Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Research Articles

Formerly utilized sites remedial action program “completed” sites: Lessons for long‐term stewardship

AbstractThe Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) covers inactive commercial, federal, and university facilities that once supported activities of the Manhattan Project or Atomic Energy Commission. Current responsibilities, established by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are split between the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU distinguishes between facilities remediated before 1997 (“completed” sites) and those where remediation remained to be completed at that time. This article evaluates activities conducted at completed sites with regard to considerations for long‐term stewardship, which is defined by the US DOE as all activities necessary to protect human health and the environment after remediation is considered complete. Experience with these FUSRAP sites provides “lessons learned” for the requirements of satisfactory long‐term stewardship. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Triad case study: Rattlesnake Creek

AbstractThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) is responsible for conducting the cleanup of radiological contaminated properties as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. One property is the Rattlesnake Creek (RSC) portion of the Ashland sites. The RSC stream sediments are contaminated with thorium‐230, radium‐226, and uranium. The US ACE is closing RSC using protocols contained within the Multi‐Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). At RSC, the US ACE developed site‐specific derived concentration guideline level (DCGL) cleanup requirements consistent with the MARSSIM guidance. Because of uncertainty about the distribution of contamination within the creek, the US ACE used the Triad approach to collect data and design remedial actions. Systematic planning helped target the areas of concern, develop a conceptual site model, and identify data gaps to be addressed before remediation plans were finalized. Preremediation sampling and analysis plans were designed to be explicitly consistent with final status survey requirements, allowing data sets to support both excavation planning needs and closure requirements in areas where contamination was not encountered above DCGL standards. Judicious use of real‐ time technologies such as X‐ray fluorescence and gamma walkover surveys minimized expensive off‐ site alpha spectrometry analyses, and at the same time provided the ability to respond to unexpected field conditions. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Adapting MARSSIM for FUSRAP site closure.

The Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) provides a coherent, technically defensible process for establishing that exposed surfaces satisfy site cleanup requirements. Unfortunately, many sites have complications that challenge a direct application of MARSSIM. Example complications include Record of Decision (ROD) requirements that are not MARSSIM-friendly, the potential for subsurface contamination, and incomplete characterization information. These types of complications are typically the rule, rather than the exception, for sites undergoing radiologically-driven remediation and closure. One such site is the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Linde site in Tonawanda, New York. Cleanup of the site is currently underway. The Linde site presented a number of challenges to designing and implementing a closure strategy consistent with MARSSIM. This paper discusses some of the closure issues confronted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District at the Linde site and describes how MARSSIM protocols were adapted to address these issues.

Program Achievements in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

AbstractThe Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) initiated a survey program in 1974 that led to the creation of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) under authorities granted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) managed FUSRAP from 1981 to 1997, after assuming the responsibilities of the Atomic Energy Commission. On October 13, 1997, Congress transferred FUSRAP management to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1998. Congress tasked the Corps to review and assess the program and complete it quickly and efficiently. The Corps executes about $1.3 billion annually in environmental remediation work. In addition to FUSRAP, the Corps' environmental remediation program consists of the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program as well as work for a number of federal clients, including the Army, Air Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and others. FUSRAP makes up approximately 11 percent of the Corps' environmental remediation program. The Corps has encountered many challenges and achieved many successes since the program was transferred. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.*

Particle size separation via soil washing to obtain volume reduction

A pilot-plant study was performed using a soil washing pilot plant originally designed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to demonstrate scale-up and potential full-scale remediation. This pilot plant named VORCE (Volume Reduction/Chemical Extraction) was modified to meet the specific requirements for treatment of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) and a Department of Energy site soils. After a series of tests on clean soils to develop operating parameters and system performance, the machine was used to treat soils, one contaminated with Thorium-232 and the other with Cesium-137. All indicate that soil washing is very promising for volume reduction treatment. In addition, cost data was generated and is given herein.

Public Perceptions of a Radioactively Contaminated Site: Concerns, Remediation Preferences, and Desired Involvement

A public attitudes survey was conducted in neighborhoods adjacent to a radioactively contaminated site whose remediation is now under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The survey's purpose was to ascertain levels of actual and desired public involvement in the remediation process; to identify health, environmental, economic, and future land-use concerns associated with the site; and to solicit remediation strategy preferences. Surface water and groundwater contamination, desire for public involvement, and potential health risks were found to be the most highly ranked site concerns. Preferred remediation strategies included treatment of contaminated soil and excavation with off-site disposal. Among on-site remediation strategies, only institutional controls that leave the site undisturbed and do not require additional excavation of materials were viewed favorably. Cost of remediation appeared to influence remediation strategy preference; however, no strategy was viewed as a panacea. Respondents were also concerned with protecting future generations, better assessment of risks to health and the environment, and avoiding generation of additional contaminated materials.

Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement.

A public attitudes survey was conducted in neighborhoods adjacent to a radioactively contaminated site whose remediation is now under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The survey's purpose was to ascertain levels of actual and desired public involvement in the remediation process; to identify health, environmental, economic, and future land-use concerns associated with the site; and to solicit remediation strategy preferences. Surface water and groundwater contamination, desire for public involvement, and potential health risks were found to be the most highly ranked site concerns. Preferred remediation strategies included treatment of contaminated soil and excavation with off-site disposal. Among on-site remediation strategies, only institutional controls that leave the site undisturbed and do not require additional excavation of materials were viewed favorably. Cost of remediation appeared to influence remediation strategy preference; however, no strategy was viewed as a panacea. Respondents were also concerned with protecting future generations, better assessment of risks to health and the environment, and avoiding generation of additional contaminated materials.