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

)Practica l Mean s fo r Decontaminatio n 9 Year s afte r a Nuclea r Acciden t Editor s J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Pri p Ris 0 Nationa l Laboratory

, Roskilde , Denmar k Decembe r 199 5

Practica l Mean s fo r Decontaminatio n 9 Year s afte r a Nuclea r Acciden t Editor s J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Pri p Ris 0 Nationa l Laboratory

, Roskilde , Denmar k Decembe r 199 5 Abstrac t Nin e year s afte r th e Chernoby l accident , th e contaminatio n problem s o f th e mos t severel y affecte d area s remai n unsolved. A s a consequenc e o f this , larg e previousl y inhabite d area s an d area s o f farmlan d no w li e deserted. A n internationa l grou p o f scien-tist s funde d b y th e E U Europea n Collaboratio n Programm e (ECP/4) ha s investigate d i n practic e a grea t numbe r o f feasibl e mean s t o solv e th e curren t problems. Th e basi c re-sult s o f thi s wor k grou p ar e presente d i n thi s repor t tha t wa s prepare d i n a forma t whic h facilitate s a n intercompariso n (cost-benefi t analysis) o f th e individua l examine d tech-nique s fo r decontaminatio n o r dos e reductio n i n variou s differen t type s o f environmenta l scenarios. Eac h file containin g informatio n o n a metho d o r procedur e wa s create d b y th e person s an d institute s responsibl e fo r th e practica l trial. Althoug h th e lon g perio d tha t ha s elapse d sinc e th e contaminatio n too k plac e ha s adde d t o th e difficultie s i n removin g th e radioactiv e matter , i t coul d b e conclude d tha t man y o f th e method s ar e stil l capabl e o f reducin g th e dos e leve l substantially

.ISB N 87-550-2080-1 ISS N 0106-284 0 Grafis k Service , Ris0 9 199 5 Content s Introductio n 5 Man-Mad e Surface s i n Urba n an d Rura l Environment s 10.1 Fir e hosin g 11 2.3. Hig h pressur e wate r hosin g 12 2b Hig h pressur e wate r hosin g 13.3 Dr y sandblastin g 14 A We t sandblastin g 15.5.a Cla y treatmen t improve d wit h chemical s 16.5.b Cla y treatmen t improve d wit h chemical s 17.7.a Chang e o f roo f 19.6 Roo f cleanin g 18.7.b Chang e o f roo f 20.8 Roa d planin g 21.9 Turnin g flagstone s 22.1 0 Ammoniu m nitrat e treatmen t 23.1 1 Indoo r decontaminatio n (followin g dr y deposition

) 24.12.a Coating s 25.12.b Coating s 26.1 3 Vacuu m sweepin g 27.14.a Scrapin g woode n surface s an d painte d roof s 28.14.b Scrapin g woode n surface s an d painte d roof s 29. 1 5 Dismantlin g house s t o re-buil d 30 2 Soi l Surface s i n Variou s Housin g Environment s 31 2.1.a Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a fron t loade r 32 2.1 .b Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a fron t loade r 33 2.2 Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a grade r 34 2.3 Manua l diggin g 3 5 2.4 Tur f harveste r (small) 36 2.5 Tur f harveste r (large) 37 2.6 Law n move r (mulcher) 38 2.7 Tripl e diggin g 39 2.8 Soi l siz e fractionatio n 40 3 Fores t Area s 41 3.1 Litte r remova l 4 2 3.2 Grindin g mowe r 43 3.3 Debarkin g woo d 44 3.4 Specia l woo d pul p treatmen t 4 5 4 Virgi n Soi l i n Rura l Area s 46 4.1 Ordinar y ploughin g 47 4.2.a Dee p ploughin g 48 4.2.b. Dee p ploughin g 49 4.3.a Ski m an d buria l ploughin g 50 4.3.b Ski m an d buria l ploughin g 5/Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5 Agricultura l Environmen t 52 5.1.a Limin g 53 5.1.b Limin g 54 5.2.a Additio n o f potassiu m chlorid e 5 5 5.2.b Additio n o f potassiu m chlorid e 56 5.3 Additio n o f phosphoru s 57 5.4 Organi c amendmen t t o soi l (Cattl e manur e an d peat) 58 5.5 Pasture improvemen t b y plughin g an d fertilisin g 59 5.6 Soi l diskin g followe d b y ploughin g an d fertilisin g 60 5.7 Limin g an d fertilisin g fores t pastur e soi l withou t ploughin g 61 5.8.a Us e o f bolu s i n privat e farm s 62 5.8.b Us e o f bolu s i n privat e farm s 63 5.9.a Clea n fodde r t o animal s befor e slaughte r 64 5.9.b Clea n fodde r t o animal s befor e slaughte r 65 5.1 0 Sal t lick s fo r animal s 66 5.1 1 Productio n o f phytomas s wit h enhance d contaminatio n 67 5.1 2 Industria l crop s (rape , suga r beet , lignocelluloses

, fo r oi l fuel , etc.) 68 5.1 3 Ferrasi n filter s fo r mil k decontaminatio n 69 6 Self-Restoratio n 70 7 Equipmen t fo r Measuremen t o f th e Effec t o f Treatment s 72 7.1.a Gamm a spectrometr y i n sit u 73 7.1.b Gamm a spectrometr y i n sit u 74 12 Gamm a spectrometr y i n th e laborator y 75 13 Bet a counte r measurement s i n sit u 76 1A Io n chambe r measurement s i n sit u 77 7.5.a I n sit u spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detecto r 78 7.5.b I n sit u spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detecto r 79 7.6 Laborator y spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detecto r 80 Conclusio n 81 Ris0=R-828(EN

)

Introductio n Th e file s presente d i n thi s repor t ar e estimate s o f achievabl e 'local' dos e reductio n fac-tor s o r decontaminatio n factor s an d othe r importan t parameter s (se e definition s below)fo r differen t clean-u p procedure s i n variou s type s o f environmenta l scenarios

. Th e esti-mate s wer e base d o n experimenta l wor k t o asses s th e effec t o f dos e reducin g counter-measure s i n area s contaminate d abou t 9 year s ag o b y radioactiv e matte r release d durin g th e Chernoby l accident.Residentia l area s withi n th e 3 0 k m zon e aroun d th e Chernoby l powe r plan t ar e stil l unoccupie d du e t o unacceptabl y hig h level s o f radiatio n from radionuclide s deposite d o n th e groun d an d o n variou s man-mad e surface s i n th e environment

. Als o agricultura l an d forestr y product s contai n hig h level s o f radioactivity

. Th e nee d fo r identificatio n o f ef-fectiv e means fo r reductio n o f th e radiatio n dos e t o th e populatio n i n th e affecte d area s i s therefor e evident.Nin e year s afte r th e accident , th e radioisotop e o f majo r concer n i s i n mos t situation s 137 Cs. Thi s isotop e therefor e ha s a centra l positio n i n th e evaluation

, an d th e effec t o f al l procedure s suggeste d fo r reductio n o f externa l radiatio n dos e relate s t o 137 Cs.Th e researc h wa s carrie d ou t unde r th e framewor k o f th e E U radiatio n protectio n pro-gramm e (ECP-4) wit h th e ultimat e goa l o f developin g feasibl e strategie s fo r clean-u p o f contaminate d areas. A grea t numbe r o f feasibl e dos e reducin g method s fo r differen t ar-ea s hav e bee n suggeste d an d investigated

. Th e procedure s tha t wer e foun d t o b e mos t promisin g afte r laborator y an d othe r smal l scal e test s wer e investigate d furthe r i n fiel d trial s i n th e contaminate d area s o f Russia , Byelorussi a an d Ukraine. I t i s th e experienc e fro m thes e trials , whic h wer e carrie d ou t b y Danish , French , Greek , Russian , Byelorus-sia n an d Ukrainia n scientists

, tha t i s presente d i n thi s report.Th e wor k reporte d reflect s a n effor t t o guid e decision-maker s t o obtai n th e maximu m effec t wit h th e mone y available

. Althoug h the y ar e t o som e degre e directl y relate d t o th e Chernoby l accident , th e result s coul d b e use d t o estimat e th e effect , i n a mor e genera l sense , o f procedure s fo r remova l o f age d contamination

.Th e repor t list s importan t feature s o f th e differen t method s s o a s t o facilitat e a com-parison. Th e presentatio n i s mad e a s a serie s o f table s o r scheme s whic h sho w th e evaluatio n o f th e person s an d institute s responsibl e fo r th e investigatio n o f th e particula r procedure. Th e ai m wa s i n thi s cas e t o highligh t th e performanc e an d effec t o f a proce-dur e an d no t s o muc h t o describ e th e appearanc e an d detaile d functio n o f th e tool s an d method s applied. Suc h informatio n ca n b e foun d i n othe r document s prepare d b y th e ECP-4 projec t participants

.Th e ide a o f a schem e desig n wa s brough t u p b y Andr e Jouv e a t a meetin g o f th e ECP-4 grou p i n Russia. Th e ide a wa s approve d b y al l th e participant s an d suggestion s fo r th e desig n wer e given. Th e fina l for m o f th e schem e wa s reache d a t a meetin g a t Riso.I n th e followin g i s give n a n exampl e o f ho w t o rea d an d appl y on e o f th e scheme s tha t wer e fille d in. Th e schem e i s show n i n sectio n 1.4 (sandblasting

, wet).1. Tool: mention s th e tool an d metho d i n question. Remark s a t th e botto m o f eac h pag e (belo w th e scheme) ofte n giv e mor e informatio n o n th e desig n o f th e too l I n thi s cas e (we t sandblasting

) th e too l i s fabricate d b y a Danis h firm , KEW , an d th e remark s a t th e botto m o f th e pag e sho w tha t thi s i s a hig h pressur e wate r base d cleanin g equipment

, t o whic h a sandblastin g devic e ca n b e attached.2. Targe t surface: thi s i s th e surfac e tha t w e ar e dealin g wit h (i n thi s schem e i t i s walls).2.1. Constraints

list s obvious constraint s fo r th e metho d an d target. I n thi s cas e i t i s indicate d tha t scaffoldin g woul d eas e th e proces s an d i s ofte n necessary

.3. Desig n (numbe r o f operators)

give s som e furthe r details. I t i s indicate d here , tha t th e metho d mostl y require s tw o operators

.Ris0-R-828(EN

)

3.1. Productivity

give s th e spee d b y whic h th e metho d i s carrie d out. Usually , i t i s give n a s th e numbe r o f squar e metre s tha t ca n b e treate d b y on e too l i n a n hour. I n thi s case thi s i s 30.4. Mod e o f operation

i s i n thi s cas e hig h pressur e wate r wit h san d injected.5. Cost: ha s bee n divide d i n th e followin g differen t sub-sections

5.1. Manpowe r (day s pe r uni t area) : give s th e cos t i n man-days/uni t are a o f th e targe t surface. Th e reason s fo r whic h w e hav e chose n man-day s a s indicator s o f cost s instea d o f mone y ar e th e followin g : a) th e cos t o f man-powe r i s ver y differen t i n differen t countries , especiall y whe n considerin g th e CI S countrie s compare d wit h th e E U coun-tries. Th e user s ca n therefor e giv e thei r ow n loca l estimat e o f cos t o f labou r force , b)th e dat a ca n b e use d i n th e futur e a s i t i s possibl e t o includ e a cos t estimat e o f labou r forc e i n a futur e situation

.5.2. Too l investmen t cost: give s th e cos t o f buyin g o r rentin g th e tool. I n thi s cas e th e pric e o f th e too l i s 240 0 ECU.5.3. Discoun t (ECU/year)

give s th e norma l discoun t rat e base d o n th e investmen t cost s an d a n assume d interes t rate. I n thi s cas e i t ca n b e see n tha t th e equipmen t i s full y dis-counte d afte r 5 years.5.4. Consumables

gives th e mos t importan t consumables

, i n thi s cas e petrol , san d an d water.5.5. Overheads

i s normall y give n i n manpowe r pe r squar e meter. Th e overhead s ar e i n thi s case th e wor k require d fo r preparatio n o f th e tool , th e norma l cos t o f th e administra

-tio n o f th e fir m i n charge , etc.5.6. Scal e o f application

gives th e scal e o f applicatio n fo r norma l operatio n - i n thi s cas e 3 0 m 2 ca n b e cleane d pe r hou r an d i t i s assume d tha t th e too l ca n b e operate d 72 0 hour0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> s pe r year. Thi s give s a tota l surfac e o f 21,60 0 m pe r year. Fro m tha t i t ca n b e estimate d ho w man y tool s ar e neede d fo r a specia l operation

. Thi s i s th e reaso n wh y th e ite m 'scal e o f application

' ha s bee n place d unde r th e 'cost 9 sectio n 5.7.1.-5.7.3

. ar e dos e relate d costs.5.7.1: Specifi c exposure: ca n b e e.g. inhalatio n dose, P dose , etc. I n thi s cas e i t i s indi-cate d tha t ther e i s onl y littl e dus t (inhalatio n hazard), a s i t i s greatl y reduce d b y th e wate r (we t sandblasting)

.5.7.2. Inhalation/externa l dos e relation: give s a n estimat e o f th e importanc e o f inhala-tio n dos e whe n no t protected

. I n thi s cas e i t i s estimate d tha t th e inhalatio n dos e wil l b e les s tha n 1 % o f th e externa l dose.5.7.3. Numbe r o f man-hour s exposed: give s th e numbe r o f man-hour s wher e th e opera-tor s ar e expose d o n th e contaminate d workin g place.6: Efficiency

ha s onl y on e ite m (poin t 6.1). I n mos t case s a decontaminatio n facto r ha s bee n quoted. Th e decontaminatio n facto r i s define d a s th e concentratio n o f th e origina l contaminatio n o n a surfac e o r i n a n objec t relativ e t o wha t i s lef t afte r a decontaminatio n procedure. B y som e o f th e procedures

, however , th e contaminatio n ha s no t bee n re-move d (n o actua l decontamination)

, bu t fo r instanc e burie d unde r a shieldin g laye r o f uncontaminate d soi l t o reduc e th e dos e rate. Fo r suc h procedure s anothe r concep t wa s introduce d t o evaluat e th e efficiency

th e surfac e dos e reductio n factor , whic h i s define d a s th e rati o o f th e dos e rat e befor e t o tha t afte r a dos e reductio n actio n ha s take n plac e (e.g. dee p ploughing

) a t a distanc e o f 1 m fro m th e surface , regardin g th e surfac e a s havin g infinit e dimensions

, an d assumin g tha t n o othe r source s ar e present. I n mos t case s thi s facto r mus t b e calculate d from measurement s o n a limite d (finite) surface. B y 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

thes e concept s th e decontaminatio n facto r fo r a surfac e i s equa l t o th e surfac e dos e re-ductio n factor , whic h ca n b e use d t o fin d th e 'total' dos e reductio n facto r fo r a procedur e i n a give n scenario. Thi s 'total' dos e reductio n facto r woul d b e smalle r (i n som e case s substantiall y smaller) tha n th e surfac e dos e reductio n factor , du e t o th e presenc e o f othe r surfaces , object s an d source s i n th e environment

.7. Waste s generated

poin t 7 deal s wit h th e waste s generate d b y th e operation

.7.1. Soli d (kg/m 2): thi s i s th e soli d par t o f th e waste , i n thi s cas e san d an d fragment s o f th e wal l tha t hav e bee n remove d i n th e process.7.2. Liqui d (1/m 2): thi s i s th e residua l wast e afte r separatio n o f th e soli d par t fro m th e liquid.7.3. Wast e activit y (Bq/m 3 pe r Bq/m 2): enable s a calculatio n o f th e concentratio n o f radioactivit y i n th e waste , whe n th e contaminatio n leve l pe r squar e mete r o f th e surfac e i s known.7.4. Toxicity: deal s wit h th e toxicit y (othe r tha n radioactivity

) o f th e wast e created.8. Othe r costs: coul d b e tha t th e wal l ha s t o b e repainted

. I n thi s cas e i t i s no t foun d t o b e necessary

.9. Othe r benefits: i n thi s cas e ther e ar e visua l improvements

.10. Specia l remarks: coul d b e tha t thi s metho d ca n no t b e use d o n woode n house s a s th e san d an d wate r migh t the n penetrate throug h th e wall. I n thi s cas e ther e ar e n o specia l remarks.Th e followin g scientist s an d organisation s hav e contribute d t o thi s methodologica l evaluatio n : Ris0-R-828(EN

)

Ris e Nationa l Laboratory

, Ecolog y Section , Environmenta l Scienc e an d Technolog y Department

, DK-400 0 Roskilde , Denmar k (Rise): J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Pri p IPSN , DPEI/SER E CD/Cadarache

, Batimen t 159 , 1310 8 Sain t Pau l le z Durance , France (IPSN): A. Jouv e Laborator y o f Ecolog y an d Environmenta l Sciences , Agricultura l Universit y o f Athens , 1100 0 Athens , Greece: G. Arapi s A.A. Bochva r All-Russia n Scientifi c Researc h Institut e o f Inorgani c Materials

, 5 Rogo v st , 12306 0 Moscow , Russi a (IIM): L. Mamaev , G. Galkin , Rybakov , Ogulni k Branc h o f St. Peterbur g Institut e o f Radiatio n Hygiene , Karchevka

, Novozybkov

, Bryans k Region , 24300 0 Russi a (BIRH): V. Ramzae v RECO M Ltd., 12-1 Schukinskay a st., 12318 2 Moscow , Russi a (RECOM): A. Chesnoko v Institut e o f Radioecologica l Problems , Academ y o f Sciences , 22010 9 Minsk , Sosny , Belaru s (IRP): N. Voroni k Institut e o f Powe r Engineerin g Problems , Academ y o f Sciences , Sosn y 22010 9 Minsk , Belaru s (IPEP): A. Grebenko v Chernoby l Stat e Committe e Belarus , 1 4 Leni n St., 22003 0 Minsk , Belaru s (CSCB): G. Antsypa u IGMO F A S Ukraine , Dept. o f Radiogeochemistr y o f th e Environment

, 3 4 Palladi n Avenue , Kie v 252142 , Ukrain e (IGMOF): N. Movchan , Y. Fedorenko

, A. Spigoun , B. Zlobenk o Belaru s Institute o f Agricultura l Radiology

, 1 6 Fedyuninsk y St., 24600 7 Gomel , Belaru s (BIAR): S. Firsakova

, A. Timoteev , A , Averi n Institute o f Cel l Biolog y an d Geneti c Engineerin g AS , 14 8 Zabolotnog o St., Kiev , Ukrain e (ICBGI): Y.Kutlakhmedo v Ris0-R-828(EN

)

Ukrainia n Researc h Centr e fo r Radiatio n Medicine , 5 3 Melnikov a st.9 25405 0 Kiev , Ukrain e (UCRM): I.P. Lo s Institut e o f Geograph y A S o f Ukraine , 4 4 Vladimirskay a St., 25203 4 Kiev , Ukraine: V. Davydchou k Belaru s Stat e University

, Chemistr y Dept., 4 Francis k Scorin a Av., 22008 0 Minsk , Belarus: G. Sokoli k Ukrainia n Institut e o f Agricultura l Radiology

, 7 Mashinostroitele i st , Chabany , 25520 5 Kiev , Ukrain e (UIAR): L. Perepelyatnikov a Institut e o f Bio-organi c Chemistr y an d Petrochemistr y o f Academ y o f Sciences , 5 0 Kharkovskoe shosse , 25216 0 Kiev , Ukrain e (IBOChOCh)

V. Blagoe v Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1 Man-Mad e Surface s i n Urba n an d Ru-ra l Environment s Thi s chapte r report s th e effec t o f experimenta l procedure s t o clea n contaminate d roo f pavings , walls , roads , pavements

, indoo r surface s an d variou s othe r man-mad e surfaces.Decontaminatio n o f suc h surface s i s particularl y difficul t s o lon g tim e afte r th e accident , wher e th e fixatio n o f radiocaesiu m b y micaceou s substance s tha t ar e presen t i n man y types o f surfac e ha s becom e ver y strong. However , a substantia l decreas e i n radiatio n dos e rat e ha s bee n foun d t o b e achievabl e b y som e o f th e reporte d methods. Als o dis-mantlin g o f building s wa s considere d a s a n option.1 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.1 Fir e hosing.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y (incineration

, sulphat e conten t i n concret e solidificatio n etc.)8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Fir e hosin g Road s-Pum p 4- 2 je t pipe s 10 0 m 2/h Wate r rinsin g 0.001 3 man-day/m 2 300 0 EC U - i f bough t i n Wester n Europ e 60 0 ECU/yea r 1 0 1 petro l pe r hou r + 2 4 m 3 wate r pe r hou r 20 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)7200 0 m 2 pe r yea r N o inhalatio n hazar d 0 0.0 3 h/m 2 1.1 0 (probabl y les s i n heavil y trafficke d area s an d mor e i n Pripyat)50-20 0 g/m 2 (impossibl e t o collect)0.2 5 m 3/m 2 (impossibl e t o collect)lo w Non e---Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o A s i t i s no t alway s possibl e t o fin d fir e pump s i n th e area , i t i s assume d tha t a pum p i s needed. A pum p ca n suppl y 2 je t pipes wit h water. I t i s assume d tha t th e pump wil l als o requir e a n operator.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)1 1 1.2.a Hig h pressur e wate r hosing.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)

4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y (incineration

, sulphat e conten t i n concret e solidificatio n etc.)8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Hig h pressur e turbo nozzl e walls/roof s-1 perso n 3 7 m 2/h Hig h pressur e wate r hosin g 12 0 ba r 0.003 4 man-da y pe r m 2 235 0 EC U 47 0 ECU/yea r 4 1 petro l pe r hou r 20 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)(3 7 m 2/h* 72 0 h/y) 2650 0 m 2/yea r Becaus e o f wate r onl y a littl e dus t<l/10 0 0.02 7 man-h/m 2 1.3(walls)

, 2.2(roofs)

, probabl y mor e i n Pripya t 0 4 kg/m 2 2 0 1/m 2 250 0 m'1 - soli d Non e unles s asbesto s Alga e an d mos s removed. Nice r appearanc e Afte r precipitatio n th e liqui d contain s 5 % o f th e radioactivit y an d ca n b e dispose d o f Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris 0 Requirements

Hig h pressur e cleanin g equipment

, petro l driven. Workin g a t 15 0 ba r th e turb o nozzl e ha s a n oscillatin g jet-stream

.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.1 2 Ris0-R~828(EN

)

1.2.b Hig h pressur e wate r hosing.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s OM-2261 6 Asphal t surfaces , concret e surface s N o 2 operator s 1.5..2 m 2/h (1.0.. 1.8 m 2/h fo r concret e surfaces)Hig h pressur e wate r hosin g 0.15... 0.2 man-days/m 2 24 0 EC U 8 0 ECU/yea r Power: 4 9 kW; Wate r 0.1 m 3/m 2 16 0 % o f wage s 2 m 2/h

72 0 h/yea r N o N o 1.0 ... 1.4 man-hour/m 2 1.7 ... 2.2 fo r concret e surface s N o Liquid s ar e no t collecte d N o N o Sanitar y cleanin g u p Larg e volum e o f wate r Authors: Voronik , Grebenkov

, Antsypau. Institution

IRP , IPEP , CSC B Ris0-R-828(EN

)1 3 1.3 Dr y sandblasting

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewing roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Sandblastin g equipmen t (dry)wal l scaffoldin g preferabl e High-pressur e wit h san d (2 persons)2 0 m 2 pe r hou r Hig h pressur e ai r wit h san d injecte d 0.01 2 man-da y pe r m 2 450 0 EC U 90 0 ECU/yea r 5 1 petro l pe r hou r an d 2 k g san d pe r m z. Dr y san d - preferabl y quartz-san d (0.5-2 mm)20 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)2 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/yea r = 1440 0 m 2/yea r Dust: inhalatio n hazar d ca. 1/1 0 wit h prope r mas k 0.1 man-h/m 2 4 2.5 kg/m 2 (impossibl e t o collect)-80 0 m'1 Non e Visua l improvemen t Create s dust. Whole-bod y protect/ai r suppl y neede d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris 0 Basi c equipment

Hig h pressur e ai r compresso r wit h sandblastin g equipmen t an d san d containe r

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout 5 , accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J , Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.1 4 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.4 We t sandblasting

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Sandblastin g wit h KE W equipment (wet)wal l scaffoldin g preferabl e Hig h pressur e wate r plu s san d - 2 person s 3 0 m 2 pe r hou r hig h pressur e wate r wit h san d injecte d 0.008 3 man-da y pe r m 2 240 0 EC U 480 ECU/yea r 4 1 petrol/h , 2.2 5 k g sand/m 2 , 5 5 1 wate r pe r m 2 20 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)3 0 m 2/h*72 0 h/yea r = 2160 0 m 2/yea r becaus e we t onl y a littl e dus t<l/10 0 0.06 7 h/m 2 5 2.5 kg/m 2 (5 5 1/m 2)Soli d 80 0 m" 1 (liqui d = almos t 0)Non e-Visua l improvemen t-Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o High-pressur e wate r cleanin g equipmen t supplie d wit h a sandblastin g devic e whic h in-ject s san d i n th e wate r jet-stream

.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)1 5 1.5.a Cla y treatmen t improve d wit h chemicals

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s ARS-1 4 wit h traile r Wal l N o 3 person s 70m 2/h Coverin g cla y suspension

, dryin g an d collectin g o f cla y films Tota l cos t estimat e 0.7 ECU/m 2 0.00 7 man.day/m 2 5700 0 EC U 1140 0 ECU/yea r gasolin e 3 1 kg/h 200% o f wage s max. are a treate d 4550 0 m 2/yea r We t = n o dus t> 0,0000 1 4.3* 10" 2 man.h/m 2 1.2 +/-0.1 -3.6 +/-0.8 0.2 5 +/- 0.0 5 5.7* 10 3- 1.2* 10 4 N o toxicit y n o Improvemen t o f consumabl e propertie s Authors: Movchan , Fedorenko

, Spigoun , Zlobenko , Institution

IGMO F#3. Desig n ARS-1 4 consist s of: 3.1 Lorr y SIL-13 1 3: 2 Tan k fo r wate r 2.5 m 3 3.3 pum p 2.5 VS-3 a-productivit y 30+30 0 1/min. - pressur e 3-4.5 ba n - Traile r wit h vesse l 3-4 m 3 3 persons: 2 operator s + 1 driver.1 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.5.b Cla y treatmen t improve d wit h chemicals

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5,7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s ARS-1 4 wit h traile r Roo f N o 3 person s 9 0 m 2/h Coverin g cla y suspension

, dryin g an d collec t cla y films Tota l cos t estimat e 0.7 ECU/m 2 0.00 6 man.day/m 2 5700 0 EC U 1140 0 ECU/yea r gasolin e 3 1 kg/h 200% o f wage s max. are a possibl y treate d 5850 0 m 2/yea r We t = n o dus t> 0,0000 1 3.3* 10'2 man-h/m 2 1.2 +/-0.1 -2.6 +/-0.4 0.2 5 +/- 0.0 5 4* 10 3-2.8* 10 4 No n toxicit y n o Improvemen t o f consumabl e propertie s Authors: Movchan , Fedorenko

, Spigoun , Zlobenko. Institution

IGMO F#3. Design: ARS-1 4 consis t of: 3.1 Lorr y SIL-13 1 3: 2 Tan k fo r wate r 2.5 m 3 3.3 pum p 2.5 VS-3 a- productivit y 30+30 0 1/min. - pressur e 3-4.5 bar. - Traile r wit h vesse l 3-4 m 3 3 persons: 2 operator s + 1 driver.Ris0-R-828(EN

)1 7 1.6 Roo f cleaning.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Roo f washe r Roof s Non e Ai r drive n rotatin g brus h - 2 person s 1 8 m 2 pe r hou r Rotatin g brus h + rinsin g wate r 0.01 4 man-day/m 2 6000 EC U 120 0 ECU/yea r 5 1 petrol/h + 1 3 1/m 2 wate r 15 0 % o f man-powe r (5.1)(18m 2/h*720h/y) 1296 0 m 2/yea r 0 0 0.1 1 h/m 2 2 (probabl y highe r i n Pripyat)0.2 kg/m 2 (i n water)1 3 1/m 2 7 7 m" 1 Non e unles s asbesto s Roo f cleane d fo r mos s an d alga e Ca n b e use d wit h specia l waste-collectio n system.Ca n b e operate d fro m groun d level.Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Rotatin g brus h mounte d o n extendibl e ro d allow s operatio n fro m ground. Ai r compres-so r provide s pressur e fo r rotatin g th e brus h an d ta p wate r a t ordinar y pressur e i s neede d fo r rinsing. A filte r syste m ca n enabl e recycling

.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

4 Clean~u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.1 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.7.a Chang e o f roof.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Se t o f tool s Asbesto s roo f (mainl y fo r private house)N o 4 operator s 1 2 m 2/h Chang e o f roo f Su m estimate d i n Gome l Provinc e (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5)

1.5 ECU/m 2 0.0 5 man-days/m 2 10 0 3 0 1 2 m 2/h o f ne w asbesto s plate s 16 0 % o f wage s 1 2 m 2/h

84 0 h/yea r Asbesto s dus t<0.00 1 0.2 7 man-hour/m 2 I n principl e infinit e 1 2 kg/m 2 N o 12 0 m-1 Asbesto s N o Ne w roof , nice r lookin g Authors: Antsypau , Grebenko v Institution

CSCB , IPE P Ris0-R-828(EN

)1 9 1.7.b Chang e o f roof.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5=7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Hammer , nail-taker

.Roo f (asbestos

)need s 2 ladder s 2 m 2/h 80 0 h/yea r Manua l changin g o f roo f coverin g 0.12 5 man.day/m 2 1 0 EC U 1 0 EC U N o 150%2 m 2/h

800h/y = 160 0 m 2/yea r Dus t + asbesto s inhalatio n 1/1000- 1/1000 0 1 man-hour/

m>10 0 1 5 kg/m 2 N o 100-200Bq/m 3/Bq/m 2 Asbesto s 1.5 ECU/m 2 o f ne w asbesto s Renewin g o f roo f Especiall y effectiv e i n th e cas e o f ol d roof.Authors: Ramzae v Institution

BIR H Chesnoko v RECO M Removin g ol d asbesto s sheet s manuall y an d puttin g o n ne w ones.2 operators

.2 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.8 Roa d planing.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Roa d plane r (grindin g of f 3 cm)Roa d-Professiona l roa d plane r (4 operators

)50 0 m 2/h grindin g of f surfac e whic h mus t b e picke d u p 0.001 9 man-day/m 2 70.00 0 EC U 12.50 0 EC U 8 I/hou r o f petro-diese l 20 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)50 0 m 2/h*720h/y = 36000 0 m 2/yea r Dust y - bu t coars e particle s< 1/1 0 0.01 6 man-h/m 2>10 0 4 5 kg/m 2 non e 2 2 m'1 Asphal t (bitumen)I n som e case s subsequen t pavin g o f th e roa d - no t necessar y wit h th e righ t machin e Planin g o f roa d-Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Contractor' s machiner y - larg e scal e - a rotatin g 'drum 9 grind s of f th e asphal t to p laye r whic h mus t b e removed.Ris0-R-828(EN

)2 1 1.9 Turning flagstones.

1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Turnin g flagstone s manuall y Flagstone s-- 1 operato r 12m 2/h Manua l 0.0 2 man-day/m 2 Non e-1 2 m 2/h

72 0 h/y = 864 0 m 2/yea r--0.2 man-h/m 2 6------Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris 0

Reference:

Furthe r descriptio n o f th e metho d ca n b e foun d i n : H.L. Gjorup , N.O.Jensen , P. Hedeman n Jensen , L. Kristensen

, O.J. Nielsen , E.L. Petersen , T. Petersen , J.Roed , S. Thykie r Nielsen , F. Heike l Vinther , L. Warming , A. Aarkrog: 5 Radioactiv e Contaminatio n o f Danis h Territor y afte r Coremel t Accident s a t th e Barsebac k Powe r Plant , Ris e Nationa l Laboratory

, Ris0-R-462

, Marc h 1982.2 2 Ris0=R-828(EN

)

1.1 0 Ammoniu m nitrat e treatment

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Ammoniu m nitrat e sprayin g wal l sprayin g wit h pum p (1 person)2 4 m 2/h Ammoniu m nitrat e solutio n spraye d ont o wal l 0.0 1 man-da y /m 2 100 0 EC U 20 0 ECU/yea r 6.2 5 1/m 2 o f 0.1 M ammoniu m nitrat e solutio n 15 0 % o f manpowe r 1728 0 m 2/yea r-<l/10 0 0.1 man-h/m 2 1.3 (probabl y highe r i n Pripyat)Non e 6 1/m 2 - collectable

, recyclabl e 5 5 m" 1----Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Ammoniu m nitrat e i s dissolve d t o 0.1 M (n o significan t effec t improvemen t fro m stronge r solutions

) i n wate r i n a vessel. A pum p (submersible

) i s use d togethe r wit h a hos e t o appl y th e solution. Th e surfac e i s subsequentl y rinse d wit h clea n water.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)2 3 1.1 1 Indoo r decontaminatio n (followin g dr y deposition)

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Vacuu m Cleaner , razors , manua l scraper , brus h Wall s covere d wit h wal l pape r non e 2 operator s 7.5 m 2/h Changin g o f wallpape r 0.0 3 man-day/m 2 7 0 EC U 1 8 ECU/yea r 0.000 5 kWh/m 2 100%7.5 m 2/h

8 h

200 day s = 1200 0 m 2/yea r N o< 0.000 1 0.0 7 man-hour/

m> 10 0 0.15-0.3 0 kg/m 2 Non e 1000 0 Bq/m 3 pe r Bq/m 2 Non e 0.2 ECU/m 2 fo r ne w wal l pape r etc.wallpape r renewe d Replacemen t o f wallpape r Authors: Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

BIRH , RECO M (Russia)2 4 Ris0-R~828(EN

)

1,12.a Coatings.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Detache d polyme r past e Smoot h meta l surface s (painted)Effectiv e a t t>+5°C 1 operato r 2 ... 6 m 2/h Cleanin g o f equipment

, transport s 0.0 2 ... 0.0 7 man-days/m 2 0EC U 0 ECU/yea r Past e an d ingredients

0.4-0.7 kg/m z , 1.7-2.5 ECU/k g 16 0 % o f wage s 2-6 m 2/h

50 0 h/yea r N o N o 0.1 2 ... 0.15man-hour/m 2 4... 3 0 0.2... 1.8 kg/m 2 N o 1 0 ...2 0 m" 1 n o N o Sanitar y cleanin g up , improvemen t o f consum-abl e propertie s Larg e volum e o f manua l wor k Authors: Voroni k Institution

IR P Th e polyme r past e bind s a surfac e contamination

, bein g dried , an d remove s it , bein g detached. Som e sorptio n an d adhesiv e propertie s improv e effectivenes s o f method. Th e technolog y provide s th e minima l decontaminatio n facto r (4- 7) whil e applyin g t o ruste d o r painte d meta l surfaces. Th e technolog y provide s th e maxima l decon-taminatio n facto r (1 0 - 30) whil e applyin g t o oile d o r dirt y meta l surfaces.Ris0-R-828(EN

)2 5 1.12.b Coatings.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Polyme r coating s Wall s Temperatur e -2 0 - +3 0 °C , humidit y < 8 0 %9 m 2/h , 56 0 h/yea r removin g radionuclide s fro m surfac e o f wal l 0.01 4 man-day/m 2 1400 0 EC U 140 0 ECU/yea r 0.5 6 kWh/m 2 120%9 m 2/h

56 0 h/yea r = 504 0 m 2/yea r N o dat a< 1/1000 0 0.1 1 man-hours/m 2 4-5 0.2 kg/m 2 N o 500 0 Bq/m 3 pe r Bq/m 2 N o Repaintin g o f th e wall s 0.3 ECU/m 2 Renovatio n o f wall s Ca n no t b e use d o n woode n walls Authors: Mamaev , Galki n + assistanc e fro m Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

IIM , BIRH , RECO M Th e contaminate d surfac e i s coate d b y dissolvin g polyviny l alcoho l powde r i n wate r mixe d wit h chemica l agents an d plastifier

. Afte r som e tim e wate r an d th e component s evaporate. Th e polyme r coatin g i s remove d mechanically

.2 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.1 3 Vacuu m sweeping.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Vacuu m sweepin g Road s-Vacuu m sweepe r (1 person)350 0 m 2/h rotatin g brus h an d vacuumin g 3.6

1 0 *5 man-da y pe r m 2 9000 0 1800 0 5-6 1/h o f petro l 15 0 % o f manpowe r 350 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y = 252000 0 m 2/y Accumulate d dus t i s brough t clos e t o th e operato r Inhal. dos e ca n b e minimise d b y applic. o f wate r 5*10" 4 man-hour s pe r m 2 1.4 - depend s o n loca l traffi c an d particl e siz e -probabl y highe r i n Pripya t 50-20 0 g/m 2-20000-500 0 m" 1--Cleanin g road s o f litte r Se e attache d shee t Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Vacuu m sweepin g wit h a municipa l seate d Scholin g stree t cleanin g machin e wit h a wa-te r nozzl e t o spra y a fine mis t o f wate r ont o th e roa d prio r t o brushin g wit h 3 rotatin g brushe s an d finall y applicatio n o f a vacuumin g attachment

. Th e stree t dus t i s accumu-late d i n a vesse l behin d th e operator , wh o ca n ge t a dos e fro m this.

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)2 7 1.14.a Scrapin g woode n surface s an d painte d roofs.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 53) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Electri c dril l wit h stee l woo l o r sand-pape r Iro n roofs/ painte d wall s Possibl y scaffoldin g Househol d equipmen t - 1 perso n Im 2/h Grindin g 0.12 5 man-da y pe r m 2 10 0 EC U 5 0 EC U Electricit y 1 kW/h , stee l wool 1 ECU/h 15 0 % o f manpowe r (5.1)x-larg e du e t o simplicit y inhalatio n dos e<l/1 0 wit h prope r mas k 1 h/m 2 2-2.3 0.1 kg/m 2 Non e 500 0 m" 1 ye s i f pain t contain s dangerou s element s-Eas y t o repain t N o know-ho w i s require d - onl y du e consideratio n Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris e Th e equipmen t i s wha t i s usuall y applie d t o clea n surface s prio r t o painting.2 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

1.14.b Scrapin g woode n surface s an d painte d roofs.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Manua l electri c cuttin g machin e woode n wal l Residua l nail s i n th e wal l mus t b e remove d 2 operator s 1 m 2/h - 90 0 h/yea r pe r operato r Mechanica l remova l o f th e uppe r laye r 0.0 8 man-day/m 2 5 0 EC U 2 5 ECU/yea r 0.6 kWh/m 2 100-200%1 m 2/h

90 0 h/yea r = 90 0 m 2/yea r Inhalatio n o f dus t 1/1000- 1/1000 0 1 man-hour/m 2 5 2.5-5.0 kg/m 2 Non e 300-50 0 m" 1 Non e Ne w paintin g : 0.3 ECU/m 2 Renovatio n o f th e walls Removin g th e uppe r 0.3-0.5 c m wit h th e tool.Authors: Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

BIRH , RECO M Afte r dismantlin g th e house , woode n wall s ca n b e use d a s a buildin g materia l fo r ne w houses. I n thi s cas e part s o f woode n wal l ca n b e cleane d u p separatel y i n a maste r house. Two operator s ar e neede d a s a 1 6 hou r workin g da y i s assumed.Ris0-R-828(EN

)2 9 1.1 5 Dismantlin g house s t o re-build.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Se t o f tool s (Se e description s attached)Hous e an d she d N o 8 operator s 0.03 6 house/h Dismantlin g o f a hous e Su m estimate d fo r Gome l Provinc e (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5)

70 0 ECU/hous e 25.5 man-days/hous e Ren t o f machinery

30 0 ECU/hous e N o 200% o f wage s 0.03 6 house/h

1120h/yea r Dus t<0.000 1 20 0 man-hour/hous e I n principl e infinit e 1 2 kg/m 2 o f asbesto s roo f N o 12 0 m'1 Asbesto s dus t 3000 0 (ne w house)Remediatio n o f territor y Authors: Ansypa u Grebenko v Institution

CSC B IPE P Attache d descriptions

Personne l o f on e team: Tool s applied: 1 Crane , 1 Truc k MAZ , 1 Bulldozer

.1 cran e operato r 2 man-day s 1 truc k drive r 3 man-day s 1 bulldoze r operato r 0.5 man-da y 5 workers , operatin g outdoor s 4 day s

5 = 2 0 man-day s Territor y doe s not includ e i n an y option s Dismantle d hous e i s no t considere d t o b e manage d a s radioactiv e wast e excep t roo f materials

.Dismantle d hous e represent s a singl e one-store d buildin g an d on e woode n shed.3 0 Ris0~R-828(EN

)

2 Soi l Surface s i n Variou s Housin g Envi-ronment s Thi s chapte r report s th e effec t o f experimenta l procedure s t o reduc e th e dos e rat e fro m area s o f soi l i n variou s type s o f housin g environments

. Variou s method s t o remov e th e to p soi l laye r wer e evaluated

, sinc e th e majo r par t o f th e radiocaesiu m i s stil l i n th e up-permos t fe w centimetre s o f th e vertica l soi l profil e 9 year s afte r deposition

. Als o meth-od s t o bur y th e contaminatio n an d thereb y greatl y reduc e th e dos e rat e wer e investigated

.Further , a metho d t o extrac t soi l particle s an d substance s t o whic h th e radiopollutant s ar e attached , wa s considered

.Ris0-R-828(EN

) 3 1 2,h a Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a fron t loader.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Fron t Loade r Soi l N o 1 operato r 70 0 m 2/h Cuttin g o f contaminate d soi l laye r 0.000 2 man-day/m 2 2000 0 EC U 200 0 EC U Diese l oil: 0.0 3 kg/m 2 160%70 0 m 2/h

90 0 h/yea r = 63000 0 m 2/y N o< 1/1000 0 0.001 4 man-hours/m 2 2 8 7 5 kg/m 2 N o 2 0 N o N o N o Lan d diggin g machin e fo r periodi c action.Authors; Fille d i n b y Person: Mamaev , Rybako v Institution

IIM , Russi a Remove s fertil e soi l layer.3 2 Ris0=R-828(EN

)

2.1.b Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a fron t loader.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Bulldoze r Soi l 1 operato r 0.0 3 ha/h scrapin g o f to p soi l wit h fron t loade r (10-3 0 cm)Tota l estimate: 19 0 ECU/h a (Ukraine)4 man-days/h a 2000 0 EC U 200 0 EC U 1 2 kg/h petro-diese l 100%30 0 m7 h

80 0 h/y 0.00 1 1*10° man-hours/m z 10-10 0 30-6 0 kg/m z-3-1 0 m'1-Los s o f soi l productivit y N o subsequen t treatmen t require d-Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Blagoe v Institution

ICBGI , IBOChOC h Ris0-R-828(EN

)3 3 2.2 Scrapin g of f th e to p soi l wit h a grader.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 12) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Grade r To p laye r o f groun d N o 1 operato r 400-100 0 m 2/h Scrapin g o f soi l surfac e Su m estimate d fo r Gome l Provinc e (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5)

1.3 8 ECU/m 2 0.0003 6 man-day/m 2 Ren t o f machinery

lOOECU/da y N o 24kg/h 200% o f wage s 100 0 m 2/hou r

72 0 h/yea r Dus t i n dr y seaso n O.000 1 0.00 1 man-hour/m 2 4... 1 0 18 0 ...40 0 N o (4 ... lO^n'1 N o Depend s upo n furthe r utilisatio n o f clea n groun d Planin g o f territor y Authors: Antsypau , Grebenko v Institution

CSCB , IPE P 3 4 Ris0~R-828(EN

)

2.3 Manua l digging.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Shove l Garde n soi l th e soi l mus t b e virgi n soi l hand-diggin g (x persons)4 m 2/h pe r ma n Diggin g t o abou t 3 0 c m dept h 0.0 3 man-da y pe r m 2 1 2 EC U 2 4 ECU/yea r Non e 10 0 % o f manpowe r Unlimite d 0.3 man-hou r pe r m 2 4-6-------Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris 0

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)3 5 2.4 Tur f harveste r (small).1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Tur f harveste r (small)Undisturbe d grasse d soils , smal l privat e pastures , fores t pastures , urba n grasse d lands.N o o f fe w stone s 4 80 0 m 2/h remove s th e 3-5 c m to p soi l 0.000 6 man-d/m 2 720 0 EC U 240 0 ECU/yea r 2 kg/h , gasolin e (0.2 3 ECU/kg)100%80 0 m 2/h (72 0 h/year)Externa l an d interna l dose s<0.000 1 6*10" 4 man.day/m 2 3-2 0 occup y 5 % o f th e decon. are a 20-3 0 kg/m 2 N o N o N o Improve s pastures.Decontaminatio n definitel y achieved , n o furthe r interventio n required.Authors: A. Jouve , A. Grebenkov

, G. Antsypau , Y. Kutlakhmedo v Institutions

ISPN , IPEP , CSCB , ICBG I Th e tur f harveste r i s a n existin g techniqu e use d t o produc e tur f mat s fro m gras s nurseries

, tha t ca n b e plante d furthe r awa y t o faste n th e creatio n o f ne w lawns. Whe n th e gras s ma t i s stron g enough , thi s machin e i s capabl e o f removin g ver y precisel y a soi l laye r o f 1 cm , whic h i s th e usua l thick-nes s o f th e tur f mat s use d fo r commercia l purpose , o r 5 c m i n th e trial s carrie d ou t i n th e Cherno-by l zon e t o decontaminat e th e soil. Thi s techniqu e i s particularl y wel l adapte d t o decontaminat e pea t bo g soi l pasture s wit h a remova l o f a 5 c m laye r o f th e organi c horizo n withou t compromisin g th e fertility

. I t wa s howeve r teste d o n a podzo l wit h a 1 0 c m laye r o f th e organi c horizo n withou t compromisin g th e subsequen t soi l re-use. Th e machin e produce s flag s o f tur f mat s o f 4 5 x 4 5 c m laye r o f th e soil , whic h ca n b e easil y remove d b y han d usin g a for k an d b e pu t i n a traile r t o b e dispose d i n a delimite d are a o f th e field whic h i s decontaminated

, o r furthe r awa y dependin g o n th e availabilit y o f disposa l areas.3 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

2.5 Tur f harveste r (large).1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Tur f harveste r (industrial

)Undisturbe d grasse d soil s N o o f fe w stones , buil d a prototype

, larg e field s (150mxl50m)

, les s tha n 20% o f th e are a dis-turbe d b y wil d pigs , remov e bushe s befor e o n abandone d field s 1 (i n cas e o f a n automati c conveyor)1.2 5 ha/h remove s an d dispos e th e 3-5 c m to p soi l 170ECU/h a 0.1 man-d/h a 60 0 kEC U 120kECU/yea r 3 0 kg/ha , gasolin e 100%1250 0 m 2/h (400-80 0 h/year)N o<0.00000 1 1.25*10'6 man.h/m 2 2 0 o n gras s an d mil k occup y 5 % o f th e decon. are a 20-3 0 kg/m 2 N o 20-3 0 m" 1 N o N o Destroy s Nardus stricta, thus improve s pastures.Possibilit y t o mak e a ma p o f th e remainin g contaminatio n usin g o n board CORA D syste m Decontaminatio n definitel y achieved , n o furthe r interventio n required.Author: A. Jouv e Institution

ISP N Th e industria l tur f harveste r i s base d o n th e principl e o f th e smal l tur f harvester

. I t i s compose d o f 3-5 module s o f smal l tur f harvester s drive n togethe r b y a singl e engin e an d connecte d t o a singl e frame. Eac h modul e ha s howeve r a n independen t mobilit y t o follo w th e curve s o f th e soi l relief. Th e tur f mat s tha t ar e produce d ar e automaticall y conveye d int o a traile r o r a mobil e conveye r whic h subsequentl y dispose s th e waste s o n a delim-ite d disposa l area. Comparativel y t o th e smal l tur f harvester

, thi s optio n decrease s a numbe r o f operator s in-volve d i n th e decontaminatio n procedur e an d allow s a faste r decontaminatio n tha n th e smal l tur f harvester

.Howeve r thi s machin e whic h ha s bee n designe d i n a pre-projec t ha s neve r bee n constructe d no r tested.Ris0-R-828(EN

)3 7 2.6 Law n mowe r (mulcher)

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Law n mowe r Grasse d area s i n cit y-1 operato r 100 0 m 2/h Larg e law n mowe r (1 person)1.3* lO^man-days/m" 2 1500 0 EC U 300 0 ECU/y 6 1/h o f petro l 10 0 % o f manpowe r 1000* 72 0 = 72000 0 m 2/y-practicall y 0 1.5*10" 3 man-h/m 2 1 afte r 9 year s (n o effec t alone)Dependin g o n lengt h o f gras s 0 0--Th e procedur e i s use d i n connectio n wit h othe r procedure s suc h a s turf-harvestin g Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Municipa l petro l drive n lawn-mowe r wit h seat. Collect s gras s i n a vessel.3 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

2.7 Tripl e digging.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ordinar y shove l (fo r tripl e digging)Garde n soi l Are a mus t b e surfac e du g o r virgi n lan d unlimite d 2 m7 h pe r ma n Buryin g th e soi l to p laye r 3 0 - 4 0 c m dow n 0.06 8 man-day/m

'1 2 EC U 2 4 ECU/y Non e 10 0 % o f manpowe r unlimite d a littl e dus t< 1/10 0 0.7 h/m z 4-1 5 dependin g o n soi l typ e Non e Non e Non e Non e-Th e are a wil l b e read y fo r ne w crop s instructio n neede d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris e Th e garde n tripl e diggin g procedur e ca n b e use d t o di g a garde n are a i n th e sam e manne r a s tha t whic h i s performe d b y a ski m an d buria l plough. Th e principl e i s basicall y t o manuall y bur y a thi n to p soi l laye r containin g th e radioactiv e matter , whereb y a shield-in g effec t i s obtained. Th e metho d i s describe d i n detai l in:

Reference:

J. Roe d an d K.G. Andersson

'Clean-u p o f Urba n Area s i n th e CI S Coun-trie s Contaminate d b y Chernoby l Fallout', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radio-activity , 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)3 9 2.8 Soi l siz e fractionation

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Mobil e equipmen t fo r soi l separatio n soi l ca n b e use d fo r san d an d san d cla y (2 0 %) soi l lOOkg/h Mechanica l separatio n o f th e soi l 0.02 5 man-day/k g 2000 0 EC U 200 0 EC U 0.1 kWh/k g 120%10 0 kg/h

6 h/d

12 0 days/y = 7200 0 kg/yea r N o< 1/1000 0 0.0 2 man-hour/k g 4-6 0.1 kg/k g N o 1000 0 m'1 Nitri c aci d Possibl e restoratio n o f th e soi l Decreasin g amount s o f wast e-Authors: Mamaev , Ogulni k Institution

IIM? Russi a Th e equipmen t consist s o f th e followin g units: 1. th e uni t fo r loadin g soil , 2. th e uni t fo r mixtur e preparatio n an d remova l o f organi c substances

, 3. th e uni t fo r separatio n o f th e smal l fraction , 4. th e uni t fo r wast e processin g an d collection

. 2 operator s ar e involve d i n th e processes

.4 0 Ris0~R-828(EN

)

3 Fores t Area s Th e procedure s presente d i n thi s paragrap h ar e suggeste d fo r separatio n o f th e radioac-tiv e substance s fro m wood. Th e us e o f th e woo d the n become s les s restricte d an d grea t resource s ca n b e exploited

.Ris0-R-828(EN

) 4 1 3.1 Litte r removal.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Mechanica l brus h Fores t litte r Canno t b e use d i n we t fores t area s o r fo r fores t les s tha n 3 0 year s ol d 2 operator s 54 0 m 2/h Litte r laye r remova l 0.0005 3 man-days/m 2 5,00 0 EC U fo r brushin g machine;Ren t o f BELARU S tractor: 5 0 ECU/da y 1,70 0 ECU/yea r fo r brushin g machin e Petrol-diesel

3 0 kg/hou r 16 0 % o f wage s 54 0 m 2/h

84 0 h/yea r Dus t O.00 1 0.003 7 man-hour/m 2 3.5 ...4.5 3 0 ... 5 0 kg/m 2 N o 1 5 ...2 0 m-1 Flammabl e N o N o Authors: Antsypau 5 Grebenko v Institution

CSCB , IPE P Attache d description s Thi s procedur e represent s th e mai n on-sit e decontaminatio n technolog y whic h provide s sufficien t dos e reduc-tio n fo r fores t workers. Afte r remova l o f contaminate d litte r o f 5-7 c m i n thicknes s i t i s directe d t o th e shallo w ground/surfac e disposa l o r t o a valorisatio n procedure

. Th e mai n mechanis m produce d i n Franc e consist s o f th e roto r wit h frequen t fir m elasti c core s locate d o n it s cylindrica l surface. Th e roto r i s drive n b y hydrauli c engin e wit h reducto r place d insid e th e roto r cavity. Thi s mechanica l brus h i s assemble d o n th e fram e togethe r wit h a storag e bi n wit h volum e o f abou t 0.4 m 3 wher e th e litte r i s collected

. Th e bi n an d brus h ar e covere d wit h th e roofin g shelter. Th e litte r collecte d i n th e bi n ca n eas y b e unloade d int o a traile r (o r platform) wit h a hel p o f hydro-cylinders/monitors

. Soi l dept h o f operatin g o f th e brus h i s controlle d b y mean s o f a coupl e o f wheels.Th e machin e i s connecte d to"BELARUS

" tractor , an d parameter s o f th e hydrauli c engin e correspon d t o thos e o f th e tractor's oil-pump. Simila r techniqu e o f larg e scal e i s als o produce d i n th e CIS. Fo r example , MCFI-1 typ e whic h supplie d wit h loosene r combine d wit h pneumati c system. Th e mediat e scal e machine s dflMT C typ e shoul d b e als o noted.4 2 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

3.2 Grindin g mower.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Grindin g move r Under-woo d forest; shrub s Diamete r o f woo d ste m mus t b e les s 8 cm. Can-no t b e use d i n we t fores t area s o r fo r fores t les s tha n 3 0 year s ol d 1 operato r 1500... 200 0 m 2/h Cleanin g an d grindin g o f underwoo d 0.000 1 man-days/m 2 5,80 0 EC U fo r grindin g machin e "Norevert

" o r ODI-1; Ren t o f BELARU S tractor: 5 0 ECU/da y 190 0 ECU/yea r Petrol-diesel

3 0 kg/h 160% o f wage s 200 0 m 2/h

84 0 h/yea r Dus t<0.00 1 0.000 5 man-hour/m 2 DF= 1.2 2 0 ... 5 0 kg/m 2 N o 7 ... 2 0 m'1 Flammabl e N o Fores t management Metho d represent s preliminar y operatio n fo r fiirtherapplicatio n o f ite m 3.1 Authors: Antsypau , Grebenko v Institution

CSCB , IPE P Attache d description s : Th e debri s whic h i s lef t o n a plac e o f fellin g an d constitute s th e mos t contaminate d par t o f woo d undergoe s collectio n an d grinding. The n i t i s directe d t o followin g possibl e handling: (i) Scatterin g aroun d plac e o f fellin g i n orde r t o restor e a litte r o f forest; (ii) Removin g fo r furthe r disposal; (iii) Removin g fo r furthe r valorisation

. Option s (i) an d (iii) ca n b e justifie d fro m ecologica l an d economica l points. Techniqu e represent s a dru m grinde r wit h knifes. I t i s place d ont o platfor m o f tracto r whic h i s supplie d wit h manipulato r an d storag e bin. Thi s technolog y proceed s removin g a fores t litter , bu t thi s i s als o ordinar y technolog y t o car e forest. Th e procedur e present s cuttin g an d grindin g th e underwoo d (bushes , youn g trees). Th e equipmen t (ODI-1) i s assemble d t o th e ar m o f excavato r o f EO-262 1 typemad e o n a bas e o f "BELARUS" tractor. Th e grindin g mechanis m consist s o f th e hea d equippe d b y roto r wit h fre e hangin g incisor s an d cuttin g blades. I t rotate s b y mean s o f hydro-move r connecte d t o tractor's hydro-drivin g system. Th e grindin g machin e provide s cuttin g th e bushe s an d underwoo d o f diamete r o f les s tha n 1 0 cm. Widt h o f th e hea d i s abou t 1.1m. Th e chip s afte r grindin g ar e lef t o n a plac e o f cleaning. Simila r machin e ("Norevert") produce d i n Swede n i s assemble d t o th e shaf t o f "BELARUS" tractor.Ris0-R-828(EN

)4 3 3.3 Debarkin g wood.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Woo d sawin g plan t 20-K63-2 Timbe r Shoul d b e use d a s a soi l mulch. No t i n we t fores t area s 3 operator s 3 0 ... 5 0 m 3/h Mechanica l remova l o f bar k an d phloe m Su m estimate d i n Gome l Provinc e (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5)

1.5ECU/m 3 0.004 8 man-days/m 3 300 0 EC U 100 0 ECU/yea r 160% o f wage s 50m 3/h* 1400h/yea r Dus t O.000 1 0.0 2 man-hour/m 3 2... 4 1 0 ...2 0 kg/m 3 N o 1 0 ...2 0 m" 1 (50... 100m 3/m 3)Flammabl e N o Possibl e valorisatio n o f wast e Authors: Antsypau , Grebenko v Institution

CSCB,IPE P Attache d description s I n th e zon e o f contaminatio n leve l o f 5-1 5 Ci/km 2 ra w woo d afte r fellin g require s bar k strippin g tha t ma y re-move s 7% o f biomas s an d 60-70% o f radioactivity

. Valuabl e woo d trun k receive d i n thi s zon e ma y b e use d withou t an y limitation

.I n th e zon e o f 15-4 0 Ci/k m th e contro l o f qualit y o f woo d mus t b e provide d and , eve n strippin g bark , valuabl e woo d trun k is , alon g wit h this , recommende d no t t o b e directl y use d bu t onl y i f i t i s sawe d int o th e beams.Phloe m layer s o f 2-3 c m thic k hav e t o b e strippe d too , s o th e averag e siz e o f squar e bea m woul d no t excee d 70% o f ste m diameter. Sinc e th e mos t contaminate d par t o f woo d i s bar k an d externa l layer s thes e element s o f th e technologica l chai n o f radioactiv e woo d decontaminatio n i s necessar y t o reduc e th e leve l o f wood's activit y t o tha t me t th e permissibl e limits.4 4 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

3.4 Specia l woo d pul p treatment

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Twin-scre w extrude r Contaminate d woo d Onl y fo r preparatio n o f woo d chip s 1 0 5 t/h extract s C s an d S r from woo d pul p 0.9 MECU/yea r 0.2 5 man/t o f woo d 6MEC U 0.6 MECU/yea r Electricit y 140 0 kW/h , Nitri c aci d 2 % o f wood , Sodiu m sulphit e 2 % o f wood.100%2640 0 t/y o f woo d (1 6 h/day)N o< 0.000 1 1.2 5 man.d/h 50-10 0 100 0 1/t o f woo d (recyclin g t o som e extent)9 5 % o f woo d activit y sulphate s N o Sellin g cardboard

, 1840 0 t/y i.e. 11MEC U Decrease s electri c powe r consumptio n compare d t o chemica l pul p factorie s b y 3 0 %, decrease s th e wast e production

.Author: A. Jouve. Institution

IPS N Th e Twin-scre w extrude r produce s woo d pul p fro m ra w wood. Th e mechanica l defibrillatio n o f woo d replace s th e chemica l digestio n commonl y use d i n pul p factories

. Thi s procedur e result s i n decreasin g b y abou t 30%th e quantit y o f liqui d wast e an d electri c consumption

. I t i s therefor e suitabl e t o decreas e contaminate d wast e i n cas e o f usin g contaminate d wood. I t ma y decontaminat e wood , sinc e th e mechanisti c effec t o f pressur e an d acidi c treatmen t o f th e woo d i s simila r t o th e procedur e teste d i n laborator y whic h decontaminate d woo d sam-ple s fro m th e Chernoby l fores t wit h a decontaminatio n efficienc y o f u p t o 9 5 % fo r C s an d Sr. However , thi s techniqu e ha s neve r bee n teste d wit h contaminate d wood. I t i s onl y mentione d a s a referenc e scenari o t o pro-vid e economica l informatio n fo r th e techniqu e whic h ha s bee n teste d a t laborator y scale. Th e decontaminatio n efficienc y refer s t o th e laborator y experimen t assumin g tha t simila r result s woul d b e obtaine d i f th e procedur e i s applie d usin g th e twin-scre w extruder. Simila r decontaminatio n factor s wer e observe d i n classica l woo d processin g plant s i n Sweden.Ris0-R-828(EN

)4 5 4 Virgi n Soi l i n Rura l Area s Thi s chapte r report s th e effec t o f experimenta l procedure s t o reduc e th e externa l dos e rat e an d plan t uptak e i n agricultura l area s o f virgi n soil.4 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

4.1 Ordinar y ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ordinar y ploug h an d tractor rura l lan d Virgi n lan d onl y 1 operato r 900 0 m 2/h Ploughin g t o a dept h o f 2 5 c m 1.4* 10" 5 man-days/m 2 200 0 (plough) an d 5000 0 (tractor)40 0 (plough) an d 1000 0 (tractor)petrol: 6 1/h 10 0 % o f manpowe r 900 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y = 6.4 8

10 6 m 2/y Dus t resuspensio n ca n b e limite d b y wate r applic.<l/1 0 1.1

10" 4 man-h/m 2 3-6 (external

)----Transpor t o f equipmen t (dependin g o n distances

)Ploughin g o f fields , reductio n o f plan t uptake b y a facto r o f u p t o 4 dependin g o n th e plan t typ e-Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris e Ordinar y 2 5 c m dee p ploughin g wit h tractor-drive n Bovlun d single-furro w 24" ploug h (typ e 9H-70).

Reference:

J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Prip: 'Th e ski m an d buria l plough: a ne w implemen t fo r reclamatio n o f radioactivel y contaminate d land', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radioactivity

, 1995.Ris0-R-828(EN

)4 7 4.2.a Dee p ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewing roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ordinar y ploug h + tractor Rura l lan d Virgi n lan d onl y 1 operato r 700 0 m 2/h Ploughin g t o a dept h o f 4 5 c m 1.8* 10" 5 man-days/ m 2 200 0 (plough) an d 5000 0 (tractor)400 (plough) an d 1000 0 (tractor)Petrol: 101/h 10 0 % o f manpowe r 700 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y = 5.0 4

10 6 m 2/y Dus t resuspensio n ca n b e limite d b y wate r applic.<l/1 0 1.43* 10" 4 man-h/m 2 6-1 0 (external

)----Transpor t o f equipmen t (dependin g o n distances

)Ploughin g o f fields , reductio n o f plan t uptak e b y a facto r o f u p t o 1 0 dependin g o n plan t typ e Draw-back: Possibl e buria l o f fertil e soi l laye r Authors; Roed 5 Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris e Dee p ploughin g t o 4 5 c m using a tractor-drive n Bovlun d single-furro w 24" ploug h (typ e 9H-70).Dee p ploughin g wil l substantiall y reduc e th e roo t uptak e t o mos t plant s an d thereb y reduc e th e dos e receive d fro m locall y produce d food. Also , th e radioactiv e matte r wil l hav e bee n place d sufficientl y dee p i n th e soi l profil e tha t i t i s no t redistribute d b y subse-quen t ploughing

.

Reference:

J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Prip: 'Th e ski m an d buria l plough: a ne w implemen t fo r reclamatio n o f radioactivel y contaminate d land 9 , accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radioactivity

, 1995.4 8 Ris0=R-828(EN

)

4.2.b Dee p ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Dee p ploughin g Decontaminatio n o f soi l (plan t production

)dee p ploughin g o f soi l (25-3 5 cm)1 operato r 0.2ha/h Dee p ploughin g uppe r soi l laye r (25-3 5 cm)Tota l estimate: 120ECU/h a 0.6 man-day/h a 2000 0 EC U 200 0 ECU/yea r 15kg/hpetro-diese l 100%200 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/yea r-0.00 1 1

10" 5 man-hour s pe r m 2 2-4 N o N o N o N o----Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Perepelyatniko v Institution

ICBGI , UIA R Ris0-R-828(EN

)4 9 4.3.a Ski m an d buria l ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Skim-and-buria l ploug h an d tracto r Rura l lan d Virgi n o r surfac e ploughe d lan d 1 operato r 300 0 m 2/h ski m an d buria l ploughin g (se e footnote)4.16* 10'5 man-days/m 2 5000 0 EC U (tractor) an d 412 5 EC U (plough)1000 0 EC U (tractor) an d 82 5 EC U (plough)Petrol: 1 0 1/h 10 0 % o f manpowe r 300 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y = 2.1 6

10 6 m 2/y Dus t resuspensio n ca n b e limite d b y wate r applic.<l/1 0 3.33* 10*4 man-h/m 2 6-1 5---Transpor t (dependin g o n distances

)Ploughin g withou t significan t los s o f soi l fertil-ity , reductio n o f plan t uptake b y a facto r o f a t leas t 1 0 Se e belo w Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o A ski m coulte r firs t place s th e uppe r 5 c m o f soi l i n a trenc h mad e b y th e mai n ploughshare

. I n on e movement , th e mai n ploughshar e the n dig s a ne w trenc h an d place s th e lifte d subsoi l o n to p o f th e thi n laye r o f topsoi l i n th e botto m o f th e trenc h o f th e previou s run. Th e ski m coulte r simultaneousl y place s th e to p laye r fro m th e nex t furro w i n th e ne w trench. I n thi s way , th e 5-5 0 c m soi l laye r i s lifte d onl y abou t 10-1 5 c m an d th e powe r requirement s minimised

. Th e advantag e o f th e metho d i s tha t onl y a ver y thi n laye r (5 cm) o f topsoi l i s burie d a t 4 5 cm , an d th e 5-4 5 c m laye r i s no t inverted.Ski m an d buria l ploughin g wil l eliminat e th e roo t uptak e t o mos t plant s an d thereb y reduc e th e dos e receive d fro m locall y produce d food. Also , th e radioactiv e matte r wil l hav e bee n place d sufficientl y dee p i n th e soi l profil e tha t i t i s no t redistribute d b y subsequen t ploughing

.

Reference:

J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Prip: 'Th e ski m an d buria l plough: a ne w implemen t fo r reclamatio n o f radioactivel y contaminate d land', accepte d fo r publicatio n i n J. Environ. Radioactivity

, 1995.5 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

4.3.b Ski m an d buria l ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Surfac e dos e reductio n facto r 7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ski m an d buria l ploughin g soi l Virgi n o r surfac e ploughe d lan d 1 operato r 0.2ha/h Uppe r 5 c m laye r cu t of f an d pu t unde r ploughe d horizo n o f soi l Estimate: 160-28 0 ECU/h a (Ukraine)0.6 man-day/h a 2500 0 EC U 250 0 ECU/yea r 2 0 kg/h petro-diese l 100%200 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y 0.00 1 1*10~5 man-hour/m 2 6-1 5 20-3 0 kg/m 2-15-2 0 m" 1 N o Th e wast e i s burie d unde r th e ploughe d soi l hori-zo n Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Roed , Blagoe v Institution

ICBGI , Riso , lOChOC h Ris0-R-828(EN

)5 1 5 Agricultura l Environmen t Thi s chapte r report s th e effec t o f experimenta l procedure s t o dea l wit h radiologica l problem s specifi c t o th e agricultura l environment

. Th e mai n task s ar e t o limi t th e con-ten t o f radioactivit y i n locall y grow n crop s an d th e contaminatio n leve l i n anima l an d dair y products.5 2 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.1.a Liming.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Limin g (specia l truck s fo r spreading

) (ORUP-8)Acidi c arabl e lan d (p H 4.5-5.5)Require s als o potassiu m additio n t o maintai n ioni c equilibriu m 1.3 (pe r distributio n unit) (Dolomit e powder)lha/h Competitiv e uptake , yiel d increas e Tota l estimate: 5 5 ECU/h a 0.1 5 Man-day/h a 1300 0 EC U 162 5 EC U Gasolin e 12.5 1/ha , lim e (ca. lt/ha)20 0 %N o limitatio n N o N o exposur e t o worker s N o exposur e t o worker s 1.3-1.6 (depend s o n soi l pH)N o N o N o N o N o Increase s cro p yiel d + qualit y o f fodde r Specifi c equipmen t i n CIS , bu t othe r tool s ma y b e used. Effec t persisten t durin g 4-5 years.Authors: Firsakov a Institution

BIA R Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s followin g a n accidenta l releas e Ris0-R-828(EN

)5 3 5.1.b Liming.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m pe r B q pe r m 7,4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Limin g o f soil s Decontaminatio n o f plant s 2 operator s 0.4ha/h Limin g o f soi l fo r decreasin g uptak e o f radionuclide s i n plan t productio n 1 3 ECU/h a (Ukraine)0.6 man-day/h a 1200 0 EC U 1200ECU/y 1 0 kg/h a petro-diesel

, 300-80 0 kg/h a lim e 20 0 %400 0 m 2/h

72 0 h/y 0.000 1 5*10" 4 man-hours/m 2 2-3 N o N o N o N o N o-Increasin g productivit y o f plant s - 1.5-2 time s-Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Perepelyatniko v Institution

ICBGI , UIA R 5 4 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.2.a Additio n o f potassiu m chloride.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Additio n o f potassiu m chlorid e Decontaminatio n o f plant s o n arabl e land s 2 operator s (drive r o f truc k an d lorry)0.2ha/h Decreasin g accumulatio n o f radiocaesiu m i n plant s Tota l estimate: 2 0 ECU/h a 0.1 2 man.day/h a 2000 0 EC U 200 0 EC U 240 kg/ha KC1;2 O kg/h Gasolin e 200%2ha/h x 400 h/yea r 0.000 1 1 man.hour/h a 2-3 N o N o N o Possibl y increasin g o f harvest.Authors: Kutlakhmedo v Institution

ICBG I Perepelyatniko v UIA R Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s followin g a n accidenta l releas e o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.Ris0-R-828(EN

)5 5 5.2.b Additio n o f potassiu m chloride.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 53) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 73) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Additio n o f potassiu m arabl e land s 1.2 operator s (drive r o f truc k an d loader)1.5ha/h Enrichmen t o f soi l b y K O.ld/h a 1800 0 EC U 300 0 EC U 15 0 kg/h a KC1; 1 5 1/h Gasolin e 160%480 0 ha.<l/10 0 0.8 man-hour/h a 13- 1.6 N o N o N o Possibl y increas e o f yield.Additiona l applicatio n o f K i s 0.5-1.0 o f usua l dos e an d depend s o f soi l saturatio n b y potassium

.Authors: Firsakova

, Antzipov , Timotee v Institution

BIA R 5 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.3 Additio n o f phosphorus

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Additio n o f phosphoru s Decontaminatio n o f plant s o n arabl e lan d 2 operator s (drive r o f truc k an d lorry)0.2ha/h Decreasin g accumulatio n o f radiostrontiu m i n plant s Tota l estimate: 4 0 ECU/h a 0.1 5 man.day/h a 2000 0 EC U 200 0 EC U 55 0 kg/h a NaH(PO4)2

2 0 kg/h Gasolin e 200%1.5ha/hx400h/yea r 0.000 1 1.2 man.hour/h a 0.8-1.3 N o N o N o N o N o No t recommende d separatel y bu t i n combinatio n wit h othe r fertiliser s (K,N)Authors: Kutlakhmedo v Institution

ICBG I Perepelyatniko v UIA R Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s followin g a n accidenta l releas e Ris0-R-828(EN

)5 7 5.4 Organi c amendmen t t o soi l (Cattl e manur e an d peat).1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Organi c amendmen t o f th e soi l arabl e soil s 1.2/h a (1 operator)0.7ha/h Bind s Sr , complexe s C s an d S r Tota l estimate: 6 0 ECU/h a (6 0 t/ha)2 ECU/h a (0.4 man-day/ha

)1132 8 EC U 141 6 ECU/yea r Fuel: 8 1/ha , manure: 4 0 ECU/h a 20 0 %N o limitatio n negligibl e (U , Th , Ra)N o N o DF=1.3forCsandS r N o N o N o N o N o Yiel d an d quantit y increas e KH 2 PO 4 Authors: Firsakov a Institution

BIA R 5 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.5 Pastur e improvemen t b y ploughin g an d fertilising

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Radica l improvemen t o f pastur e (draining

, cleaning; diskin g (3 times) Fertilising

Plough-ing; Sowin g ne w grasse s realise d i n Ukrain e 1994. I n 1987-199 3 wa s use d 2-3 procedures

.Decontaminatio n o f crop s an d mil k 9 operator s (6 procedures

)0.12 5 ha/h Th e decreasin g o f accumulatio n o f radionuclide s i n plant s an d mil k 34 3 ECU/h a (6 procedures

)8.3 man.day/h a 6500 0 EC U 650 0 EC U 8 0 kg/h a seeds;5 0 kg/h Petro-diesel

, fertilise r 160%0.12ha/x700h/yea r 0.00 4 6 6 man.hour/h a 4-1 6 fo r peat y soils , 4-9 fo r podso l soil s N o N o N o N o N o Th e increasin g o f harvest.I n 1987-9 3 wer e realise d onl y 2-3 procedure s o f 6 , bu t i n 199 4 al l 6 procedure s wer e use d i n Rovn o distric t o n 9 2 thousand s ha.Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedo v Institution

ICBG I G. Perepelyatniko v UIA R Ris0-R-828(EN

)5 9 5.6 Soi l diskin g followe d b y ploughin g an d fertilising

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewing roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Disking , fertilising

, limin g an d sowin g ne w gras s Pasture s Nee d t o repea t diskin g 4-6 time s 0.8 operator s pe r h a 0.2 5 ha/h Dilutio n o f C s an d S r i n th e soi l profil e Tota l estimate: 15 0 ECU/h a 2 ECU/h a (0.4 man-day/ha

)1132 8 EC U 141 6 ECU/yea r Fuel: 8 1/ha , Phosphorus

1 2 ECU/h a 200 %Availabilit y o f manur e limite d t o cultivate d crop s<l/10 0 1.4-2.2 fo r C s an d 1.2-1.4 fo r S r N o N o N o N o-Yiel d an d quantit y increas e Author: Firsakov a Institution

BIA R 6 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.7 Limin g an d fertilisin g fores t pastur e soi l withou t ploughing

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Limin g an d fertilisin g fores t pasture s fores t pasture s Us e o f traditiona l machine s no t possibl e 2.5 operator s 0.3ha/h Enrichmen t o f poo r soi l b y Ca , K , P 1 man-day/h a- (manua l operatio n only)-Lime , KC1 , Superfosfat e 160% o f wage s 1 h a / co w i n settlements

, surrounde d b y fores t externa l N o 2 0 man-hours/h a les s tha n o r equa l t o 1.5 n o n o n o n o-Increase s pastur e productivit y onl y fo r village s surrounde d b y forests , whe n othe r pasture s ar e impossibl e t o us e Authors: Firsakova

. Antsipo v Institution

BIAR , CSC B Ris0-R-828(EN

)6 1 5.8.a Us e o f bolu s i n privat e farms.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewing roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ferrasi n bolu s (bol i applicator

)Decontaminatio n o f mil k fro m 137 C s 2 operator s 2 cow s pe r hou r 0.0 4 ECU/1 o r 19.2 ECU/co w 0.12 5 man-day/co w 8 EC U 2 ECU/yea r 3 bolus/co w = 19.2 ECU/co w 200 %150 0 cows/yea r N o N o N o 2-3 (o n milk)N o N o N o--3 bolu s include d i n a co w eac h 3 months. Th e us e o f bolu s increase s th e mil k pric e b y 1 3 %.Th e metho d shoul d b e use d wher e C s leve l i s highe r tha n 1000Bq/l.Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Perepelyatniko v Institution

ICBGI , UIA R Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s followin g a n accidenta l releas e o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0=100894-5

, 1994.6 2 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.8.b Us e o f bolu s i n privat e farms.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Us e o f Prussia n Blu e bol i i n private far m Cow s (milk)Th e Prussia n Blu e bol i productio n 2 operator s 3 cow s pe r hou r Bindin g o f 137 C s i n th e gastrointestina l trac t 0.0 8 days/co w 1 0 EC U (bol i applicator

)2.5 EC U Bol i (Prussia n Blue , wax , BaSO 4 + pres s mixer)200 0 treatment s pe r operato r pe r yea r N o N o 0.6 6 man-hour s pe r co w 2-3 fo r milk , mea t n o n o n o n o n o n o Th e applicatio n o f bol i repeate d ever y 2-3 months. Cos t o f on e treatmen t pe r anima l =3 EC U Authors: Firsakova

, Antsipau , Averi n Institution

BIAR , CSC B Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s followin g a n accidenta l releas e o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.Ris0-R-828(EN

)6 3 5.9.a Clea n fodde r t o animal s befor e slaughter

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Clea n fodde r befor e slaughter

.Decontaminatio n o f mea t Withou t specia l operator s Th e organisatio n o f specia l feeding s o f anima l b y clea n foo d befor e slaughte r Fro m 1 0 t o 30% increasin g o f pric e o f mee t (0,2-0, 5 ECU/k g additionally

)2 - 3 (fo r Ukraine)N o N o N o N o N o Radiatio n Control , liv e dosimetr y 0.5 ECU/animal

/ yea r Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedo v Institution

ICBG I G. Perepelyatniko v UIA R 6 4 Ris0=R-828(EN

)

5.9.b Clea n fodde r t o animal s befor e slaughter

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Clea n fodde r befor e slaughter

.Cattl e N o additiona l operator s Th e eliminatio n of l C s fro m muscle s Transportatio n cost s (0.2 ECU/t pe r km) + Cost s o f clea n fee d 3.0 N o N o N o N o N o Radiatio n Control , liv e dosimetr y 0.5 ECU/animal

/ yea r Durin g 2 month s befor e slaughte r animal s ar e supplie d b y clea n fodde r fro m arabl e lan d o f th e collectiv e farms. Suc h fee d i s i n an y collectiv e farm , s o maiz e silag e an d concentrat e ar e usua l ration s o f cattle.Authors: Firsakov a Institution

BIA R Antsipo v CSC B Averi n Ris0-R-828(EN

)6 5 5.1 0 Sal t lick s fo r animals.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Us e o f Prussia n Blu e salt-lick s Cow s an d bull s Prussia n Blu e salt-lic k productio n 2 operator s 1 5 salt-licks/

h Bind s 137 C s i n gastrointestina l tract.0.01 6 man-day/sal t lic k--gasolin e 1 0 I/day , Prussia n Blue , NaCl , pres s equipmen t 1200 0 salt-lic k distributio n N o inhalatio n 0.12 8 man-hr/salt-lic k 2.0-3.0 fo r milk , mea t Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e Providin g o f NaC l Th e duratio n o f us e b y anima l o f 1 salt-lic k i s 3 months. Annua l cos t fo r 1 animal: 6 EC U Authors: Firsakova

, Antsipov , Averi n Institution

BIAR , CSC B Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s followin g a n accidenta l releas e o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.6 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.1 1 Productio n o f phytomas s wit h enhance d contamination

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Productio n o f phytomas s wit h enhance d contaminatio n (Phytodecontaminatio n o f soils)Decontaminatio n o f soils(mixed

)Thi s metho d include s 7 procedures

specia l treatmen t o f seeds; ploughing

sowin g crops; fertilising

irriga-tion; harvesting

harrowing

. Onl y 3 procedure s ap-pear s additiona l t o traditiona l scheme: treatmen t o f seeds; irrigation

harrowin g afte r harvesting

.9 operator s Th e usin g o f additiona l procedure s (treatmen t o f seeds; irrigation

harrowing

) wit h ai m creatin g o f condition s fo r significan t increasin g transfe r facto r an d harves t o f biomass. Th e harves t o f biomas s ca n b e use d fo r feedin g o f animal s an d the n usin g clea n fod-de r befor e slaughter

.3 4 ECU/h a (0,2-0, 5 ECU/k g additionally

)1 man.day/h a O n 3 additiona l procedure s 1000 0 + 800 0 + 1200 0 =3000 0 10 0 + 80 0 + 300 0 = 390 0 ECU/yea r 5 0 kg/h a seeds; 5.00 0 t/h a water; 1 5 kg/h diesel.160%0,1 2 ha/h x 40 0 h/yea r 0.00 1 1 man. hour/h a 1.1-1.3 (pe r year)N o N o N o N o N o Th e receivin g o f foo d fo r feedin g animal s an d the n clea n fodde r befor e slaughte r = 1 5 ECU/ha.Thi s i s importan t possibilit y o f phytodecontami-natio n- usin g o f phytomas s fo r feedin g animals.Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedo v Institution

. ICBG I G. Perepelyatniko v UIA R Ris0-R-828(EN

)6 7 5.1 2 Industria l crop s (rape , suga r beet , lignocelluloses

, fo r oi l fuel , etc.).1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewing roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Exchang e o f foo d crop s wit h technica l (industrial

) crop s Contaminate d arabl e land s cro p processin g plan t Us e o f contaminate d are a fo r cro p productio n 1 0 % o f arabl e lan d o n contaminate d are a Exclusio n o f foo d uptak e Non e Non e Non e Non e Purchas e o f specia l tool s an d creatio n o f process-in g bas e Developmen t o f industr y Larg e additiona l Governmen t investment s i n agricultur e wil l b e possibl e Authors: Firsakova

, Antsipo v Institution

BIAR , CSC B Th e rap e productio n i s mor e realistic

, severa l collectiv e farm s gro w it s cro p an d rap e oi l plan t i s treate d i n Gome l area.Th e genera l feature s o f th e metho d ar e describe d i n th e IAE A Technica l Repor t Serie s No. 36 3 o n Guideline s fo r agricultura l countermeasure s followin g a n accidenta l releas e o f radionuclides

, ISB N 92-0-100894-5

, 1994.6 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

5.1 3 Ferrasi n filter s fo r mil k decontamination

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Ferrasi n filter s fo r mil k Decontaminatio n o f mil k fro m 137 C s Use d o n privat e farm s onl y 1 operato r 4 0 filter s pe r hou r (0.0 1 filter/1 milk)Filtratio n o f mil k throug h filte r 0.00 6 ECU/1 o r 0.8 ECU/cow , 1 0 day s (3 2 ECU/y)0.0 2 man-da y pe r filte r plasti c syste m fo r filtratio n o f mil k (4 ECU)1 ECU/yea r Gasolin e 4 kg/h , 0.0 1 filter/1 mil k 100%4 0 filters/h

32 0 h/y Non e Non e Non e ca. 1 0 Non e Non e-Non e--Thi s metho d shoul d b e use d unde r condition s wher e th e mil k contaminatio n i s 40 0 Bq/1 o r mor e Authors: Kutlakhmedov

, Lo s Institution

ICBGI , UCR M Ris0-R-828(EN

)6 9 6 Self-Restoratio n Quantitative/qualitativ e evaluatio n o f self-restoratio n By: Arapis , Davydchouk

, Sokolik , Athen s University

, Kie v Inst. o f Geography

, Belaru s Stat e University

.Introduction

T o undertak e an y recover y actio n i n natura l an d semi-natura l ecosystem s nin e year s o r earlie r afte r th e acciden t i t i s o f grea t importanc e t o kno w th e exac t natura l evolutio n o f th e radiologica l situatio n o f thes e affecte d areas. Thi s knowledg e wil l facilitat e th e choic e o f th e decision-maker s o f appropriat e decontaminatio n strategies

.Aim: Th e goa l o f thi s techniqu e i s t o evaluat e th e efficienc y o f th e processe s o f self-restoratio n fo r natura l an d semi-natura l ecosystems

.Methodology

I n orde r t o d o thi s th e followin g exampl e coul d b e followed.1. Evaluatio n o f th e self-restoratio n processes

Th e evaluatio n o f radiologica l balances o f affecte d larg e area s i n th e Ukrain e an d Be-laru s wa s made. Usin g cartography

, shor t an d lon g ter m positive , neutra l o r negativ e radioecologica l balance s o f th e 3 0 k m zon e wer e elaborated

. Simila r wor k wa s don e fo r th e Khoiniki , i n orde r t o cove r a n importan t par t o f th e contaminate d territor y o f thes e tw o republics

.Th e presentatio n o f th e radiologica l situatio n i s mad e b y map s of 137 C s iso-line s o f soi l contaminatio n an d map s o f th e abov e mentione d balances. Th e velocit y o f vertica l mi-gratio n o f radionuclide s wa s calculated

. Th e influenc e o f differen t type s o f soi l o n th e migratio n o f 137 C s an d 90 S r wa s studied. Th e migratio n abilit y o f th e radionuclide s wa s measure d fo r representativ e soil s i n Belaru s an d th e result s wer e presente d i n maps.Simila r measurement s an d cartograph y ar e mad e fo r Ukrainia n soils.2. Evaluatio n o f self-restorativ e dos e reductio n Th e efficienc y o f self-restoratio n i s evaluate d i n term s o f dos e reductio n a s a functio n o f th e vertica l migratio n o f radionuclides

. Th e dos e rat e a t 1 m abov e th e surfac e wa s cal-culate d fro m differen t 137 C s dept h distribution s i n differen t types o f soi l b y th e Mont e Carl o method.Tabl e 6.1 show s - fo r 199 3 an d fo r non-covere d fores t soil s - th e calculate d expose d dos e rate s (EDR) a s a functio n o f 137 C s vertica l migration

, fo r five group s o f migratio n velocitie s (fro m < 0.2 5 t o > 1.2 cm/year) an d fo r nin e differen t level s o f contaminatio n (fro m 1 0 t o 20 0 u.Ci/m 2). I t i s importan t t o observ e tha t eigh t year s afte r th e acciden t a significan t (> 30%) ED R reductio n wa s calculate d i n sodd y - an d peat-gle y soil s (grou p V) whic h type s represen t a relativel y importan t par t o f th e contaminate d territories

.7 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

Table 6.1. Means ofEDRfor different migration velocity of Cs in soils (for density 1.5 g/cm ).Grou p o f migratio n rat e I I I II I I V V Linea r rate , cm/yea r 0<0.2 5 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.7 0.7-1.2>1.2 Soi l deposi t o f Cs-137 , \iC\lm Z 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 5 0 10 0 20 0 Valu e o f 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

)7 1 7 Equipmen t fo r Measuremen t o f th e Effec t o f Treatment s Thi s chapte r describe s a n evaluatio n o f th e measuremen t procedure s an d measuremen t equipmen t whic h migh t b e usefu l i n assessment s o f radioactivit y level s i n connectio n wit h developmen t o f strategie s t o dea l wit h th e contaminatio n problems.7 2 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

7.1.a Gamm a spectrometr y i n situ.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Intrinsi c Ge-detector

, Multichanne l analyser , Lea d shielding

.Measuremen t o f roof , wall , soi l i n sit u No t abl e t o measur e dept h distributio n profil e 1 poin t pe r hou r Measuremen t o f surfac e contaminatio n leve l 0.2 5 man-da y pe r poin t 3000 0 EC U 600 0 EC U 0.5 kW , + Liqui d N 2 250-30 0 %8 point s pe r da y

9 0 = 72 0 point s pe r yea r n o-2 man-hour s pe r poin t non e non e non e non e non e Ca n determin e al l gamm a emitter s Specia l knowledg e require d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

RIS 0 Th e lea d shieldin g i s establishe d o n th e site , i n orde r t o measur e a define d are a o n th e wall , groun d o r roof , a pre-mad e calibratio n i s use d t o quantif y th e resul t i n t o Bq/m 2 o f th e differen t isotopes , o n th e differen t surfac e types. Minimu m 2 wel l skille d person s ar e required.Ris0-R-828(EN

)7 3 7.1.b Gamm a spectrometr y i n situ.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Pur e Ge-detector

, 409 6 channe l analyse r Measuremen t o f roof , wall , soi l i n sit u Ca n no t measur e dept h distributio n profil e 1 poin t pe r hou r measuremen t o f surfac e contaminatio n leve l 0.2 5 man-da y pe r poin t 2500 0 EC U 500 0 EC U 0.5 k W 250-30 0 %8 point s pe r da y

9 0 = 72 0 point s pe r yea r n o-2 man-hour s pe r poin t non e non e non e non e non e Ca n determin e al l gamm a radiatio n Specia l knowledg e require d Authors: Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

BIRH , RECO M (Russia)Th e quantu m flu x i s measure d b y pur e Ge-detecto r (energ y resolutio n < 2 ke V fo r 66 2 ke V radiation

) an d multichanne l analyse r i n situ. Th e tota l measure d quantu m flu x i s recalculate d int o specifi c an d surfac e activit y o f th e measure d surface. 1 scientis t an d 1 fiel d worke r ar e neede d fo r th e measurements

.7 4 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

7.2 Gamm a spectrometr y i n th e laboratory

.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Pur e Ge-detecto r 409 6 channe l analyse r Measurin g o f sample s o f roofs , walls , soi l Laborator y condition s ar e neede d 1 sampl e pe r hou r fo r tota l activit y an d 0.1 sampl e pe r hou r fo r dept h distributio n profil e Measurin g sampl e activit y 0.2 5 man-day/sampl e 2500 0 EC U 500 0 EC U 0.5 k W 250-30 0 %8 samples/da y

22 0 day s = 176 0 samples/yea r non e non e 2 man-hour s pe r sample , 2 0 man-hour s pe r pro-fil e-non e-non e transpor t o f sample s t o laboratory

- 2 ECU/sampl e Al l gamm a radiatio n coul d b e determine d Specia l knowledg e require d Authors: Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

BIRH , RECO M Th e tota l sampl e activit y measure d a t laborator y condition s i s recalculate d int o specifi c an d surfac e activit y o f substances

. Th e sampl e activit y i s measure d b y pur e Ge-detecto r (energ y resolutio n < 2ke V fo r 66 2 ke V radiation

) an d multichanne l analyser. 1 scientis t an d 1 fiel d worke r ar e require d fo r th e whol e procedure

.Ris0-R-828(EN

)7 5 7.3 Bet a counte r measurement s i n situ.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7,4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Bet a counte r Variou s surface s i n sit u A t leas t 1 0 kBq/m 2 o n surfac e Portable , 1 operato r ca. 1 0 point s pe r hou r (dependin g o n surfac e typ e an d orientation

)0.0 1 man-da y pe r poin t 350 0 700/y Negligibl e (gas , battery)200 %720 0 point s pe r yea r 0.0 8 man-hour s pe r poin t-----Eas y t o handl e i n sit u o n wall s an d roof s Instructio n require d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o CONTAMA T FH T HI M bet a counter. Portable , batter y operate d butan e ga s proportiona l counte r measurin g a surfac e are a o f 16 6 cm 2.7 6 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

7.4 Io n chambe r measurement s i n situ.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (inc h numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)

4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m pe r B q pe r m 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s (renewin g roo f etc.)10) Specia l remark s Io n chamber. (Reute r Stokes)Environmenta l monitorin g i n sit u Non e Portable , 1 operato r 5 Measurements/

h Tissu e equivalen t dos e metering.0.02 5 man-day/measurement

.1700 0 EC U 330 0 ECU/y Negligibl e (battery)20 0 %800 0 point s pe r yea r-----------Result s in: R , rem , rad , Sv , Gy.Instructio n require d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Reute r Stoke s Io n Chambe r i s considere d a s th e referenc e instrumen t i n environmenta l dos e measurement

.Ris0-R-828(EN

)7 7 7.5.a I n sit u spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detector.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Na l countin g syste m Variou s surface s i n sit u Min. 1 kBq/m 2 o n surfac e Na l counte r + MC A 1 operato r ca. 1 0 point s pe r hou r dependin g o n surfac e typ e an d orientatio n I n sit u measurement s wit h Na l detecto r 0.0 1 man-da y pe r measuremen t poin t 800 0 EC U 160 0 ECU/yea r-200 %720 0 points/yea r--0.0 8 man-h/poin t------Instructio n require d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris e Portabl e 3"*3" Na l detecto r syste m wit h multichanne l analyser.7 8 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

7.5.b I n sit u spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detector.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5.7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 7.2) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s CORA D soi l 0.1 jiCi/m 2 - 40 0 nCi/m 2 o f I37 C s soi l contam.10-1 2 point s pe r hou r Measuremen t o f 137 C s deposi t an d penetratio n 0.01-0.012 5 man-da y pe r poin t 400 0 EC U 80 0 ECU/yea r Portabl e (0.1 k W fo r battery)250-30 0 %80-10 0 points/d *9 0 = 7200-900 0 points/yea r Non e Non e 0.08-0.1 0 man-hour s pe r poin t non e non e non e non e non e Devic e allow s t o estimat e 137 C s penetratio n dept h Specia l knowledg e require d Authors: Ramzaev , Chesnoko v Institution

BIRH , RECO M Th e measure d quantu m flu x restricte d b y th e lea d collimato r i s recalculate d int o surfac e activit y o f soil. Th e quantu m flu x i s measure d b y Na l detecto r (energ y resoln. < 10% fo r 662ke V radiation

) an d 25 6 channe l analyser. 1 operato r shoul d wor k afte r som e educa-tio n Portabl e device.Ris0-R-828(EN

)7 9 7.6 Laborator y spectrometr y wit h sodiu m iodid e detector.1) Too l 2) Targe t surfac e 2.1) Constraint s 3) Desig n (incl. numbe r o f operators

)3.1) Productivit y (units/h)4) Mod e o f operatio n 5) Cos t 5.1) Manpowe r (days/uni t area)5.2) Too l investmen t cost , EC U 5.3) Discoun t (ECU/year

)5.4) Consumable s 5.5) Overhead s 5.6) Scal e o f applicatio n 5.7.1) Specifi c exposur e 5<<7.2) Inhalation/externa l dos e relatio n 5.7.3) Numbe r o f man-hour s expose d 6) Efficienc y 6.1) Decontaminatio n facto r (DF)7) Waste s generate d 7.1) Soli d kg/m 2 12) Liqui d 1/m 2 7.3) Wast e activit y B q pe r m 3 pe r B q pe r m 2 7.4) Toxicit y 8) Othe r cost s (ECU)9) Othe r benefit s 10) Specia l remark s Na l countin g syste m wit h lea d shieldin g Variou s surface s i n sit u Max. sampl e siz e : 20c m

20c m

20c m 1 operato r ca. 10-2 0 sample s pe r hou r dependin g o n sourc e strengt h Lea d shielde d Na l crysta l measurement s i n lab.0.005-0.0 1 man-day/sampl e 800 0 EC U (detecto r system) + 200 0 (lea d bricks)1800ECU/y-200 %7200-1440 0 samples/yea r---------Instructio n require d Authors: Roed , Andersson

, Pri p Institution

Ris o Lea d shielde d 3"*3" Na l detecto r syste m wit h multichanne l analyse r fo r laborator y use.8 0 Ris0-R-828(EN

)

Conclusio n A catalogu e o f feasibl e technique s fo r reductio n o f th e radiatio n dos e nin e year s afte r a n accidenta l contaminatio n o f differen t environment s ha s bee n made. Th e catalogu e i s base d o n recen t experimenta l researc h an d therefor e describe s th e effec t an d limitation s o f th e investigate d method s i n relatio n t o th e curren t situatio n i n th e area s affecte d b y th e Chernoby l accident. However , th e reporte d result s coul d b e use d t o guid e clean-u p op-eration s i n othe r scenario s involvin g age d contamination

.Th e forma t o f th e file s describin g th e individua l technique s facilitate s a compariso n o n man y differen t features , s o tha t th e mos t suitabl e techniqu e fo r a specia l operatio n ca n b e selecte d o n th e basi s o f a weighin g o f detail s suc h a s fo r instanc e th e dos e reducin g effect , scal e o f application

, too l investmen t costs , labou r costs , cos t o f consumables

, overheads , exposur e o f operator s an d amount s an d type s o f generate d wastes. Th e se-lectio n o f technique s ca n thu s b e mad e o n th e backgroun d o f detaile d analysi s t o ensur e tha t th e maximu m effec t i s obtaine d fo r th e cost s tha t ca n b e afforded.I t i s ofte n difficul t t o describ e labou r cost s i n monetar y units , a s suc h expense s wil l b e greatl y dependen t o n th e loca l wages. Also , du e t o th e currentl y hig h inflatio n rate s i n th e forme r Sovie t Union , a monetar y evaluatio n o f suc h cost s woul d no t b e vali d fo r ver y lon g time. Therefore

, i t wa s chose n t o describ e th e labou r cost s i n term s o f th e amoun t o f tim e require d t o trea t a n are a o f surfac e o r a standardize d object.A n overal l examinatio n o f th e files show s tha t i t i s stil l possibl e t o substantiall y reduc e th e radiatio n dos e nin e year s afte r a n accidenta l contamination

, althoug h i t woul d cer-tainl y hav e bee n easie r immediatel y followin g th e depositio n o f th e radioactiv e matter.Ris0-R-828(EN

) 8 1 Bibliographi c Dat a Shee t Ris0-R-828(EN

)Titl e an d author s Practica l Mean s fo r Decontaminatio n 9 Year s afte r a Nuclea r Acciden t Editor s J. Roed , K.G. Andersson

, H. Pri p ISB N 87-550-2080-1 Dept. o r grou p Environmenta l Scienc e an d Technolog y Departmen t Group s ow n rcg. numbers)Page s 8 2 Table s Illustration s 1 ISS N 0106-284 0 Dat e Decembe r 199 5 Project/contrac t No(s)Reference s Abstrac t (Max. 200 0 characters

)Nin e year s afte r th e Chernoby l accident , th e contaminatio n problem s o f th e mos t severel y affecte d area s remai n unsolved. A s a consequenc e o f this , larg e previousl y inhabite d area s an d area s o f farmlan d no w li e deserted. A n inter-nationa l grou p o f scientist s funde d b y th e E U Europea n Collaboratio n Pro-gramm e (ECP/4) ha s investigate d i n practic e a grea t numbe r o f feasibl e mean s t o solv e th e curren t problems. Th e basi c result s o f thi s wor k grou p ar e presen-te d i n thi s repor t tha t wa s prepare d i n a forma t whic h facilitate s a n intercom-pariso n (cost-benefi t analysis) o f th e individua l examine d technique s fo r de-contaminatio n o r dos e reductio n i n variou s differen t type s o f environmenta l scenarios. Eac h file containin g informatio n o n a metho d o r procedur e wa s create d b y th e person s an d institute s responsibl e fo r th e practica l trial. Al-thoug h th e lon g perio d tha t ha s elapse d sinc e th e contaminatio n too k plac e ha s adde d t o th e difficultie s i n removin g th e radioactiv e matter , i t coul d b e conclude d tha t man y o f th e method s ar e stil l capabl e o f reducin g th e dos e leve l substantially

.Descriptor s INIS/ED B AGRICULTURE

BUILDINGS

CHERNOBYLSK-4 REACTOR; CLAYS;COS T BENEFI T ANALYSIS; DECONTAMINATION

DOMESTI C ANIMALS; DOS E RATES; EFFICIENCY

FARMS; FORAGE;FORESTS; RADIATIO N PROTECTION

RADIOECOLOGICA L CONCENTRATION

REACTO R ACCIDENTS

REMEDIA L ACTION;SOILS; SURFAC E CLEANIN G Availabl e o n reques t fro m Informatio n Servic e Department

, Ris 0 Nationa l Laboratory

, (Afdelingc n fo r Informationsscrvicc

, Forskningscentc r Ris0), PO.Bo x 49 , DK-400 0 Roskilde , Denmark.Telephon e +4 5 4 6 7 7 4 6 77 , ext. 4004/400 5 Tele x 4 3 116. Telefa x +4 5 4 2 3 6 0 6 0 9

Objectiv e Th e objectiv e o f Ris0's researc h i s t o provid e industr y an d societ y wit h ne w potentia l i n thre e mai n areas:* Energy technology and energy planning* Environmental aspects of energy, industrial and plant production

Materials and measuring techniques for industry A s a specia l obligatio n Ris 0 maintain s an d extend s th e knowledg e require d t o advis e th e authoritie s o n nuclea r matters.Researc h Profil e Ris0's researc h i s long-ter m an d knowledge-oriente d an d directe d towar d area s wher e ther e ar e recognise d need s fo r ne w solution s i n Danis h society. Th e programm e area s 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

)ISB N 87-550-2080-1 ISS N 0106-284 0 Availabl e o n reques t from: Informatio n Servic e Departmen t Ris 0 Nationa l Laborator y EO. Bo x 49 , DK-400 0 Roskilde , Denmar k Phon e +4 5 4 6 7 7 4 6 77 , ext. 4004/400 5 Tele x 43116 , Fa x +4 5 4 6 7 5 5 6 2 7 http://www.risoe.d k e-mail: risoe@risoe.d k Transfe r o f Knowledg e Th e result s o f Ris0's researc h ar e transferre d t o industr y an d authoritie s 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 T o th e scientifi c worl d through:* Publication activities

Co-operation in national and international networks* PhD- and Post Doc. education Ke y Figure s Ris 0 ha s a staf f o f jus t ove r 900 , o f whic h mor e tha n 30 0 ar e scientist s an d 8 0 ar e Ph D an d Pos t Doc. students. Ris0's 199 5 budge t total s DK K 476m , o f whic h 45% com e from researc h programme s an d commercia l contracts

, whil e th e remainde r i s covere d b y governmen t appropriations

.

ML11355A191

Contents

Text

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML11355A191

Text

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search