Disposal of the Contaminated Residue from the Thule Accident (Attached: Appendix B Through D)

Page 1

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 (MX) of contaminated residue at Thule Air Base, Greenland. The residue consists of some two hundred and thirty-two 1800 gallon tanks of melted ice and snow and a wide variety of contaminated solid residue, primarily aircraft parts. On February 23, 1968, Dr. Walske verbally advised the DMA staff that the DoD wanted the AEC to receive and dispose of the contaxoinated residue. Dr. Walske was, in turn, advised that the AEC would assist the DoD. 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 b. In the event filtration or distillation methods are used to concen trate the liquid residue and the effluent discharged into Horth 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. US DOE ac*°Pt s<* ,nust provide assurance that no critical mass will 826 UJ3.iMJQMICrR!gER£'£h.1u > of removal and transportation operations.

Page 2

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, of major importance, the personnel safety factor involved; the solution discussed in Plan III which provides for transfer of the liquid residue into smaller transportable tanks for return 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 the Danish National Authorities. 4. Cost estimates for disposing of the contaminated residue were developed and submitted by Savannah River (SR) based on the following operating scheme a. If the residue is transported to SRO by rail, off-loading will be accomplished at the burial ground, but if transported by barge, the residue will be off-loaded at the SRO dock and transported by truck to the burial b. All solid residue will be stored on the surface at the burial ground until the new classified burial ground is completed (about February 1, 1969). Appropriate security surveillance will be provided. POE ARCHIVES c. Upon receipt of the liquid waste, it will be processed as follows: (1) Liquid with high Pu concentrations will be delivered directly to a high level underground waste storage tank. (2) As for the liquid with low Pu concentrations, the organic layers will be separated from the aqueous by decantation. The organic will be stored in the underground waste solvent tanks in the burial ground. The aqueous will be evaporated in the waste farm evaporator, with the over heads being released to the seepage basin and the evaporator bottoms containing the radioactive material being delivered to the underground waste storage tanks. 5. Since the evaporative capacity at Oak Ridge (OR) is insufficient to cope with the amount of contaminated liquid to be returned for disposal, the cost esti mates developed and submitted by OR were developed on the concept of direct land burial for all the waste. The costs were found to be comparable for delivery to Cl either by rail or barge, but rail shipment was considered to be more desirable due to the difficulty of barge operations at OR (see Appendix "C" for cost estimates).

Page 3

6. The Manager, NVO, estimated that cost of disposing of the residue at NTS (including movement 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 experi ence has shown that disposal operations at Richland are very similar to those at 7. The following resume presents the various solutions considered along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. (In view of the excessive overall cost to the Government and extensive overland movement of the liquid residue, NTS and Richland are not included in this analysis): a. Disposal of Solids and Liquids at SR (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. (e) Most economical solution to disposal at a single site. More expensive than disposal of solids at SR and liquids at b. Disposal of Solids and Liquids at OR Outright burial is less complicated than SR 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 SR for single site disposal. (d) Greater overland or barge movement of liquid waste

Page 4

e. Disposal of Solids at OR and Liquids at SR (a) Liquids would be processed for positive containment of (b) Minimum handling of liquid waste containers. (c) Minimum movement of liquid waste containers over land or (b) Complications inherent in shipment to multiple destinations, d. Disposal of Solids at SR and Liquids at OR 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. pQ|r ARCHIVES (d) Increased movement of liquid waste containers over land or Notwithstanding the fact that disposal of solids at SR and liquids at OS 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 SR; namely, (1) the liquids will be processed through evaporation at SR , and (2) the overland movement of liquid waste containers will be minimized. 8. Both OR and SR were requested to provide estimates of additional cost involved in establishing material balance. Both are of the opinion that any 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 SR or 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

Page 5

kg4 To date, no measurements have been made of all the solid debris; however, an earlier analysis of seme 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 9. The broad basis for funding is spelled out in the "Joint Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Commission 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." Thi-s-agreement-en cost 'reimbursement waa-oot in effect at the time that the residue from Palomares, Spain, was buried at Savannah River and the cost of disposal was funded by the The draft letter to the Secretary of Defense at Appendix "D’1 refers to the above policy in addressing the matter of cost reimbursement. BEST AVAILABLE COPY 10. 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". and Congressional Relations 11. The Offices of the General Counsel/and the Divisions of Biology and Medicine, Operational Safety, and Production concur in the recommendations of this staff paper. 12. 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 OR and the solid

Page 6

b. Find that, from an overall standpoint, the best solution is to dispose of all the residue at Savannah River. c. Approve the draft letter to the Secretary of Defense at Appendix "C". d. Approve the draft letter to the JCAE at Appendix "D". LIST OF ENCLOSURES Summary of Study to Develop a Plan for Removing Draft Letter to the Secretary of Defense ..... Draft Letter to the Chairman, JCAE .......... .

Page 8

AEC SITE COSTS To Dispose of TEST SITE RICHLAND Solids and Liquids (1) Includes $14,100 for measuring Pu content in solid residue. (2) Cost if delivered to site by barge will be greater due to complexity of barge operations and need to move residue by truck from dock to disposal site. USAF TRANSPORTATION COSTS TEST SITE RICHLAND Via Savannah, Ga., and $234,930 NA NA NA and rail to Via Port Chicago and barge to NA $269,119 NA NA Via New Orleans and barge to NA $305,594 NA NA TOTAL COST COMPARISON To Transport and TEST SITE RICHLAND Solids and Liquids R $625,120 $664,354 $892,553 $941,939 — R - Rail from CONUS port to site. B - Barge from CONUS port to site. (1) Via Port Chicago least expensive.

Page 9

DRAFT LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER 1. This is to infona you that the Atomic Energy Commission has selected the USAEC's Savannah River Plant (SRP) as the disposal site for the contaminated residue which is to be removed from Thule Air Base, Greenland. This selection recognizes the use of the most economical transportation concept proposed by the U. S. Air Force; i.e., by sea from Thule to Charleston, South Carolina, and then by rail to the SRP. Notwithstanding the fact that disposal of solid residue at the SRP and liquid residue at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory would be the least expensive solution, the SRP was selected to take advantage of its capability to effect positive containment of the plutonium in the liquid residue and to reduce to a minimum the over land movement of the contaminated residue. 2. The Commission considers that reimbursement for costs incurred by the AEC which are in addition to normal operating expenses fall within the provisions of the "Joint Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Commission Agreement in Response to Accidents Involving Radiological Material”, dated May 9, 1966. The current estimated cost for disposing of the residue at the SRP which is reimburs able to the Atomic Energy Commission is approximately $365,000.

Page 10

DRAFT LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN JOINT COIT.TTTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY 1. 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 of contaminated residue at Thule Air Force Base, Greenland, This residue, which is part liquid and part solid, will be returned to the United States this summer for final disposal. 2. This is to advise that the Atomic Energy Commission has selected the USAEC's Savannah River Plant as the disposal site. This selection recognizes the use of the most economical transportation concept proposed by the U.S. Air Force; i.e. by sea from Thule to Charleston, South Carolina, and then by rail to the Savannah River Plant. Notwithstanding the fact that disposal of solid residueat the Savannah River Plant and liquid residue at Oak Ridge National Laboratory would be the least expensive solution, the Savannah River Plant was selected to take advantage of its capability to effect positive containment of the plutonium in the liquid residue and to reduce to a minimum the over land movement of the contaminated residue. The current estimated cost for disposal at the Savannah River Plant, which is reimbursable by the Department of Defense to the Atomic Energy Commission is approximately $365,000. HOP APr'Wn/fC