Disposal of the Contaminated Residue from the Thule Accident (Encl: Report re Same)

Page 1

DISPOSAL OF THE CONTAMINATED RESIDUE FROM Note by the Secretary The General Manager has requested that the attached report by the Assistant General Manager for Military Application be circulated scheduled for Monday, July 8, 1968, noting: /lr V,. "This staff paper considers the various means of and AEC sites for disposing of the contaminated ^ 7 residue which is to be returned to the Continental'*^ United States from Thule Air Base, Greenland. Then ATSD(AE) has been advised informally of the content of the proposed letter to the Secretary of Defense (Appendix "C") as it relates to cost reimbursement DISTRIBUTION NO. OF COPIES. Commissioner Ramey 1 RC COMMISSION Commissioner Johnson 1 Collection DOS Me. Exec. Asst, to GM 1 Asst. GM for Admin. 1 Asst. GM for IA 1 CONFIRMED TO BE UNCLASSIFIED Asst. GM for Operations 1 Asst. GM for Plans & Prod. 1 MteWED BY f DATE

Page 2

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DISPOSAL OF THE CONTAMINATED RESIDUE FROM THE THULE ACCIDENT Report to the General Manager by the Assistant General Manager for Military Application 1. To consider the various means of disposing of the contaminated residue which is to be returned from the B-52 crash site at Thule Air Base, Greenland, and to identify the site or sites for final disposition. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 2. The cleanup operations conducted subsequent to the January 21, 1968, B-52 crash near Thule, Greenland, have resulted in the accumulation of approxi mately 10,500 Measurement Tons (KT) (40 cubic feet of cargo freight) of contami nated residue at Thule -Air Base, Greenland, The residue will consist of liquid (melted ice and snow) sealed in two hundred and thirty-two 1800 gallon tanks and a wide variety of sealed containers of contaminated solid residue, primarily air craft parts. On February 23, 1968, Dr. Ualske verbally advised the DMA staff that the DoD wanted the AEC to receive and dispose of the contaminated residue. Dr. Walske was, in turn, advised that the AEC would assist the DoD. DOE ARCHIVES 3. The Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC) was given the overall task of removing the contaminated residue and, in turn, gave the San Antonio Air Materiel Area (SAAMA) the task of managing and directing the effort. Preliminary to the development of a detailed operation plan, SAAMA conducted a study of various plans for removing the residue, applying the following criteria: a. The contaminated residue must be removed from Greenland as soon as possible. BEST AVAILABLE COPY b. In the event filtration or distillation methods are used to concen trate the liquid residue and the effluent discharged into- North Star Bay, the radioactive level of the effluent must not exceed a level to be established by joint U.S.-Danish agreements. c. The disposal plan must insure maximum safety for personnel engaged in disposal, handling and transporting tasks. d. The pi an adopted must provide assurance that no critical mass will result during : of removal anJ transportation operations.

Page 3

Three basic solutions to the problem of removing the melted ice and snow were considered in detail and are summarized at Appendix "A". Based on the diplomatic considerations, the time available to do the task, and the personnel safety factor involved, the solution discussed in Plan III which provides for transfer of the liquid residue into smaller transportable tanks for retutn to the continental United States was considered the best solution.' The AEC staff concurred in the technical aspects of Plan III, and the plan was coordinated with and concurred in by Danish national authorities. 4. The various potentially capable AEC Operations Offices developed cost estimates for disposing of the contaminated residue based on the concepts described a. Savannah River Operations Office Concept: (1) If the residue is transported to the Savannah River Plant (SRP) by rail, off-loading will be accomplished at the site, but, if trans ported by barge, the residue will be off-loaded at the SRP dock and transported by truck to the site. (2) All solid residue will be stored on the surface at the site until the new classified burial ground is completed (about February 1969). Appropriate security surveillance will be provided. (3) Upon receipt of the liquid waste, it will be processed as follow,! best available copy (a) Liquid with high Pu concentrations will be delivered directly to a high level underground waste storage tank. (b) As for the liquid with low Pu concentrations, the organic layers will be separated from the aqueous by decantation to assure more positive containment of the Pu. The organic will be stored in the underground waste solvent tanks. The aqueous will be evaporated in the waste farm evaporator, with the overheads being released to the seepage basin and the evaporator bottoms containing the radio active material being delivered to the underground waste storage b. Oak Ridge Operations Office Concept: Since the evaporative capacity at Oak Ridj. Laboratory (ORIIL) is insufficient to cope with the amount

Page 4

and submitted by ORNL were developed on the concept of direct land burial for all the waste. The costs were found to be comparable for delivery to ORNL either by rail or barge, but rail shipment was considered to be more desirable due to the difficulty of barge operations at OR. c. Nevada Operations Office and Richland Operations Office: The Manager, NVO, estimated that cost of disposing of the residue at NTS (including move ment of the residue by truck from the Las Vegas, Nevada, railhead to the NTS) would be approximately $315,000. He further reported that time did not permit development of estimates based on' disposal using subsidence craters. No individual cost estimates were requested of Richland since experience has shown that disposal operations at Richland are very similar to those at 5. The following summarizes the overall estimated cost to the government for delivery to and disposal at the various AEC sites considered (see Appendix "B" for detailed cost estimates): a. At Savannah River Plant BEST AVAILABLE COPY (1) Solids and Liquids (rail delivery) (2) Solids Only (barge delivery) (3) Liquids Only (rail delivery) b. . At. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1) Solids and Liquids (barge delivery) (2) Solids Only (barge delivery) (3) Liquids Only (barge delivery) (1) Solids and Liquids (rail delivery) (2) Solids Only (rail delivery) (3) Liquids Only (rail delivery) Solids and Liquids (rail delivery) e. Solids at SRP and Liquids at ORNL 6. The following resume presents the Oak Ridge and Savannah River Operations proposed solutions, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each; in view of the excessive oveYflll cPSC to tN- extensive overland movement

Page 5

a. Disposal of Solids and Liquids at SRP (a) Contaminated liquids would be processed for positive containment of Pu. (b) Cost of transportation from Charleston, S. C., to burial site is the least. (c) Railhead at the burial site minimizes handling of residue. (d) Minimum movement of liquid waste containers over land. (e) Most economical solution to disposal at a single site, More expensive than disposal of solids at SRP and liquids at b Disposal of Solids and Liquids at ORNL Outright burial is less complicated than SRP concept. (a) Contaminated liquid would not be processed for positive containment of Pu. ^ (b) Increases the amount of handling of contaminated residue due to lack of railhead at the disposal site. (c) More expensive than SRP for single site disposal. (d) Greater overland or barge movement of liquid waste c. Disposal of Solids at ORNL and Liquids at SRP (a) Liquids would be processed for positive containment of Pu. (b) Minimum handling of liquid waste containers. (c) Minimum movement of liquid waste containers over land or (a) Excessive overall cost to the government. (b) Complications inherent in shipment to multiple destinations.

Page 6

d. Disposal of Solids at SRP and Liquids at ORNL Least costly to the government of all solutions considered. (a) Liquids would not be processed for positive containment (b) Complications inherent in shipment to multiple destinations. (c) Increased handling of liquid waste containers. (d) Increased movement of liquid waste containers over land or Notwithstanding the fadt that disposal of solids at SRP and liquids at ORNL would be the least expensive solution, the staff considers that there are two overriding factors in favor of disposing of both solids and liquids at SRP; namely, (1) the liquids will be processed for positive containment of Pu, and (2) the overland move ment of liquid waste containers will be minimized. 7. Both ORNL and SRP were requested to provide estimates of additional cost involved in establishing material balance. Beth are of the opinion that any DOE attempt to improve upon the current estimate of plutonium content in the liquid residue would cost at least $100,000 and would yield only questionable results. On the other hand, the solid residue will be measured in an attempt to establish a better estimate of plutonium content, whether it is disposed of at SRP or ORNL. The current estimate of plutonium in the melted ice and snow is 2.8 kg and inspec tion of the weapon residue (including parachutes) accounted for approximately .119 kg. To date, no measurements have been made of all the solid debris; however, an earlier analysis of some 127 drums of aircraft debris resulted in an estimate of approximately .200 kg Pu. There is no requirement for the U.S. Government to advise the Danish Government as to the final estimate of fissile material remaining in the vicinity of Thule, Greenland. Also, there has been no requirement levied by the Department of Defense to establish a material balance. Consequently, the staff proposes that further measurements taken at the burial site be oriented toward the development of a final record of fissile material disposed of in the burial

Page 7

8. The broad basis for funding is spelled out in the "Joint Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Comnisslon Agreement in Response to Accidents Involving Radioactive Material", dated May 9, 1966, as follows: "The Military Service or Agency providing the necessary assistance will fund such costs initially within existing fund availability. The Military Service or Agency having physical possession of the weapon or radiological material at the time of the accident will be responsible for reimbursing, upon request, the Military Service or Agency providing the necessary assistance for those costs which are in addition to normal operating expenses and which are directly chargeable to, and caused by, the radiological accident." Although a joint AEC-DoD provision for cost reimbursement was in effect at the time that the residue from Palomares, Spain, was buried at Savannah River, the cost of disposal was funded by.the AEC and no request for reimbursement was made. The draft letter to the ATSD(AE) at Appendix "C" refers to the above policy in address ing the matter of cost reimbursement. 9. In view of the nature of this problem, the staff proposes that the JCAE be notified. A proposed draft letter to the JCAE is attached as Appendix "D". 10. The Controller, the Offices of the General Counsel and Congressional Relations and the Divisions of Biology and Medicine* Operational Safety, and Production concur in the recommendation of this staff paper. 11. The General Manager recommends that the Atomic Energy Commission: a. Note that the most economical solution to the final disposal of the residue is to bury the containers of liquid at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the solid residue at the Savannah River Plant; b. Find that, from an overall standpoint, the best solution is to dispose of all'’the residue at the Savannah River Plant; c. Approve the draft letter to the ATSD(AE) at Appendix "C"; and Approve the draft letter to the JCAE at Append<x "D".

Page 8

LIST OF ENCLOSURES APPENDIX PAGE NO. "A" Summary of Study to Develop a Plan for Removing "D" Draft Letter to the Executive Director, JCAE .. 16

Page 9

SUMMARY OF STUDY TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR REMOVING CONTAMINATED WASTE 1. GENERAL. Three basic solutions to the problem were considered In detail. The short period of time available to accomplish the disposal, the need to satisfy existing U.S. and Danish Government agreements and to insure personnel gtfaty were primary considerations in developing possible solutions, A discus sion of each basic solution follows: 2. PLAN 1. This plan would involve removal and transport of the 25,000 gallon POL tanks with existing contents to CONUS for disposal. (1) Heltii'g and transfer of tank contents would not be required. (2) Minimum physical health problems. (3) Additional tanks, pumps, filters, etc., would not be required and shipped to Greenland. (4) Radiological monitoring would be minimized. (1) Preliminary calculation based on information from DNS and LASL indicate criticality under this plan will not be a problem; however, this plan would maximize the probabilities of occurrence compared to use of (2) ' To insure structural integrity of the tanks during transport would require extensive cradling supports both on board ship and in transit from tank farm to ship and subsequent transfer at rail heads or (3) SAC Civil Engineering studies reveal it is doubtful that the existing roadbeds and culverts between tank farm and dock will.support the approximately 30 ton tank (tank + contents) unless special multi-axle trailer/tractor are shipped to Thule. Available 40 foot, 40,000 lbs. capacity trailers cannot be used for this purpose. (4) The loading aboard ship of partially filled POL tanks will impose serious'problems. Tilted entry through hatches of partly filled tanks would have to be carefully engineered. Special harnesses to handle shifting

Page 10

and unbalanced loads would be required. At best, these procedures are hazardous. Methods of skidding 30 ton loads below decks would need to (5) The tank contents would melt enroute and, in accordance with MSTS, such a dynamic sloshing load is not acceptable. The tanks cannot be Internally baffled and, therefore, must be filled before departure. This creates a requirement to distribute weights in excess of 100 tons to Insure load bearing limitations of the deck are not exceeded. (6) Heavy cradling for the 100 ton filled tanks would be required. These would require extensive fabrication and shipment to Thule. The short time available to on-dock date is a factor in this respect. (7) The inability/difficulty in safely skidding and hoisting filled tanks would make it necessary to transfer the liquid waste: (a) From POL tanks to transport tank. (b) From transport tank to tank on ship. (c) From ship tank to CONUS transport system. (d) From CONUS transport system to final location for disposal Multiple transfer greatly increases the spillage hazard and physiological health problems. BEST AVAILABLE COPY DOE ARCHIVES 3. PLAN 2. This SAC conceived plan would provide for concentration of radio active waste by filtration and dilution. The frozen waste would be melted in the POL tanks. The "clear" liquid between scum and sludge layers would be pumped through a 5 micron filter, followed by three 1 micron filters placed in parallel and then to a holding tank. Effluent in the holding tank would be discharged into the bay when radioactivity is reduced to an acceptable level. Provisions must be provided to recycle waste from the most heavily contaminated tanks (Nos. 1 …