Text

New York State (NYS) Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit NYS000251, Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years After a Nuclear Accident (Riso-R-828 (En)) (December 1995) (Riso Report)
	ML11355A191
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/21/2011
From:	Andersson K, Prip H, Roed J; Riso National Lab, Denmark
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
	SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML11355A177	List: ML11355A180; ML11355A181; ML11355A182; ML11355A184; ML11355A185; ML11355A186; ML11355A188; ML11355A190; ML11355A191; ML11355A192; ML120040184;
References
	RAS 21594, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Riso-R-828(EN)
	Download: ML11355A191 (86)
	v • d • e

Ris0-R-828(EN)

Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident Editors J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip Ris0 National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark December 1995 NYS000251 Submitted: December 21, 2011

Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident Editors J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip Ris0 National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark December 1995

Abstract Nine years after the Chernobyl accident, the contamination problems of the most severely affected areas remain unsolved. As a consequence of this, large previously inhabited areas and areas of farmland now lie deserted. An international group of scien-tists funded by the EU European Collaboration Programme (ECP/4) has investigated in practice a great number of feasible means to solve the current problems. The basic re-sults of this work group are presented in this report that was prepared in a format which facilitates an intercomparison (cost-benefit analysis) of the individual examined tech-niques for decontamination or dose reduction in various different types of environmental scenarios. Each file containing information on a method or procedure was created by the persons and institutes responsible for the practical trial. Although the long period that has elapsed since the contamination took place has added to the difficulties in removing the radioactive matter, it could be concluded that many of the methods are still capable of reducing the dose level substantially.

ISBN 87-550-2080-1 ISSN 0106-2840 Grafisk Service, Ris09 1995

Contents Introduction 5 Man-Made Surfaces in Urban and Rural Environments 10

.1 Fire hosing 11 2.3.

High pressure water hosing 12 2b High pressure water hosing 13

.3 Dry sandblasting 14 A

Wet sandblasting 15

.5.a Clay treatment improved with chemicals 16

.5.b Clay treatment improved with chemicals 17

.7.a Change of roof 19

.6 Roof cleaning 18

.7.b Change of roof 20

.8 Road planing 21

.9 Turning flagstones 22

.10 Ammonium nitrate treatment 23

.11 Indoor decontamination (following dry deposition) 24

.12.a Coatings 25

.12.b Coatings 26

.13 Vacuum sweeping 27

.14.a Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs 28

.14.b Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs 29

. 15 Dismantling houses to re-build 30 2 Soil Surfaces in Various Housing Environments 31 2.1.a Scraping off the top soil with a front loader 32 2.1.b Scraping off the top soil with a front loader 33 2.2 Scraping off the top soil with a grader 34 2.3 Manual digging 35 2.4 Turf harvester (small) 36 2.5 Turf harvester (large) 37 2.6 Lawn mover (mulcher) 38 2.7 Triple digging 39 2.8 Soil size fractionation 40 3 Forest Areas 41 3.1 Litter removal 42 3.2 Grinding mower 43 3.3 Debarking wood 44 3.4 Special wood pulp treatment 45 4 Virgin Soil in Rural Areas 46 4.1 Ordinary ploughing 47 4.2.a Deep ploughing 48 4.2.b. Deep ploughing 49 4.3.a Skim and burial ploughing 50 4.3.b Skim and burial ploughing 5/

Ris0-R-828(EN)

5 Agricultural Environment 52 5.1.a Liming 53 5.1.b Liming 54 5.2.a Addition of potassium chloride 55 5.2.b Addition of potassium chloride 56 5.3 Addition of phosphorus 57 5.4 Organic amendment to soil (Cattle manure and peat) 58 5.5 Pasture improvement by plughing and fertilising 59 5.6 Soil disking followed by ploughing and fertilising 60 5.7 Liming and fertilising forest pasture soil without ploughing 61 5.8.a Use of bolus in private farms 62 5.8.b Use of bolus in private farms 63 5.9.a Clean fodder to animals before slaughter 64 5.9.b Clean fodder to animals before slaughter 65 5.10 Salt licks for animals 66 5.11 Production of phytomass with enhanced contamination 67 5.12 Industrial crops (rape, sugar beet, lignocelluloses, for oil fuel, etc.) 68 5.13 Ferrasin filters for milk decontamination 69 6 Self-Restoration 70 7 Equipment for Measurement of the Effect of Treatments 72 7.1.a Gamma spectrometry in situ 73 7.1.b Gamma spectrometry in situ 74 12 Gamma spectrometry in the laboratory 75 13 Beta counter measurements in situ 76 1A Ion chamber measurements in situ 77 7.5.a In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector 78 7.5.b In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector 79 7.6 Laboratory spectrometry with sodium iodide detector 80 Conclusion 81 Ris0=R-828(EN)

Introduction The files presented in this report are estimates of achievable 'local' dose reduction fac-tors or decontamination factors and other important parameters (see definitions below) for different clean-up procedures in various types of environmental scenarios. The esti-mates were based on experimental work to assess the effect of dose reducing counter-measures in areas contaminated about 9 years ago by radioactive matter released during the Chernobyl accident.

Residential areas within the 30 km zone around the Chernobyl power plant are still unoccupied due to unacceptably high levels of radiation from radionuclides deposited on the ground and on various man-made surfaces in the environment. Also agricultural and forestry products contain high levels of radioactivity. The need for identification of ef-fective means for reduction of the radiation dose to the population in the affected areas is therefore evident.

Nine years after the accident, the radioisotope of major concern is in most situations 137Cs. This isotope therefore has a central position in the evaluation, and the effect of all procedures suggested for reduction of external radiation dose relates to 137Cs.

The research was carried out under the framework of the EU radiation protection pro-gramme (ECP-4) with the ultimate goal of developing feasible strategies for clean-up of contaminated areas. A great number of feasible dose reducing methods for different ar-eas have been suggested and investigated. The procedures that were found to be most promising after laboratory and other small scale tests were investigated further in field trials in the contaminated areas of Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine. It is the experience from these trials, which were carried out by Danish, French, Greek, Russian, Byelorus-sian and Ukrainian scientists, that is presented in this report.

The work reported reflects an effort to guide decision-makers to obtain the maximum effect with the money available. Although they are to some degree directly related to the Chernobyl accident, the results could be used to estimate the effect, in a more general sense, of procedures for removal of aged contamination.

The report lists important features of the different methods so as to facilitate a com-parison. The presentation is made as a series of tables or schemes which show the evaluation of the persons and institutes responsible for the investigation of the particular procedure. The aim was in this case to highlight the performance and effect of a proce-dure and not so much to describe the appearance and detailed function of the tools and methods applied. Such information can be found in other documents prepared by the ECP-4 project participants.

The idea of a scheme design was brought up by Andre Jouve at a meeting of the ECP-4 group in Russia. The idea was approved by all the participants and suggestions for the design were given. The final form of the scheme was reached at a meeting at Riso.

In the following is given an example of how to read and apply one of the schemes that were filled in. The scheme is shown in section 1.4 (sandblasting, wet).

1. Tool: mentions the tool and method in question. Remarks at the bottom of each page (below the scheme) often give more information on the design of the tool In this case (wet sandblasting) the tool is fabricated by a Danish firm, KEW, and the remarks at the bottom of the page show that this is a high pressure water based cleaning equipment, to which a sandblasting device can be attached.

2. Target surface: this is the surface that we are dealing with (in this scheme it is walls).

2.1. Constraints

lists obvious constraints for the method and target. In this case it is indicated that scaffolding would ease the process and is often necessary.

3. Design (number of operators): gives some further details. It is indicated here, that the method mostly requires two operators.

Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.1. Productivity

gives the speed by which the method is carried out. Usually, it is given as the number of square metres that can be treated by one tool in an hour. In this case this is 30.

4. Mode of operation: is in this case high pressure water with sand injected.

5. Cost: has been divided in the following different sub-sections:

5.1. Manpower (days per unit area) : gives the cost in man-days/unit area of the target surface. The reasons for which we have chosen man-days as indicators of costs instead of money are the following : a) the cost of man-power is very different in different countries, especially when considering the CIS countries compared with the EU coun-tries. The users can therefore give their own local estimate of cost of labour force, b) the data can be used in the future as it is possible to include a cost estimate of labour force in a future situation.

5.2. Tool investment cost: gives the cost of buying or renting the tool. In this case the price of the tool is 2400 ECU.

5.3. Discount (ECU/year): gives the normal discount rate based on the investment costs and an assumed interest rate. In this case it can be seen that the equipment is fully dis-counted after 5 years.

5.4. Consumables

gives the most important consumables, in this case petrol, sand and water.

5.5. Overheads

is normally given in manpower per square meter. The overheads are in this case the work required for preparation of the tool, the normal cost of the administra-tion of the firm in charge, etc.

5.6. Scale of application: gives the scale of application for normal operation - in this case 30 m2 can be cleaned per hour and it is assumed that the tool can be operated 720 hours0.00833 days 0.2 hours 0.00119 weeks 2.7396e-4 months per year. This gives a total surface of 21,600 m per year. From that it can be estimated how many tools are needed for a special operation. This is the reason why the item 'scale of application' has been placed under the 'cost9 section 5.7.1.-5.7.3. are dose related costs.

5.7.1: Specific exposure: can be e.g. inhalation dose,P dose, etc. In this case it is indi-cated that there is only little dust (inhalation hazard), as it is greatly reduced by the water (wet sandblasting).

5.7.2. Inhalation/external dose relation: gives an estimate of the importance of inhala-tion dose when not protected. In this case it is estimated that the inhalation dose will be less than 1 % of the external dose.

5.7.3. Number of man-hours exposed: gives the number of man-hours where the opera-tors are exposed on the contaminated working place.

6: Efficiency: has only one item (point 6.1). In most cases a decontamination factor has been quoted. The decontamination factor is defined as the concentration of the original contamination on a surface or in an object relative to what is left after a decontamination procedure. By some of the procedures, however, the contamination has not been re-moved (no actual decontamination), but for instance buried under a shielding layer of uncontaminated soil to reduce the dose rate. For such procedures another concept was introduced to evaluate the efficiency: the surface dose reduction factor, which is defined as the ratio of the dose rate before to that after a dose reduction action has taken place (e.g. deep ploughing) at a distance of 1 m from the surface, regarding the surface as having infinite dimensions, and assuming that no other sources are present. In most cases this factor must be calculated from measurements on a limited (finite) surface. By 6

Ris0-R-828(EN)

these concepts the decontamination factor for a surface is equal to the surface dose re-duction factor, which can be used to find the 'total' dose reduction factor for a procedure in a given scenario. This 'total' dose reduction factor would be smaller (in some cases substantially smaller) than the surface dose reduction factor, due to the presence of other surfaces, objects and sources in the environment.

7. Wastes generated: point 7 deals with the wastes generated by the operation.

7.1. Solid (kg/m2): this is the solid part of the waste, in this case sand and fragments of the wall that have been removed in the process.

7.2. Liquid (1/m2): this is the residual waste after separation of the solid part from the liquid.

7.3. Waste activity (Bq/m3 per Bq/m2): enables a calculation of the concentration of radioactivity in the waste, when the contamination level per square meter of the surface is known.

7.4. Toxicity

deals with the toxicity (other than radioactivity) of the waste created.

8. Other costs: could be that the wall has to be repainted. In this case it is not found to be necessary.

9. Other benefits: in this case there are visual improvements.

10. Special remarks: could be that this method can not be used on wooden houses as the sand and water might then penetrate through the wall. In this case there are no special remarks.

The following scientists and organisations have contributed to this methodological evaluation :

Ris0-R-828(EN)

Rise National Laboratory, Ecology Section, Environmental Science and Technology Department, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark (Rise):

J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip IPSN, DPEI/SERE CD/Cadarache, Batiment 159, 13108 Saint Paul lez Durance, France (IPSN):

A. Jouve Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Agricultural University of Athens, 11000 Athens, Greece:

G. Arapis A.A. Bochvar All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Inorganic Materials, 5 Rogov st, 123060 Moscow, Russia (IIM):

L. Mamaev, G. Galkin, Rybakov, Ogulnik Branch of St. Peterburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Karchevka, Novozybkov, Bryansk Region, 243000 Russia (BIRH):

V. Ramzaev RECOM Ltd., 12-1 Schukinskaya st., 123182 Moscow, Russia (RECOM):

A. Chesnokov Institute of Radioecological Problems, Academy of Sciences, 220109 Minsk, Sosny, Belarus (IRP):

N. Voronik Institute of Power Engineering Problems, Academy of Sciences, Sosny 220109 Minsk, Belarus (IPEP):

A. Grebenkov Chernobyl State Committee Belarus, 14 Lenin St., 220030 Minsk, Belarus (CSCB):

G. Antsypau IGMOF AS Ukraine, Dept. of Radiogeochemistry of the Environment, 34 Palladin Avenue, Kiev 252142, Ukraine (IGMOF):

N. Movchan, Y. Fedorenko, A. Spigoun, B. Zlobenko Belarus Institute of Agricultural Radiology, 16 Fedyuninsky St., 246007 Gomel, Belarus (BIAR):

S. Firsakova, A. Timoteev, A, Averin Institute of Cell Biology and Genetic Engineering AS, 148 Zabolotnogo St., Kiev, Ukraine (ICBGI):

Y.Kutlakhmedov Ris0-R-828(EN)

Ukrainian Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, 53 Melnikova st.9 254050 Kiev, Ukraine (UCRM):

I.P. Los Institute of Geography AS of Ukraine, 44 Vladimirskaya St., 252034 Kiev, Ukraine:

V. Davydchouk Belarus State University, Chemistry Dept., 4 Francisk Scorina Av., 220080 Minsk, Belarus:

G. Sokolik Ukrainian Institute of Agricultural Radiology, 7 Mashinostroitelei st, Chabany, 255205 Kiev, Ukraine (UIAR):

L. Perepelyatnikova Institute of Bio-organic Chemistry and Petrochemistry of Academy of Sciences, 50 Kharkovskoe shosse, 252160 Kiev, Ukraine (IBOChOCh):

V. Blagoev Ris0-R-828(EN)

1 Man-Made Surfaces in Urban and Ru-ral Environments This chapter reports the effect of experimental procedures to clean contaminated roof pavings, walls, roads, pavements, indoor surfaces and various other man-made surfaces.

Decontamination of such surfaces is particularly difficult so long time after the accident, where the fixation of radiocaesium by micaceous substances that are present in many types of surface has become very strong. However, a substantial decrease in radiation dose rate has been found to be achievable by some of the reported methods. Also dis-mantling of buildings was considered as an option.

10 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.1 Fire hosing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6)

Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity (incineration, sulphate content in concrete solidification etc.)

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Fire hosing Roads Pump 4-2 jet pipes 100 m2/h Water rinsing 0.0013 man-day/m2 3000 ECU - if bought in Western Europe 600 ECU/year 10 1 petrol per hour + 24 m3 water per hour 200 % of manpower (5.1) 72000 m2 per year No inhalation hazard 0

0.03 h/m2 1.10 (probably less in heavily trafficked areas and more in Pripyat) 50-200 g/m2 (impossible to collect) 0.25 m3/m2 (impossible to collect) low None Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso As it is not always possible to find fire pumps in the area, it is assumed that a pump is needed. A pump can supply 2 jet pipes with water. It is assumed that the pump will also require an operator.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 11

1.2.a High pressure water hosing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity (incineration, sulphate content in concrete solidification etc.)

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks High pressure turbo nozzle walls/roofs 1 person 37 m2/h High pressure water hosing 120 bar 0.0034 man-day per m2 2350 ECU 470 ECU/year 4 1 petrol per hour 200 % of manpower (5.1)

(37 m2/h* 720 h/y) 26500 m2/year Because of water only a little dust

<l/100 0.027 man-h/m2 1.3(walls), 2.2(roofs), probably more in Pripyat 04 kg/m2 20 1/m2 2500 m'1 - solid None unless asbestos Algae and moss removed. Nicer appearance After precipitation the liquid contains 5 % of the radioactivity and can be disposed of Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0 Requirements: High pressure cleaning equipment, petrol driven. Working at 150 bar the turbo nozzle has an oscillating jet-stream.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

12 Ris0-R~828(EN)

1.2.b High pressure water hosing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks OM-22616 Asphalt surfaces, concrete surfaces No 2 operators 1.5..2 m2/h (1.0.. 1.8 m2/h for concrete surfaces)

High pressure water hosing 0.15... 0.2 man-days/m2 240 ECU 80 ECU/year Power: 49 kW; Water 0.1 m3/m2 160 % of wages 2 m2/h

720 h/year No No 1.0... 1.4 man-hour/m2 1.7... 2.2 for concrete surfaces No Liquids are not collected No No Sanitary cleaning up Large volume of water Authors: Voronik, Grebenkov, Antsypau.

Institution: IRP, IPEP, CSCB Ris0-R-828(EN) 13

1.3 Dry sandblasting.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Sandblasting equipment (dry) wall scaffolding preferable High-pressure with sand (2 persons) 20 m2 per hour High pressure air with sand injected 0.012 man-day per m2 4500 ECU 900 ECU/year 5 1 petrol per hour and 2 kg sand per mz. Dry sand - preferably quartz-sand (0.5-2 mm) 200 % of manpower (5.1) 20 m2/h

720 h/year = 14400 m2/year Dust: inhalation hazard ca. 1/10 with proper mask 0.1 man-h/m2 4

2.5 kg/m2 (impossible to collect) 800 m'1 None Visual improvement Creates dust. Whole-body protect/air supply needed Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0 Basic equipment: High pressure air compressor with sandblasting equipment and sand container

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout5, accepted for publication in J, Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

14 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.4 Wet sandblasting.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Sandblasting with KEW equipment (wet) wall scaffolding preferable High pressure water plus sand - 2 persons 30 m2 per hour high pressure water with sand injected 0.0083 man-day per m2 2400 ECU 480 ECU/year 4 1 petrol/h, 2.25 kg sand/m2, 55 1 water per m2 200 % of manpower (5.1) 30 m2/h*720 h/year = 21600 m2/year because wet only a little dust

<l/100 0.067 h/m2 5

2.5 kg/m2 (55 1/m2)

Solid 800 m"1 (liquid = almost 0)

None Visual improvement Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso High-pressure water cleaning equipment supplied with a sandblasting device which in-jects sand in the water jet-stream.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 15

1.5.a Clay treatment improved with chemicals.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks ARS-14 with trailer Wall No 3 persons 70m2/h Covering clay suspension, drying and collecting of clay films Total cost estimate 0.7 ECU/m2 0.007 man.day/m2 57000 ECU 11400 ECU/year gasoline 31 kg/h 200% of wages max. area treated 45500 m2/year Wet = no dust

> 0,00001 4.3* 10"2man.h/m2 1.2 +/-0.1 -3.6 +/-0.8 0.25 +/- 0.05 5.7* 103-1.2* 104 No toxicity no Improvement of consumable properties Authors: Movchan, Fedorenko, Spigoun, Zlobenko, Institution: IGMOF

3. Design ARS-14 consists of:

3.1 Lorry SIL-131 3:2 Tank for water 2.5 m3 3.3 pump 2.5 VS-3a

-productivity 30+300 1/min. - pressure 3-4.5 ban - Trailer with vessel 3-4 m3 3 persons: 2 operators + 1 driver.

16 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.5.b Clay treatment improved with chemicals.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5,7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks ARS-14 with trailer Roof No 3 persons 90 m2/h Covering clay suspension, drying and collect clay films Total cost estimate 0.7 ECU/m2 0.006 man.day/m2 57000 ECU 11400 ECU/year gasoline 31 kg/h 200% of wages max. area possibly treated 58500 m2/year Wet = no dust

> 0,00001 3.3* 10'2man-h/m2 1.2 +/-0.1 -2.6 +/-0.4 0.25 +/- 0.05 4* 103-2.8* 104 Non toxicity no Improvement of consumable properties Authors: Movchan, Fedorenko, Spigoun, Zlobenko.

Institution: IGMOF

3. Design:

ARS-14 consist of:

3.1 Lorry SIL-131 3:2 Tank for water 2.5 m3 3.3 pump 2.5 VS-3a

- productivity 30+300 1/min. - pressure 3-4.5 bar. - Trailer with vessel 3-4 m3 3 persons: 2 operators + 1 driver.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 17

1.6 Roof cleaning.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Roof washer Roofs None Air driven rotating brush - 2 persons 18 m2 per hour Rotating brush + rinsing water 0.014 man-day/m2 6000 ECU 1200 ECU/year 5 1 petrol/h + 13 1/m2 water 150 % of man-power (5.1)

(18m2/h*720h/y) 12960 m2/year 0

0 0.11 h/m2 2 (probably higher in Pripyat) 0.2 kg/m2 (in water) 13 1/m2 77 m"1 None unless asbestos Roof cleaned for moss and algae Can be used with special waste-collection system.

Can be operated from ground level.

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Rotating brush mounted on extendible rod allows operation from ground. Air compres-sor provides pressure for rotating the brush and tap water at ordinary pressure is needed for rinsing. A filter system can enable recycling.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 4Clean~up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

18 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.7.a Change of roof.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Set of tools Asbestos roof (mainly for private house)

No 4 operators 12 m2/h Change of roof Sum estimated in Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.5 ECU/m2 0.05 man-days/m2 100 30 12 m2/h of new asbestos plates 160 % of wages 12 m2/h

840 h/year Asbestos dust

<0.001 0.27 man-hour/m2 In principle infinite 12 kg/m2 No 120 m-1 Asbestos No New roof, nicer looking Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Ris0-R-828(EN) 19

1.7.b Change of roof.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5=7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Hammer, nail-taker.

Roof (asbestos) needs 2 ladders 2 m2/h 800 h/year Manual changing of roof covering 0.125 man.day/m2 10 ECU 10 ECU No 150%

2 m2/h

800h/y = 1600 m2/year Dust + asbestos inhalation 1/1000- 1/10000 1 man-hour/m

>100 15 kg/m2 No 100-200Bq/m3/Bq/m2 Asbestos 1.5 ECU/m2 of new asbestos Renewing of roof Especially effective in the case of old roof.

Authors: Ramzaev Institution:

BIRH Chesnokov RECOM Removing old asbestos sheets manually and putting on new ones.

2 operators.

20 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.8 Road planing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Road planer (grinding off 3 cm)

Road Professional road planer (4 operators) 500 m2/h grinding off surface which must be picked up 0.0019 man-day/m2 70.000 ECU 12.500 ECU 8 I/hour of petro-diesel 200 % of manpower (5.1) 500 m2/h*720h/y = 360000 m2/year Dusty - but coarse particles

< 1/10 0.016 man-h/m2

>100 45 kg/m2 none 22 m'1 Asphalt (bitumen)

In some cases subsequent paving of the road - not necessary with the right machine Planing of road Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Contractor's machinery - large scale - a rotating 'drum9 grinds off the asphalt top layer which must be removed.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 21

1.9 Turning flagstones.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Turning flagstones manually Flagstones

- 1 operator 12m2/h Manual 0.02 man-day/m2 None 12 m2/h

720 h/y = 8640 m2/year 0.2 man-h/m2 6

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0

Reference:

Further description of the method can be found in : H.L. Gjorup, N.O.

Jensen, P. Hedemann Jensen, L. Kristensen, O.J. Nielsen, E.L. Petersen, T. Petersen, J.

Roed, S. Thykier Nielsen, F. Heikel Vinther, L. Warming, A. Aarkrog:5 Radioactive Contamination of Danish Territory after Coremelt Accidents at the Barseback Power Plant, Rise National Laboratory, Ris0-R-462, March 1982.

22 Ris0=R-828(EN)

1.10 Ammonium nitrate treatment.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Ammonium nitrate spraying wall spraying with pump (1 person) 24 m2/h Ammonium nitrate solution sprayed onto wall 0.01 man-day /m2 1000 ECU 200 ECU/year 6.25 1/m2 of 0.1 M ammonium nitrate solution 150 % of manpower 17280 m2/year

<l/100 0.1 man-h/m2 1.3 (probably higher in Pripyat)

None 6 1/m2 - collectable, recyclable 55 m"1 Authors:

Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Ammonium nitrate is dissolved to 0.1 M (no significant effect improvement from stronger solutions) in water in a vessel. A pump (submersible) is used together with a hose to apply the solution. The surface is subsequently rinsed with clean water.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 23

1.11 Indoor decontamination (following dry deposition).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Vacuum Cleaner, razors, manual scraper, brush Walls covered with wall paper none 2 operators 7.5 m2/h Changing of wallpaper 0.03 man-day/m2 70 ECU 18 ECU/year 0.0005 kWh/m2 100%

7.5 m2/h

8h

200 days = 12000 m2/year No

< 0.0001 0.07 man-hour/m

> 100 0.15-0.30 kg/m2 None 10000 Bq/m3 per Bq/m2 None 0.2 ECU/m2 for new wall paper etc.

wallpaper renewed Replacement of wallpaper Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM (Russia) 24 Ris0-R~828(EN)

1,12.a Coatings.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Detached polymer paste Smooth metal surfaces (painted)

Effective at t>+5°C 1 operator 2... 6 m2/h Cleaning of equipment, transports 0.02... 0.07 man-days/m2 0ECU 0 ECU/year Paste and ingredients: 0.4-0.7 kg/mz, 1.7-2.5 ECU/kg 160 % of wages 2-6 m2/h

500 h/year No No 0.12... 0.15man-hour/m2 4... 30 0.2... 1.8 kg/m2 No 10...20 m"1 no No Sanitary cleaning up, improvement of consum-able properties Large volume of manual work Authors: Voronik Institution: IRP The polymer paste binds a surface contamination, being dried, and removes it, being detached. Some sorption and adhesive properties improve effectiveness of method. The technology provides the minimal decontamination factor (4-7) while applying to rusted or painted metal surfaces. The technology provides the maximal decon-tamination factor (10 - 30) while applying to oiled or dirty metal surfaces.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 25

1.12.b Coatings.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Polymer coatings Walls Temperature +30 °C, humidity < 80 %

9 m2/h, 560 h/year removing radionuclides from surface of wall 0.014 man-day/m2 14000 ECU 1400 ECU/year 0.56 kWh/m2 120%

9 m2/h

560 h/year = 5040 m2/year No data

< 1/10000 0.11 man-hours/m2 4-5 0.2 kg/m2 No 5000 Bq/m3 per Bq/m2 No Repainting of the walls 0.3 ECU/m2 Renovation of walls Can not be used on wooden walls Authors: Mamaev, Galkin + assistance from Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: IIM, BIRH, RECOM The contaminated surface is coated by dissolving polyvinyl alcohol powder in water mixed with chemical agents and plastifier. After some time water and the components evaporate. The polymer coating is removed mechanically.

26 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.13 Vacuum sweeping.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Vacuum sweeping Roads Vacuum sweeper (1 person) 3500 m2/h rotating brush and vacuuming 3.6

10 *5 man-day per m2 90000 18000 5-6 1/h of petrol 150 % of manpower 3500 m2/h

720 h/y = 2520000 m2/y Accumulated dust is brought close to the operator Inhal. dose can be minimised by applic. of water 5*10"4 man-hours per m2 1.4 - depends on local traffic and particle size -

probably higher in Pripyat 50-200 g/m2 20000-5000 m"1 Cleaning roads of litter See attached sheet Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Vacuum sweeping with a municipal seated Scholing street cleaning machine with a wa-ter nozzle to spray a fine mist of water onto the road prior to brushing with 3 rotating brushes and finally application of a vacuuming attachment. The street dust is accumu-lated in a vessel behind the operator, who can get a dose from this.

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 27

1.14.a Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU

53) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Electric drill with steel wool or sand-paper Iron roofs/ painted walls Possibly scaffolding Household equipment - 1 person Im2/h Grinding 0.125 man-day per m2 100 ECU 50 ECU Electricity 1 kW/h, steel wool 1 ECU/h 150 % of manpower (5.1) x-large due to simplicity inhalation dose

<l/10 with proper mask 1 h/m2 2-2.3 0.1 kg/m2 None 5000 m"1 yes if paint contains dangerous elements Easy to repaint No know-how is required - only due consideration Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise The equipment is what is usually applied to clean surfaces prior to painting.

28 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.14.b Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Manual electric cutting machine wooden wall Residual nails in the wall must be removed 2 operators 1 m2/h - 900 h/year per operator Mechanical removal of the upper layer 0.08 man-day/m2 50 ECU 25 ECU/year 0.6 kWh/m2 100-200%

1 m2/h

900 h/year = 900 m2/year Inhalation of dust 1/1000- 1/10000 1 man-hour/m2 5

2.5-5.0 kg/m2 None 300-500 m"1 None New painting : 0.3 ECU/m2 Renovation of the walls Removing the upper 0.3-0.5 cm with the tool.

Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM After dismantling the house, wooden walls can be used as a building material for new houses. In this case parts of wooden wall can be cleaned up separately in a master house. Two operators are needed as a 16 hour1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months working day is assumed.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 29

1.15 Dismantling houses to re-build.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Set of tools (See descriptions attached)

House and shed No 8 operators 0.036 house/h Dismantling of a house Sum estimated for Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 700 ECU/house 25.5 man-days/house Rent of machinery: 300 ECU/house No 200% of wages 0.036 house/h

1120h/year Dust

<0.0001 200 man-hour/house In principle infinite 12 kg/m2 of asbestos roof No 120 m'1 Asbestos dust 30000 (new house)

Remediation of territory Authors: Ansypau Grebenkov Institution: CSCB IPEP Attached descriptions:

Personnel of one team:

Tools applied: 1 Crane, 1 Truck MAZ, 1 Bulldozer.

1 crane operator 2 man-days 1 truck driver 3 man-days 1 bulldozer operator 0.5 man-day 5 workers, operating outdoors 4 days

5 = 20 man-days Territory does not include in any options Dismantled house is not considered to be managed as radioactive waste except roof materials.

Dismantled house represents a single one-stored building and one wooden shed.

30 Ris0~R-828(EN)

2 Soil Surfaces in Various Housing Envi-ronments This chapter reports the effect of experimental procedures to reduce the dose rate from areas of soil in various types of housing environments. Various methods to remove the top soil layer were evaluated, since the major part of the radiocaesium is still in the up-permost few centimetres of the vertical soil profile 9 years after deposition. Also meth-ods to bury the contamination and thereby greatly reduce the dose rate were investigated.

Further, a method to extract soil particles and substances to which the radiopollutants are attached, was considered.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 31

2,ha Scraping off the top soil with a front loader.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Front Loader Soil No 1 operator 700 m2/h Cutting of contaminated soil layer 0.0002 man-day/m2 20000 ECU 2000 ECU Diesel oil: 0.03 kg/m2 160%

700 m2/h

900 h/year = 630000 m2/y No

< 1/10000 0.0014 man-hours/m2 28 75 kg/m2 No 20 No No No Land digging machine for periodic action.

Authors; Filled in by Person: Mamaev, Rybakov Institution: IIM, Russia Removes fertile soil layer.

32 Ris0=R-828(EN)

2.1.b Scraping off the top soil with a front loader.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Bulldozer Soil 1 operator 0.03 ha/h scraping of top soil with front loader (10-30 cm)

Total estimate: 190 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 4 man-days/ha 20000 ECU 2000 ECU 12 kg/h petro-diesel 100%

300 m7h

800 h/y 0.001 1*10° man-hours/mz 10-100 30-60 kg/mz 3-10 m'1 Loss of soil productivity No subsequent treatment required Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Blagoev Institution: ICBGI, IBOChOCh Ris0-R-828(EN) 33

2.2 Scraping off the top soil with a grader.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2

12) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Grader Top layer of ground No 1 operator 400-1000 m2/h Scraping of soil surface Sum estimated for Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.38 ECU/m2 0.00036 man-day/m2 Rent of machinery: lOOECU/day No 24kg/h 200% of wages 1000 m2/hour

720 h/year Dust in dry season O.0001 0.001 man-hour/m2 4... 10 180...400 No (4... lO^n'1 No Depends upon further utilisation of clean ground Planing of territory Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP 34 Ris0~R-828(EN)

2.3 Manual digging.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Shovel Garden soil the soil must be virgin soil hand-digging (x persons) 4 m2/h per man Digging to about 30 cm depth 0.03 man-day per m2 12 ECU 24 ECU/year None 100 % of manpower Unlimited 0.3 man-hour per m2 4-6 Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 35

2.4 Turf harvester (small).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Turf harvester (small)

Undisturbed grassed soils, small private pastures, forest pastures, urban grassed lands.

No of few stones 4

800 m2/h removes the 3-5 cm top soil 0.0006 man-d/m2 7200 ECU 2400 ECU/year 2 kg/h, gasoline (0.23 ECU/kg) 100%

800 m2/h (720 h/year)

External and internal doses

<0.0001 6*10"4man.day/m2 3-20 occupy 5 % of the decon. area 20-30 kg/m2 No No No Improves pastures.

Decontamination definitely achieved, no further intervention required.

Authors: A. Jouve, A. Grebenkov, G. Antsypau, Y. Kutlakhmedov Institutions: ISPN, IPEP, CSCB, ICBGI The turf harvester is an existing technique used to produce turf mats from grass nurseries, that can be planted further away to fasten the creation of new lawns. When the grass mat is strong enough, this machine is capable of removing very precisely a soil layer of 1 cm, which is the usual thick-ness of the turf mats used for commercial purpose, or 5 cm in the trials carried out in the Cherno-byl zone to decontaminate the soil. This technique is particularly well adapted to decontaminate peat bog soil pastures with a removal of a 5 cm layer of the organic horizon without compromising the fertility. It was however tested on a podzol with a 10 cm layer of the organic horizon without compromising the subsequent soil re-use. The machine produces flags of turf mats of 45 x 45 cm layer of the soil, which can be easily removed by hand using a fork and be put in a trailer to be disposed in a delimited area of the field which is decontaminated, or further away depending on the availability of disposal areas.

36 Ris0-R-828(EN)

2.5 Turf harvester (large).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Turf harvester (industrial)

Undisturbed grassed soils No of few stones, build a prototype, large fields (150mxl50m), less than 20% of the area dis-turbed by wild pigs, remove bushes before on abandoned fields 1 (in case of an automatic conveyor) 1.25 ha/h removes and dispose the 3-5 cm top soil 170ECU/ha 0.1 man-d/ha 600 kECU 120kECU/year 30 kg/ha, gasoline 100%

12500 m2/h (400-800 h/year)

No

<0.000001 1.25*10'6man.h/m2 20 on grass and milk occupy 5 % of the decon. area 20-30 kg/m2 No 20-30 m"1 No No Destroys Nardus stricta, thus improves pastures.

Possibility to make a map of the remaining contamination using on board CORAD system Decontamination definitely achieved, no further intervention required.

Author: A. Jouve Institution: ISPN The industrial turf harvester is based on the principle of the small turf harvester. It is composed of 3-5 modules of small turf harvesters driven together by a single engine and connected to a single frame. Each module has however an independent mobility to follow the curves of the soil relief. The turf mats that are produced are automatically conveyed into a trailer or a mobile conveyer which subsequently disposes the wastes on a delim-ited disposal area. Comparatively to the small turf harvester, this option decreases a number of operators in-volved in the decontamination procedure and allows a faster decontamination than the small turf harvester.

However this machine which has been designed in a pre-project has never been constructed nor tested.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 37

2.6 Lawn mower (mulcher).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Lawn mower Grassed areas in city 1 operator 1000 m2/h Large lawn mower (1 person) 1.3* lO^man-days/m"2 15000 ECU 3000 ECU/y 6 1/h of petrol 100 % of manpower 1000* 720 = 720000 m2/y practically 0 1.5*10"3man-h/m2 1 after 9 years (no effect alone)

Depending on length of grass 0

0 The procedure is used in connection with other procedures such as turf-harvesting Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Municipal petrol driven lawn-mower with seat. Collects grass in a vessel.

38 Ris0-R-828(EN)

2.7 Triple digging.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ordinary shovel (for triple digging)

Garden soil Area must be surface dug or virgin land unlimited 2 m7h per man Burying the soil top layer 30 - 40 cm down 0.068 man-day/m' 12 ECU 24 ECU/y None 100 % of manpower unlimited a little dust

< 1/100 0.7 h/mz 4-15 depending on soil type None None None None The area will be ready for new crops instruction needed Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise The garden triple digging procedure can be used to dig a garden area in the same manner as that which is performed by a skim and burial plough. The principle is basically to manually bury a thin top soil layer containing the radioactive matter, whereby a shield-ing effect is obtained. The method is described in detail in:

Reference:

J. Roed and K.G. Andersson: 'Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Coun-tries Contaminated by Chernobyl Fallout', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radio-activity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 39

2.8 Soil size fractionation.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Mobile equipment for soil separation soil can be used for sand and sand clay (20 %) soil lOOkg/h Mechanical separation of the soil 0.025 man-day/kg 20000 ECU 2000 ECU 0.1 kWh/kg 120%

100 kg/h

6 h/d

120 days/y = 72000 kg/year No

< 1/10000 0.02 man-hour/kg 4-6 0.1 kg/kg No 10000 m'1 Nitric acid Possible restoration of the soil Decreasing amounts of waste Authors: Mamaev, Ogulnik Institution: IIM? Russia The equipment consists of the following units: 1. the unit for loading soil, 2. the unit for mixture preparation and removal of organic substances, 3. the unit for separation of the small fraction, 4. the unit for waste processing and collection. 2 operators are involved in the processes.

40 Ris0~R-828(EN)

3 Forest Areas The procedures presented in this paragraph are suggested for separation of the radioac-tive substances from wood. The use of the wood then becomes less restricted and great resources can be exploited.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 41

3.1 Litter removal.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Mechanical brush Forest litter Cannot be used in wet forest areas or for forest less than 30 years old 2 operators 540 m2/h Litter layer removal 0.00053 man-days/m2 5,000 ECU for brushing machine; Rent of BELARUS tractor: 50 ECU/day 1,700 ECU/year for brushing machine Petrol-diesel: 30 kg/hour 160 % of wages 540 m2/h

840 h/year Dust O.001 0.0037 man-hour/m2 3.5...4.5 30... 50 kg/m2 No 15...20 m-1 Flammable No No Authors: Antsypau5 Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Attached descriptions This procedure represents the main on-site decontamination technology which provides sufficient dose reduc-tion for forest workers. After removal of contaminated litter of 5-7 cm in thickness it is directed to the shallow ground/surface disposal or to a valorisation procedure. The main mechanism produced in France consists of the rotor with frequent firm elastic cores located on its cylindrical surface. The rotor is driven by hydraulic engine with reductor placed inside the rotor cavity. This mechanical brush is assembled on the frame together with a storage bin with volume of about 0.4 m3 where the litter is collected. The bin and brush are covered with the roofing shelter. The litter collected in the bin can easy be unloaded into a trailer (or platform) with a help of hydro-cylinders/monitors. Soil depth of operating of the brush is controlled by means of a couple of wheels.

The machine is connected to"BELARUS" tractor, and parameters of the hydraulic engine correspond to those of the tractor's oil-pump. Similar technique of large scale is also produced in the CIS. For example, MCFI-1 type which supplied with loosener combined with pneumatic system. The mediate scale machines dflMTC type should be also noted.

42 Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.2 Grinding mower.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Grinding mover Under-wood forest; shrubs Diameter of wood stem must be less 8 cm. Can-not be used in wet forest areas or for forest less than 30 years old 1 operator 1500... 2000 m2/h Cleaning and grinding of underwood 0.0001 man-days/m2 5,800 ECU for grinding machine "Norevert" or ODI-1; Rent of BELARUS tractor: 50 ECU/day 1900 ECU/year Petrol-diesel: 30 kg/h 160% of wages 2000 m2/h

840 h/year Dust

<0.001 0.0005 man-hour/m2 DF= 1.2 20... 50 kg/m2 No 7... 20 m'1 Flammable No Forest management Method represents preliminary operation for fiirtherapplication of item 3.1 Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Attached descriptions : The debris which is left on a place of felling and constitutes the most contaminated part of wood undergoes collection and grinding. Then it is directed to following possible handling: (i) Scattering around place of felling in order to restore a litter of forest; (ii) Removing for further disposal; (iii) Removing for further valorisation. Options (i) and (iii) can be justified from ecological and economical points. Technique represents a drum grinder with knifes. It is placed onto platform of tractor which is supplied with manipulator and storage bin. This technology proceeds removing a forest litter, but this is also ordinary technology to care forest. The procedure presents cutting and grinding the underwood (bushes, young trees). The equipment (ODI-1) is assembled to the arm of excavator of EO-2621 typemade on a base of "BELARUS" tractor. The grinding mechanism consists of the head equipped by rotor with free hanging incisors and cutting blades. It rotates by means of hydro-mover connected to tractor's hydro-driving system. The grinding machine provides cutting the bushes and underwood of diameter of less than 10 cm. Width of the head is about 1.1m. The chips after grinding are left on a place of cleaning. Similar machine ("Norevert") produced in Sweden is assembled to the shaft of "BELARUS" tractor.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 43

3.3 Debarking wood.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Wood sawing plant 20-K63-2 Timber Should be used as a soil mulch. Not in wet forest areas 3 operators 30... 50 m3/h Mechanical removal of bark and phloem Sum estimated in Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.5ECU/m3 0.0048 man-days/m3 3000 ECU 1000 ECU/year 160% of wages 50m3/h* 1400h/year Dust O.0001 0.02 man-hour/m3 2... 4 10...20 kg/m3 No 10...20 m"1 (50... 100m3/m3)

Flammable No Possible valorisation of waste Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB,IPEP Attached descriptions In the zone of contamination level of 5-15 Ci/km2 raw wood after felling requires bark stripping that may re-moves 7% of biomass and 60-70% of radioactivity. Valuable wood trunk received in this zone may be used without any limitation.

In the zone of 15-40 Ci/km the control of quality of wood must be provided and, even stripping bark, valuable wood trunk is, along with this, recommended not to be directly used but only if it is sawed into the beams.

Phloem layers of 2-3 cm thick have to be stripped too, so the average size of square beam would not exceed 70% of stem diameter. Since the most contaminated part of wood is bark and external layers these elements of the technological chain of radioactive wood decontamination is necessary to reduce the level of wood's activity to that met the permissible limits.

44 Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.4 Special wood pulp treatment.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6)

Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Twin-screw extruder Contaminated wood Only for preparation of wood chips 10 5 t/h extracts Cs and Sr from wood pulp 0.9 MECU/year 0.25 man/t of wood 6MECU 0.6 MECU/year Electricity 1400 kW/h, Nitric acid 2 % of wood, Sodium sulphite 2 % of wood.

100%

26400 t/y of wood (16 h/day)

No

< 0.0001 1.25 man.d/h 50-100 1000 1/t of wood (recycling to some extent) 95 % of wood activity sulphates No Selling cardboard, 18400 t/y i.e. 11MECU Decreases electric power consumption compared to chemical pulp factories by 30 %, decreases the waste production.

Author: A. Jouve.

Institution: IPSN The Twin-screw extruder produces wood pulp from raw wood. The mechanical defibrillation of wood replaces the chemical digestion commonly used in pulp factories. This procedure results in decreasing by about 30%

the quantity of liquid waste and electric consumption. It is therefore suitable to decrease contaminated waste in case of using contaminated wood. It may decontaminate wood, since the mechanistic effect of pressure and acidic treatment of the wood is similar to the procedure tested in laboratory which decontaminated wood sam-ples from the Chernobyl forest with a decontamination efficiency of up to 95 % for Cs and Sr. However, this technique has never been tested with contaminated wood. It is only mentioned as a reference scenario to pro-vide economical information for the technique which has been tested at laboratory scale. The decontamination efficiency refers to the laboratory experiment assuming that similar results would be obtained if the procedure is applied using the twin-screw extruder. Similar decontamination factors were observed in classical wood processing plants in Sweden.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 45

4 Virgin Soil in Rural Areas This chapter reports the effect of experimental procedures to reduce the external dose rate and plant uptake in agricultural areas of virgin soil.

46 Ris0-R-828(EN)

4.1 Ordinary ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ordinary plough and tractor rural land Virgin land only 1 operator 9000 m2/h Ploughing to a depth of 25 cm 1.4* 10"5man-days/m2 2000 (plough) and 50000 (tractor) 400 (plough) and 10000 (tractor) petrol: 6 1/h 100 % of manpower 9000 m2/h

720 h/y = 6.48

106 m2/y Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

<l/10 1.1

10"4man-h/m2 3-6 (external)

Transport of equipment (depending on distances)

Ploughing of fields, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of up to 4 depending on the plant type Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Ordinary 25 cm deep ploughing with tractor-driven Bovlund single-furrow 24" plough (type 9H-70).

Reference:

J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip: 'The skim and burial plough: a new implement for reclamation of radioactively contaminated land', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radioactivity, 1995.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 47

4.2.a Deep ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ordinary plough + tractor Rural land Virgin land only 1 operator 7000 m2/h Ploughing to a depth of 45 cm 1.8* 10"5 man-days/ m2 2000 (plough) and 50000 (tractor) 400 (plough) and 10000 (tractor)

Petrol: 101/h 100 % of manpower 7000 m2/h

720 h/y = 5.04

106 m2/y Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

<l/10 1.43* 10"4man-h/m2 6-10 (external)

Transport of equipment (depending on distances)

Ploughing of fields, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of up to 10 depending on plant type Draw-back: Possible burial of fertile soil layer Authors; Roed5 Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Deep ploughing to 45 cm using a tractor-driven Bovlund single-furrow 24" plough (type 9H-70).

Deep ploughing will substantially reduce the root uptake to most plants and thereby reduce the dose received from locally produced food. Also, the radioactive matter will have been placed sufficiently deep in the soil profile that it is not redistributed by subse-quent ploughing.

Reference:

J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip: 'The skim and burial plough: a new implement for reclamation of radioactively contaminated land9, accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radioactivity, 1995.

48 Ris0=R-828(EN)

4.2.b Deep ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Deep ploughing Decontamination of soil (plant production) deep ploughing of soil (25-35 cm) 1 operator 0.2ha/h Deep ploughing upper soil layer (25-35 cm)

Total estimate: 120ECU/ha 0.6 man-day/ha 20000 ECU 2000 ECU/year 15kg/hpetro-diesel 100%

2000 m2/h

720 h/year 0.001 1

10"5 man-hours per m2 2-4 No No No No Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Perepelyatnikov Institution: ICBGI, UIAR Ris0-R-828(EN) 49

4.3.a Skim and burial ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Skim-and-burial plough and tractor Rural land Virgin or surface ploughed land 1 operator 3000 m2/h skim and burial ploughing (see footnote) 4.16* 10'5man-days/m2 50000 ECU (tractor) and 4125 ECU (plough) 10000 ECU (tractor) and 825 ECU (plough)

Petrol: 10 1/h 100 % of manpower 3000 m2/h

720 h/y = 2.16

106 m2/y Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

<l/10 3.33* 10*4man-h/m2 6-15 Transport (depending on distances)

Ploughing without significant loss of soil fertil-ity, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of at least 10 See below Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso A skim coulter first places the upper 5 cm of soil in a trench made by the main ploughshare. In one movement, the main ploughshare then digs a new trench and places the lifted subsoil on top of the thin layer of topsoil in the bottom of the trench of the previous run. The skim coulter simultaneously places the top layer from the next furrow in the new trench. In this way, the 5-50 cm soil layer is lifted only about 10-15 cm and the power requirements minimised. The advantage of the method is that only a very thin layer (5 cm) of topsoil is buried at 45 cm, and the 5-45 cm layer is not inverted.

Skim and burial ploughing will eliminate the root uptake to most plants and thereby reduce the dose received from locally produced food. Also, the radioactive matter will have been placed sufficiently deep in the soil profile that it is not redistributed by subsequent ploughing.

Reference:

J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip: 'The skim and burial plough: a new implement for reclamation of radioactively contaminated land', accepted for publication in J. Environ. Radioactivity, 1995.

50 Ris0-R-828(EN)

4.3.b Skim and burial ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Skim and burial ploughing soil Virgin or surface ploughed land 1 operator 0.2ha/h Upper 5 cm layer cut off and put under ploughed horizon of soil Estimate: 160-280 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 0.6 man-day/ha 25000 ECU 2500 ECU/year 20 kg/h petro-diesel 100%

2000 m2/h

720 h/y 0.001 1*10~5 man-hour/m2 6-15 20-30 kg/m2 15-20 m"1 No The waste is buried under the ploughed soil hori-zon Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Roed, Blagoev Institution: ICBGI, Riso, lOChOCh Ris0-R-828(EN) 51

5 Agricultural Environment This chapter reports the effect of experimental procedures to deal with radiological problems specific to the agricultural environment. The main tasks are to limit the con-tent of radioactivity in locally grown crops and the contamination level in animal and dairy products.

52 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.1.a Liming.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Liming (special trucks for spreading) (ORUP-8)

Acidic arable land (pH 4.5-5.5)

Requires also potassium addition to maintain ionic equilibrium 1.3 (per distribution unit) (Dolomite powder) lha/h Competitive uptake, yield increase Total estimate: 55 ECU/ha 0.15 Man-day/ha 13000 ECU 1625 ECU Gasoline 12.5 1/ha, lime (ca. lt/ha) 200 %

No limitation No No exposure to workers No exposure to workers 1.3-1.6 (depends on soil pH)

No No No No No Increases crop yield + quality of fodder Specific equipment in CIS, but other tools may be used. Effect persistent during 4-5 years.

Authors: Firsakova Institution: BIAR The general features of the method are described in the No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

IAEA Technical Report Series following an accidental release Ris0-R-828(EN) 53

5.1.b Liming.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m 7,4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Liming of soils Decontamination of plants 2 operators 0.4ha/h Liming of soil for decreasing uptake of radionuclides in plant production 13 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 0.6 man-day/ha 12000 ECU 1200ECU/y 10 kg/ha petro-diesel, 300-800 kg/ha lime 200 %

4000 m2/h

720 h/y 0.0001 5*10"4 man-hours/m2 2-3 No No No No No Increasing productivity of plants - 1.5-2 times Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Perepelyatnikov Institution: ICBGI, UIAR 54 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.2.a Addition of potassium chloride.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Addition of potassium chloride Decontamination of plants on arable lands 2 operators (driver of truck and lorry) 0.2ha/h Decreasing accumulation of radiocaesium in plants Total estimate: 20 ECU/ha 0.12 man.day/ha 20000 ECU 2000 ECU 240 kg/ha KC1;2O kg/h Gasoline 200%

2ha/h x 400 h/year 0.0001 1 man.hour/ha 2-3 No No No Possibly increasing of harvest.

Authors: Kutlakhmedov Institution: ICBGI Perepelyatnikov UIAR The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 55

5.2.b Addition of potassium chloride.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU

53) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2

73) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Addition of potassium arable lands 1.2 operators (driver of truck and loader) 1.5ha/h Enrichment of soil by K O.ld/ha 18000 ECU 3000 ECU 150 kg/ha KC1; 15 1/h Gasoline 160%

4800 ha.

<l/100 0.8 man-hour/ha 1 3 - 1.6 No No No Possibly increase of yield.

Additional application of K is 0.5-1.0 of usual dose and depends of soil saturation by potassium.

Authors: Firsakova, Antzipov, Timoteev Institution: BIAR 56 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.3 Addition of phosphorus.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Addition of phosphorus Decontamination of plants on arable land 2 operators (driver of truck and lorry) 0.2ha/h Decreasing accumulation of radiostrontium in plants Total estimate: 40 ECU/ha 0.15 man.day/ha 20000 ECU 2000 ECU 550 kg/ha NaH(PO4)2; 20 kg/h Gasoline 200%

1.5ha/hx400h/year 0.0001 1.2 man.hour/ha 0.8-1.3 No No No No No Not recommended separately but in combination with other fertilisers (K,N)

Authors: Kutlakhmedov Institution: ICBGI Perepelyatnikov UIAR The general features of the method are described in the No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

IAEA Technical Report Series following an accidental release Ris0-R-828(EN) 57

5.4 Organic amendment to soil (Cattle manure and peat).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Organic amendment of the soil arable soils 1.2/ha (1 operator) 0.7ha/h Binds Sr, complexes Cs and Sr Total estimate: 60 ECU/ha (60 t/ha) 2 ECU/ha (0.4 man-day/ha) 11328 ECU 1416 ECU/year Fuel: 8 1/ha, manure: 40 ECU/ha 200 %

No limitation negligible (U, Th, Ra)

No No DF=1.3forCsandSr No No No No No Yield and quantity increase KH2PO4 Authors: Firsakova Institution: BIAR 58 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.5 Pasture improvement by ploughing and fertilising.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Radical improvement of pasture (draining, cleaning; disking (3 times) Fertilising; Plough-ing; Sowing new grasses realised in Ukraine 1994. In 1987-1993 was used 2-3 procedures.

Decontamination of crops and milk 9 operators (6 procedures) 0.125 ha/h The decreasing of accumulation of radionuclides in plants and milk 343 ECU/ha (6 procedures) 8.3 man.day/ha 65000 ECU 6500 ECU 80 kg/ha seeds;50 kg/h Petro-diesel, fertiliser 160%

0.12ha/x700h/year 0.004 66 man.hour/ha 4-16 for peaty soils, 4-9 for podsol soils No No No No No The increasing of harvest.

In 1987-93 were realised only 2-3 procedures of 6, but in 1994 all 6 procedures were used in Rovno district on 92 thousands ha.

Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedov Institution: ICBGI G. Perepelyatnikov UIAR Ris0-R-828(EN) 59

5.6 Soil disking followed by ploughing and fertilising.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Disking, fertilising, liming and sowing new grass Pastures Need to repeat disking 4-6 times 0.8 operators per ha 0.25 ha/h Dilution of Cs and Sr in the soil profile Total estimate: 150 ECU/ha 2 ECU/ha (0.4 man-day/ha) 11328 ECU 1416 ECU/year Fuel: 8 1/ha, Phosphorus: 12 ECU/ha 200 %

Availability of manure limited to cultivated crops

<l/100 1.4-2.2 for Cs and 1.2-1.4 for Sr No No No No Yield and quantity increase Author: Firsakova Institution: BIAR 60 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.7 Liming and fertilising forest pasture soil without ploughing.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Liming and fertilising forest pastures forest pastures Use of traditional machines not possible 2.5 operators 0.3ha/h Enrichment of poor soil by Ca, K, P 1 man-day/ha

- (manual operation only)

Lime, KC1, Superfosfate 160% of wages 1 ha / cow in settlements, surrounded by forest external No 20 man-hours/ha less than or equal to 1.5 no no no no Increases pasture productivity only for villages surrounded by forests, when other pastures are impossible to use Authors: Firsakova. Antsipov Institution: BIAR, CSCB Ris0-R-828(EN) 61

5.8.a Use of bolus in private farms.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ferrasin bolus (boli applicator)

Decontamination of milk from 137Cs 2 operators 2 cows per hour 0.04 ECU/1 or 19.2 ECU/cow 0.125 man-day/cow 8 ECU 2 ECU/year 3 bolus/cow = 19.2 ECU/cow 200 %

1500 cows/year No No No 2-3 (on milk)

No No No 3 bolus included in a cow each 3 months. The use of bolus increases the milk price by 13 %.

The method should be used where Cs level is higher than 1000Bq/l.

Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Perepelyatnikov Institution: ICBGI, UIAR The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0=100894-5, 1994.

62 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.8.b Use of bolus in private farms.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Use of Prussian Blue boli in private farm Cows (milk)

The Prussian Blue boli production 2 operators 3 cows per hour Binding of 137Cs in the gastrointestinal tract 0.08 days/cow 10 ECU (boli applicator) 2.5 ECU Boli (Prussian Blue, wax, BaSO4 + press mixer) 2000 treatments per operator per year No No 0.66 man-hours per cow 2-3 for milk, meat no no no no no no The application of boli repeated every 2-3 months. Cost of one treatment per animal =

3 ECU Authors: Firsakova, Antsipau, Averin Institution: BIAR, CSCB The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 63

5.9.a Clean fodder to animals before slaughter.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Clean fodder before slaughter.

Decontamination of meat Without special operators The organisation of special feedings of animal by clean food before slaughter From 10 to 30% increasing of price of meet (0,2-0,5 ECU/kg additionally) 2 - 3 (for Ukraine)

No No No No No Radiation Control, live dosimetry 0.5 ECU/animal/ year Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedov Institution: ICBGI G. Perepelyatnikov UIAR 64 Ris0=R-828(EN)

5.9.b Clean fodder to animals before slaughter.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Clean fodder before slaughter.

Cattle No additional operators The elimination ofl Cs from muscles Transportation costs (0.2 ECU/t per km) + Costs of clean feed 3.0 No No No No No Radiation Control, live dosimetry 0.5 ECU/animal/ year During 2 months before slaughter animals are supplied by clean fodder from arable land of the collective farms. Such feed is in any collective farm, so maize silage and concentrate are usual rations of cattle.

Authors: Firsakova Institution: BIAR Antsipov CSCB Averin Ris0-R-828(EN) 65

5.10 Salt licks for animals.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Use of Prussian Blue salt-licks Cows and bulls Prussian Blue salt-lick production 2 operators 15 salt-licks/h Binds 137Cs in gastrointestinal tract.

0.016 man-day/salt lick gasoline 10 I/day, Prussian Blue, NaCl, press equipment 12000 salt-lick distribution No inhalation 0.128 man-hr/salt-lick 2.0-3.0 for milk, meat None None None None None Providing of NaCl The duration of use by animal of 1 salt-lick is 3 months. Annual cost for 1 animal: 6 ECU Authors: Firsakova, Antsipov, Averin Institution: BIAR, CSCB The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

66 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.11 Production of phytomass with enhanced contamination.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Production of phytomass with enhanced contamination (Phytodecontamination of soils)

Decontamination of soils(mixed)

This method includes 7 procedures: special treatment of seeds; ploughing; sowing crops; fertilising; irriga-tion; harvesting; harrowing. Only 3 procedures ap-pears additional to traditional scheme: treatment of seeds; irrigation; harrowing after harvesting.

9 operators The using of additional procedures (treatment of seeds; irrigation; harrowing) with aim creating of conditions for significant increasing transfer factor and harvest of biomass. The harvest of biomass can be used for feeding of animals and then using clean fod-der before slaughter.

34 ECU/ha (0,2-0,5 ECU/kg additionally) 1 man.day/ha On 3 additional procedures 10000 + 8000 + 12000 =

30000 100 + 800 + 3000 = 3900 ECU/year 50 kg/ha seeds; 5.000 t/ha water; 15 kg/h diesel.

160%

0,12 ha/hx 400 h/year 0.001 1 man. hour/ha 1.1-1.3 (per year)

No No No No No The receiving of food for feeding animals and then clean fodder before slaughter = 15 ECU/ha.

This is important possibility of phytodecontami-nation

- using of phytomass for feeding animals.

Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedov Institution:. ICBGI G. Perepelyatnikov UIAR Ris0-R-828(EN) 67

5.12 Industrial crops (rape, sugar beet, lignocelluloses, for oil fuel, etc.).

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Exchange of food crops with technical (industrial) crops Contaminated arable lands crop processing plant Use of contaminated area for crop production 10 % of arable land on contaminated area Exclusion of food uptake None None None None Purchase of special tools and creation of process-ing base Development of industry Large additional Government investments in agriculture will be possible Authors: Firsakova, Antsipov Institution: BIAR, CSCB The rape production is more realistic, several collective farms grow its crop and rape oil plant is treated in Gomel area.

The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

68 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.13 Ferrasin filters for milk decontamination.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ferrasin filters for milk Decontamination of milk from 137Cs Used on private farms only 1 operator 40 filters per hour (0.01 filter/1 milk)

Filtration of milk through filter 0.006 ECU/1 or 0.8 ECU/cow, 10 days (32 ECU/y) 0.02 man-day per filter plastic system for filtration of milk (4 ECU) 1 ECU/year Gasoline 4 kg/h, 0.01 filter/1 milk 100%

40 filters/h

320 h/y None None None ca. 10 None None None This method should be used under conditions where the milk contamination is 400 Bq/1 or more Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Los Institution: ICBGI, UCRM Ris0-R-828(EN) 69

6 Self-Restoration Quantitative/qualitative evaluation of self-restoration By: Arapis, Davydchouk, Sokolik, Athens University, Kiev Inst. of Geography, Belarus State University.

==

Introduction:==

To undertake any recovery action in natural and semi-natural ecosystems nine years or earlier after the accident it is of great importance to know the exact natural evolution of the radiological situation of these affected areas. This knowledge will facilitate the choice of the decision-makers of appropriate decontamination strategies.

Aim:

The goal of this technique is to evaluate the efficiency of the processes of self-restoration for natural and semi-natural ecosystems.

Methodology:

In order to do this the following example could be followed.

1. Evaluation of the self-restoration processes:

The evaluation of radiological balances of affected large areas in the Ukraine and Be-larus was made. Using cartography, short and long term positive, neutral or negative radioecological balances of the 30 km zone were elaborated. Similar work was done for the Khoiniki, in order to cover an important part of the contaminated territory of these two republics.

The presentation of the radiological situation is made by maps of137Cs iso-lines of soil contamination and maps of the above mentioned balances. The velocity of vertical mi-gration of radionuclides was calculated. The influence of different types of soil on the migration of 137Cs and 90Sr was studied. The migration ability of the radionuclides was measured for representative soils in Belarus and the results were presented in maps.

Similar measurements and cartography are made for Ukrainian soils.

2. Evaluation of self-restorative dose reduction The efficiency of self-restoration is evaluated in terms of dose reduction as a function of the vertical migration of radionuclides. The dose rate at 1 m above the surface was cal-culated from different 137Cs depth distributions in different types of soil by the Monte Carlo method.

Table 6.1 shows - for 1993 and for non-covered forest soils - the calculated exposed dose rates (EDR) as a function of 137Cs vertical migration, for five groups of migration velocities (from < 0.25 to > 1.2 cm/year) and for nine different levels of contamination (from 10 to 200 u.Ci/m2). It is important to observe that eight years after the accident a significant (> 30%) EDR reduction was calculated in soddy - and peat-gley soils (group V) which types represent a relatively important part of the contaminated territories.

70 Ris0-R-828(EN)

Table 6.1. Means ofEDRfor different migration velocity of Cs in soils (for density 1.5 g/cm ).

Group of migration rate I

II III IV V

Linear

rate, cm/year 0

<0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.7 0.7-1.2

>1.2 Soil deposit of Cs-137,

\\iC\\lmZ 5

10 15 20 25 30 50 100 200 Value of EDR, liR/h 36.8 34.6 32.4 29.6 28.3 25.7 58.5 54.1 49.8 44.2 41.5 36.4 80.3 73.7 67.2 58.8 54.8 47.1 102.0 93.2 84.6 73.4 68.0 57.8 123.8 112.8 102.0 88.0 81.3 68.5 145.5 132.3 119.4 102.6 94.5 79.2 232.5 210.5 189.0 161.0 147.5 122.0 450.0 406.0 363.0 307.0 280.0 229.0 885.0 797.0 711.0 599.0 545.0 443.0 Ris0-R-828(EN) 71

7 Equipment for Measurement of the Effect of Treatments This chapter describes an evaluation of the measurement procedures and measurement equipment which might be useful in assessments of radioactivity levels in connection with development of strategies to deal with the contamination problems.

72 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.1.a Gamma spectrometry in situ.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Intrinsic Ge-detector, Multichannel analyser, Lead shielding.

Measurement of roof, wall, soil in situ Not able to measure depth distribution profile 1 point per hour Measurement of surface contamination level 0.25 man-day per point 30000 ECU 6000 ECU 0.5 kW, + Liquid N2 250-300 %

8 points per day

90 = 720 points per year no 2 man-hours per point none none none none none Can determine all gamma emitters Special knowledge required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: RIS0 The lead shielding is established on the site, in order to measure a defined area on the wall, ground or roof, a pre-made calibration is used to quantify the result in to Bq/m2 of the different isotopes, on the different surface types. Minimum 2 well skilled persons are required.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 73

7.1.b Gamma spectrometry in situ.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Pure Ge-detector, 4096 channel analyser Measurement of roof, wall, soil in situ Can not measure depth distribution profile 1 point per hour measurement of surface contamination level 0.25 man-day per point 25000 ECU 5000 ECU 0.5 kW 250-300 %

8 points per day

90 = 720 points per year no 2 man-hours per point none none none none none Can determine all gamma radiation Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM (Russia)

The quantum flux is measured by pure Ge-detector (energy resolution < 2 keV for 662 keV radiation) and multichannel analyser in situ. The total measured quantum flux is recalculated into specific and surface activity of the measured surface. 1 scientist and 1 field worker are needed for the measurements.

74 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.2 Gamma spectrometry in the laboratory.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Pure Ge-detector 4096 channel analyser Measuring of samples of roofs, walls, soil Laboratory conditions are needed 1 sample per hour for total activity and 0.1 sample per hour for depth distribution profile Measuring sample activity 0.25 man-day/sample 25000 ECU 5000 ECU 0.5 kW 250-300 %

8 samples/day

220 days = 1760 samples/year none none 2 man-hours per sample, 20 man-hours per pro-file none none transport of samples to laboratory-2 ECU/sample All gamma radiation could be determined Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM The total sample activity measured at laboratory conditions is recalculated into specific and surface activity of substances. The sample activity is measured by pure Ge-detector (energy resolution < 2keV for 662 keV radiation) and multichannel analyser. 1 scientist and 1 field worker are required for the whole procedure.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 75

7.3 Beta counter measurements in situ.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7,4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Beta counter Various surfaces in situ At least 10 kBq/m2 on surface Portable, 1 operator ca. 10 points per hour (depending on surface type and orientation) 0.01 man-day per point 3500 700/y Negligible (gas, battery) 200 %

7200 points per year 0.08 man-hours per point Easy to handle in situ on walls and roofs Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso CONTAMAT FHT H I M beta counter. Portable, battery operated butane gas proportional counter measuring a surface area of 166 cm2.

76 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.4 Ion chamber measurements in situ.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks Ion chamber. (Reuter Stokes)

Environmental monitoring in situ None Portable, 1 operator 5 Measurements/h Tissue equivalent dose metering.

0.025 man-day/measurement.

17000 ECU 3300 ECU/y Negligible (battery) 200 %

8000 points per year Results in: R, rem, rad, Sv, Gy.

Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Reuter Stokes Ion Chamber is considered as the reference instrument in environmental dose measurement.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 77

7.5.a In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Nal counting system Various surfaces in situ Min. 1 kBq/m2 on surface Nal counter + MCA 1 operator ca. 10 points per hour depending on surface type and orientation In situ measurements with Nal detector 0.01 man-day per measurement point 8000 ECU 1600 ECU/year 200 %

7200 points/year 0.08 man-h/point Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Portable 3"*3" Nal detector system with multichannel analyser.

78 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.5.b In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks CORAD soil 0.1 jiCi/m2 - 400 nCi/m2 of I37Cs soil contam.

10-12 points per hour Measurement of 137Cs deposit and penetration 0.01-0.0125 man-day per point 4000 ECU 800 ECU/year Portable (0.1 kW for battery) 250-300 %

80-100 points/d *90 = 7200-9000 points/year None None 0.08-0.10 man-hours per point none none none none none Device allows to estimate 137Cs penetration depth Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM The measured quantum flux restricted by the lead collimator is recalculated into surface activity of soil. The quantum flux is measured by Nal detector (energy resoln. < 10% for 662keV radiation) and 256 channel analyser. 1 operator should work after some educa-tion Portable device.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 79

7.6 Laboratory spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool

2) Target surface 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5<<7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2

12) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Nal counting system with lead shielding Various surfaces in situ Max. sample size : 20cm

20cm

20cm 1 operator ca. 10-20 samples per hour depending on source strength Lead shielded Nal crystal measurements in lab.

0.005-0.01 man-day/sample 8000 ECU (detector system) + 2000 (lead bricks) 1800ECU/y 200 %

7200-14400 samples/year Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Lead shielded 3"*3" Nal detector system with multichannel analyser for laboratory use.

80 Ris0-R-828(EN)

Conclusion A catalogue of feasible techniques for reduction of the radiation dose nine years after an accidental contamination of different environments has been made. The catalogue is based on recent experimental research and therefore describes the effect and limitations of the investigated methods in relation to the current situation in the areas affected by the Chernobyl accident. However, the reported results could be used to guide clean-up op-erations in other scenarios involving aged contamination.

The format of the files describing the individual techniques facilitates a comparison on many different features, so that the most suitable technique for a special operation can be selected on the basis of a weighing of details such as for instance the dose reducing effect, scale of application, tool investment costs, labour costs, cost of consumables, overheads, exposure of operators and amounts and types of generated wastes. The se-lection of techniques can thus be made on the background of detailed analysis to ensure that the maximum effect is obtained for the costs that can be afforded.

It is often difficult to describe labour costs in monetary units, as such expenses will be greatly dependent on the local wages. Also, due to the currently high inflation rates in the former Soviet Union, a monetary evaluation of such costs would not be valid for very long time. Therefore, it was chosen to describe the labour costs in terms of the amount of time required to treat an area of surface or a standardized object.

An overall examination of the files shows that it is still possible to substantially reduce the radiation dose nine years after an accidental contamination, although it would cer-tainly have been easier immediately following the deposition of the radioactive matter.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 81

Bibliographic Data Sheet Ris0-R-828(EN)

Title and authors Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident Editors J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip ISBN 87-550-2080-1 Dept. or group Environmental Science and Technology Department Groups own rcg. numbers)

Pages 82 Tables Illustrations 1

ISSN 0106-2840 Date December 1995 Project/contract No(s)

References Abstract (Max. 2000 characters)

Nine years after the Chernobyl accident, the contamination problems of the most severely affected areas remain unsolved. As a consequence of this, large previously inhabited areas and areas of farmland now lie deserted. An inter-national group of scientists funded by the EU European Collaboration Pro-gramme (ECP/4) has investigated in practice a great number of feasible means to solve the current problems. The basic results of this work group are presen-ted in this report that was prepared in a format which facilitates an intercom-parison (cost-benefit analysis) of the individual examined techniques for de-contamination or dose reduction in various different types of environmental scenarios. Each file containing information on a method or procedure was created by the persons and institutes responsible for the practical trial. Al-though the long period that has elapsed since the contamination took place has added to the difficulties in removing the radioactive matter, it could be concluded that many of the methods are still capable of reducing the dose level substantially.

Descriptors INIS/EDB AGRICULTURE; BUILDINGS; CHERNOBYLSK-4 REACTOR; CLAYS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECONTAMINATION; DOMESTIC ANIMALS; DOSE RATES; EFFICIENCY; FARMS; FORAGE; FORESTS; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOECOLOGICAL CONCENTRATION; REACTOR ACCIDENTS; REMEDIAL ACTION; SOILS; SURFACE CLEANING Available on request from Information Service Department, Ris0 National Laboratory, (Afdelingcn for Informationsscrvicc, Forskningscentcr Ris0), PO.Box 49, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.

Telephone +45 46 77 46 77, ext. 4004/4005 Telex 43 116. Telefax +45 42 36 06 09

Objective The objective of Ris0's research is to provide industry and society with new potential in three main areas:

Energy technology and energy planning Environmental aspects of energy, industrial and plant production Materials and measuring techniques for industry As a special obligation Ris0 maintains and extends the knowledge required to advise the authorities on nuclear matters.

Research Profile Ris0's research is long-term and knowledge-oriented and directed toward areas where there are recognised needs for new solutions in Danish society. The programme areas are:

Combustion and gasification Wind energy Energy technologies for the future Energy planning Environmental aspects of energy and industrial production Environmental aspects of plant production Nuclear safety and radiation protection Materials with new physical and chemical properties Structural materials Optical measurement techniques and information processing Ris0-R-828(EN)

ISBN 87-550-2080-1 ISSN 0106-2840 Available on request from:

Information Service Department Ris0 National Laboratory EO. Box 49, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Phone +45 46 77 46 77, ext. 4004/4005 Telex 43116, Fax +45 46 75 56 27 http://www.risoe.dk e-mail: risoe@risoe.dk Transfer of Knowledge The results of Ris0's research are transferred to industry and authorities through:

Research co-operation Co-operation in R&D consortia R&D clubs and exchange of researchers Centre for Advanced Technology Patenting and licencing activities To the scientific world through:

Publication activities Co-operation in national and international networks PhD-and Post Doc. education Key Figures Ris0 has a staff of just over 900, of which more than 300 are scientists and 80 are PhD and Post Doc. students. Ris0's 1995 budget totals DKK 476m, of which 45% come from research programmes and commercial contracts, while the remainder is covered by government appropriations.

ML11355A191

Text

2.1. Constraints

3.1. Productivity

5.4. Consumables

5.5. Overheads

7.4. Toxicity

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search