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

NYS000251 Submitted: December 21, 2011 Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

.1 Fire hosing 11 2.3. High pressure water hosing 12 2b High pressure water hosing 13

.3 Dry sandblasting 14 A Wet sandblasting 15

.5.a Clay treatment improved with chemicals 16

.5.b Clay treatment improved with chemicals 17

.7.a Change of roof 19

.6 Roof cleaning 18

.7.b Change of roof 20

.8 Road planing 21

.9 Turning flagstones 22

.10 Ammonium nitrate treatment 23

.11 Indoor decontamination (following dry deposition) 24

.12.a Coatings 25

.12.b Coatings 26

.13 Vacuum sweeping 27

.14.a Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs 28

.14.b Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs 29

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

Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1. Constraints

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.1. Productivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.4. Consumables

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

5.5. Overheads

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

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

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

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

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

6: Efficiency: has only one item (point 6.1). In most cases a decontamination factor has been quoted. The decontamination factor is defined as the concentration of the original contamination on a surface or in an object relative to what is left after a decontamination procedure. By some of the procedures, however, the contamination has not been re-moved (no actual decontamination), but for instance buried under a shielding layer of uncontaminated soil to reduce the dose rate. For such procedures another concept was introduced to evaluate the efficiency: the surface dose reduction factor, which is defined as the ratio of the dose rate before to that after a dose reduction action has taken place (e.g. deep ploughing) at a distance of 1 m from the surface, regarding the surface as having infinite dimensions, and assuming that no other sources are present. In most cases this factor must be calculated from measurements on a limited (finite) surface. By 6 Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

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

7.4. Toxicity

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

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

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

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y.Kutlakhmedov Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

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

V. Blagoev Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

10 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.1 Fire hosing.

1) Tool Fire hosing

2) Target surface Roads 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (incl. number of operators) Pump 4- 2 jet pipes 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 100 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Water rinsing

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0013 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 3000 ECU - if bought in Western Europe 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 600 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 10 1 petrol per hour + 24 m3 water per hour 5.5) Overheads 200 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application 72000 m2 per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No inhalation hazard 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.03 h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.10 (probably less in heavily trafficked areas and more in Pripyat)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 50-200 g/m2 (impossible to collect) 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 0.25 m3/m2 (impossible to collect) 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 low 7.4) Toxicity (incineration, sulphate content in None concrete solidification etc.)

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) -

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso As it is not always possible to find fire pumps in the area, it is assumed that a pump is needed. A pump can supply 2 jet pipes with water. It is assumed that the pump will also require an operator.

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 11

1.2.a High pressure water hosing.

1) Tool High pressure turbo nozzle

2) Target surface walls/roofs 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 person 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 37 m2/h

4) Mode of operation High pressure water hosing 120 bar

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0034 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 2350 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 470 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 4 1 petrol per hour 5.5) Overheads 200 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application (37 m2/h* 720 h/y) 26500 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Because of water only a little dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.027 man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.3(walls), 2.2(roofs), probably more in Pripyat

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0 4 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 20 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 2500 m'1 - solid 7.4) Toxicity (incineration, sulphate content in None unless asbestos concrete solidification etc.)

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Algae and moss removed. Nicer appearance

10) Special remarks After precipitation the liquid contains 5 % of the radioactivity and can be disposed of Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0 Requirements: High pressure cleaning equipment, petrol driven. Working at 150 bar the turbo nozzle has an oscillating jet-stream.

Reference:

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

12 Ris0-R~828(EN)

1.2.b High pressure water hosing.

1) Tool OM-22616

2) Target surface Asphalt surfaces, concrete surfaces 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1.5..2 m2/h (1.0.. 1.8 m2/h for concrete surfaces)

4) Mode of operation High pressure water hosing

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.15... 0.2 man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 240 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 80 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Power: 49 kW; Water 0.1 m3/m2 5.5) Overheads 160 % of wages 5.6) Scale of application 2 m2/h

720 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.0 ... 1.4 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.7 ... 2.2 for concrete surfaces

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 2

7.2) Liquid 1/m Liquids are not collected 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Sanitary cleaning up

10) Special remarks Large volume of water Authors: Voronik, Grebenkov, Antsypau. Institution: IRP, IPEP, CSCB Ris0-R-828(EN) 13

1.3 Dry sandblasting.

1) Tool Sandblasting equipment (dry)

2) Target surface wall 2.1) Constraints scaffolding preferable

3) Design (inch number of operators) High-pressure with sand (2 persons) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 20 m2 per hour

4) Mode of operation High pressure air with sand injected

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.012 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 4500 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 900 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 5 1 petrol per hour and 2 kg sand per mz. Dry sand - preferably quartz-sand (0.5-2 mm) 5.5) Overheads 200 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application 20 m2/h

720 h/year = 14400 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust: inhalation hazard 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation ca. 1/10 with proper mask 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.1 man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 2.5 kg/m2 (impossible to collect) 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 800 m'1 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Visual improvement

10) Special remarks Creates dust. Whole-body protect/air supply needed Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0 Basic equipment: High pressure air compressor with sandblasting equipment and sand container

Reference:

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

14 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.4 Wet sandblasting.

1) Tool Sandblasting with KEW equipment (wet)

2) Target surface wall 2.1) Constraints scaffolding preferable

3) Design (incl. number of operators) High pressure water plus sand - 2 persons 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 30 m2 per hour

4) Mode of operation high pressure water with sand injected

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0083 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 2400 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 480 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 4 1 petrol/h, 2.25 kg sand/m2, 55 1 water per m2 5.5) Overheads 200 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application 30 m2/h*720 h/year = 21600 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure because wet only a little dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.067 h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 5

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 2.5 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 (55 1/m2) 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 Solid 800 m"1 (liquid = almost 0) 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits Visual improvement

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso High-pressure water cleaning equipment supplied with a sandblasting device which in-jects sand in the water jet-stream.

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 15

1.5.a Clay treatment improved with chemicals.

1) Tool ARS-14 with trailer

2) Target surface Wall 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3 persons 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 70m 2 /h

4) Mode of operation Covering clay suspension, drying and collecting of clay films

5) Cost Total cost estimate 0.7 ECU/m2 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.007 man.day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 57000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 11400 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables gasoline 31 kg/h 5.5) Overheads 200% of wages 5.6) Scale of application max. area treated 45500 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Wet = no dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation > 0,00001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 4.3* 10"2man.h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.2 +/-0.1 -3.6 +/-0.8

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.25 +/- 0.05 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 5.7* 10 3 - 1.2* 104 7.4) Toxicity No toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU) no

9) Other benefits Improvement of consumable properties

10) Special remarks Authors: Movchan, Fedorenko, Spigoun, Zlobenko, Institution: IGMOF

3. Design ARS-14 consists of:

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

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

16 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.5.b Clay treatment improved with chemicals.

1) Tool ARS-14 with trailer

2) Target surface Roof 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3 persons 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 90 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Covering clay suspension, drying and collect clay films

5) Cost Total cost estimate 0.7 ECU/m2 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.006 man.day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 57000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 11400 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables gasoline 31 kg/h 5.5) Overheads 200% of wages 5.6) Scale of application max. area possibly treated 58500 m2/year 5,7.1) Specific exposure Wet = no dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation > 0,00001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 3.3* 10'2man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.2 +/-0.1 -2.6 +/-0.4

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.25 +/- 0.05 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 4

10 3 -2.8* 104 7.4) Toxicity Non toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU) no

9) Other benefits Improvement of consumable properties

10) Special remarks Authors: Movchan, Fedorenko, Spigoun, Zlobenko. Institution: IGMOF

3. Design: ARS-14 consist of:

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 17

1.6 Roof cleaning.

1) Tool Roof washer

2) Target surface Roofs 2.1) Constraints None

3) Design (incl. number of operators) Air driven rotating brush - 2 persons 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 18 m2 per hour

4) Mode of operation Rotating brush + rinsing water

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.014 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 6000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1200 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 5 1 petrol/h + 13 1/m2 water 5.5) Overheads 150 % of man-power (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application (18m2/h*720h/y) 12960 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 0 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.11 h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2 (probably higher in Pripyat)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.2 kg/m2 (in water) 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 13 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 77 m"1 7.4) Toxicity None unless asbestos

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits Roof cleaned for moss and algae

10) Special remarks Can be used with special waste-collection system.

Can be operated from ground level.

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

Reference:

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

18 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.7.a Change of roof.

1) Tool Set of tools

2) Target surface Asbestos roof (mainly for private house) 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 4 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 12 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Change of roof

5) Cost Sum estimated in Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.5 ECU/m2 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.05 man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 100 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 30 5.4) Consumables 12 m2/h of new asbestos plates 5.5) Overheads 160 % of wages 5.6) Scale of application 12 m2/h

840 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Asbestos dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.27 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) In principle infinite

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 12 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m 120 m-1 7.4) Toxicity Asbestos

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits New roof, nicer looking

10) Special remarks Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Ris0-R-828(EN) 19

1.7.b Change of roof.

1) Tool Hammer, nail-taker.

2) Target surface Roof (asbestos) 2.1) Constraints needs 2 ladders

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 2 m2/h 800 h/year

4) Mode of operation Manual changing of roof covering

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.125 man.day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 10 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 10 ECU 5.4) Consumables No 5.5) Overheads 150%

5.6) Scale of application 2 m2/h

800h/y = 1600 m2/year 5=7.1) Specific exposure Dust + asbestos inhalation 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 1/1000- 1/10000 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1 man-hour/m

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) >100

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 15 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 100-200Bq/m 3 /Bq/m 2 7.4) Toxicity Asbestos

8) Other costs (ECU) 1.5 ECU/m2 of new asbestos

9) Other benefits Renewing of roof

10) Special remarks Especially effective in the case of old roof.

Authors: Ramzaev Institution: BIRH Chesnokov RECOM Removing old asbestos sheets manually and putting on new ones.

2 operators.

20 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.8 Road planing.

1) Tool Road planer (grinding off 3 cm)

2) Target surface Road 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (inch number of operators) Professional road planer (4 operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 500 m2/h

4) Mode of operation grinding off surface which must be picked up

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0019 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 70.000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 12.500 ECU 5.4) Consumables 8 I/hour of petro-diesel 5.5) Overheads 200 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application 500 m2/h*720h/y = 360000 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dusty - but coarse particles 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 1/10 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.016 man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) >100

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 45 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 none 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 22 m'1 7.4) Toxicity Asphalt (bitumen)

8) Other costs (ECU) In some cases subsequent paving of the road - not necessary with the right machine

9) Other benefits Planing of road

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Contractor's machinery - large scale - a rotating 'drum9 grinds off the asphalt top layer which must be removed.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 21

1.9 Turning flagstones.

1) Tool Turning flagstones manually

2) Target surface Flagstones 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (incl. number of operators) - 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 12m2/h

4) Mode of operation Manual

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.02 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU None 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads -

5.6) Scale of application 12 m2/h

720 h/y = 8640 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.2 man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 6

7) Wastes generated -

7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits -

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0

Reference:

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

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

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

22 Ris0=R-828(EN)

1.10 Ammonium nitrate treatment.

1) Tool Ammonium nitrate spraying

2) Target surface wall 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) spraying with pump (1 person) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 24 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Ammonium nitrate solution sprayed onto wall

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.01 man-day /m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 1000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 200 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 6.25 1/m2 of 0.1 M ammonium nitrate solution 5.5) Overheads 150 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 17280 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.1 man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.3 (probably higher in Pripyat)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 None 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 6 1/m2 - collectable, recyclable 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 55 m"1 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits -

10) Special remarks -

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

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 23

1.11 Indoor decontamination (following dry deposition).

1) Tool Vacuum Cleaner, razors, manual scraper, brush

2) Target surface Walls covered with wall paper 2.1) Constraints none

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 7.5 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Changing of wallpaper

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.03 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 70 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 18 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 0.0005 kWh/m2 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 7.5 m2/h

8h

200 days = 12000 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.07 man-hour/m

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) > 100

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.15-0.30 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 10000 Bq/m3 per Bq/m2 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) 0.2 ECU/m2 for new wall paper etc.

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) wallpaper renewed

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

1,12.a Coatings.

1) Tool Detached polymer paste

2) Target surface Smooth metal surfaces (painted) 2.1) Constraints Effective at t>+5°C

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 2 ... 6 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Cleaning of equipment, transports

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.02 ... 0.07 man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 0ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 0 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Paste and ingredients: 0.4-0.7 kg/mz, 1.7-2.5 ECU/kg 5.5) Overheads 160 % of wages 5.6) Scale of application 2-6 m2/h

500 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.12 ... 0.15man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4... 30

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.2... 1.8 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 10 ...20 m"1 7.4) Toxicity no

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Sanitary cleaning up, improvement of consum-able properties

10) Special remarks Large volume of manual work Authors: Voronik Institution: IRP The polymer paste binds a surface contamination, being dried, and removes it, being detached. Some sorption and adhesive properties improve effectiveness of method. The technology provides the minimal decontamination factor (4- 7) while applying to rusted or painted metal surfaces. The technology provides the maximal decon-tamination factor (10 - 30) while applying to oiled or dirty metal surfaces.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 25

1.12.b Coatings.

1) Tool Polymer coatings

2) Target surface Walls 2.1) Constraints Temperature +30 °C, humidity < 80 %

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 9 m2/h, 560 h/year

4) Mode of operation removing radionuclides from surface of wall

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.014 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 14000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1400 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 0.56 kWh/m2 5.5) Overheads 120%

5.6) Scale of application 9 m2/h

560 h/year = 5040 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No data 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 1/10000 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.11 man-hours/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4-5

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.2 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 5000 Bq/m3 per Bq/m2 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) Repainting of the walls 0.3 ECU/m2

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Renovation of walls

10) Special remarks Can not be used on wooden walls Authors: Mamaev, Galkin + assistance from Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: IIM, BIRH, RECOM The contaminated surface is coated by dissolving polyvinyl alcohol powder in water mixed with chemical agents and plastifier. After some time water and the components evaporate. The polymer coating is removed mechanically.

26 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.13 Vacuum sweeping.

1) Tool Vacuum sweeping

2) Target surface Roads 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (inch number of operators) Vacuum sweeper (1 person) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 3500 m2/h

4) Mode of operation rotating brush and vacuuming

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 3.6

10 *5 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 90000 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 18000 5.4) Consumables 5-6 1/h of petrol 5.5) Overheads 150 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 3500 m2/h

720 h/y = 2520000 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure Accumulated dust is brought close to the operator 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation Inhal. dose can be minimised by applic. of water 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 5*10"4 man-hours per m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.4 - depends on local traffic and particle size -

probably higher in Pripyat

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 50-200 g/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 20000-5000 m"1 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits Cleaning roads of litter

10) Special remarks See attached sheet Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Vacuum sweeping with a municipal seated Scholing street cleaning machine with a wa-ter nozzle to spray a fine mist of water onto the road prior to brushing with 3 rotating brushes and finally application of a vacuuming attachment. The street dust is accumu-lated in a vessel behind the operator, who can get a dose from this.

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 27

1.14.a Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs.

1) Tool Electric drill with steel wool or sand-paper

2) Target surface Iron roofs/ painted walls 2.1) Constraints Possibly scaffolding

3) Design (inch number of operators) Household equipment - 1 person 3.1) Productivity (units/h) Im 2 /h

4) Mode of operation Grinding

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.125 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 100 ECU

53) Discount (ECU/year) 50 ECU 5.4) Consumables Electricity 1 kW/h, steel wool 1 ECU/h 5.5) Overheads 150 % of manpower (5.1) 5.6) Scale of application x-large due to simplicity 5.7.1) Specific exposure inhalation dose 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/10 with proper mask 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1 h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2-2.3

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.1 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 5000 m"1 7.4) Toxicity yes if paint contains dangerous elements

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits Easy to repaint

10) Special remarks No know-how is required - only due consideration Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise The equipment is what is usually applied to clean surfaces prior to painting.

28 Ris0-R-828(EN)

1.14.b Scraping wooden surfaces and painted roofs.

1) Tool Manual electric cutting machine

2) Target surface wooden wall 2.1) Constraints Residual nails in the wall must be removed

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1 m2/h - 900 h/year per operator

4) Mode of operation Mechanical removal of the upper layer

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.08 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 50 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 25 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 0.6 kWh/m2 5.5) Overheads 100-200%

5.6) Scale of application 1 m2/h

900 h/year = 900 m2/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Inhalation of dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 1/1000- 1/10000 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 5

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 2.5-5.0 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 300-500 m"1 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) New painting : 0.3 ECU/m2

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Renovation of the walls

10) Special remarks Removing the upper 0.3-0.5 cm with the tool.

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 29

1.15 Dismantling houses to re-build.

1) Tool Set of tools (See descriptions attached)

2) Target surface House and shed 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 8 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.036 house/h

4) Mode of operation Dismantling of a house

5) Cost Sum estimated for Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 700 ECU/house 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 25.5 man-days/house 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU Rent of machinery: 300 ECU/house 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) No 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 200% of wages 5.6) Scale of application 0.036 house/h

1120h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 200 man-hour/house

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) In principle infinite

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 12 kg/m2 of asbestos roof 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 120 m'1 7.4) Toxicity Asbestos dust

8) Other costs (ECU) 30000 (new house)

9) Other benefits Remediation of territory

10) Special remarks Authors: Ansypau Institution: CSCB Grebenkov IPEP Attached descriptions: Tools applied: 1 Crane, 1 Truck MAZ, 1 Bulldozer.

Personnel of one team: 1 crane operator 2 man-days 1 truck driver 3 man-days 1 bulldozer operator 0.5 man-day 5 workers, operating outdoors 4 days

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

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

30 Ris0~R-828(EN)

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 31

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

1) Tool Front Loader

2) Target surface Soil 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 700 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Cutting of contaminated soil layer

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0002 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU 5.4) Consumables Diesel oil: 0.03 kg/m2 5.5) Overheads 160%

5.6) Scale of application 700 m2/h

900 h/year = 630000 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 1/10000 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.0014 man-hours/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 28

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 75 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m 20 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) No

10) Special remarks Land digging machine for periodic action.

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

32 Ris0=R-828(EN)

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

Bulldozer

1) Tool

2) Target surface Soil 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.03 ha/h

4) Mode of operation scraping of top soil with front loader (10-30 cm)

5) Cost Total estimate: 190 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 4 man-days/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 12 kg/h petro-diesel 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 300 m7h

800 h/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1*10° man-hours/mz

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)10-100

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 30-60 kg/mz 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 3-10 m'1 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) Loss of soil productivity

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) No subsequent treatment required

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Blagoev Institution: ICBGI, IBOChOCh Ris0-R-828(EN) 33

2.2 Scraping off the top soil with a grader.

1) Tool Grader

2) Target surface Top layer of ground 2.1) Constraints No

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 400-1000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Scraping of soil surface

5) Cost Sum estimated for Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.38 ECU/m2 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.00036 man-day/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU Rent of machinery: lOOECU/day 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) No 5.4) Consumables 24kg/h 5.5) Overheads 200% of wages 5.6) Scale of application 1000 m2/hour

720 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust in dry season 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation O.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.001 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4... 10

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 180 ...400

12) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 (4 ... lO^n'1 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) Depends upon further utilisation of clean ground

9) Other benefits Planing of territory

10) Special remarks Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP 34 Ris0~R-828(EN)

2.3 Manual digging.

1) Tool Shovel

2) Target surface Garden soil 2.1) Constraints the soil must be virgin soil

3) Design (inch number of operators) hand-digging (x persons) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 4 m2/h per man

4) Mode of operation Digging to about 30 cm depth

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.03 man-day per m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 12 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 24 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables None 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application Unlimited 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.3 man-hour per m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 4-6

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

2 7.2) Liquid 1/m -

3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m -

7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits -

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Ris0

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 35

2.4 Turf harvester (small).

1) Tool Turf harvester (small)

2) Target surface Undisturbed grassed soils, small private pastures, forest pastures, urban grassed lands.

2.1) Constraints No of few stones

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 4 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 800 m2/h

4) Mode of operation removes the 3-5 cm top soil

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0006 man-d/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 7200 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2400 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 2 kg/h, gasoline (0.23 ECU/kg) 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 800 m2/h (720 h/year) 5.7.1) Specific exposure External and internal doses 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 6*10"4man.day/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 3-20

7) Wastes generated occupy 5 % of the decon. area 7.1) Solid kg/m2 20-30 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Improves pastures.

10) Special remarks Decontamination definitely achieved, no further intervention required.

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

36 Ris0-R-828(EN)

2.5 Turf harvester (large).

1) Tool Turf harvester (industrial)

2) Target surface Undisturbed grassed soils 2.1) Constraints No of few stones, build a prototype, large fields (150mxl50m), less than 20% of the area dis-turbed by wild pigs, remove bushes before on abandoned fields

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 (in case of an automatic conveyor) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1.25 ha/h

4) Mode of operation removes and dispose the 3-5 cm top soil

5) Cost 170ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.1 man-d/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 600 kECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 120kECU/year 5.4) Consumables 30 kg/ha, gasoline 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 12500 m2/h (400-800 h/year) 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <0.000001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.25*10'6man.h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 20 on grass and milk

7) Wastes generated occupy 5 % of the decon. area 7.1) Solid kg/m2 20-30 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 20-30 m"1 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Destroys Nardus stricta, thus improves pastures.

Possibility to make a map of the remaining contamination using on board CORAD system

10) Special remarks Decontamination definitely achieved, no further intervention required.

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 37

2.6 Lawn mower (mulcher).

1) Tool Lawn mower

2) Target surface Grassed areas in city 2.1) Constraints -

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Large lawn mower (1 person)

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 1.3* lO^man-days/m"2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 15000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 3000 ECU/y 5.4) Consumables 6 1/h of petrol 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 1000* 720 = 720000 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation practically 0 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.5*10"3man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1 after 9 years (no effect alone)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 Depending on length of grass 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 0 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 0 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) -

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

38 Ris0-R-828(EN)

2.7 Triple digging.

1) Tool Ordinary shovel (for triple digging)

2) Target surface Garden soil 2.1) Constraints Area must be surface dug or virgin land

3) Design (incl. number of operators) unlimited 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 2 m7h per man

4) Mode of operation Burying the soil top layer 30 - 40 cm down

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.068 man-day/m' 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 12 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 24 ECU/y 5.4) Consumables None 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application unlimited 5.7.1) Specific exposure a little dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 1/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.7 h/mz

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 4-15 depending on soil type

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 None 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 None 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) The area will be ready for new crops

10) Special remarks instruction needed Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise The garden triple digging procedure can be used to dig a garden area in the same manner as that which is performed by a skim and burial plough. The principle is basically to manually bury a thin top soil layer containing the radioactive matter, whereby a shield-ing effect is obtained. The method is described in detail in:

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 39

2.8 Soil size fractionation.

1) Tool Mobile equipment for soil separation

2) Target surface soil 2.1) Constraints can be used for sand and sand clay (20 %) soil

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

4) Mode of operation Mechanical separation of the soil

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.025 man-day/kg 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 0.1 kWh/kg 5.5) Overheads 120%

5.6) Scale of application 100 kg/h

6 h/d

120 days/y = 72000 kg/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 1/10000 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.02 man-hour/kg

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4-6

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 0.1 kg/kg 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m2 10000 m'1 7.4) Toxicity Nitric acid

8) Other costs (ECU) Possible restoration of the soil

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Decreasing amounts of waste

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Mamaev, Ogulnik Institution: IIM? Russia The equipment consists of the following units: 1. the unit for loading soil, 2. the unit for mixture preparation and removal of organic substances, 3. the unit for separation of the small fraction, 4. the unit for waste processing and collection. 2 operators are involved in the processes.

40 Ris0~R-828(EN)

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 41

3.1 Litter removal.

1) Tool Mechanical brush

2) Target surface Forest litter 2.1) Constraints Cannot be used in wet forest areas or for forest less than 30 years old

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 540 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Litter layer removal

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.00053 man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5,000 ECU for brushing machine; Rent of BELARUS tractor: 50 ECU/day 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1,700 ECU/year for brushing machine 5.4) Consumables Petrol-diesel: 30 kg/hour 5.5) Overheads 160 % of wages 5.6) Scale of application 540 m2/h

840 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation O.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.0037 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 3.5 ...4.5

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 30 ... 50 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 15 ...20 m-1 7.4) Toxicity Flammable

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits No

10) Special remarks Authors: Antsypau5 Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Attached descriptions This procedure represents the main on-site decontamination technology which provides sufficient dose reduc-tion for forest workers. After removal of contaminated litter of 5-7 cm in thickness it is directed to the shallow ground/surface disposal or to a valorisation procedure. The main mechanism produced in France consists of the rotor with frequent firm elastic cores located on its cylindrical surface. The rotor is driven by hydraulic engine with reductor placed inside the rotor cavity. This mechanical brush is assembled on the frame together with a storage bin with volume of about 0.4 m3 where the litter is collected. The bin and brush are covered with the roofing shelter. The litter collected in the bin can easy be unloaded into a trailer (or platform) with a help of hydro-cylinders/monitors. Soil depth of operating of the brush is controlled by means of a couple of wheels.

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

42 Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.2 Grinding mower.

1) Tool Grinding mover

2) Target surface Under-wood forest; shrubs 2.1) Constraints Diameter of wood stem must be less 8 cm. Can-not be used in wet forest areas or for forest less than 30 years old

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1500... 2000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Cleaning and grinding of underwood

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0001 man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5,800 ECU for grinding machine "Norevert" or ODI-1; Rent of BELARUS tractor: 50 ECU/day 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1900 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Petrol-diesel: 30 kg/h 5.5) Overheads 160% of wages 5.6) Scale of application 2000 m2/h

840 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.0005 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) DF= 1.2

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 20 ... 50 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7 ... 20 m'1 7.4) Toxicity Flammable

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Forest management

10) Special remarks Method represents preliminary operation for fiirtherapplication of item 3.1 Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB, IPEP Attached descriptions : The debris which is left on a place of felling and constitutes the most contaminated part of wood undergoes collection and grinding. Then it is directed to following possible handling: (i) Scattering around place of felling in order to restore a litter of forest; (ii) Removing for further disposal; (iii) Removing for further valorisation. Options (i) and (iii) can be justified from ecological and economical points. Technique represents a drum grinder with knifes. It is placed onto platform of tractor which is supplied with manipulator and storage bin. This technology proceeds removing a forest litter, but this is also ordinary technology to care forest. The procedure presents cutting and grinding the underwood (bushes, young trees). The equipment (ODI-1) is assembled to the arm of excavator of EO-2621 typemade on a base of "BELARUS" tractor. The grinding mechanism consists of the head equipped by rotor with free hanging incisors and cutting blades. It rotates by means of hydro-mover connected to tractor's hydro-driving system. The grinding machine provides cutting the bushes and underwood of diameter of less than 10 cm. Width of the head is about 1.1m. The chips after grinding are left on a place of cleaning. Similar machine ("Norevert") produced in Sweden is assembled to the shaft of "BELARUS" tractor.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 43

3.3 Debarking wood.

1) Tool Wood sawing plant 20-K63-2

2) Target surface Timber 2.1) Constraints Should be used as a soil mulch. Not in wet forest areas

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 30 ... 50 m3/h

4) Mode of operation Mechanical removal of bark and phloem

5) Cost Sum estimated in Gomel Province (5.1+5.2+5.3+5.4+5.5): 1.5ECU/m3 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.0048 man-days/m3 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 3000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1000 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 160% of wages 5.6) Scale of application 50m 3 /h* 1400h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation O.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.02 man-hour/m3

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2... 4

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 10 ...20 kg/m3 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 10 ...20 m"1 (50... 100m3/m3) 7.4) Toxicity Flammable

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Possible valorisation of waste

10) Special remarks Authors: Antsypau, Grebenkov Institution: CSCB,IPEP Attached descriptions In the zone of contamination level of 5-15 Ci/km2 raw wood after felling requires bark stripping that may re-moves 7% of biomass and 60-70% of radioactivity. Valuable wood trunk received in this zone may be used without any limitation.

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

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

44 Ris0-R-828(EN)

3.4 Special wood pulp treatment.

1) Tool Twin-screw extruder

2) Target surface Contaminated wood 2.1) Constraints Only for preparation of wood chips

3) Design (inch number of operators) 10 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 5 t/h

4) Mode of operation extracts Cs and Sr from wood pulp

5) Cost 0.9 MECU/year 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.25 man/t of wood 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 6MECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 0.6 MECU/year 5.4) Consumables Electricity 1400 kW/h, Nitric acid 2 % of wood, Sodium sulphite 2 % of wood.

5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 26400 t/y of wood (16 h/day) 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation < 0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.25 man.d/h

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 50-100

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 1000 1/t of wood (recycling to some extent) 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 95 % of wood activity 7.4) Toxicity sulphates

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits Selling cardboard, 18400 t/y i.e. 11MECU

10) Special remarks Decreases electric power consumption compared to chemical pulp factories by 30 %, decreases the waste production.

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 45

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

46 Ris0-R-828(EN)

4.1 Ordinary ploughing.

1) Tool Ordinary plough and tractor

2) Target surface rural land 2.1) Constraints Virgin land only

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 9000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Ploughing to a depth of 25 cm

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 1.4* 10"5man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 2000 (plough) and 50000 (tractor) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 400 (plough) and 10000 (tractor) 5.4) Consumables petrol: 6 1/h 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 9000 m2/h

720 h/y = 6.48

106 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/10 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.1

10"4man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 3-6 (external)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) Transport of equipment (depending on distances)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Ploughing of fields, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of up to 4 depending on the plant type

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Ordinary 25 cm deep ploughing with tractor-driven Bovlund single-furrow 24" plough (type 9H-70).

Reference:

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 47

4.2.a Deep ploughing.

1) Tool Ordinary plough + tractor

2) Target surface Rural land 2.1) Constraints Virgin land only

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 7000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation Ploughing to a depth of 45 cm

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 1.8* 10"5 man-days/ m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 2000 (plough) and 50000 (tractor) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 400 (plough) and 10000 (tractor) 5.4) Consumables Petrol: 101/h 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 7000 m2/h

720 h/y = 5.04

106 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/10 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.43* 10"4man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 6-10 (external)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) Transport of equipment (depending on distances)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Ploughing of fields, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of up to 10 depending on plant type

10) Special remarks Draw-back: Possible burial of fertile soil layer Authors; Roed5 Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Deep ploughing to 45 cm using a tractor-driven Bovlund single-furrow 24" plough (type 9H-70).

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

Reference:

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

48 Ris0=R-828(EN)

4.2.b Deep ploughing.

1) Tool Deep ploughing

2) Target surface Decontamination of soil (plant production) 2.1) Constraints deep ploughing of soil (25-35 cm)

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.2ha/h

4) Mode of operation Deep ploughing upper soil layer (25-35 cm)

5) Cost Total estimate: 120ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.6 man-day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 15kg/hpetro-diesel 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 2000 m2/h

720 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1

10"5 man-hours per m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 2-4

7) Wastes generated No 2

7.1) Solid kg/m No 2

7.2) Liquid 1/m No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) -

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Perepelyatnikov Institution: ICBGI, UIAR Ris0-R-828(EN) 49

4.3.a Skim and burial ploughing.

1) Tool Skim-and-burial plough and tractor

2) Target surface Rural land 2.1) Constraints Virgin or surface ploughed land

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 3000 m2/h

4) Mode of operation skim and burial ploughing (see footnote)

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 4.16* 10'5man-days/m2 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 50000 ECU (tractor) and 4125 ECU (plough) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 10000 ECU (tractor) and 825 ECU (plough) 5.4) Consumables Petrol: 10 1/h 5.5) Overheads 100 % of manpower 5.6) Scale of application 3000 m2/h

720 h/y = 2.16

106 m2/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure Dust resuspension can be limited by water applic.

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/10 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 3.33* 10*4man-h/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 6-15

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU) Transport (depending on distances)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Ploughing without significant loss of soil fertil-ity, reduction of plant uptake by a factor of at least 10

10) Special remarks See below Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso A skim coulter first places the upper 5 cm of soil in a trench made by the main ploughshare. In one movement, the main ploughshare then digs a new trench and places the lifted subsoil on top of the thin layer of topsoil in the bottom of the trench of the previous run. The skim coulter simultaneously places the top layer from the next furrow in the new trench. In this way, the 5-50 cm soil layer is lifted only about 10-15 cm and the power requirements minimised. The advantage of the method is that only a very thin layer (5 cm) of topsoil is buried at 45 cm, and the 5-45 cm layer is not inverted.

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

Reference:

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

50 Ris0-R-828(EN)

4.3.b Skim and burial ploughing.

1) Tool Skim and burial ploughing

2) Target surface soil 2.1) Constraints Virgin or surface ploughed land

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.2ha/h

4) Mode of operation Upper 5 cm layer cut off and put under ploughed horizon of soil

5) Cost Estimate: 160-280 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.6 man-day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 25000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2500 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 20 kg/h petro-diesel 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 2000 m2/h

720 h/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1*10~5 man-hour/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Surface dose reduction factor 6-15

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 20-30 kg/m2 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 15-20 m"1 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks The waste is buried under the ploughed soil hori-zon Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Roed, Blagoev Institution: ICBGI, Riso, lOChOCh Ris0-R-828(EN) 51

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

52 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.1.a Liming.

1) Tool Liming (special trucks for spreading) (ORUP-8)

2) Target surface Acidic arable land (pH 4.5-5.5) 2.1) Constraints Requires also potassium addition to maintain ionic equilibrium

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1.3 (per distribution unit) (Dolomite powder) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) lha/h

4) Mode of operation Competitive uptake, yield increase

5) Cost Total estimate: 55 ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.15 Man-day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 13000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1625 ECU 5.4) Consumables Gasoline 12.5 1/ha, lime (ca. lt/ha) 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application No limitation 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No exposure to workers 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed No exposure to workers

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.3-1.6 (depends on soil pH)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 2

7.2) Liquid 1/m No 3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Increases crop yield + quality of fodder

10) Special remarks Specific equipment in CIS, but other tools may be used. Effect persistent during 4-5 years.

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 53

5.1.b Liming.

1) Tool Liming of soils

2) Target surface Decontamination of plants 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.4ha/h

4) Mode of operation Liming of soil for decreasing uptake of radionuclides in plant production

5) Cost 13 ECU/ha (Ukraine) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.6 man-day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 12000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1200ECU/y 5.4) Consumables 10 kg/ha petro-diesel, 300-800 kg/ha lime 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 4000 m2/h

720 h/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 5*10"4 man-hours/m2

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2-3

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m No 7,4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Increasing productivity of plants - 1.5-2 times

10) Special remarks -

Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Perepelyatnikov Institution: ICBGI, UIAR 54 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.2.a Addition of potassium chloride.

1) Tool Addition of potassium chloride

2) Target surface Decontamination of plants on arable lands 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 2 operators (driver of truck and lorry) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.2ha/h

4) Mode of operation Decreasing accumulation of radiocaesium in plants

5) Cost Total estimate: 20 ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.12 man.day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 240 kg/ha KC1;2O kg/h Gasoline 5.5) Overheads 200%

5.6) Scale of application 2ha/h x 400 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1 man.hour/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2-3

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits Possibly increasing of harvest.

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 55

5.2.b Addition of potassium chloride.

1) Tool Addition of potassium

2) Target surface arable lands 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 1.2 operators (driver of truck and loader) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1.5ha/h

4) Mode of operation Enrichment of soil by K

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) O.ld/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 18000 ECU

53) Discount (ECU/year) 3000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 150 kg/ha KC1; 15 1/h Gasoline 5.5) Overheads 160%

5.6) Scale of application 4800 ha.

5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.8 man-hour/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1 3 - 1.6

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No

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

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits Possibly increase of yield.

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

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

5.3 Addition of phosphorus.

1) Tool Addition of phosphorus

2) Target surface Decontamination of plants on arable land 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators (driver of truck and lorry) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.2ha/h

4) Mode of operation Decreasing accumulation of radiostrontium in plants

5) Cost Total estimate: 40 ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.15 man.day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 20000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 550 kg/ha NaH(PO4)2; 20 kg/h Gasoline 5.5) Overheads 200%

5.6) Scale of application 1.5ha/hx400h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.0001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1.2 man.hour/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 0.8-1.3

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Not recommended separately but in combination with other fertilisers (K,N)

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 57

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

1) Tool Organic amendment of the soil

2) Target surface arable soils 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1.2/ha (1 operator) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.7ha/h

4) Mode of operation Binds Sr, complexes Cs and Sr

5) Cost Total estimate: 60 ECU/ha (60 t/ha) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 2 ECU/ha (0.4 man-day/ha) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 11328 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1416 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Fuel: 8 1/ha, manure: 40 ECU/ha 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application No limitation 5.7.1) Specific exposure negligible (U, Th, Ra) 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed No

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) DF=1.3forCsandSr

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 2

7.2) Liquid 1/m No 3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) No

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Yield and quantity increase

10) Special remarks KH2PO4 Authors: Firsakova Institution: BIAR 58 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.5 Pasture improvement by ploughing and fertilising.

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

2) Target surface Decontamination of crops and milk 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 9 operators (6 procedures) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.125 ha/h

4) Mode of operation The decreasing of accumulation of radionuclides in plants and milk

5) Cost 343 ECU/ha (6 procedures) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 8.3 man.day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 65000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 6500 ECU 5.4) Consumables 80 kg/ha seeds;50 kg/h Petro-diesel, fertiliser 5.5) Overheads 160%

5.6) Scale of application 0.12ha/x700h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.004 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 66 man.hour/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 4-16 for peaty soils, 4-9 for podsol soils

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits The increasing of harvest.

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

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

5.6 Soil disking followed by ploughing and fertilising.

1) Tool Disking, fertilising, liming and sowing new grass

2) Target surface Pastures 2.1) Constraints Need to repeat disking 4-6 times

3) Design (inch number of operators) 0.8 operators per ha 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.25 ha/h

4) Mode of operation Dilution of Cs and Sr in the soil profile

5) Cost Total estimate: 150 ECU/ha 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 2 ECU/ha (0.4 man-day/ha) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 11328 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1416 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Fuel: 8 1/ha, Phosphorus: 12 ECU/ha 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application Availability of manure limited to cultivated crops 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation <l/100 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.4-2.2 for Cs and 1.2-1.4 for Sr

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Yield and quantity increase

10) Special remarks Author: Firsakova Institution: BIAR 60 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.7 Liming and fertilising forest pasture soil without ploughing.

1) Tool Liming and fertilising forest pastures

2) Target surface forest pastures 2.1) Constraints Use of traditional machines not possible

3) Design (inch number of operators) 2.5 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 0.3ha/h

4) Mode of operation Enrichment of poor soil by Ca, K, P

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 1 man-day/ha 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU - (manual operation only) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) -

5.4) Consumables Lime, KC1, Superfosfate 5.5) Overheads 160% of wages 5.6) Scale of application 1 ha / cow in settlements, surrounded by forest 5.7.1) Specific exposure external 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 20 man-hours/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) less than or equal to 1.5

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 no 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 no 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 no 7.4) Toxicity no

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Increases pasture productivity

10) Special remarks only for villages surrounded by forests, when other pastures are impossible to use Authors: Firsakova. Antsipov Institution: BIAR, CSCB Ris0-R-828(EN) 61

5.8.a Use of bolus in private farms.

1) Tool Ferrasin bolus (boli applicator) 137

2) Target surface Decontamination of milk from Cs 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 2 cows per hour

4) Mode of operation

5) Cost 0.04 ECU/1 or 19.2 ECU/cow 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.125 man-day/cow 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 8 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 3 bolus/cow = 19.2 ECU/cow 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 1500 cows/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed No

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2-3 (on milk)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.)

10) Special remarks 3 bolus included in a cow each 3 months. The use of bolus increases the milk price by 13 %.

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

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

62 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.8.b Use of bolus in private farms.

1) Tool Use of Prussian Blue boli in private farm

2) Target surface Cows (milk) 2.1) Constraints The Prussian Blue boli production

3) Design (inch number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 3 cows per hour

4) Mode of operation Binding of 137Cs in the gastrointestinal tract

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.08 days/cow 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 10 ECU (boli applicator) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 2.5 ECU 5.4) Consumables Boli (Prussian Blue, wax, BaSO4 + press mixer) 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 2000 treatments per operator per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure No 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.66 man-hours per cow

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2-3 for milk, meat

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 no 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 no 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 no 7.4) Toxicity no

8) Other costs (ECU) no

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) no

10) Special remarks The application of boli repeated every 2-3 months. Cost of one treatment per animal =

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 63

5.9.a Clean fodder to animals before slaughter.

1) Tool Clean fodder before slaughter.

2) Target surface Decontamination of meat 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (incl. number of operators) Without special operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation The organisation of special feedings of animal by clean food before slaughter

5) Cost From 10 to 30% increasing of price of meet (0,2-0,5 ECU/kg additionally) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2 - 3 (for Ukraine)

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) Radiation Control, live dosimetry 0.5 ECU/animal/ year

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Authors: Y. Kutlakhmedov Institution: ICBGI G. Perepelyatnikov UIAR 64 Ris0=R-828(EN)

5.9.b Clean fodder to animals before slaughter.

1) Tool Clean fodder before slaughter.

2) Target surface Cattle 2.1) Constraints

3) Design (inch number of operators) No additional operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation The elimination ofl Cs from muscles

5) Cost Transportation costs (0.2 ECU/t per km) + Costs of clean feed 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 3.0

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU) Radiation Control, live dosimetry 0.5 ECU/animal/ year

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks During 2 months before slaughter animals are supplied by clean fodder from arable land of the collective farms. Such feed is in any collective farm, so maize silage and concentrate are usual rations of cattle.

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

5.10 Salt licks for animals.

1) Tool Use of Prussian Blue salt-licks

2) Target surface Cows and bulls 2.1) Constraints Prussian Blue salt-lick production

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 2 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 15 salt-licks/h

4) Mode of operation Binds 137Cs in gastrointestinal tract.

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.016 man-day/salt lick 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU -

5.3) Discount (ECU/year) -

5.4) Consumables gasoline 10 I/day, Prussian Blue, NaCl, press equipment 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 12000 salt-lick distribution 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation No inhalation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.128 man-hr/salt-lick

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 2.0-3.0 for milk, meat

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 None 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 None 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) None

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Providing of NaCl

10) Special remarks The duration of use by animal of 1 salt-lick is 3 months. Annual cost for 1 animal: 6 ECU Authors: Firsakova, Antsipov, Averin Institution: BIAR, CSCB The general features of the method are described in the IAEA Technical Report Series No. 363 on Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides, ISBN 92-0-100894-5, 1994.

66 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.11 Production of phytomass with enhanced contamination.

Production of phytomass with enhanced contamination

1) Tool (Phytodecontamination of soils)

2) Target surface Decontamination of soils(mixed)

This method includes 7 procedures: special treatment 2.1) Constraints of seeds; ploughing; sowing crops; fertilising; irriga-tion; harvesting; harrowing. Only 3 procedures ap-pears additional to traditional scheme: treatment of seeds; irrigation; harrowing after harvesting.

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 9 operators 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

The using of additional procedures (treatment of

4) Mode of operation seeds; irrigation; harrowing) with aim creating of conditions for significant increasing transfer factor and harvest of biomass. The harvest of biomass can be used for feeding of animals and then using clean fod-der before slaughter.

5) Cost 34 ECU/ha (0,2-0,5 ECU/kg additionally) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 1 man.day/ha On 3 additional procedures 10000 + 8000 + 12000 =

5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 30000 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 100 + 800 + 3000 = 3900 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables 50 kg/ha seeds; 5.000 t/ha water; 15 kg/h diesel.

5.5) Overheads 160%

5.6) Scale of application 0,12 ha/hx 400 h/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 0.001 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 1 man. hour/ha

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) 1.1-1.3 (per year)

7) Wastes generated No 7.1) Solid kg/m2 No 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 No 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 No 7.4) Toxicity No

8) Other costs (ECU)

The receiving of food for feeding animals and then

9) Other benefits clean fodder before slaughter = 15 ECU/ha.

This is important possibility of phytodecontami-nation

10) Special remarks

- using of phytomass for feeding animals.

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

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

1) Tool Exchange of food crops with technical (industrial) crops

2) Target surface Contaminated arable lands 2.1) Constraints crop processing plant

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

4) Mode of operation Use of contaminated area for crop production

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5.4) Consumables 5.5) Overheads 5.6) Scale of application 10 % of arable land on contaminated area 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) Exclusion of food uptake

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 None 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 None 7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) Purchase of special tools and creation of process-ing base

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Development of industry

10) Special remarks Large additional Government investments in agriculture will be possible Authors: Firsakova, Antsipov Institution: BIAR, CSCB The rape production is more realistic, several collective farms grow its crop and rape oil plant is treated in Gomel area.

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

68 Ris0-R-828(EN)

5.13 Ferrasin filters for milk decontamination.

1) Tool Ferrasin filters for milk 137

2) Target surface Decontamination of milk from Cs 2.1) Constraints Used on private farms only

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 40 filters per hour (0.01filter/1milk)

4) Mode of operation Filtration of milk through filter

5) Cost 0.006 ECU/1 or 0.8 ECU/cow, 10 days (32 ECU/y) 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.02 man-day per filter 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU plastic system for filtration of milk (4 ECU) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Gasoline 4 kg/h, 0.01filter/1milk 5.5) Overheads 100%

5.6) Scale of application 40 filters/h

320 h/y 5.7.1) Specific exposure None 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation None 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed None

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) ca. 10

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 None 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 None 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity None

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) -

10) Special remarks This method should be used under conditions where the milk contamination is 400 Bq/1 or more Authors: Kutlakhmedov, Los Institution: ICBGI, UCRM Ris0-R-828(EN) 69

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

==

Introduction:==

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

Aim:

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

Methodology:

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

1. Evaluation of the self-restoration processes:

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

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

Similar measurements and cartography are made for Ukrainian soils.

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

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

70 Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

Group of Linear Soil deposit of Cs-137, \iC\lmZ migration rate, rate cm/year 5 10 15 20 25 30 50 100 200 Value of EDR, liR/h 0 36.8 58.5 80.3 102.0 123.8 145.5 232.5 450.0 885.0 I <0.25 34.6 54.1 73.7 93.2 112.8 132.3 210.5 406.0 797.0 II 0.25-0.5 32.4 49.8 67.2 84.6 102.0 119.4 189.0 363.0 711.0 III 0.5-0.7 29.6 44.2 58.8 73.4 88.0 102.6 161.0 307.0 599.0 IV 0.7-1.2 28.3 41.5 54.8 68.0 81.3 94.5 147.5 280.0 545.0 V >1.2 25.7 36.4 47.1 57.8 68.5 79.2 122.0 229.0 443.0 Ris0-R-828(EN) 71

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

72 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.1.a Gamma spectrometry in situ.

1) Tool Intrinsic Ge-detector, Multichannel analyser, Lead shielding.

2) Target surface Measurement of roof, wall, soil in situ 2.1) Constraints Not able to measure depth distribution profile

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1 point per hour

4) Mode of operation Measurement of surface contamination level

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.25 man-day per point 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 30000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 6000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 0.5 kW, + Liquid N2 5.5) Overheads 250-300 %

5.6) Scale of application 8 points per day

90 = 720 points per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure no 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 2 man-hours per point

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 none 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 none 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 none 7.4) Toxicity none

8) Other costs (ECU) none

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Can determine all gamma emitters

10) Special remarks Special knowledge required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: RIS0 The lead shielding is established on the site, in order to measure a defined area on the wall, ground or roof, a pre-made calibration is used to quantify the result in to Bq/m2 of the different isotopes, on the different surface types. Minimum 2 well skilled persons are required.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 73

7.1.b Gamma spectrometry in situ.

1) Tool Pure Ge-detector, 4096 channel analyser

2) Target surface Measurement of roof, wall, soil in situ 2.1) Constraints Can not measure depth distribution profile

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1 point per hour

4) Mode of operation measurement of surface contamination level

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.25 man-day per point 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 25000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 0.5 kW 5.5) Overheads 250-300 %

5.6) Scale of application 8 points per day

90 = 720 points per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure no 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 2 man-hours per point

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 none 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 none 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 none 7.4) Toxicity none

8) Other costs (ECU) none

9) Other benefits Can determine all gamma radiation

10) Special remarks Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM (Russia)

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

74 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.2 Gamma spectrometry in the laboratory.

1) Tool Pure Ge-detector 4096 channel analyser

2) Target surface Measuring of samples of roofs, walls, soil 2.1) Constraints Laboratory conditions are needed

3) Design (inch number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 1 sample per hour for total activity and 0.1 sample per hour for depth distribution profile

4) Mode of operation Measuring sample activity

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.25 man-day/sample 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 25000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 5000 ECU 5.4) Consumables 0.5 kW 5.5) Overheads 250-300 %

5.6) Scale of application 8 samples/day

220 days = 1760 samples/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure none 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation none 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 2 man-hours per sample, 20 man-hours per pro-file

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 none 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7.4) Toxicity none

8) Other costs (ECU) transport of samples to laboratory- 2 ECU/sample

9) Other benefits All gamma radiation could be determined

10) Special remarks Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM The total sample activity measured at laboratory conditions is recalculated into specific and surface activity of substances. The sample activity is measured by pure Ge-detector (energy resolution < 2keV for 662 keV radiation) and multichannel analyser. 1 scientist and 1 field worker are required for the whole procedure.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 75

7.3 Beta counter measurements in situ.

1) Tool Beta counter

2) Target surface Various surfaces in situ 2.1) Constraints At least 10 kBq/m2 on surface

3) Design (inch number of operators) Portable, 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h)

4) Mode of operation ca. 10 points per hour (depending on surface type and orientation)

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.01 man-day per point 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 3500 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 700/y 5.4) Consumables Negligible (gas, battery) 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 7200 points per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.08 man-hours per point

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated -

7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

7.2) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 -

7,4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits Easy to handle in situ on walls and roofs

10) Special remarks Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso CONTAMAT FHT H I M beta counter. Portable, battery operated butane gas proportional counter measuring a surface area of 166 cm2.

76 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.4 Ion chamber measurements in situ.

1) Tool Ion chamber. (Reuter Stokes)

2) Target surface Environmental monitoring in situ 2.1) Constraints None

3) Design (inch number of operators) Portable, 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 5 Measurements/h

4) Mode of operation Tissue equivalent dose metering.

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.025 man-day/measurement.

5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 17000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 3300 ECU/y 5.4) Consumables Negligible (battery) 5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 8000 points per year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed -

6) Efficiency -

6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) -

7) Wastes generated -

2 7.1) Solid kg/m -

2 7.2) Liquid 1/m -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m -

7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU) -

9) Other benefits (renewing roof etc.) Results in: R, rem, rad, Sv, Gy.

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 77

7.5.a In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool Nal counting system

2) Target surface Various surfaces in situ 2.1) Constraints Min. 1 kBq/m2 on surface

3) Design (incl. number of operators) Nal counter + MCA 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) ca. 10 points per hour depending on surface type and orientation

4) Mode of operation In situ measurements with Nal detector

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.01 man-day per measurement point 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 8000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1600 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables -

5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 7200 points/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.08 man-h/point

6) Efficiency -

6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) -

7) Wastes generated -

2 7.1) Solid kg/m -

2 7.2) Liquid 1/m -

3 2 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m per Bq per m 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Rise Portable 3"*3" Nal detector system with multichannel analyser.

78 Ris0-R-828(EN)

7.5.b In situ spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool CORAD

2) Target surface soil 2.1) Constraints 0.1 jiCi/m2 - 400 nCi/m2 of I37Cs soil contam.

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 3.1) Productivity (units/h) 10-12 points per hour

4) Mode of operation Measurement of 137Cs deposit and penetration

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.01-0.0125 man-day per point 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 4000 ECU 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 800 ECU/year 5.4) Consumables Portable (0.1 kW for battery) 5.5) Overheads 250-300 %

5.6) Scale of application 80-100 points/d *90 = 7200-9000 points/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure None 5.7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation None 5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed 0.08-0.10 man-hours per point

6) Efficiency 6.1) Decontamination factor (DF)

7) Wastes generated 7.1) Solid kg/m2 none 7.2) Liquid 1/m2 none 7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 none 7.4) Toxicity none

8) Other costs (ECU) none

9) Other benefits Device allows to estimate 137Cs penetration depth

10) Special remarks Special knowledge required Authors: Ramzaev, Chesnokov Institution: BIRH, RECOM The measured quantum flux restricted by the lead collimator is recalculated into surface activity of soil. The quantum flux is measured by Nal detector (energy resoln. < 10% for 662keV radiation) and 256 channel analyser. 1 operator should work after some educa-tion Portable device.

Ris0-R-828(EN) 79

7.6 Laboratory spectrometry with sodium iodide detector.

1) Tool Nal counting system with lead shielding

2) Target surface Various surfaces in situ 2.1) Constraints Max. sample size : 20cm

20cm

20cm

3) Design (incl. number of operators) 1 operator 3.1) Productivity (units/h) ca. 10-20 samples per hour depending on source strength

4) Mode of operation Lead shielded Nal crystal measurements in lab.

5) Cost 5.1) Manpower (days/unit area) 0.005-0.01 man-day/sample 5.2) Tool investment cost, ECU 8000 ECU (detector system) + 2000 (lead bricks) 5.3) Discount (ECU/year) 1800ECU/y 5.4) Consumables -

5.5) Overheads 200 %

5.6) Scale of application 7200-14400 samples/year 5.7.1) Specific exposure -

5<<7.2) Inhalation/external dose relation -

5.7.3) Number of man-hours exposed -

6) Efficiency -

6.1) Decontamination factor (DF) -

7) Wastes generated -

7.1) Solid kg/m2 -

12) Liquid 1/m2 -

7.3) Waste activity Bq per m3 per Bq per m2 7.4) Toxicity -

8) Other costs (ECU)

9) Other benefits

10) Special remarks Instruction required Authors: Roed, Andersson, Prip Institution: Riso Lead shielded 3"*3" Nal detector system with multichannel analyser for laboratory use.

80 Ris0-R-828(EN)

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

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

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

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

Ris0-R-828(EN) 81

Bibliographic Data Sheet Ris0-R-828(EN)

Title and authors Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident Editors J. Roed, K.G. Andersson, H. Prip ISBN ISSN 87-550-2080-1 0106-2840 Dept. or group Date Environmental Science and Technology Department December 1995 Groups own rcg. numbers) Project/contract No(s)

Pages Tables Illustrations References 82 1 Abstract (Max. 2000 characters)

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

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

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

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

Energy technology and energy planning

Environmental aspects of energy, industrial and plant production

Materials and measuring techniques for industry As a special obligation Ris0 maintains and extends the knowledge required to advise the authorities on nuclear matters.

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

Combustion and gasification

Wind energy

Energy technologies for the future

Energy planning

Environmental aspects of energy and industrial production

Environmental aspects of plant production

Nuclear safety and radiation protection

Materials with new physical and chemical properties

Structural materials

Optical measurement techniques and information processing Transfer of Knowledge The results of Ris0's research are transferred to industry and authorities through:

Research co-operation

Co-operation in R&D consortia

R&D clubs and exchange of researchers

Centre for Advanced Technology

Patenting and licencing activities To the scientific world through:

Publication activities Ris0-R-828(EN)

Co-operation in national and international networks ISBN 87-550-2080-1

PhD- and Post Doc. education ISSN 0106-2840 Available on request from:

Information Service Department Key Figures Ris0 National Laboratory EO. Box 49, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Ris0 has a staff of just over 900, of which more than 300 are Phone +45 46 77 46 77, ext. 4004/4005 scientists and 80 are PhD and Post Doc. students. Ris0's Telex 43116, Fax +45 46 75 56 27 1995 budget totals DKK 476m, of which 45% come from http://www.risoe.dk research programmes and commercial contracts, while the e-mail: risoe@risoe.dk remainder is covered by government appropriations.

ML11355A191

Text

2.1. Constraints

3.1. Productivity

5.4. Consumables

5.5. Overheads

7.4. Toxicity

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search