Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) is located on a 1,050-acre rural site in Ohio where uranium-containing residues and uranium compounds have been converted into uranium metal for use in DOE's defense programs. In February, 1991 DOE announced that production would end. In June, 1991 the closure plan became effective. To reflect the new mission, the facility was renamed the Fernald Envronmental Management Project (FEMP). All activities at the FEMP are to be directed at programs designed to improve the environment and protect the health of the workers and nearby communities.
Among the most serious threats to the surrounding communities are waste pits that were used for solid and liquid waste storage. As a result of several decades of operation, waste pits in Operable Unit No. 1 contain roughly 460,000 cubic yards of waste, including over 11 million pounds of uranium, large quantities of thorium and a large number and volume of chemical waste materials. It is estimated that approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of soil, solids and sludge will need to be removed, contained and or treated. An additional 2.3 million gallons of surface water must be remediated. The depth of contaminated soil is assumed to extend through perched groundwater into the Great Miami Aquifer (Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Feed Materials Production Center Renovation and Site Evaluation - May, 1990 - DOE/EIS-0142 D).
The waste pits (Operate Unit 1) are suspected of being responsible for an eastward-moving plume of contaminated groundwater and a southward-moving plume that has moved past the plant boundary toward the community of Fernald" (DOE/EIS-0142D). Ground-water sampling data indicate that the plume is moving downward in the waste pit as well as eastward.
The Great Miami Aquifer is one of the most productive aquifers in the Midwest and serves as a major source of domestic, industrial and municipal potable water for the residents of Ohio. This aquifer has been designated by the EPA as a sole source drinking water supply (Federal Register notice 53 FR 25870, July 8, 1988). The eastward-moving plume has been measured to contain maximum uranium concentra-tions in the Great Miami Aquifer immediately beneath the pits of about 100 times background concentrations. Elevated levels of chloride, nitrate, magnesium, and sulfate are also present in this important source of drinking water. This plume is advancing at the rate of 100 feet per year. On-site groundwater wells at the FEMP indicate concentrations of nonradioactive hazardous wastes (arse-nic, cadmium, nitrates, VOCs) in excess of drinking water maximum levels.
Both on- and off-site wells show uranium, thorium, radium, strontium, and technetium at concentratios above the DOE guidelines. (FMPC-2245 Special UC-707, December, 1991.)
Citizen testimony during the January 14, 1991 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Public Scoping Meetings (Cincinnati, Ohio) documents community concerns associated with radiologically-contaminated residential drinking water.
RKK, Ltd. can immediately install its CRYOCELL containment methodology to completely isolate nuclear and chemical wastes found in Operable Unit 1, and to contain the Clear Well retention pond. All construction activities, including installation and barrier operations equipment, could be performed outside of the secured area of OU 1 or the Clear Well. This provides a tremendous safety advantage to workers during installation, and throughout the operational lifetime of the CRYOCELL barrier. Should contaminated soil and shallow groundwater be removed or treated in-situ, groundwater control and excavation support is already provided by the CRYOCELL barrier. Full containment through RKK's CRYOCELL process would eliminate waste migration into the Great Miami Aquifer, provide a high level of safety to surrounding communities, and allow a "risk free" exploration opportunity for an appropriate remedial solution.
Another advantage of the CRYOCELL system is that it can be used in a symbiotic manner to provide enhancements to many remediation approaches. A CRYOCELL containment installation would allow various remediation processes to be isolated hydraulically by providing a surrounding containment envelope adapted to the geometry of the contaminated area in size, shape, and depth. This would allow the introduction and cyclical reuse of the appropriate cleansing agents (sorbents, catalytic agents, microbes, oxidants, buffers, and chemical neutralizers) into the contaminated soil region without fear of any releases to the environment. Should contaminated soil be removed and shallow groundwater be directed, diverted, or treated in-situ by a passive remediation technology, groundwater control and excavation support is already provided by the CRYOCELL barrier.
CRYOCELL barrier technology is installed by the use of standard civil construction components and known labor disciplines with established costs. Establishing an estimated unit of cost or the all inclusive cost for a surface square foot of a barrier is accomplished by resourcing the Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS) Environmental Restoration: Assemblies Cost Book. This environmental estimating standard develops all components of a project and weighs the cost by the level of health and safety protection required at the site under review. This method of cost estimation uses the standard civil construction method with adjustments for environmental restoration work, and provides a realistic basis for cost comparisons between CRYOCELL and competing containment technologies.
Containment of the entire OU 1 for 30 years is estimated at approximately $40 million. Containment of the Clear Well is estimated at approximately $3 million, with site costs of $2-$3 million for selected waste pits for 30 years. These rough cost estimations include equipment installation, refrigeration, power, and design. Cost per square foot for a CRYOCELL barrier isolating any of these areas is approximately $14.41. This is cost comparable to slurry wall "containment", however, CRYOCELL provides the advantage of diffusion free containment with on-line/real-time barrier monitoring throughout the installation's life cycle. Removal costs for slurry walls can exceed initial installation costs as they become contaminated over time. Removal of a CRYOCELL barrier requires extraction of systems piping, not excavation, with costs approximately 10% to 15% of installation.