied by Dames and Moore, shows the approximate location and dimensions of the trenches and pits and the pre-sent surface elevations.
V.2 Beatty Waste Storage Site The Beatty Waste Storage Site, the first privately operated facility in the United States, is owned by Nuclear Engineering Company (NECO) of Louisville, Kentucky. Established in 1962, the site is located near Beatty, Nevada, more than 100 miles north of Las Vegas. Originally licensed by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the facility currently oper-ates under license from the State of Nevada.
By January, 1971, a nuclear burial area consisting of 12 long trenches on the north-central sector of the site had been filled with more than 40,000 curies of low-level waste includ-ing approximately 40 Kg of special nuclear material (SNM). As the trenches were excavated and filled, various temporary markers were placed to define their extent. In 1975, in an effort to standarize and upgrade the marker system, a new i set of permenent monuments was installed at the head and foot of each of these 12 trenches. Table 2 summarizes the dimen-sions and history of these trenches as described on the monu-ments. An aerial photogr.aph of the site, taken in 1976, is shown in Figure 4 with an enlargement of the nuclear disposal area shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 is an engineering drawing of the location of the 12 trenches with their monuments.
As part of a research effort during October, 1979, the USGS began digging a trench-tunnel complex under the Beatty burial site to measure the potential leaching or migration of buried material. Beginning the excavation from the north (see Fig-ure 6) and proceeding south under the center of the old burial ground, the USGS team encountered five barrels of low-level waste approximately 50 feet beyond the established burial '
area and its fenced boundary.
Therefore, various experimental teams brought in by the USGS, NRC, DOE, the State of Nevada, and NECO undertook a variety of measurements in an effort to better define the location of buried materials.
.% \g Ag r' ,.*# g
~,
Q'sNZ . .
,X, g rg K^ y ,
L!
- a
\as '0f , S. :
.x
~ m .
t s ,
kC a ,,; N{\' n ' j; = w!m k v*}.)u)%3
-- -l I
! - ti N j J,} 1-1 t[\
r l n.s n ~:x
(
l JT t'
tL / l -i(j /l ;a1- 4 l[f./p'f M.'.Q'$N\lsh:i\n{$,s'7lq[s ,/ p\ 1 './ j j ' ' , '; ygCg s
', - ! C
- t \ 's y
'I. ~
=v, '
, . . .o l; )
J N /g . - '-
m' :* *' - *
.-~
- _ w,. .$e d
' ' [ \' *
/l[. g
-]
. ,#b #~ -n __4 ph l - ~ ~: - - ~ y -
~ ~,7; ' ), _( %"" _N )
t - i ,,{~.s N~' @ 's h _e.:_'."Jr'"7. . ;;l ..
- :: . ;.. , pec % p-Ny -
\
. l I- i y@ '
f( g .y 3g gyMQW..e i
ll 7 I ; \
.I '
.,l '
w /f I' ll
/"I l ( ib p\ 4
'l \[". k(l/j((Wh"j _'[s Vt'kn !
YQ II
,I f , K il n.
f t~ ' , & I \
k f I l t t. 1- S..
.! jj[M ' i
- !$! 7 I Vl .dih$JO[ifd.. . M74j$ipps,i(d 44 p'l @, f
[a,b,,, - .39 i = +zr , 5 " -T&-m
-f qq m- w% g;=:* k?=a .,
e a q.;w\\.g q qar ;-F.
)k M . =.ws. k& '\t,eM ts9,j ,-nu i
-e .
.s,o fI l g u :- .'.. ' -
- QN.*' _ _ _Q
,/ l
- y e ;
i u,I . p ' \,LT~ s .
=*
/.-m.--
i / N.',.9(//g,-7*_ __
y'P- ":".)94lb>
- ' ; _ -..,,, n.-
/ ' hq 1, dit t u' yl)' JC l/ '
'~ _ f<.- ;
m=% ~W"
(
( (,DWYN- ~ ,, ' ,, { K q~y..
% l '
.,,, ~ .: w - - ..g y fll.l l/le 1 i,fRf,'
I,9 d -
k
? %W-m }
2l%.72/gg%'/V
\_/-
%, c@
\ \
js ,/ x ma,/ ='~Im::* *='sm =,tb
.s* #
Il't?l
- * 'in fl%"I.11.
/ /\ \ -
@ x
.,4
'/ a I" E M D F M
- g \ #' -e,,, , -,,
/ s r/ r /
Figure 3: Portion of Maxey Flats Waste Disposal Site Showing ,
Location of Trenches. ,
\ i
l 1
1 1
4 n.. g . w + 1**1':. *'i*f?F.M* . '"*" T"' * " F"".. " :. ;~.
$"W ,".@i *y . r.r.;'.v: gqvy r*.y;s}u ;W* d r tu ?: + -:<:.inv .K *.'t... *. e i . s f . f.;. ,f+p'W p .. -
> w ..*@ 4' .J..; ..- w hgg
.s.. 9- , ; , .' .p t, ) ;,.>; .
an*
%(7.C .;y-a. ,c.y ..,y.c . .. qt s., .
~ *
- , :q&s vs s, . . . y.:;.,,.. .
."c., -g,- . .. ,.. * , . y.. f - C'
.. . r ? . * .'c;;;-
M . ,. ..; -.: , .
- ,,. ..'., ;, . i .; ,.,. ; . ., c.
..,,,,9.,..
. .y.
.i . -
t ,'r.a . . l,,5 y ,*g.h. ;;,. .' . ,.e s . r. ,f ~-,* p.l* * "'.,rh .
.. 7* ..
i . . . . .. .w. '. .. k,. ;.,. ;
.. ., e: . , . .e.s, . , , . \ ' :e'-l.b.
v . .
. ~ ,, . - .Q- i
~.
~ .. ..w . : 9:..v.e e .0:,e.s...a j
~.
- v. ... . ,l. s :.. u , . :, . ,. . , .
, 9. .; .
, ;ga h..: W. . ::. w, .7. ,V. .. .
. ... .r .,.
s
...,. ,y%. , ;. c. ,.u.. .c.,t;sc.,.w:.4.
. .a
.~
.. ..... . .. .. . . .s _ . .,J ~. e .,. . . . i . .
9 ;,1. Jl., . ' .: .s@,. ~. .'*.y . , . ...t.y!.M:. . . n.F J a.,._m
!a d_ . j,.r,9
.6p;f. :)3,n;.$.'8.s]sN.y. ( .g
..:...,.. . . .~;*
.>;.........m...
- . ;. . . . . n.. . .w...s
. .. . .w
- .. ..-n
- . . .e:.,",,
w_.......
~ c..
. ~ '
i
, ; ?, . . . ?; , . . .
,.4 w \, . .. , . m 1
- j
<.;< V ' :.u.N.. ;/.
... ../.:;. ? ,w/ . >.?.!.r,N ' !?w . NJ
, , *d ,f. . i
,'~.
--*'in n_ %. , ' , .. *,.f..' ',. .. .' . M: . v.'. .l.,?y.C. .:'Q
. . t 4 #..
- 3. ( . ,M , - k4 :
?., 3...
- '+' e.
y >, 1 0;,...f,. - y : ..c .!.'.70 5 3., cy' '.;jp N.. p, . g,.f,.; . 30. :..n.,h,T@;,
p s;,3 w , 3 ,.
,y...,,. .a .,g . ...P..g. . *..p
, '.'.M.;
. :. ;. '/.hl.;y 3 1
- f ' $:q$ h ,.....e '
-l W~ l, 'l. *. lW.* rk'
. ~y' y...*.- ?:h'-:
i] .
un
. ,, .o, s e.,
. . a.;e..:.v..:<i. ,v:s u.a own.5 . w th:.. ...;..g' .m .0.
e
'!.W .';l?..f).*h.')*. f.j;? q;:gy.y,.a.q:.. . . y . pll y <. :. ; Q ,'s
. y a -mn . r.-e .
.y. a2
?;Qh*l*
- 4. ... ; v),'.d d,,*:,*.E' e .t!.*
80
.c <. . e * ,1y <py'.li
- l , ~ . si . ~.
'i* g/*h iA-y ee . . U .- .:.
t.! f,;. ,.y, . , pa , , g, c. *.e .:';9.rt.. ,1..:' N.
- a.g. = g r0
.- .( O hy.ll;..ng.
y.%. . . .s.'. ., f.7 p
- E'.gf- :*t.'tf- m.'n N ' 9
. . u '*,y; o , , R . ..'c.", * ,L . d . ~.
?? e.s.l.' *,!m:!.'"c* . . ? "u,f. e,
. t c
. ~ . .
g
' n.=:.w.%*:f,.f lV wi .l}- .! . .= .w'w . ...Y'l,c.:'
.t ' ,C*
u-f'.'I'n ls.v , N *
,{.
- . v..
. ..:... 'h, n '.4 O
- . .+.>
, .J '? .V.,'
.d: ,,.,f.. *;;.
s.;; ..,1j;{; tyt**;%. f.3 . A> g 1
. .v-
- . . ..p
- %
c.
p,f . .* W.
?..,.;,.*..p,;g?p.
4
- .;*..a% ., _ g e, 3
+; .
4,. . p.. ,, ,g~ y 7 , ,j -;. .
-a ,
,; oy) a.,y . V,3-j_'y ..,4..,3cG.# ,.w 4.<
-.*u..
1,., .h8' E,N ",17y,I,.;h.n l U * . ' f am.e= Jh= =ie == .m. = = = *= == = = === = = = r===
^i / '. (. N It'. 's',f</ /.,Qt(UN ). 2, ' '" & {td' ' .* *,M = ~ * ' , .:= = = = * = = = = = = *A* ,. ';;tlr*. .f', p, h.*** U ,f,t to
- g< l'f gs.p:% f.I.%. Q..y.f.
Lo
, , , ' ,* . e //, N ( *.:./ , , ., .=,_,__. . - - - -
o
.n
,. . . -., , ; .- , , , . s.,. . ~ m v. . ',..., .,
J.p,j e 7, .s...
A*-* *"b ,' '
.,...,h.'* .kr. W .;6,f'.. v. .g")
. O-v f,yN e#.','[r/,M. a .$ y to IjS.f."'
pt /. ,;, 8d h** y(p',.',$,m' e,gl.
- p. *1*Q. . p <.p ., . .
%;S .nr*9
) ***
5 +- g.-{
{
V*! * *$' * *f. M*,. *,..,*J -N'M7.Se
'.,# p. E'. u .
q,
- I *. e g
. g. . y
'.re.,g (, 1i.
~.
= ;?;;?* - lQ f:,,*;!.sj q.g*e{ p'o y *
"'H.g. n3, .Nf K. } 7' I J ~.
' 3't l*l !f.M pllA.MM.*\. *< ?[.t .
g
@*;*.4 N y*u+s*:. ?.'%'gu H **' * - s
- ps , .
I \ l of. $, el f 4*'.:.f. .4 :* y
$O*hk'$k. ,hM.,,' , [, . h.m. ' ,= , T
.. .,c..v -M. .n. . .d.+ .3 , p'kih.5;I'kb',kh.
n .- -
- "n ~ . .
- . J
.y .... ,.:c,.;,,..
[E
- :'<?. 9%0.*
- t*at i. ! w*...( s f ',oa, f*to
,=,ea y .
- %i9
- l;3. ,3. qe u *, +l na.3.**. #- , f Q;;.
! ~. < j' g., .g ll. 1 W
.N f. [, *N ['l, h,*he( . ,,
- " " "E
[ .
L'
- j 4,,*e
. z.+g "k
.': .,-'. ' .c:. . . ..,'l.w: s un. A,, .e ' .. .:. , n' ~. .:.v..w(2 ?.y 3 .;h.q ,(#k'7**, y .c h, . .
+'
- p inx,p:: A %.
, . i, ,
.,' +. t ,, .9..
.i.:tqa..-M .. .s
'Y\
~ I es s} e
.Q ,,
tQ ) *
+ N gr . '.w.,,'y i
g l ',g,. .
ly,,;l s 4.j*
. (4o
., l
~..n,
. ,: :.'t.f. k"[.[w'.s.**lf,l,$gh.
p,. , * : . ~,
. ;y .s .+
. , . . .vum[*:3. w
. .s. t .n ?; a a
,. \
n..) ; 'e 'q ..;g*e n;.. o, -
. .pr .. . 'N..). \ j.
c.
m ..a-t 41.~;?.!r v,o,+,
.; &. .,fj;~;Q.g,o
,t,
- p. ':.Qf79='4.
v.:.
3 .y ,
l a *=*4 g ...s.vt A"., ,.
Q
= ,b.,b,#',.* W'p4 y* * .. e, - . . .a.e.,"* ,, b .
a
.4
- y .edd 'e, . t l O ,* *
- ./;,f . ,
y @ af N's. A*,,.'h *
- y,%. Y**h... ara W
I Gt g M, .. .
.t.F.... . m. .@,,ii t . @. /..N.Y, .#:U.
. '.E[;W ,.
-:3 y ,V a,y* T I X . 's/".h w.-. c.A, .
- - %.e,v . W...
a J'*5 f.'*[i$W M.yb.,.
m/* .L . . , . .r r,N.>g* '.
i' ?.
- m. .sM-(4 $# . 'F
y i80 %... g. .#.'a. 4 3.':.t' . N, g P'"e r
- p'de$.....,,'11;W.g@aE..iff /$pT 9.3 , Q.$3: /,w*,' .9.,;'.fA $ i*fh $ r 4.w*w.m$$r,NM.Or 4 : @' -
'L w
- 't e
r.k %w .s, me , .. w- 3 . m a a g
.* L,4 i c .. : 4 ,.. m e;.c r.: L@.< ~ g
- a y
. .f., "egL . ~.; *. .. n , ;u
.;m 9Qtti w. ,n w*yd.
H:D.g.M$ib~%p,%
w r qi ran>$.s.;~;>? r dg.w./w,,e;@.u.g:.,9,f.,it w ,
- s. M
. . . .. g n :
? W:~W.v;qg+yp@X.. .M.Q3:y.f
?, .e f,
i; m L m m' :.d
? ,, ,
.v*z.pt:. ,: k.GA. Nort p%,5 x l \m v m.: ; nu -t-m
,p{.M'*
, . . * ;..as , . n .. cp r,.*
1ye.*-:g*y ;f:'. L -
.- y. ,
E ; a ~*d'lh [,)h$d[7 - , MP.hv . $ kA*h.
f k a.m.~[]
n s nw, + v , :
a.N.I;bh [l: .ww~ g a. giUP{y>V!'y'c, V*W h ..yg#$ , %.e;w.;r,1; . ,rs j z P .- >g u
1, f. a ,q.o. 3a.bwjy4% ~. ;o . 4. :.v..usen.,.j
.,g s 6' e :
ber co . - ,.,.
- .' . ' ;3
.lW, !y;,y;
~i.
/A.q A, l y, WM %'if.% sij ^3 ;. 4G m. r -
- e .h Q
- 'a
- ,, gn.:..,s 0.0 Q... Q. Ad. * \ g. t+ l i:: M =
- 1.
,is.'. +.* ~ v , . ')' %'4. .:.2. T . ... sW.ijf
. &s'&,@ ,g :.t.J '. ?.;a* tE.Cb 3;4.Q N}f:h
~ .c. ; .
wF .
- b .
x a !.
.AleV. **m"i,.m#.We
- . c ..
., . . , . '.;< ..s
. r 'a.,.!
- ,: ".: , ,m. .s
,2.c s ., a,4, s. g *,g'9.41.; ;u .*
4 4m
- y. a m.,r' T ., >*+, a@. . *,/j _ .t 2f,-
a" . % $
. e i :; =
- 3 4 g, 4,-4,,.. 4 .
- y 4 , .. <%g
- M, ,*,s,&.
.i .n,'. . . .* l-
, :.1 e =* *G., .'t+%'~*. f** .4.e/ #s . g n *n).3%' *. m "a[m V. i .
y i, <e < ;.
5>;.'.' #~* [,1,T':[%; #
- ;M 4 ; $ I h-
- ,...m. .3 .,;, m b.- .f ...,,.eg L,:. ;gc,.,? ,.,4 '*, f. = '*d...o..q"n,,'/'
. p,.; @.f.r ,j/m.y ;."*;*g. .t,a .w& .j'7geigpfaD.~r?/.".tg y; .;r.y .e%, .%.p. ,,,',.;q . 3s..m,. ~ %. z.
~,-
. . d.J. .h. y,5 h (k . ., N'h .'; .3 ,
, eg.
9.. .
. , , ),
L _________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
,os
.i *',.*, .
. , ..: . p n.
1.w.
- s. . .. .
st -
"' *".. 2 .- - . . . ..~.. e.
F
~ '
_.t .s p og ,'.* =
5
*=
- l j.h ' T ) Q' + .% ,
s > a 9~
m .. -
a
... ..o
- . . _. e g'4 > / lt A"; <
, . 44 y Q 4
.2* y
, N .
f: { N l cp . ~. *;~.y.
v, q,,p,. c. .~. .... . . c ., . , ' .
\
e -
..' a. . . . . .g.. ) ; .
. i i
, s l 1
. ca pa. , Y-]4n .t ' a a, - * -j i i u
- e+ e.fD t- '.** . ;
- p. .Q" ~ .* .
l
. s,u . . , . <a v. .
. ~ ,
m j
f . .f '*4 ,; .% . ? i
- y. a :i
[ '. .
)j i /; i 'sm n' * ; .' . ..
- t. . ,.
p
- e. ?
- ( . ;,.,
1 g
. , . . . g. ,
. v. . - s.
t
- .. .s. , g.. ; .. , ' ~
m.+ .
.m v.... , . . . . . ,d, . . i .,
-m- ; . , . . -
,..........,,r..,
< . ~ .- .,
1g ci ejs.* s+ (< ..
, . c
.a I
u
- p. ;'.4,-
.g W. .' p.
a ' ' -
- s,,,,,,,.,g.m o
i j-o..
ce sq .- 4, , ; g- 8. , . r .
. . . e s , . r. Q..
6 ) 'Z .
't p . .yg.- .o-m e
? ' w,Q.
..;. * .s .. u
. ,, ,. , ta ,,. i .- n a ;w . ,%
- t+ ~-- ,
j a ._ _.~ y --- - - --
~
pa u n.
oE d, a. , s..;.. .+o(r..c .. n.'re;..~. : 1 r ,,.. . %. n ~:;/. -3 A..o. .
$e 1 , e.ws ,
t
! w .-
u
- r. '-
l/;,.f..3 % .r.c~ C.,.6.y . ; .t y. .e. . +;,gv -. %,- -n - t! , a ee u a.
.c .w, , .sv,y 4 -
! j mo n, 4_
fi,* W y,r'
,nm. cy4.,,M.,.s,h. . ,t, $.1 ; f. .o. , w- v, t. ;. .,: s,,s,,>*
4~,67,;
we* %',
.+ a <..s
.' .. ..* .*3,,
. , c.. . g, .g . .
3 o -
J l -
<o m n
e 9e/ c , .z lj , .
es , .
's: , g g 5 m ff. . *g' 'YJ '. } \ JO. )'*e k ,* **r* N, s,N+;MA*.,
[45 -*
- J,m, a, a V.* ; p. 6 *. ,g ,
c ,a. 4;;.
- sy p .. d , . , 1
.c ..e,
)4
- m e$.6 * , .4 e t * , .:
g.,3-@.4,' '*.f . w 47,%m . ,-. -
s i uo ac r.,c -#g,*f.We. .< m 6'f. < %p. 4 t;*49 , d
.>.]p.
, . .V . .pv.JJp f . . - .4 5 f u* . <
ar-
+...;, 3- , g i * . c * ,,.t.,,,. % q,* ' a. rn .
'l.t* l ,: f,; 7.,2 ' V'M*f,,$.A.e- ..?**f[i
.g ; . *.**o 1.+ ,
lq.!Q,s.u,.,eu a.%.'f-..j.
. o
,tgi 4 Q s. W(6 3** . %*:,W. sv l Oy
- s .
u . ml}f. ,v.c 4 -m,:,r,* y 4;lp,;Q. v(jrg;.,spsy*.m... a .mp.v.
i 3,
- f. ,:4 Ty r v. , Q y,;. e. ; x l l, ww
- v. m, . .2 g ..*.4 ,
Qt.
%,. .- Q. . . y ?. ., ^ -
s ,j. ..m a
- 'yxQ b % . c ',W tl
. .,.;i"~'.p/*..$.
+r ..
V e '.t*,d,.. A; g;'*J '
- , N *. q..- .ep k. g. r I ;
i 3
- p. .? .,. l* *m.u.., f C.. b tr;d A, J.?s.g M Q ;,,; T/yh..9g.p }- ( ,
s Ms* w,. d. .:-bFs ,*;:/ ,.
. , mr .. Q t , -
3 "L i
.i y9 - to
.. .m i.,3..m m, e, ,g ,,m, .a,,. c. W s
%, x, g +.,.'s,.,y.r . .Ar-*.- o .9 A. 4 4
? <
4 1
. . . ,.,... A. .,4.. #,... s*o 3 6 w ,a. "n'x s-4
.e I.e .y ,
-..,p...., e.
- ., .v en . .'. .r. .m ..a.. vr m- r w y.,
+-
'.. ,o,u i
r, :y . . . a. -
. y N, -
fp..y..*g?. .. ,y A
. . g. .
)
h 'y'd"$,b,,;(6; .g..n ... x,#.%w.9.
a> * .;&,
- . *1*,/'.k.'k 7.5(s'.$k h h f,
h5 hh ,* kk[ j
>.;.>o.,%4.s'
,i N' .$ .N<9,s, , ..
ym . w*P. a'j
- s ,/ n . ; -
..t w ,mu c.t.,. n'
- M*J;+*e4 V. m, , m. W
......,...s. .R .';:.: .ip.w, s.
. I L . c; L .. . . , . . . ,
,.4 y
- ..s-y L
. . .,,t.,+.,..2 g . . . >c.- 4 , . o. , e.e,m. ..:c. m. ,.. . ,_*.. .p. t .. .n. .e,4, 2 ..g*+,%.<.,,
l .
3b.. ",3 a. 2 g .* ...e . g : l ,%p..q- .. . < A 0. r ,bp ,, w ,1 .% .*. , , t, s.
q' ,.ae < , *.i .
- 4. 3 .' .+ " '
4 e
. ,4,*ja v - A. C.,a'e, p f *g -*g ,,e.,,;..y" I .e. . ,Ig* *+ <W" i, */
h.?.
q'*3. p **
. * < , ! q'l l
p'.#t " .
c)
W.. ; . 7. ,,,. -l.' ,. . , ...v.~ ,.IVm.y. Qa '".
8-
- r. h s *.* .,. , ?, f *. jy **d
- . s *g ..at.*' '
i - '
L.A
- wy - *.;[;e**.M. *-"
- s. R~ .
. y.,. . ,, ,
- s. .q 7..s <. -
. , ~f're-
. . . . ..: e e s. . *. s.,4.
- W4 ** .4 m ;a , p s
, 4,4 ,
3
, , . .. + r . .c.,,
e .,yy. ~. . .., ~J _- ' , ., ,c.- K;GW,J,.- %e. ; e }
v m p
,e g 3 . ;p *' '5; g.t . rg . .t .' ns(,s.'i7.,'.444 ..
p n
..e6,y,/) .4
) %, e, .,* *',',. . . .
y p p Q,* ,, < 7.,i e" *
- g ' a . Q,'*,. A ;'.,. ,s. A a 4s,,fiel g 4,r .&. A J,.
1
>'; %*,n .
- c y.
.v+ , 4 4 .*a g, 9,, ,r*.* g, 6.,#
g , ,e*' ., (4. !.
I
. c . -
- 9';* -. .. "
.; ,.*i 4 ,-
, . ,.*f*,* I
- ~ ' *
. a , d, ,. . .'. C,. . . ' . ;, g ,f,i' ' 3 ' %,
. i ; l *, , .', .***., , , *.y. ; *'. .* .. Ls ,s, ,., ,. *f.s* .* + ; f* *.o * .4 ,:* %';7 ea. ..w.',
- b. ..:t *". @ * 't . .. s . *3 ,
K'.
- 7 *'.}.t . '*; .' ',9,sQ
,y*;.;y'*, s. *** ;- l if . * ,0, % , .
- 4.
.-,t . g'
.. . t ,. . *. g ....-,.=*,*J- , ,
, i,*y49*, ..m ,,e.a*
.~.
+ ,eL e. .e a
!. e** + a,, , , , , . , * ,
..,r. 4,a .. as
. .AAyt3..,
, i%, a 4h 4 i
_____________U
s
.(
N
.t ACCESS TRENCH (actual) s i q
, i 1.
. I s ,. I
+ Barrels discovered here i
l*---TUNNEL (Proposed) security 4 fence g m ~~~ T . . . ~. * "+ trench E n N nts -
em l- o , ,
g, l 4-
}
I i -l i
) i g i i
, i . ,
, I \a !
l l l.
l l \* , j I ' -
g u 3 ;
1 g
u uvu m, mg "l ",s
+
4 . .
-d, .... . -
1 l L-
- 9 111213 15
- -i SCALE: I" 100' Figure 6: Facility Layout Nuclear Waste Trenches (North Section) at the NECO Site near Beatty, Nevada; Showing USGS Access Trench and Tunnel Complex.
l.
- G l 1. _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ .
a d 3 a 8 9 6 6 v 6 6 6 1 6 9 3 e 6 9 9 7 4 9 1 6 9
N 9 1 1 9 6 1 1 9 1 9 5 , 1 6
, 8 , 6 , 1 , 6 r 6 y f g , 6 r 9 r , y 9 e , 9 t oni r 9 e 1 e y , r 1 b y 1 t e 1 b b r t a m r a es b m ,
m a s u , e a ,
e to o , e e e u u r e t u y B al t y c n c n g b n p n l
. - DC c a e u e a u e u e a u e O M D J D J A F J S J J t '
i S
3 3 2 l 6 6 6 a 7 9 4 9 9 i 6 6 ~
8 9 9 1 5 6 1 1 5 r f g 6 9 8 6 6 6 6 9 6 u on 9 1 6 9 9 9 r
, 9 1 y
r
, 9 1
B i 1 9 1 1 1 1 s en , 1 e ,
r e r r t e , h , , , b , . a b ,
e a ac y c , . e . o e t u o y t e DO l r y c n c t n p n t l e l u a a e u e c u e a c u m c J M M D J D O J S. J O J a u r N ,
a .
P f o )
h ht c n t e n o de 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
e i if 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 r t W(
T c e
l S a
n h i t m r o o N N h) -
tt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ne 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 ef L(
e l '
b a
T -
)
ht te pe 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ef 6 6 6 6 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 D( -
~
h c
n e
r 1 2 3 5 T 8 9 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 2 1 6
- m
The remainder of this report discusses the measurements at
{
Maxey Flats, Kentucky and Beatty, Nevada and findings from the subsurface pulsed radar survey conducted under contract to the NRC.
VI. Field Operations VI.1 Field Operations at Maxey Flats, KY A rectili'near grid was established on the site with the grid spacing 10 meters apart. The radar antenna array was towed along selected grid lines at about 2 mph. As the center of the antenna array passed an intersection, the operator pressed a marker button. This recorded an index mark on the data and allowed precise correlation between the radar profile data and the grid intersections. Assuming that the van traveled at a constant speed between grid points, the radar data can be interpolated between the index marks.
Figure 7 shows the grid system at Maxey Flats. The radar I survey lines were offset by 1 meter from the grid lines in l order not to dislodge the grid markers. Approximately 4,000 l meters of data were taken. Table 3 lists the grid line and {
start and finish location of each line surveyed. Most of i the data were taken with an 80 MHz antenna; only one survey line across the trenches using the deep penetrating antenna was scanned before heavy rains forced the cancellation of additional drivings across the site.
VI.2 Field Operations at Beatty, NV A team of four scientists; two from the NRC and two from its technical contractor, Geo-Centers, proceeded to Beatty, Nevada to conduct the survey, with coordination from a rep- ,
resentative of the Department of Human Resources, State of '
Nevada, and with the coope' ration of the NECO management.*
The equipment, except for a special Geo-Centers' antenna, was made available to the NRC by the USGS from Denver. In fact, Dr. G. Olhoeft of that office participated in the pre-liminary measurements; and his designate, Mr. D. Nichols, remained on-site during the course of the survey.
Messrs. C. Jupiter and J. Thomas of the NRC; Messrs. R.
Beers and R. Morey of Geo-Centers; Mr. J. Vaden of Nevada; and Mr. S. Carpenter of NECO.
17
.I ~
,&, .w
-o , 4 s
'" , .j j
( (
1 4
- +
n_
g
> 0 %, ,
,/
f- % ,9, ,
's .;
. d, N .' ,/ \ \ / \
\ N100' M n15_o2._,.,_'; 6 00 N,2 sokp N300 N 5 W440-9 ' - - -
'v- /
'^I ' { *C
1 -
' l j<
/
! -(
1_ \/ \
,(
i
/
5 r
5l _
p),,E\
), '
j ). } ll / \ .
\..K .g_ll
, .-+- (.7, ..- z ,
y-p,2 s .
- t ,,- .._.,_
g i d I
' + M, :
li(400 3
/- 4 e .- ._ -
-4t 'i ,\ ' ' ls
_.t.-.
/il l
.i. .nI s., +
/ l \. l. a.+._.
4
. {l. l j
L_.
f J. 't mI Id.s
! I- J
); L .+ h.nj ' -
s
- n. pp.
, b, ,
w_ f -- l_. - . _ o _L.- l 1
_.J L__
\{ j_ l ,- i '.J_ -
! . Ld.' _I. 94.l._4. W _.{ - _ _ _.__1 1
b . . _l .. {'i 1 i
= ! ..I 5
i _. _
, _4_ -f
- b. .-+
, -b .
W350 -
-- ;;y .L.M _.- .AL'i_. J m: .F _.,r-_ i'
![ k
.'d'b _U
--xq_.,[p 4., b h. ,..)_4.. ' ' ~& ~ *~ ~I~ ' W~
x' .; i p_ AU __L_ b. :. f. . .
~~
k weI rgM,f.g, j_ M r ~e+ w--j--I N, m
t J
_ . - r
' #^21~~
4 dg' . -M,__%.Q,,'b.w I" > i jj j
kg _ t. j . . Il i
a - l\l y ;
u - . .
3
.* 3 .y[ -y. ;+.
wb [ ip L' g .j *3.- _L;
_e i rva s ,.?p, ,5. th==
- xI .
L.4,4__.w . w%*
. '- 4 i
n_.,. ._ f l_ !
F j i i t 1 l O ,;.
.n__. at__
30 h _LtJ _! \_./,xJ,.. tv !
- r. i : ,,
4.x[ ; C ;
.) t i !l l t/ j
% "ll
,1L u{
1 l l /{ i \1A- [ .;_ ;-_.4 4.,___;
i
_L. c-- 1_.]-. : e: i 4 r/ J L.,
}
_ . .x ,
8 '
- - *la %+ ;
f
- k d- -
mnnv, i w?m x
\
n,'w:' m m l - t i
3 j y :
4 *--"T-p -r-+-- +- TM>
k-
+r+ !
-'lL '-/] ; --+ q j: !I -) .I b bt' d, p L-t - r -i - ..f- Y l---'- i; I
l W2 5'Qd-h,ll I f I / i 1
fr f
- - rt: 7 -L4yl k l: l^ : I i 12 . i
\ i# l i 1
\g T pd ~y 3
!' - I.
s
' f . p], l-((A,M 7- vh - e- .\ !-t' ,Y.d7--- L} db-y %d.h.'- . --
,- r i ta y .+---+ -F_. L_-4
! i m.g- f 4 , ! .\l I
- ivpp i 1 ..
l . , u_a 1
, g-. T; a i i
- -- +1 . t.w . u i,
- j"1
. o
. ..a _ _ . .u._.._y rrv _ _ h I. l i _ .I 3 . .i 4 2 YC%._u;b,-. D'C-. %- p'r'_- m'p"i E t-- ,
-qqo 7, ; p'I'i- D, I, N, ry r-I I 1 w 2 0'c 'm. ,- ,
I'i ^! , ,
'u*~ 5m .l ; r, t-Q r1 - ,. ; "- L -! l
/ .-,1-,I l: vw-i ix . .A.. , < l i l 4 1 / f s ! ! - .
31 g,1 ,%M .-+_ _.i co!! ; +-+-+_-L_._(,y,m@1+t .1~__--_'.,_+__.i__T 1 ;
- . > t i
- J . u +w,,i _ ,_
s
!. ,' l N1. . I :
1.q.__.,
/ip!</
II <}
a / f. k -b _.a I l ! l k [~_.n!'[wl -t s
,,.. !- l i
l , f\ . , -
l "g l f 9 b ,_n!h I /yl I /
I
.f-t i [\ ! I
, , l7 h I !,Y l ;Il {
- w -Qp\ . . --._ .t-.p. ., ,
f'.'
.,e
-734 > p{+-._!
i
<[ -j-- ~.- 7u --yv ;
is r s i ! , p l s'
- -+ { -p ,
H-I 1 ;
m" +- -
^ l . - + d"r--
'i t a V
-q'v.fi -/! !- I: -i- i i+ . . 4.--,I._,w/ li I i wiso -
,s% i vi . 4 _., 4
!. i r 1
' / -I , + !' . 5 t
~ A t.-+ * :l NO .- em r.=1 /!
i s 4.+- - -
s ;
p ,. e s. .t .g .. n;. 34; i j ;, i., i' l
- t._
- .a w g l . l ' li
,J'._2.,d.
dd, _ __._. 4j __ _)4]I
_ w 1
")$,1_ g,g '
r . 8 t. j u.
4)j, .__j J
l;\ . I.) l i ' l / i 'l s.'
' f I
! l: ' '; I ;
t 'N;
} j. j- J(' r. t S it .. _.4_ i t .- t
- 2__;u.2.__;__
i t t 4.j ,.L' ig j! 4__ L. j. 'f' }
i
' ~ -
x1 k 'F/ i -+ l l h( .:;e
'/ :t:-r i l2:1.;- ! i -
h , t
! 'i
-tc=c r-i:
I ?
t-- t I ! ! l
+--+--
p/w1oo s
._ ,a
$, ? g, r.=. :s =m/ .y -
N
,,/ s\
s
- - e a-.i h' -.a_ J i
. /-h_if l c a, m_ia.n.
j ,
'N\,p/ -
s
/ + mmrv ir.n \
\
1
/x x #
g/ ' ' u . ru.t i o-
\ p/
7.~rG:&m /r.s g, s
%..p
/ ,.
,9 x, f, - .A ,
v.
s
, / Figure 7: Maxey Flats Grid System.
1 I
r
/
s , I, / -W A @
s l
+
,c n d #
,.+ '(
i I f
\'i
'i
) . _ _ _
I i _.
4 Table 3, Radar Survey Locations.
(in order of acquisition)
Grid Line Start Finish Grid Line Start, Finish-W439 N090- N290 N231 W330 W430' W429. N090 N290 N221. W330- W430-N211
~
W419 N090 N290 W330' W430 W409 N090 N290 Road,N080 W330 W210 W399 N090 N290 N148 W200 W150 W389 N090 N290 ~ N142 N200 W150 W379 .N090 N290 Diagonal N284 W198,N358 W108 W369 N090 N290 W269 ,
N220 N170 W359 N090 N290 W299 -N280 N190 W349 N090 N280 N211 W210 W430 W339 N090' N280 N181 W210 W430 W329 '
N090 N280 15.MHz Antennae N281 W330 W440 W383 N290 N100 N271 W330 W,430 N261 W330 W430 N251 W340 W430 N241 W340 W430 1
4 19 ,
u_ _ _____ _ _ _____ _ _ ____ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ - - - - -
The area to be surveyed was established by the consensus of the on-site officials from the State of Nevada, NRC, USGS, and NECO using information contained in-aerial photographs and plant records. Of primary importance was a detailed mapping of the logical extension of all the older trenches (where the misplaced material was discovered). Of next importance was the area parallel " the older trenches and outside the fence. Lastly, it was deemed worthwhile to perform a complete perimeter scan of the nuclear portion of the Beatty site. Figure 5 shows an aerial view of this nuclear section with the survev lines superimposed. Figure 8 shows an expanded view of the area where the measurements were concentrated.
The nuclear waste area boundary as shown in Figure 5 was mapped using a GSSI 80 MHz antenna with an estimated penetra-tion depth of 5-10 meters. That area within the temporarily erected fence and over the trenches themselves was surveyed as above and re-surveyed using the Geo-Centers experimental antenna with penetration depths in excess of 10 meters.
A grid system was established by NECO personnel by driving stakes into the ground on ten foot centers throughout the region of concern. In peripheral areas, a coarser system on thirty foot and then one hundred foot centers was estab-lished. As the antenna passed over these respective markers, the data tape was indexed. Further indexing was done by referencing the data to permanent markers such ar the trench markers and fence posts. Based upon this grid system, the coordinate data are accurate to a few feet.
The coordinate system is shown in Figure 8 and is defined I as follows:
- 1) The fence line at the north end of the old burial site is labelled line "0".
- 2) Lines to the south of this reference, i.e., within the burial area, are sequentially labelled "-1" and "-2" at approximately 15 and 25 feet, respec-tively, from the "0" line.
1
- 3) Lines to the north are sequentially numbered 1,2, ;
3,'etc. at 5, 15, 25 feet, e'tc . from the "0" line.
- 4) The east end of the survey area was bounded by a temporary fence assigned as grid position "0".
Successive grid markers from east to west are labelled 1,2,3, etc. endino at 48 where the western end of the secondarv fence was encountered A typical data line would be identi-fied by line number "X" with grid marks superimposed from 1 through 46 as the antenna passed a set of stakes. Grid
---_----_-------M
l i
= A p _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ x _ _ x ._ _ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ x_ x_ _ _ _ _
~
l l !
l l
I
=
i l l l =
l
~
l
- x 7x7x , _ x-x , x-x g-x-x-x , x x- , x x _x, x x 8 9 11 12 33 IS 3 3 !
l l g , , j 46 46 40 SS 30 25 )
2 LEGEND f f 10 FT. MARKERS , i= 46
- === _ e TEMPORARY FENCE
- X =
- PRIM ARY FENCE }
X e FENCE POST S
- MONMNTS (TRENCH MARKER $)
)
llllllll
- EXCAVATED AREA
[ s EXCAVATED AREA, LATER BACKFILLED 4 i
j e
%W ~T:y
I SURVEY l LINE i t -
. - - - 7
!,! ! l-s -:
s' t /
~~~*~~~*~~~'~~X~~~~*~~~~X~~~*~~~X~~~"~*~~*~~~*~
"~ ~t)'v///////////////n T/)/)77)/27)72)?)*~N s
- V/HH////////Hs' _,,
////////////d/A ,y, V//////////////
- 4y
.S 2
1 X
e X X
,X-X X -X E"~ X -~~'X - X ~5- X X-X X-X X-X-X-O E 1 6 I I i l i i I l 20 15 ; 10 $ 4 5 2 1
-1 i
-2 l
Primarf fence represent' the northern most boundary of the nuclear section of the Beatty Waste Storage Site. l I
Numbered monuments indicating the northern ends of the burial trenches are shown Survey lines (-2 & -1) scanned northern ends of the trenches.
Survey lines (+1 through +7) scanned the ht,spect area to the north of the trenches. i l I Short survey lines (5N through 48) scanned the backfilled excavation area where the USGS discovered waste contajners.
The temporary fence was erected by NECO af ter the USGS discovery to ' APERTURE enclose the suspect area.
) i Also Available On Aperture Card Figure 8: Detailed Survey Grid of the Area to the North of the Old Nuclear Burial Area - Beatty, Nevada (solid lines with arrows represent actual survey lines).
-214 Oh_
r r --
3707M 09/9
l markers "0" and "48" are coincident with the fences and I could not be recorded; and the length of the truck usually precluded recording "47". Other " missing data are attribu-table to inaccessible terrain, e.g., the USGS excavations.
After completion of the radar measurements, a crew from REECO, Inc. conducced a land survey to permanently define locations i relative to fixed markers.
VII. Data Analaysis Techniques l
All radar data are displayed in real time on a compressed scale by the electrostatic recorder (Figure 2) to validate ;
)
system performance. After completion of the survey, the magnetic tape da'a are played back and new electrostatic l records in full .; ale are generated to permit visual analy- ;
sis. Currently, no software exists to permit automated data i processing, phase analysis, background subtraction, noise removal or signal filtering. These shortcomings are dis-cussed in Chapter 9 (Conclusions and Recommendations) . ;
Nonetheless, trained scientists can visually analyze the i data and extract qualitative and quantitative information. I Data records from parallel survey lines are displayed side by side to permit the visual correlation of data. Since the " field of view" of the radar allows some overlap between closely spaced, parallel survey lines, i.e., less than 3 {
l meters, such correlation aids in removing ambiguities in '
designating an anomaly. It also permits the quantitative determination of the size of an extended object, e.g., a large rock or geological formation.
A typical data record is shown in Figure 9. The horizontal axis represents lateral displacement, the vertical axis rep-resents depth, and the intensity of the display is in pro-portion to the intensity of the reflected signal, black representing most intense. Horizontal calibration is estab-t lished by the superposing of index marks on the data record at regularly spaced intervals along the ground.
Vertical calibration is established by the independent measurement of the velocity of propagation of the EM signal in the native soil. Since the measured parameter in the radar system is the time interval between transmission and reception of the EM pulse, the velocity is used to translate time to depth. The intensity is uncalibrated, but is adjust-ed to give a good range of contrast for the particular conditions.
VII.1 Analysis of Data from Maxey Flats The Maxey Flats survey was a field proof-test designed to 23
" msg Wtv u. s t , 1
_D _; ' ,Na
~
, e a 0 e
\ ,A r
. " :
- i
', p .. 7 1
_E ' 8
. J N 9 dl h 5
$ , f n . hR cT
_@2.
- n ' s. . . i 0 8
e 1_ r ' i_ s -
1 N
_ -9 _
T _
r ' . .
$ _ e h y
. k ' k a r c
_M gP -
e er - a 0. , 0 u
_l- '
g=TW g
dA i ' M d
i s
9 1
N t
n e
d K r
_E= -'yT\. ke l '
l .
b . ..
g- i ' , 'p s s - r =
O I -
u a
[a- O t u t 2 a
E I f s I N l
,id F N: -*
M
{. '-
y U
n r
4
, , i: I
- . . .. y e
s 1 r t k' x
- _m '.- .
s d
' , 8 t
n.
0 1
2 M
a E- y .' .,.O. '..
f '
g I - ' N. ,
.M-
=
i l .
- - 9
_I -
- v )
k -
.. f .
6 I
0 2 In 8 i
e , ' a '
e,,.
2 W 2 )
_La "n_ ',-
it '.>.
,. N s r e
_ #,. l .. e n S ,
y ' e ' .1 t i
~y 0 e L f"l e
^~ " a i, 3 m m
4 '
e
'. . f, , 2 (
m o N
. a-;...?.. ..-.- e o n c r
. A n f
'bb I
s ' l
. a
-I I
- t s d
- pp
.E g
' . 0 D i r l I
' - ,- ' i ' o g- ,
5 s a 3.pu^
4 2 l c e
_E ws. N a t R N-
- l. "n n o
k..y. a yps 1
z
. g, 1
.7' = I i
r t
a '
(
G o
a D
F_
yy ' . -
~
. 0 H
- : a ' ,- '" i '. 1 5 t,
s
{. I 2 l a a. '
- . N a g ,
ft 1
- + - yW i1i- -
g,,
- , y - c
' gj 7; m.0 .
i p
g . -
- p Q _ ,
- E y I
- w. h {l 1
T p,. Y* . 0 t l q ll g%t'fg. C a i. 6 :
-5 a I h , ' 2 a h .
5 N 9 e
y'V *
.t l .
1' l .
. r l .
u
.4 g
+ I
_ t . ,. ..
0 i
. . 7 F
. b' . .y af , i 5
. lte
, ' e
. 2 N
d . _i * .
l t
?_
3
_ h
{
) .. i f , t l-1.*:
t, at
. -)5 ..
t .
M
. s_ g y e3 t
L'.'-
- 2N.,,.
0 1 -
}' -
T*.g.?
t .
l, t
0 Td a 2
N
. ,57 i'Q.'t
~**-p_ '~
y .
a e
evaluate the usefulness of the ground penetrating radar for locating and identifying subsurface anomalies. Therefore, arrangements were made with the site contractor, Dames and Moore, to collect ground truth data at the location of anomalies as designated by the radar survey. At those loca-tions where no radioactive materials were believed to be.
involved, probing techniques, such as a metal bar or posthole digger,.were used to identify the anomaly. If the presence of radioactive materials was suspected, surface radioactivity measurements (Chapter II.5) were made for possible correla-tion; the comparisons are discussed below.
VII.2 Analysis of Data from Beatty, NV The Beatty' survey was more of a field application than a
! proof test; the emphasis was, therefore, on producing the-l best map possible of probable disturbed areas without the benefit of independent ground truth. The. suspect areas were surveyed in greater detail (3 meter line spacing as opposed' to 10 meter at Maxey Flats); and the critical areas surveyed l
with two antennas; a high resolution and a deep. penetrating model. Other subsurface techniques were utilized including seismic, metal detection, resistivity'and radioactive. No data from these measurements were available'at the'end of the radar survey for immediate comparison.
VIII. Discussion of Results VIII.1 Results from Maxey Flats, Ky The results from the Maxey Flats proof test are best summar-ized by the discussion of the data records showing strong anomalies, and the comparison of these. findings with the available ground truth data. Specifically, Figure 10 shows data from lines W339 and W349 near trench No. 27. The target of interest extends from N088 to N097. Ground truth probing identified the target as a very large, continuous piece of sandstone at a depth of one meter. The sandstone block is at least 8 meters by 10 meters in size and is located in the southern end of trench No. 27. .
Figure 11 shows an example of three' waste containers at a depth of 2-2 meters on line 281 at W423, W427 and W428.
Surface radiation measurements confirmed the existence of elevated readings at these locations, i.e. , 'the northern end j of trench No. 35. .
~ '
Figure 9 (the general' example shown earlier) shows a l collapsed section of trench at.N230 and W269 which was later -
l refilled with a porous material. The original clay cap has 25
N090 N100 N110 .
n_ y.m-,.--,,
pVemGXs;s@%#@ueGK4%.:2.s:.pyjb%2kw:<masw.x,i,4s.nq
. ..._. _u--.--
1
.fr y_,www . ~m
)
- 6 cr MN ' SN df
-45
-g '
14M%y- . ,'. , ,,
, t n
4 -" . -
s
- 14.-, g;.
ri"-
I g-
. . . :. '3.y.
- e i q.y 4_,ghh' L.
i 4,:.hE ' if
.{.jyjg .
t, i
( .1 ' , . ! 8 4
~ lL. ' ' 1 W~
- a. --
.y .
~ m. . .- ,- - .J
. --- ' m o_ S. . ,__-
eib@ Mitn e M -- d. W_._WM_NWW*%94We'<tPM"@"+*'t
/,2 - @ti twas
- y. . l .ggypy z.g .
- ) ,
a $f l t 4 1
^ 1 4 1 2- N
i e .
'#4k%ph ,
- . t i
3 i .a 6,,.
j ;. . p. 1 ,
4_. , 4 ..
,,; . 1 7'
- 9" pip % %
e
- . Gjk ;"y
[ 'Line W349* ;# ~
l j ., .
{--- . -. - . - . ...
l . . -.' .
Figure 10: Radar Profile of a Sandstone Block in Trench No. 27, Maxey Flats, Kentucky.
F
'Q.
O -
j f3
> 6 L
y
- M r
p '-- 7g .ww +.. -
.) ,/ . g g . . , q '.*
4%
- h. ., '_
gp p % -,
-eg^*
' .M %j ..g...
b*
6,'
o N ' k.<.-
cp 9;
- I,$? M -
'_? .. .- w - ,,. g
%#-* /
W 4 . < y. ' ' '
.c:
u
~
e ,;& :[. .
.3 3> ,
oy ,v . . 'g q,; .,o.
e a. . .
i, g
^
O 3, E . ,ME I . 2e . d 'h , -- - y
,k 1[ -j l. ~'
l I
e TW Q._ _. .
_, ,3f
,b
" Y w sR$yt. . .
., w
.. [
m- .a ;
q p;
3, u. .. c . . .p., .%
~
.. .o lv @ in .
- 4. ; J' b.. '. . m ei; y;p ;.Qg m g; '
. . .g. ~ .
m >: .? ; 4 ;, , n se., ; ,G: w m ..
DIN ;p, .
W y
spa yl
,N' M' j'.d e*" r Cf..' - 3,
,,iANi.. *)
e
'"a '
"ve .'~ )
s ". *C j'gR, _ _ r ? ' ; .6y .*
~ ~'
1' 8 Q4 - $ :
y.
, j
-y7' PA. . -W W
.g -
l ',g
'[ l 1, c.mr p ,,,.. Th w - 3
.(.
- y
' w.;Gdf ,i.:g.- j ~.
i
.c>E * ,
O l
., [#
f _
'} ' ': - J'
'0Wi4 f , @ j
.),y 'L. E f, a f
v
.n
- A:h$M&s, '
R,M y-
!- n.; '
'q - p g . g z- q:ctc'.u? ,. . e.nf w - a. -2,a j- 1:p E4 d?gi$ ?' ,' O - @ )
ti M :_
' V-
..N f "T)$1fT y;pejl}/ .
4 ~., - @& --
.a n
- s. J'r' . 5 e.i
- s w A y o
,- 7,$ C - N A % g. .+ ;~p - A u
u
& :L
. g-gy . 6 Ktac +
Q. ' ~ . .
"Mi --d q
_c-w f'
- w n. . w.gc c., .4 -. . , 4. ; .: -. a. e., s. g .. .
,I ; "?. . s.
o
- -- r. .- .- 4 .g.
.., ~ .
+
q>
/ -s: ,3 s==
,94 m. ,.w- . _ yg,.g.g . . , .,.y4; ,
,q 4.-
c, s y v +- , + . a - y- . , -
a
. ..g_p w < "
L.
-q.'; *sv. -
. m: - .
w ' .a*
.. ,,, ex-s d?t: .,,
1
? wg,
%.. . $: g. +-
j)y e.. ' '
"<m
~p' ,,f . g
' ? .m y g p,- sk... .
-w
. , , .. ? m q> 1:wq,
. i , y ,, 4 .a
- m. g A *- , ,1,. ! e
'Y.
._ . O.fdi M
' .W. ver. ms s
" e4 t
L. y:
' .. x<. ~ 4; .g
, --"n- - r =.:
y~s+ -:
s 2
~.-@MlY.R*
.,1..
K g, .
' ..n
,p, 1 - , -+~ h n ,o. %-eth. v : p+ * * - *, ,e
~ ~
- sg.s %~
s' *
- e
.i.W i H C 9 W ^ +
n
' ,& -n ka4, kw W , . ,.;,.;;Q%p AU la* a s- . .%
i, 2 '
p Aj Qy -
- @i.Wit. fG5g'~ , j- p j f i
- 1. -7 o
4,..
l %pg. J- 9.W A,:Mm i ci ~-
.- .. I n . ..J,#7'-' *,* 3 cn
~ $; ' .M;
,f p.'M.E.
..- f,i y- - fRW @+. , [. i+
%m,::. . . .w-. %g j
- , *C
, .; g. y .
y: ,ijf '.J.
[' iLDW ^'. i_ "
o{# . T,
.o y$.
j yc Y'" }yg 3 4i..$ . s . m.
1 i.
. r
~ ~ ~
O.dtfy Y- ln p! .! $.Fs,.ya o : .CJ;$'r .a. - C ,
. , . . . wa.:a au.u.. :- . . .
m+ .. M...
I N w o w Depth (Meters)
formed a non-porous lining which has trapped water (perched j water). {
Figure 12 shows an example of strongly attenuating moist clay; this attenuation severely limits the depth of penetra- j tion and gives rise to very weak return signals. Very little reflected energy is reaching the receiver, hence the apparent absence of data.,
- Table IV summarizes the comparisons .between anomalies located by the radar system and the results of the subsequent ground truth measurements.
All results discussed above were derived from data collected from a commercial GSSI 80 MHz antenna, which combines high resolution with intermediate penetration depth. Also, slated for evaluation was a low resolution, deep penetrating antenna specially designed and built by Geo-Centers for waste manage- [
ment applications. While the adverse weather precluded a complete survey with this antenna, one scan line across trenches was driven; the results are shown in Figure 13.
The data are noisy and exhibit little detail; however, the outlines of the trenches, including their bottoms, are dis-cernible. Penetration depths in excess of 20 feet under very moist soil conditions was achieved.
Because of the noise and the poor visual quality of the data, automated data processing techniques, which will permit fil-tering and enhancement, will ultimately be needed if such low frequency, deep penetrating antennas are to.be used.
These recommendations are discussed later in this report.
VI.Ts 3 Dicq1ssion of Results from Beatty, NV Figure 14 shows a portion of a data record taken inside the primary fence (line "-1") over the lesignated locations of trenches numbers 3, 15, 13 and 12. While in their unpro-cessed form these data may appear difficult to interpret, some features are apparent:
- 1) There is a general region of disturbance in the !
vicinity of the designated location of. trench -
l No.3. The disturbance is approximately 40' wide, l begins directly beneath the surface and exhibits I smaller anomalies at depths greater than 4'. The center line of this region is displaced approx-imately 10' from the trench marker. Referring to the site records (Table 2), trench No. 3 is approximately 40' wide and 20' deep. The radar '
data appear to resolve the sides of the trench and objects buried within it, but do not resolve the bo.ttom.
28
d e k " d o u l n d5 n m b ) u n1 a d a ) n h a - s u e b nw wo c s" m s o 0 e n o h r od n e r1 g d o ol t p d o s s n o r e i l i p ' i t t o f a t t o e , ' t e e t l ol a a f s d t 21 a g g s e r m o e (( i s r r d vh y u r d " w d t t a a n at r t o S t e 2 ee a e s t t a rpe a f T et 4 y nn r g i s" gev s n L ea r oo r " o o o ,8- d i U f r t e t t 'e a 7 m n n h ,
h S u a v ss c t 1 y
y" t ay t h E 3t dd a , ,
a6i a i t R a k ,
nn f o t r l l l wtl w u d s cl l aa r n a e i i cf ac r I n oaa ss u v o o oy y t D ad rii s , t s s d as a U i rr ss y e , nhl pr l d R 2 u ree uu s a g d d d at cia c n T q ot t oo u l r u e e p h u ni aa uu o c a m t t l ed cl d o D el t mm nn l t c c id e i e r N e e ii a t e a a o reok r G U wh gt t t t m s k s p p saensc e O t c rff nn o i c o m m p yopo y R eu aoo oo n o o o o o ot at ol a a G B m TSS CC A M R L C C TaL stb L t
a d d e d - nl -
h ef ab f ) s s s s s s ) s t si i ecs t t t t t t k t u pd )h s ril e e e e e e c e r a t t s ego y l e g g g g g g o g t .
l h l tl r r r r r r r l r e l t wnp a nar a a a a a a b a d r oi e( m) et a t) ) t t) t) t) t) t) no cw ,r ok d eb y k y y y y y e y uo oM
)
N
( l tl nc ao nm e oa coaoaoa oaoa n oa r O eei d asa) nd e
pmt nl onl nl nl nl nl o nl gd I rl rngu eb l
eos ,cl ab l
,c ,c ,c ,c ,clast ,c n LT ul eiim g d ra l en l el el e l el end l e d a AA ti t s - re nf w ( avgeavavav avavgn av n NT af an n an i niinninini n i n ii a ni as GE eemofi l o s gt sogt gt gt gt gt ss gt e I R f r i o t ,
ns i c ti cicic i cic i c rm aa S P R r ,tt t gs got sugssus usu susuge su nah c nd nic d nd d d d d d ng d dD RE oaeit e on ot e k nonk nk nk n k nk nor k n a AT j e r r pj ra rcj aoraaoaoao aoaora ao r: DN areaeb tS t eb ect sececec ecectl ec r AI MafVd o S( Sl o W( S(W(W( W( W(W( S( W(
mo R(
ot rc f a r E st C t n N l o EE e e e e uc RR 9 999 00 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 n n n n s UE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o o o ee GF - n n n n rt I E i FR d d f s o o o y R R nb 1 6 6 o B sd U
'n n n , o n n i e R o e e e e rd T ooo i i l l l l ai pv iii t t o o lo o DD t t t a a l l l mo NO ,
aaa v v l l l l or UI iii a a t t t t C p OD d 'd d d, dd ddd c d c d d s s s s RE o ooo oo aaa x o x o o o o o o 4
GM R RRR RR RRR E R E R R P P P P 9 999 89 378 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E 6 666 34 222 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 L 2 22 2 33 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 B
A W ,
WWW, , ,
WW , ,
WWW ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
W ,
T 0 235 34 1 1 1 8 2 6 7 0 4 8 3 5 3 777 99 88 6 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 6 2 22 2 00 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 N NNN NN NNN N N N N N N N N N N
O s S S S I l 1 1 1 77 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 0 T I 222 22 333 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 A
C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O r rrr rr rrr r r r r r r r r r L T TTT TT TTT T T T T T T T T T gw
0,.......~ hk.
.. Q N '[i '; . . 'S '
.. n-
" /' U-' .F
. t 93 3
- 4
, ,:. .. . .. ..., ;. y w,s.se n ., . .+ ,q> w. .:H~ .%em :. '.r.W u +,.p +.@%ik ~ G s '.. . u. . ,.
- Q Y 1C .' .(,k I hkj[k .hh ,y hk
! k' ;r.pl $ {, if -j! '. ! '; .,
! i)l g g' gg h._. , g ' h, . ($ -
2- i u " > ,
. , . - . . + . , . . ...
,7.. j._.,.--.._.. ,, ,3 4 -; . ;5;
- ' f a,
? A
, ' 'l:,: ,
~
N'j
'Line'W419 ] .[ i 130 N140 N150. .N160 jd.]$?I555^E$W?!?W?SiEMUS?fBMEWMHMTMMTEDN?CG5.3 0 y ,., c emraw;- a:, ~ , , -., ; - ,, , e . , .n: -,n.r. :mmnneren
.,,, y - ...-,, - - .. - - - - u, w - ;- wi i
)
d 'I hk f pt j i
- p;
.q.. e,.. xa, - -,. .
su m . . -m
< ., n .re , 3 $ .. n -
'l 4~ h , ;_ :*~gg . ._ _
g ' .'.h
~
A '
'h?ent? %
t
.l l ~l
' ' [Line W409 '- u N130 N140 N150 N160 Figure 12: Radar Profile Showing "No-Target" and " Target" Areas.
ll!l .
0 N _
t _
~;m
$ d n
j a i e 5 n i
l I. ~
t u
f O
e
- i. h t
g n _
i _
f w _
[l o _
- h l,
S kj a n _
n .
ey _
tk _
I nc _
Au _
t _.
l n _
ae tK g n e ,
ms it ra _
el f
pF x _
, E y _
e _
yx k ca nM e
ut qe e
rs li Fe _
h .
wc on _
L e j r mT o
re f e r
d I eh l T i
ff
{g oo r
}
$ P s
$ m
{p i
ro at f}' dt -
ao RB
. 3 1
yg e
- r u
g i
k ig F i
j b
fI e
e n 2
.i -
i h
tP gd e4 "w $}
f -
l r
'4 x
y i
n o
- h f. t i I t a
3,
?.#
..l .
'- c o
' s, l
lM -
- e. /
i l 2
L e
4R
'o . .
4 1 h
% m "M
I #
f t
, k, _ h t
-E
- ~ c a .
- n 3 e
- i. TI
'E
- f. 8 8
I r
T)d e
s s1 e
ch nc an
?. 'E y~
h 9 ;
(
hI. 1 m l4 1
l a
3
- i o
p r
b e t
rr uT sn h ep Y w .'
- g I ii m
cn S u D e t r , gn
- . _m. .G Q,'
f_
9
- i
?. n !
b l
i T l s
a v
ne id wi g
f I
a' r e
ov h e
- ,M;g p t S
=
n s h
- I
,i 3Q
- y7 ,g bY I-
..t' I
j
- I t f
1 t
c
~
..~ - 5 0 V g'{l ee
. 1
'. 1 nj
.a. p=
- t ib
. hNhI i
I a Lo
- h W
c s
'B
,- - ,c n r e e ei f'p n i
s i r k r cl g*T i
a nl I
.d h lg M ea
=-
h# M
- s
., e Ft e
u
, c
- .m 4
eM 1
n
-g.. . w. 'M 2 -, t a
s d
i p
' 4 s .
I w1 r
L
(
i D n2 I 1 x.
li.
- 9 ? ,
t.-- = {I M2 p g .
tt
. ?- i e
c n
a an t a
,d hg l .
p t ls ' , . , 3.
% a i.
.. s
- i D , _
D 3
-g I i 6 g+ .
I. f 4
l i
3
- l t
a n1 o
i ,
h
'g 4c n t3
!- n o c
': M m, z
1 q (i e i es g i ,
l r ro l e fh bt -
f.
d
=_
s#19CS r -
},
}
- N 'i T 0
1 I
H ec Rn rr e
i%-
f 1
. l aT
,W ,
v L.. d af T,
i I
r e .
n i ' 'l Ro -
$E a 4
l#'M -
- 1 n p g w ;l B- D' t
e r -
g i ,
3 u
m g
\-
.c
~
I B .
'{ l g@ .
d F
i
!9 = 2
0
- 2) There are no indications of any signals in the area around trench No. 15.
- 3) In the designated location of trench No. 13 are 1 very strong return signals from two or.more ob-jects, judged to be metallic, at a depth of approximately 5'; the width of disturbance is approximately 5'. Again referring to Table 1, j trench No. 13 is reported as being 6' deep and '
4' wide.
I
- 4) In the vicinity of the designated location of )
trench No. 12, there are no indicators of buried I debris, but there does appear to be a disturbance j from the side of the trench. While difficult to l resolve, the radar data suggest that tue trench )
has sloping sides with a width of 5'-10'. The l records (Table 2) show a trench having a depth i of 6' and a width of 4'.
Figure 15 shows a portion of a data record from a scan over the backfilled excavation in which the USGS discovered the waste barrels outside the burial site fence. Unlike the -
record discussed above, the only anomaly or disturbance is
! from the isolated barrels. The properties of the host soil l exhibit continuous features, i.e., a constant background; against which anomalies are readily detected.
. 1 With these characterized signatures on record, the remaining i
data were visually examined for similar features. Further, since the line spacing between adjacent scan lines was only 10 feet, the field of view of the radar generated overlapping records that permitted data correlation. While all data, both from inside and outside the fence were examined, parti-cular attention was paid to records to the north of the designated burial area. ,A typical data record from this area j is shown in Figure 16.' . Among"the items of interest from this record are:
l 1) There is a very strong near surface reflection from a thin metallic object whose signature strongly resembles that from a utility pipe or a section of accidentally buried fence post.
- 2) Centered near the projection of Trench #15 and extending to the projection of T~rench #13, there appears to be a series of disturbances across a width of 30 feet. The reflections are judged to be from metallic objects at a depth of 8'.
- 3) In the area of the projected extensions of trenches No. 12, 11 and 9, there appears to be more general clutter, generally near the surface, but with no obvious metallic objects. ,
33 A
.II 0 0 1
- ]f
, t' n Nw' n
a i
P.
, 5
. m@
4 d
- A, e
c j i
- r r
u 3
- ' f.j. B
' w?
. c m li o
r
< Y" ,
2
, ' f l
4a' '
l a '- ,l -
g
' g s
n < p uj O l
a n
' )
- Y d g
, e L ,
g g,
s o
p i
S o
4, '
m g
~ y ' .
i r n I p 'y^ l b.v l g l g I g e
p u
i w
o bp W't ,
' , t -
S s
h S
M p {l '
- g ;
s' l
a S
1 f.
i v
r
. - y.ina ', p ,
, e 4
ne t e
n -
n b h n
%g {l 3
I i
s g..
- i
. % w,.
' . 3 y s, t f L
. f im%s u j i M - g10 a
- mu xl0 t
P i e n I'.; g t r
I
- ,a
-,m m1 0 l
k t
$ IIt h 7.3 l k..
1 l g I gg s a
r A
. 1' ; n n i e .
g ek o m
m
)
M W 1
gc a i
t
.g'W mn imh iy 3 w jg M a vN l
a us s
.s A'
, ?
r.
m u,
, c e v a
a m n ** .
is n c .
y o m
u m
k4 v.
4 p.}$r -
- . e.'t i
t a
s x2 E2
. niu i w .
- J g " -
i D 1 h
w*;"g
(
2 e i'y pr e
c a
t s a.
m /.
I 4\ c mM e c,
.,' ,- l j.
l p I , t n
a De ar g
a s k
,. t A i nr e' .t
,l wh
- t l
a lm@ n t
-n e.
~..
- l D
a iM t
oa c.s i H
s p
s 'g
- hg .
)
4' t
n o
z cr ea l e g
w@@
v.6 r
=
~. & ;1 , i r
fN e
v.n
>u u
n H
o Rs
- .n
~ ${1
- , ! . re ar l
I NT %A - te E l '. v.
- .C
?d .
-, b%
t c.
a l l ! ,
d r aa
,h +
RB t
m I- 3, d- ;
e a
wh g
u a m %. L w
w-s- ',
eh u mT '
0 5
.h mu w a
-: Y
~-
r
? - vN[-
1 e
v r
&.n
.n u ,.M h* *p t
- p. u
,nu
.lu t wik i
s j
i F
g
.. h x.
,n
,N
_m h
6 mM@]
=
r 1
. e.
(
I E'
[ - 0 6 2 1
p kl1l
o o o 9 t 2 #
t( ;
k$ Q, @.,d,
' h 1
-l h
c n
e
. e n
. .T r
4
-., y 1 N . -
s AM . e WNl '
5 ; l c
. 1 h ,l4 l i n k*g.
t a 4 :
' Q ., -
b
&y
. l
,hc r
- r. .g -
l e
.(0 n u
.p
- t e
Y s
- fe l r
e
,; ; ?
g !.
yT i
"%v.
~
D g
e
- Wi
. i
h . ) d
( a
-. g
[ d e M
- f. '- - 2
.f l,,1 s -
o n
'$ ! :, # p _
m a _
N ' ' h i r M _
,nc
- Fg
" e p g
- ' e u n _
- r S i _
f T w I'%p.#
d 0p o
fj' h. s h Wh 1 ' _
lwI l 4 S _
i a
- g}
_ ?
m b %,'- v 4
0~
r e 2
.. 4 t e _
~
n
.n
. I
%- I n _
. i _
M t
- m. $@ . -
L
- hf f
g r.; 3 .
Sy -
'a" f . d', .
hbg I -
l' 1
0 1
ee
,s
.-. e
. D$;.,.h. .,
I 4- .
il
,;,. ,h c t
a ch nc en
_ ls ' ' .} n s r Fe g
- 9 .
T e
r k e
eT r
..bk' k . r d
i1 l d
. <> %g .
h'
}aJ g g-i M
a il sa "R
I _
'0 s. tr hf) 8 -
ue
, $h .
5
- y. p1 im e
.ih..} Ov J
- h
- M c n e
.y$. .
m a ,S 6l
.., 0h' %. .,.,5y r f l t s a 3
- . a f tf 5 .
3 2 i D ao tf
. N W 5 D A
. (
64 1 s i.g .
N'& .y.$ l i
n i
g 1v,:l F ,hc
$ e c
n nn oo
%e. M a ii 1q 1
e
. N f l
l g
a 1 n t
s tt cc h7 e i
- r I
] r D ee _
,M6.- 7 lj _
T
. N' $ "j- 8. i f o P
.c.
.M;. k F v i
r f"f H t
a n
o er RP
, Y$:
e z rg _
$I i
- p. - ., .
'
- p r an -
g I l o d o
- bk ,Y i ._
- - P H al S k Ra d . dfy f' .A $ r re 9b i
.G I' lt.
=
4, f 4 t -
D j ,. N i'4 a 6
' E .
W 1
,D ~T f e 1
8 h dl h! f I
3 6 -
-p I l
i r
u g
py . m'Q
/
b ,_ F
%I9 qbf ..
7 bDl S!
hb.
1 q g I gI i .I Q .",,
t
- Q e2 O
y3 blIl a.
1 i
I l
For the purpose of presentation, subsurface disturbances have been divided into three general categories: near ;
surface disturbances (2' or less), subsurface disturbances !
(greater than 2'), and subsurface metallic objects. The i data were analyzed as described above, anomalies were desig- l nated and sorted into one of the three catagories and the !
results summarized in Figure 17. j These results make a strong case for the probable mismarking l of the northern limits of the burial trenches. It appears j that most, if not all of the trenches west of, and including !
No. 4 extend 50-60 feet beyond the trench markers. Further, j many of these trenches contain metallic debris, some of which !
are certainly barrels. Lastly, the centerlines of these j trenches do not necessarily line up with the trench monuments. 1 On the other hand, there are no data to suggest that these-l trenches or any other burials exist beyond these limits. All anomalies appear to be confined to within the 480' X 60' area immediately to the north of the trenches, which ha.d been enclosed by the temporary fence. Specifically, there were no indicators of any anomalies around the perimeter of the nuclear burial site or to the west of these trenches.
I 1
The unpublished results of resistivity and radioactivity measurements have corroborated the radar findings.
Resistivity measurements show general disturbances in the western half of the 480' X 60' sector. Particular isotopes identified by an intrinsic germanium detector were Cs 18 and Co ' .0 Count rates at the surface at energies characteristic 1of j these isotopes were as much as10-100 times backaround; defin-itive proof of the existence of radionuclides, but not indica-tive of any health hazard.
VIII.3 Generic Results Among the experimental objectives described in. Task 3 (Chapter IV) were the determination of a) soil moisture content b) location of migration zones and fronts c) location of vertical and horizontal conduits d) trench location, size and orientation e) depth and location of voids, containers and other objects.
Soil Moisture Content: Two aspects of soil moisture content can be derived from the radar data: water-soil boundaries in-dicated by radar reflections, and water-soil mixtures 36 c_____--
e .
indicated by a derived velocity of propagation. The presence of perched water should be easily detectable since a strong reflected signal would arise from the discontinuity in dielec-tric constant (Table 1). Further, the interface would be extended in area and horizontal. An observation of this type was made at one location at Maxey Flats. As expected, no such condition was observed at Beatty.
1 Expectedly, it was inferred that the soil moisture content l at the Maxey Flats site was greater than at the Beatty site. l As part of the calibration procedures, the velocity of propa- !
gation of the EM wave in the native soil is measured using two antennas (transmitter and receiver) operated at known distances.
From the velocity of propagation, or.e determines the dielectric l constant (Section III), which in turn is related to the )
properties of the soil and its water content (Table 1). The soil at Beatty was considered as dry sand; while that at Maxey Flats was considered as moist clay. The velocities of propa- i gation were measured; and the dielectric constants were found l to be: !
Vem(MF) = c//EMF = c/2.7; EMF "
Yem( n c/ /EB = c/2; c B
- 4 in reasonable agreement with expectations. Based upon proposed laboratory calibrations, it is expected that models can be developed that will allow semi-quantitatiwaderivation of actual j moisture content.
Migration Zones and Fronts: There were no data to suggest the presence of any migration, fronts or zones.
Vertical and Lateral Conduits: Vertical and lateral conduits
! are pathway for the migration of water through an otherwise low permeability ground. At Maxey Flats, this would include i fractures and cracks in the sandstone layers. Data interpre-l tation done to date has not revealed any vertical or lateral conduits.
Trench Parameters: The location, depth, and extension of trenches has been discussed in detail above. It was demonstrated that width of the trenches, and hence their extent, is measurable.
In some, but not all cases, the depths of the trenches were determined.
37
- C.
D i
1 s
'.p 1
l l
- 10 FT. WARNERS ,1-46 e MONUWNTS (TRENCH MAREERS) l S W EY i W
. .: %y.
sutsuRFact METALLIC otJECTS N
- -j LINES 7- '?i d SUBSURFact Ot$TURSANCE NEAR SURFACE OtSTURGANCE 6- l I
l 1
s- l e
. , ' .: .'.:;L}'
/ ;
.. : . ; . .'. . :.: :: ,. . /
,/,l
. ; ,;.:.* . ' ,
- i . ' . ,,a;'/l s' e' oeEr . 1 e- A oete j ;
"~"y/ ...;,si
?M..// , /
I 4 e 4's e e ado e s's e io e i; 9 il 12 13 - 5 5 5 :
INSIDE AREA
'///// - .: _ =.
-+
- * '), .
- 2, NEAR SORFACE _.._-- '.....l METALLIC oeJECT A" '.
~'- -
' e' occe .- .--
'. . : : ==
.;".C_.~.._*;
' .;$. l
,, - . ;;.- _- ,..e,.,...
/ = ; r. ._ -
. *'.*,*.*.9 l
l
%W Lk)
)
/ l l I I
. {
l I
1 T- ,
I TEMPORARY FENCE CASL 6- :
' I EXCAVATION 5-l.
.. :,rg i eAMREL *~
!t / $URFACE --*=p,
?,*E:. . : r < ?,
i,,:,b.l..y:'.;.'.
. . *. ' :s, :;.
l,/' /
,Y.('
/ -
k
=
,/,$,:,l
,: .:7} ' .'.. ;;,:
. ,. .';}'0
I'-W DEEP ~ .
I-
- . = s#'/"*
... t'- e' OEEP PRIMARY FENCE T.""*.;
l e e l's , ,.
o ; ;
e'O 6 .
4 2 4 j
i := j
- * " :.
- _z
' . ' . ,,'*.. ~
' .' . ,k' . *.[ 8'DE P .
- C
' .. ,,; ' i 3'- 4' DEE P
- .~.: :. .,i,.,.
.t _
l
..i I
Primary fence represents the northern most boundary of the nuclear section of the Beatty waste Storage Site.
N& red monuments indicating the northern ends of the burial trenches are shown Survey lines (-2 & .1) scanned northern ends of the trenches. q Survey lines (+1 through +7) scanned the suspect area to the north of the trenches.
f The temporary fence was erected by NECO af ter the USGS discovery to !
enclose the suspect area, .
i r*'t M iTI e TAPERTUR$
, CARD Figure 17: Survey Results Showing Measured
's Available On Subsurface Anomalies and Buried Aperture Card Material.
9 9#tdW2i)*NildAl
_ An
l i
i
- j I
Man-Made Objects: Both surveys yielded positive results j relative to the detection and location of man-made subsurface ;
disturbances. Discussed in detail above, it was possible in l many cases to identify the disturbances as due to metallic j objects, possibly burial containers. Not analyzed as of this I
time, the available phase information should add additional weight to the identification of the buried debris.
i I
To varying degrees, all aspects of the demonstration phase of the program have been addressed.
I IX. Conclusions and Recommendations ;
The data from the Maxey Flats, KY proof-test were analyzed, !
anomalies were designated, and their identification hypothe- l sized. Subsequent ground truth measurements were made and j the presence of all designated anomalies was confirmed. j While the interpretation or identification was in many cases !
accurate, the degree of uncertainty is too high to be scien- !
l tifically acceptable. Recommendations for improvements are ;
summarized below. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that the *
{
I ground penetrating radar is effective in:
a) locating the presence of subsurface geological formations.
b) detecting the presence of subsurface water, both perched and mixed.
c) determining the location of burial trenches, even l to depths of 20' or more under conditions of high moisture content in the soil.
d) detecting and identifying the. presence of subsurface metallic objects, probably burial ,
containers. )
The Beatty,,NV surypy was. conducted at higher spatial resolu- )
tion, utilized two antennas, and was repeated to assure qual-ity data. The high resolution data set permitted more de-tailed analysis, required for this survey. While no intrusive ground truth measurements were made, complementary surveys ;
using resistivity and radioactivity methods (Chapter II) were carried out. These results have not been published, but pri-vate communications corroborate the radar results. All anomalies designated by the resistivity experiments were confirmed by the radar. Moreover, the radar data provided l additional information and had much higher spatial resolution.
l The radioactivity 2'7 survey detected relatively high readings i from both Cs and Co 6 in the same area where the radar l
data showed extended trenches with metallic debris. As above, the interpretation of the radar results is not unambiguous, 1
l 41 *
\ l 1
'M 4ne ,. . .
i 3
1
.. )
nonetheless, it was concluded at Beatty that the technique was effective in:
a) determining the location of burial trenches, and ;
b) detecting and identifying the presence of sub-surface metallic objecta, probably burial ;
containers. j 1
From both these tests, it is fair to' conclude that the ground 1 penetrating radar is a useful tool in locating the presence l of subsurface anomalies, both natural and man-made. However, before the system can be accepted as a serous survey instru-ment, the interpretation of its results must be made more quantitative, and certainly less subjective. Further research in four areas is recommended to accomplish this goal: l
- 1) Characterization: A series of measurements' should }
be made at a waste storage site and in the lab-oratory to gather quantitative information concerning: -
a) ground truth signatures from known man-made disturbances such as trenches and buried debris, b) systematic effects on the radar system introduced by surface phenomena, and c) the physical properties of soils which affect radar performance. l i
- 2) Data Processing: A basic package of processing i I
codes should either be assembled from existing sources or specifically written to reduce the data from the radar system. Digital processing techniques will improve both sensitivity of detection, reliability of identification, and efficiency of operation.
i
- 3) Data Interpretation: Based upon improved char-acterization and automated data processing procedures, it should be possible to allow interpretation of results by non-experts.
Therefore, a catalogue of known signatures should be generated and studied to permit systematic identification and interpretation of results.
42 i
i
! ,, l
- o. j l
1
-)
- 4) System Studie$r An overview function to inte-grate the objectives of 1, 2 and 3 should be -4 established. The characterized. system should !
be evaluated against objective system require- j mentn of penetration depth, resolution and i effectiveness of identification. Theoretical models should be developed, and additional areas for. improvement rnd research should be defined.
I X. Summary
.O The. subsurface radar profiling system has been demonstrated in the field to be-an effective tool in the arsenal ~of remote sensing devices that can be applied to the. location and idenfication of. subsurface disturbances. . Not only has the demonstration been of academic application, but also under.the real conditions of an environmental assess- l ment. Subsurface. man-made disturbances have been located i in regions where they were expected and also where they were not otherwise known'to exist. These latter findings escaped the' detection of many other remote sensing techniques; moreover, the subsurface radar profiling system proved to be more sensitive and to have greater spatial resolution than all others.
Nonetheless, subsurface radar is a relatively new technique to be applied to the waste management problem, and its potential has not yet been. thoroughly explored.. Limited and )
applied additional research offers the promise of greater 1 utility; therefore, follow-on work leading towards.more quantitative interpretation.is proposed. The results of.
this effort are expected to improve the effectiveness and reliability of'the method and to render data interpretation more accessible to the user.
q l
i e
43
1 i
- -}
, j IX. References-
'1 L.) von Hippel, A'.'R.," Dielectrics and' Wave,s,"1954, New York., '
John Wiley & Sons.
2.) Hoekstra, P. and A..Delaney, 1954,f" Dielectric Properties of SoilsHat VHF and Microwave' Frequencies", Journal of *
~
Geophysical Research, 79, pp. 1699-1708.
3.) Morey, R.M. and W.S. Harrington, " Feasibility Study of ..
Electromagnetic Subsurface' Profiling")4U.S. Environment- J '
al Protection. Agency, Washington,'D.C.(Report No'. EPA- i R2-72-082, October 1972. Ef( .; 3, 4.) Morey,'R.M', " Continuous a.4 ki Subsurfacb' Profiling by Impulse ,
Radar", Proc. of. Engineering Foundation 0 Conference on' .!
Subsurface. Exploration for Underground Encavation and- ~
Heavy Construction", kn. Soc. Civil ~ Engineers, New York, August, 1974, pp. 213-232.
.5.)'Morey, R.M., " Application of Downward Looking Impulse Radar", Proc. of 13th Annual Canadien Hydrographic Conference," (Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, j
-Ontario), pp. 83-99, March 1974. :
l 6.) Morey, R.M., " Coal Thickness. Profiling Usina Impulse l Radar", in final report; Development of Highway Mining Equipment (Phase I), U.S. Bureau of Mines, Contract No.
H 0262033, June 1977.
7.) Morey, R.M. and A. Kovacs, " Detection of Mois ure in Construction Materials", U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Hanover, NH) CRREL '
Report .
77-25, September,,1977. I
^ 1 8.) Beers, R. and R. Morey, " Subsurface Pulsed Radar Measure- -
ments", USNRC Report NUREG-1271, February 1980.-
, l 4 o
'l A
-l .
c i 44 p., g C;1 Q. ..
8;
. .-. b ) .L.
g .
i'
- -Y a