Disposal of NORM-Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt Caverns

In 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, asked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) to conduct a preliminary technical and legal evaluation of disposing of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW) into salt caverns. That study concluded that disposal of NOW into salt caverns is feasible and legal. If caverns are sited and designed well, operated carefully, closed properly, and monitored routinely, they can be a suitable means of disposing of NOW (Veil et al. 1996). Considering these findings and the increased U.S. interest in using salt caverns for NOW disposal, the Office of Fossil Energy asked Argonne to conduct further research on the cost of cavern disposal compared with the cost of more traditional NOW disposal methods and on preliminary identification and investigation of the risks associated with such disposal. The cost study (Veil 1997) found that disposal costs at the four permitted disposal caverns in the United States were comparable to or lower than the costs of other disposal facilities in the same geographic area. The risk study (Tomasko et al. 1997) estimated that both cancer and noncancer human health risks from drinking water that had been contaminated by releases of cavern contents were significantly lower than the accepted risk thresholds. Since 1992, DOE has funded Argonne to conduct a series of studies evaluating issues related to management and disposal of oil field wastes contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Included among these studies were radiological dose assessments of several different NORM disposal options (Smith et al. 1996). In 1997, DOE asked Argonne to conduct additional analyses on waste disposal in salt caverns, except that this time the wastes to be evaluated would be those types of oil field wastes that are contaminated by NORM. This report describes these analyses. Throughout the remainder of this report, the term ''NORM waste'' is used to mean ''oil field waste contaminated by NORM''

Streamlined RI/FS planning for the groundwater operable unit at the Weldon Spring Site

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting cleanup activities at the chemical plant area of the Weldon Spring Site located in St. Charles County, Missouri, about 48 km (30 mi) west of St. Louis and 22 km (14 mi) southwest of the City of St. Charles. The 88-ha (217-acre) chemical plant area is chemically and radioactively contaminated as a result of uranium processing activities conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission during the 1950s and 1960s. The Army also used the chemical plant area for the production of explosives in the 1940s. The Weldon Spring Site chemical plant area was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1989. Adjacent to the chemical plant area is another NPL site known as the Weldon Spring Ordnance Works. The ordnance works area is a former explosive production facility that manufactured trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) during World War II. The ordnance works area covers 7,000 ha (17,232 acres); cleanup of this site is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE)

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Potential radiological doses associated with the disposal of petroleum industry NORM via landspreading. Final report, September 1998

As a result of oil and gas production and processing operations, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) sometimes accumulate at elevated concentrations in by-product waste streams. The primary radionuclides of concern in NORM wastes are radium-226 of the uranium-238 decay series, and radium-228, of the thorium-232 decay series. The production waste streams most likely to be contaminated by elevated radium concentrations include produced water, scale, and sludge. Scales and sludges removed from production equipment often are disposed of by landspreading, a method in which wastes are spread over the soil surface to allow the hydrocarbon component of the wastes to degrade. In this study, the disposal of NORM-contaminated wastes by landspreading was modeled to evaluate potential radiological doses and resultant health risks to workers and the general public. A variety of future land use scenarios--including residential, industrial, recreational, and agricultural scenarios--were considered. The waste streams considered included scales and sludges containing NORM above background levels. The objectives of this study were to (1) estimate potential radiological doses to workers and the general public resulting from the disposal of NORM wastes by noncommercial landspreading activities and (2) analyze the effect of different land use scenarios on potential doses

An Assessment of the Disposal of Petroleum Industry NORM in Nonhazardous Landfills

In this study, the disposal of radium-bearing NORM wastes in nonhazardous landfills in accordance with the MDEQ guidelines was modeled to evaluate potential radiological doses and resultant health risks to workers and the general public. In addition, the study included an evaluation of the potential doses and health risks associated with disposing of a separate NORM waste stream generated by the petroleum industry--wastes containing lead-210 (Pb-210) and its progeny. Both NORM waste streams are characterized in Section 3 of this report. The study also included reviews of (1) the regulatory constraints applicable to the disposal of NORM in nonhazardous landfills in several major oil and gas producing states (Section 2) and (2) the typical costs associated with disposing of NORM, covering disposal options currently permitted by most state regulations as well as the nonhazardous landfill option (Section 4)

Feminist historical geographies: doing and being

As part of GPC’s 25-year anniversary celebrations, this article explores possibilities and prospects for feminist historical geographies and geographers. Here I define feminist historical geography as scholarship which asks geographical questions of historical material and is informed by feminist theories, approaches and methodologies. Its empirical subject matter is necessarily expansive and diverse, but often has a particular focus on the lives of women and other marginalized groups, and on the ways gender and space were co-constituted. This essay interrogates recent developments within this broad terrain, specifically articles and books published in the period from around 2000 onwards and either appearing in geography journals or written by those self-identifying as geographers. The main exception is work by historians and archaeologists interested in gender, space and place, which is cited here in an attempt to open up new research directions for feminist historical geographers. In what follows, we shuttle across spaces and between scales, roaming from the sites of empire to the intimate geographies of the home, from landscapes and buildings to personal possessions like clothes and letters. Doing so is a deliberate act intended both to demonstrate the liveliness of feminist historical geographies broadly conceived and to counter hierarchical readings of space, society and history with their inherent danger of privileging the public over the private, and the exceptional over the everyday and mundane