CONCRETE DECONTAMINATION AND DEMOLITION METHODS

Thomas S. LaGuardia, P.E.

Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
Danbury, Connecticut 06810

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Division of

Environmental Control Technology, requested Nuclear
Energy Services to prepare a handbook for the decon-
tami nation and decommissioning (D&D) of DOE-owned and
comercially-owned radioactive facilities. The ob-
jective of the handbook is to provide the nuclear in-
dustry with guidance on the state-of-the-art methods
and equipment available for decommissioning and to
provide the means to estimate decommissioning costs
and environmental impact.
This paper will summarize the methods available
for concrete decontamination and demolition to provide
an overview of some of the state-of-the-art techniques
to be discussed at this workshop. The pertinent in-
formation on each method will include the selection
factors such as the rate of performance in terms of
concrete removal per unit time (cubic yards per day),
manpower required by craft, unit cost (dollars per
cubic yard) and the advantages and disadvantages.
The methods included in this overview are those
that have been routinely used in nuclear and.non-
nuclear applications or demonstrated in field tests.
These methods include controlled blasting, wrecking
ball or slab, backhoe mounted ram, flame torch, ther-
mic lance, rock splitter, demolition compound, sawing,
core stitch drilling, explosive cutting, paving
breaker and power chisel, drill and spall, scarifying,
water cannon and grinding.
 1. INTRODUCTION

Concrete is universally used in all nuclear facilities such that nearly

every decommissioning program must address itself to either the demol i tion or
surface decontamination of concrete structures. Certain structures become rad-
ioactive during the operating period of a nuclear facility either through direct
activation or surface contamination. Activated concrete represents the most
difficult concrete removal activity due to the relatively high radiation dose
and potential for release of radioactive particulates during demolition. Rad-
ioactive fluid leaks may contaminate floor or wall surfaces of a facility which,
because of the porosity of concrete, prove to be resistant to nondestructive
cleaning methods. Although non-radioactive concrete structures do not repre-
sent any unique demolition difficulty, the volume of such concrete coupled with
significant reinforcement represents a formidable dismantling task.
Concretes typically encountered include biological shields which may be 2
to 10 ft thick standard (140-150 lb/ft3) or high density concrete (magnetite or
metal aggregate, 250-325 1 b/ft 3 ) . Reactor basemats or faci 1 i ty footings can be
as much as 25 ft thick.
Contamination on floors and walls can be removed without demo1 ishing the
structures. This may be advantageous if the facility is to be converted to
o t h w uses.
This paper provides an overview of concrete demolition and scarifying pro-
cesses for various concrete types and thicknesses. The following sections
present a tabulation of available processes and detailed information important
to the selection of a method.

2. PROCESS SELECTION

The selection of a specific process should be based on the experience

learned from the conventional demol i tion industry, and appl icable experience
from actual decomnissioning programs. Table 1 presents a tabulation of
processes that may be used for all concrete types and thicknesses. The detailed
information on each process provided in the following sections will aid in
selection of the optimum process.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES

3.1 CONTROLLED BLASTING

3.1.1 Description of Process

Controlled blasting is ideally suited for demolition of massive or heav-

ily-reinforced, thick concrete sections. The process consists of drilling
holes in the concrete, loading them with explosives and detonating using a
delayed firing technique. The delayed firing increases fragmentation, and
controls the direction of material movement. Each borehole fractures radially
during the detonation. The radial fractures in adjacent boreholes form a
fracture plane. The detonation wave separates the fractured surfaces and moves
the material towards the structure's free face. Figure 1 illustrates a typical
"blasting roundu for massive concrete demolition, and explains the terminology
used in designing a blast; for example, the burden is the distance from the free
face.
Blasthole design is based on a range of geometric relationships from which
the blast design can be developed using an incremental powder loading per bore-
hole. Pages 19-28 of Reference 1 provide guidance on standard blasting ratios.
Under no circumstances should the user embark on a blasting demolition program
without the services of a certified blasting technician.
Drilling methods for blast hole preparation include percussion air-oper-
ated drills, electric, pneumatic or diesel driven rotary drills or diamond-core
abrasive drills. Percussion drills are the most versatile and can economically
drill 1% in. to 2 in. diameter holes over a wide range of hardness or abrasive-
ness. Typical percussion drilling equipment is capable of drilling a 6 foot
deep hole in 3% minutes. Rotary drills are much larger indiameter (6 in. to 9
 TABLE 1. Concrete Removal Methods: Summary of Applications
and Relative Costs
Concrete Relative
Thickness Equipment
Process Application Feasibility Cost
Controlled Blasting Excel 1 ent High
Wrecking Ball Excel 1ent Low
Air and Hydrau 1 i c Rams Good Low
F1 ame Cutting Fair Low
Thermic Lance Poor Low
Rock Splitter Good Low
Bristar Demolition Fair Low
Compound Wall & Floor
Sawing Good Low
Core Stitch Drilling Poor High
Explosive Cutting Good High
Paving Breaker < 1 ft Poor Low
Chipping Hamner 3 3 in. Poor Low
& Chisel
Drill & Spa11 < 2 in. Excel 1 ent Low
Scarifi er 1 in. Excel 1 ent Low
Water Cannon < 2 in. Fair High
Grinding Z 0.25 in. Poor Low

(I )
Bench height
@) Free face .,
(3) Burden '

(4) Spacing
(5) Powder column
(6) Stemming
(7) Subdrilling
(8) Working floor of cut
(9) Cdlar

u4
FIGURE 1. Blasting Round
in. ) and are best suited for light concrete without reinforcing rods. Diamond-
core abrasive bits are more expensive than percussion drills but bit life is
longer. When cutting through reinforcing rod, abrasive drilling is slower and
diamond loss is common.
Various types of explosives are available for use in demolition applica-
tions. The selection of the best type of explosive requires an evaluation of
the properties of the explosive and of the concrete itself. A blasting expert
is qualified to select the best explosive for the purpose. The major types of
explosives include PETN 85% high velocity gelatin dynamite, cast TNT, 1 iquid
explosives, water gel explosives and high strength ammonia dynamite (Ref. 1, 2).
When blasting massive concrete sections with multiple charges, delayed
detonation is used to direct the muckpi le (rubble) and improve fragmentation.
The first row of charges directs the burden perpendicular to the borehole
plane. Subsequent burden plane charges would direct movement towards the verti -
cal unless delayed sufficiently to allow forward movement of preceding burdens.
A delay period of approximately one millisecond-per-foot of burden provides
sufficient time for free face movement, and allows subsequent burdens to frag-
ment perpendicular to the boreholes.

3.1.2 Applications

Control led blasting is the concrete demol ition method recommended for a1 1
concrete greater than 2 feet in thickness provided noise and shock in adjacent
occupied areas are not limiting. The process is well suited to heavily-rein-
forced concrete demol i tion because with proper selection of the blast param-
eters a high degree of fragmentation may be achieved. The exposed reinforcing
bar may then be cut with an oxyacetylene torch or bolt cutter.
The Elk River Reactor dismantling program used controlled blasting to
demolish the 8 foot thick steel-reinforced radioactive biological shield. A
blasting mat (composed of automobi le tire sidewall s tied together) was placed
over the blast area. Continuous fog sprays of water were used before, during
and after the blast to hold down dust. Alternatively, a spray mixture of water
and 5%-by-weight sodium si 1 icate (water glass) may be used for dust control.
3.1.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Typical concrete removal rates and approximate costs in 1979 dollars are
shown in Table 2. The removal rates include ,drilling, loading, shooting, rebar I

cutting and loading the muckpile into hauling equipment. The unit cost includes
crew cost, materials (explosives and dust control measures) and subcontractor
overhead and profit. Shipping and disposal are not included. A typical blast-
ing crew consists of the blasting expert, six laborers, one iron worker and one
equipment operator.

TABLE 2. Concrete Removal Rates and Costs Using Control led Blasting

Removal Removal
Concrete Type Rate yd -
/day Cost, $/yd3
1. Massive Reinforced Standard
Concrete ( Non-Radi oact ive)
2. Massive Non-reinforced
Standard Concrete
(Non-radioactive)
3. Massive Reinforced
Standard Concrete
(Radioactive)
4. Lightly Reinforced Standard
Concrete (Non-radioact ive)
5. Non-reinforced High Density
Concrete (Radioactive)
6. Lightly Reinforced Standard
Concrete (Radioactive)
References

* Actual removal rates including inefficiency due to personnel and area con-
tamination control and radiation work area control.
8.
** Higher removal rate possible if adequate space is available to use large
capacity loading and hauling equipment.
3.2 WRECKING BALL OR WRECKING SLAB

3.2.1 Descri~tionof Process

The wrecking ball is typically used for demolition of non-reinforced or

lightly reinforced concrete structubes less than 3 feet in thickness. The
equipment consists of a 2-to-5 ton ball or flat slab suspended from a crane
boom. The ball may be used in either of two techniques to demolish structures.
The preferred method is to drop the ball from a height of 10-to-20 feet above
the structure. The maximum height of structure is limited to about 100 feet. A
5-ton ball would require a 200 ton crane for the maximum height (Ref. 6). This
method develops good fragmentation of the structure with maximum control of the
ball after impact. The second method is to swing the ball into the structure
using a suck line for recovery after impact. The structure height is limited to
about 50 feet because of the crane instability during the swing and after
impact. The latter method is not recommended because the target area is more
difficult to hit and the ball may ricochet off the target and damage adjacent
structures while putting side loads on the crane boom. The flat slab may only
be used in the vertical drop mode, but offers the advantage of being able to
shear through steel reinforcing rods as well as concrete.

3.2.2 Applications

The wrecking ball or slab is recomended for non-radioactive concrete

structures less than 3 feet in thickness. It would be virtually impossible to
control the release of radioactive dust during demolition due to the access
needed for the crane to drop or swing the ball. For non-radioactive structures,
the wrecking ball is an effective method and provides good fragmentation to
expose reinforcing rods.
A wrecking ball was used in dismantling the Elk River Reactor containment
building cylinder and dome after the outer insulation and steel shell were
removed, and after all radioactive material had been removed from within the
structure.
3.2.2 Performance and Cost Factors

Typical concrete removal rates with a wrecking ball are shown in Table 3,
exclusive of loading or disposal. The unit cost includes crew cost, equipment P

rental and subcontractor overhead and profit. The range in costs reflect the
accessibility to move large equipment to the muckpile for loading and hauling.
Shipping and disposal are not included in these costs. A typical wrecking ball
crew consists of the crane operator, one crane oiler, two laborers and a fore-'

TABLE 3. Concrete Removal Rates and Costs Using a Wrecking Ball

Remov3l Rate Removal

Concrete Type yd /day cost, $ / ~ d
Lightly Reinforced Standard
Concrete
Non-reinforced Standard
Concrete
Concrete Block Structures 60 10
Heavily Reinforced Not Recomnended 100
Standard Concrete
References 6 4,7

3.3 BACKHOE MOUNTED RAMS

3.3.1 Descriotion of Process

Backhoe mounted rams are used for concrete structures less than 2 feet thick
with light reinforcement. The method is ideally suited for low noise, low
vibration demolition and for interior demolition in confined areas. The equip-
ment consists of an air- or hydraulic-operated impact ram with a moil or chisel I:

point mounted on a backhoe arm. The ram starts impacting as soon as there is
resistance to the point and stops when breakthrough occurs or when the ram head e
is lifted. With the ram head mounted on a backhoe, the operator has approxi-
mately a 20 to 25 foot reach, and the ability to position the ram in limited
access structures.
3.3.2 Applications

The ram is recomnended for applications with limited access for heavy
equipment such as a wrecking ball, and where blasting is not permitted. The air
rams need to be modified to direct air exhaust away from the work area to
prevent the spread of dust (nuisance and radioactive dust). The hydraulic ram
recycles the hydraulic fluid, so no modification is necessary. Dust and
contamination control is maintained with water fog sprays before and during
breaking activities.
The air ram was successfully used for light concrete demolition at the
Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) in Santa Suzanna, Cal iforni a (Ref. 8). However,
at Elk River a hydraulic ram proved to be too slow in demonstration tests for
use on the massive, heavily reinforced biological shield. The ram was replaced
with the more favorable controlled explosive demolition.

3.3.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The backhoe-mounted ram can remove approximately 20 yd3 /day of non-rein-

forced concrete. The approximate unit cost in 1979 dollars for ram breaking of
concrete is $40/yd 3 (Ref. 8). The unit cost includes crew cost, equipment
rental and subcontractor overhead and profit. Shipping and disposal are not
included in the costs. A typical crew consists of the ramhoe operator, one
1 aborer and a foreman.

3.4 FLAME CUTTING

3.4.1 Description of Process

Flame cutting of concrete consists of a thermite reaction process whereby a

powdered mixture of iron and aluminum oxidizes in a pure oxygen jet. The
temperatures in the jet are approximately 16,000°~, which causes rapid decom-
position of the concrete in contact with the jet. The mass flow rate through
the flame cutting nozzle clears away the decomposed concrete, leaving a clean
kerf. Reinforcing rods in the concrete add iron to the reaction to sustain the
flame and assist the reaction.
 The nozzle i s mounted on a metal frame which straddles the area t o be cut.
The nozzle, w i t h associated hoses, i s tracked on the metal frame a t a steady 1

r a t e . The r a t e is dependent upon the concrete depth. A s t a r t i n g hole i s cut

through the concrete t o prevent blowback of material and consequent torch dam-
?
age. Once s t a r t e d , the torch i s advanced along the workface by a variable speed
e l e c t r i c motor controlled by the operator.
Heat and smoke may be removed w i t h a 5 t o 7 horsepower squirrel-cage
blower, and directed through a f l e x i b l e duct which houses a water fogger t o hold
down smoke p a r t i c u l a t e . The high gas temperatures preclude the use of HEPA
f i 1 t e r s f o r contamination control, making the flame cutting technique unsuit-
able f o r use on radioactive concrete without pre-cooling the e f f l u e n t gas.

3.4.2 Applications

Flame cutting of concrete i s used when vibration t o the surrounding area i s

intolerable, and when the thickness of the concrete t o be cut exceeds t h e
c a p a b i l i t i e s of mechanical c u t t e r s such as diamond saws. Flame c u t t e r s are
capable of cutting through a maximum depth of 60 inches with or without r e i n -
forcing rod (Ref. 9 ) .

3.4.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The flame cutting speed i s approximately 1 hour/ft 2 of c u t area. The torch

consumes approximately 800 f t 3 of oxygen, 14 Ibs of iron powder and 6 Ibs of
aluminum powder per square foot of c u t area. The approximate unit cost i n 1979
d o l l a r s f o r flame cutting i s $175 per square foot of cut area. The unit c o s t
includes crew cost, equipment and subcontractor overhead and p r o f i t . Shipping
and disposal are not included. A typical flame cutting crew consists of t h e
torch operator and one laborer f u l l time during cutting.
3.5 THERMIC LANCE

3.5.1 Description of Process

The thermic lance consists of an iron pipe packed with a combination of

steel, aluminum, and magnesium wires through which a flow of oxygen gas is main-
tained. The thermic lance cuts utilizing a thermite reaction at the tip of the
iron pipe, in which the constituents are completely consumed. Temperatures at
the tip range from 4000 to 10,000~~,depending upon ambient conditions. The
lance is ignited using an oxyacetylene torch, thermal igniter or electric arc.
Typical lances are 10-1/2 ft in length and 1/4 in. to 3/8 in. in diameter. Two
lances may be connected in tandem to increase burn time and to permit complete
consumption of each lance.
A thermic lance set-up will consist of the lance, an oxygen supply (gener-
al ly two or more cyl inders connected in tandem), associated regulator equipment
to maintain oxygen pressure at 70-125 psi, 3/8 inch diameter hose, and protec-
tive clothing and faceshield for the operator.
A thermic lance generates a large quantity of smoke and hot gases, the
actual amount depending upon the material being cut. For this reason, a control
envelope is necessary for radioactive concrete cutting to contain the vaporized
material in order to prevent the contamination of the surrounding area.

3.5.2 Applications

The thermic lance wi 11 cut any material that is likely to be encountered in

a nuclear facility. The reinforcing rods in the concrete speed the burning by
adding more metal to the thermite process. Material further than 1 inch from
the hole is not affected. The thermic lance can be used to cut holes, slits or
openings in a wide variety of materials.

3.5.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The 10% foot thermic lance will burn for at least 6 minutes, and can burn a 2
inch diameter hole through reinforced concrete to a depth of 1% to 3% feet. The
lance holder costs approximately $50.00, and the 10% foot lance is $7.00 each.
Oxygen supply cost about $6.00 per 100 ft5 at STP.

3.6 ROCK SPLITTER

3.6.1 Description of Process

The rock splitter is a method for fracturing concrete by hydraulically ex-

panding a wedge into a pre-drilled hole until tensile stresses are large enough
to cause fracture. The tool consists of a hydraulic cylinder which drives a
wedge-shaped plug between two expandable guides (called feathers) inserted in
the pre-drilled hole. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the splitter operating
principle.
The unit is powered by a hydraulic supply system, and operates at 7100 psi
pressure. When the plug is extended and fracture occurs, an automatic pressure
relief valve lowers the pressure to 900 psi. With the unit in neutral position
the pressure drops to 50 psi.
Units are available to develop splitting forces approaching 350 tons. The
maximum lateral expansion of the feathers is approximately 0.75 inches. Con-
crete may be separated at the fracture line using a backhoe mounted air ram or
similar equipment. The reinforcing rod in reinforced concrete must be cut
before separation is possible. For heavily reinforced concrete, additional
holes and fractures will be necessary to expose the reinforcing rod.

3.6.2 Applications

The splitter is ideally suited for fracturing concrete in limited access

areas where large air rams cannot operate. The process is silent (except for
hole drilling) and is used extensively for demolition near hospitals and other
densely populated areas. Hole sizes range from 1-3/16 to 1-314 inch, and depth
of 12 to 26 inches, depending on the size of the unit selected. For massive
concrete sections, holes are drilled from 1 to 3 feet apart to establish a
fracture line.
 Reinforced concrete sections up to 8 feet thick may be cut with a single
large unit. Reinforced concrete sections of 10 foot thickness will require two'
or more large units operated simultaneously.

3.6.3 Performance and Cost Factors

For reinforced non-radioactive concrete, removal rates of 250 yd 3/day have

been demonstrated. Drilling and splitting time requires approximately 5 to 10
minutes per hole. The approximate cost of the rock splitter and power unit
range from $6500 to $8000 from the smallest to largest cylinder available. Cost
per unit of output are dependent on the geometry and working conditions of the
application.

PCUGAP~OFEATHERS
C0h"dANDINCi V A L V E

FIGURE 2. Schematic of Rock Splitter

3.7 BRISTAR* DEMOLITION COMPOUND

3.7.1 Description of Process

Bristar concrete demolition compound is a chemically expanding compound

which is poured into pre-drilled holes and causes tensile fractures in the con-
crete upon hardening. Bristar is a proprietary compound of limestone, siliceous
material, gypsum and slag. The powdered compound is mixed with water and kneaded
to a fluid paste. The paste is filled into holes drilled in a fracture line of
predetermined burden, spacing and depth. Within 10-20 hours, Bristar pressure
wi 1 1 develop to over 4300 psi. Concrete tensi le strength ranges from 200 psi to
approximately 425 psi, such that low grade concretes are likely to fracture
* Registered trade name of Onoda Cement Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan (Ref. 10).
easily. Cracks will form and propagate along the fracture line. The crack
width will range between 1/4 inch after 10 hours to almost 2 inches after 1 5
hours. The fractured burden may then be removed with a paving breaker, backhoe
or bucket loader. If reinforcing rod is encountered, it must be cut separately.
The compound is not classified as a hazardous substance and can be readily
stored and handled. There is no noise or vibration (except for drilling holes),
or flyrock, dust or gas release. Contamination control is only required during
drilling and removal.

3.7.2 Applications

Bristar is suited for use on massive non-reinforced concrete structures

where noise, vibration, flyrock, dust or gas must be avoided. It is not recom-
mended for slabs of concrete less than 12 inches in thickness. The compound can
be used with reinforced concrete provided the holes are located along the plane
of reinforcing rod so the fractured surface will expose the rods.

3.7.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The rate of removal of massive non-reinforced concrete is dependent on the

crack formation time (10-20 hours) and the quantity of concrete to be removed.
For small jobs the removal rate will be slow because of the time to fracture.
For large jobs, drilling may be continuous with mucking out following hole
loading by about 20 hours. In this manner the removal rate may approach that of
controlled blasting for the same material.
The quantity of Bristar required for a 2 inch diameter hole per foot of
hole depth is 2% Ib/ft. The approximate cost for Bristar is about $80.00 for a
44 pound container.

3.8 WALL AND FLOOR SAWING

3.8.1 Description of Process

Wall and floor sawing is generally used when disturbance of the surrounding
material must be kept to a minimum. A diamond or carbide wheel is used to
abrasively cut a kerf through the concrete. The blades can cut through rein
forcing rods although the rods tend to break off the blade diamonds. The blade
is rotated by an air or hydraulic motor. For most applications the saw will be
mounted on a guide which also supports the saw's weight. The operator manually
advances the blade into the work. The dust produced by the abrasive cutting is
controlled using a water spray. The abrasive blade produces no vibration,
shock, smoke, sparks, or slag and is relatively quiet.

3.8.2 Applications

Thicknesses up to 3 feet have been cut with concrete saws. The maximum
thickness of cut is approximately equal to one-third of the blade diameter.

3.8.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The saw cuts approximately 150 in2 per minute of cut surface, regardless of
thickness. Cutting can be done either manually or remotely.
The approximate cost of floor sawing concrete is $8.00/ft 2 of cutting
surface for non-radioactive, non-reinforced concrete. Reinforced concrete cut-
ting costs are higher because of the additional replacement diamond saw blades
necessary, and the increased time to cut through heavy rebar. The approximate
cost of wall sawing is $22.00/ft 2 of cutting surface for reinforced concrete up
to a 7/8 inch-diameter reinforcing rod. The saw is operated by one operator
with no helper.

3.9 CORE STITCH DRILLING

3.9.1 Description of Process

Core stitch drilling consists of close-pitched drilling of holes in con-

crete using a diamond or carbide-tipped drill bit in an electric or fluid-driven
rotary drill. The center lines of the holes are located to correspond to the
desired breaking plane in the concrete. The hole pitch is such that there is
very 1 i tt le concrete left between adjoining holes (less than % the radius of the t

holes). When a line of holes has been drilled along the breaking plane, the
remaining concrete between the holes may be sheared by a hydraulic wedge, or by
t
dropping a wrecking ball onto the piece to be removed.

3.9.2 Applications

Core stitch drilling produces no gases or smoke, thereby facilitating con-

tamination control. The dust produced by the drilling is controlled by a water
spray, which is also used to cool the drill bit. Core stitch drilling is used
where surrounding material must not be disturbed, or where accessibility is
limited. However, the slab to be removed must be accessible to the method of
shearing the concrete (bar, slab or wrecking ball). The method is not recom-
mended for reinforced concrete because the remaining reinforcing rod inhibits
shearing.

3.9.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Concrete drills can cut a 4 inch diameter hole through 4 feet of concrete
in 60 minutes. The pitch between holes is recommended to be no greater than %
inch for 4 inch diameter drills. Accordingly, this process is very slow and
costly for large volumes of massive concrete removal.
The core drilling costs range from $17.00/ft for 1% inch diameter holes, to
$550.00/ft for 24 inch diameter holes. Drilling depths greater than 3 ft can
increase these costs by a factor of 3 (Ref. 11). These costs include labor,
drill bits, and drill motor costs.

3.10 EXPLOSIVE CUTTING

3.10.1 Description of Process

9-

An explosive cutter consists of an explosive core such as RDX or PETN,

surrounded by a casing of lead, aluminum, copper or silver. Cutting is accomp-
lished by a high explosive jet of detonation products of combustion and deformed
casing metal. The jet forms a directed shock wave which severs the target
material. The cutter is approximately 1 inch wide and chevron-shaped with the
apex pointing away from the material to be cut. When detonated, the explosive
core generates a shock wave which fractures the casing inside the chevron and
propels the casing into the material to be cut.
The target material is cut, not fractured or snapped. In concrete, there
would be some local fracturing and pulverizing of the surrounding area. In
reinforced concrete, some of the deeper reinforcing rods will not be cut. In
this case, either a reinforcing rod cutter or oxyacetylene torch can be used.
Other explosive types are available such as HNS, DIPAM, HMX, CH-6, HNAB,
DATB, TATB, KHND and NONA, to accomnodate higher temperature (up to 600'~)
applications. Lead casings are most frequently used for the smaller sizes and
core loadings, and aluminum, copper or silver used for larger sizes.

3.10.2 Applications

Explosive cutting is normally used either when the geometry of the object
being cut is too complex to employ other methods, or when several cuts must be
made simultaneously (e.g. removal of a large prestressed beam where it is
impractical to shore up the ends for temporary support).
Explosive cutters are used for precision cutting rather than massive heav-
ing or demolishing. Cutters have been used on concrete for removing buildings,
salvaging bridges, and felling smokestacks.

3.10.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Typical prices of lead sheathed RDX explosive cutters range from $14.00/ft for
300 grains/ft to $64.00/ft for 2200 grains/ft (Ref. 12). These prices may be
used as input for cost estimating purposes, but actual demolition should be
estimated and directed by a demolition expert.
3.11 PAVING BREAKERS AND CHIPPING HAMMERS

3.11.1 Description of Process

Paving breakers and chipping hamners remove concrete (and asphalt) by me-
chanically f r a c t u r i n g localized sections of the surface. Fracturing i s caused
by the impact of a hardened tool s t e e l b i t of e i t h e r a chisel or moil point
shape. The b i t i s driven i n a reciprocating motion by e i t h e r a compressed a i r
or hydraulic f l u i d pressure source.
Paving breakers ( a l s o called "jackharmer" and "pneumatic d r i 11") weigh ap-
proximately 35 t o 100 pounds and are intended f o r use on f l o o r s . The chipping
harmer i s similar in concept t o the paving breaker b u t i s l i g h t enough (15-35
Ibs.) t o be hand-held f o r use on walls or ceilings.

Paving breakers are recomnended f o r use on f l o o r s t o remove small areas

t h a t are inaccessible f o r heavy equipment. They may also be used t o expose
reinforcing rods a f t e r controlled blasting t o permit cutting of the rods. The
chisel point may be used t o scarify surface areas of concrete f l o o r s where
contamination may have penetrated several inches deep in localized areas. Con-
tamination control may be accomplished using water or fog sprays. Chipping
harmers are recomnended f o r use on walls t o s c a r i f y small areas where contamin-
a t i on may have penetrated several inches deep over local ized areas. However,
the limited removal capacity and significant weight ( u p t o 35 pounds) make i t
impractical f o r use on large areas. Other techniques are b e t t e r suited f o r t h i s
purpose.

3 .11.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Concrete removal using paving breakers or chipping hammers i s labor-inten-

sive. The cost f o r removal of non-reinforced concrete by paving breakers i s
$ 3 2 . 0 0 / ~ d ~ The
. crew consists of one l i g h t equipment operator and two laborers.
The crew has an output of 20 yd 3 /day.
 For reinforced concrete, the crew consists of one light equipment oper-
ator, two laborers and one ironworker. The crew output is 12 yd 3 /day at a cost
of $62. O O / ~ ~ ~ .
Chipping hamner costs are essentially those of the harmer operator's hour-
ly rate since the consumption of materials and power requirements is insigni-
ficant.

3.12 DRILL AND SPALL

3.12.1 Description of Process

The drill and spall technique was developed for the removal of contaminated
surfaces of concrete without demolishing the entire structure. The technique
consists of drilling 1 to 1%inch diameter holes approximately 3 inches deep
into which is inserted a hydraulically operated spalling tool. The spalling
tool is similar in to the rack splitter, but uses shorter feathers. The holes
are drilled on approximately 12 inch centers such that the spalled area from
each hole overlaps the next.

3.12.2 Applications

The drill and spall technique is recomnended for removing surface contam-
ination that penetrates one to two inches into the surface. Removal of the
surface radioactivity in this manner eliminates the need to dispose of large
quantities of non-radioactive concrete as with other volume removal techniques.
Contamination control while drilling is accomplished with a filtered vacuum
system. Fog sprays may be used to wet the surface and reduce contamination and
dust levels.

3.12.3 Performance and Cost Factors

The average removal rate is approximately 7.5 yd 2 /hr for standard con-
crete. No detailed cost information is available yet on removal costs since the
tool is still in the developmental stage. The equipment cost, exclusive of the
positioning equipment, is estimated to be about $10,000. A typical drill and
spa11 crew would probably consist of one operator, one platform positioner
operator, two laborers and a front-end loader operator.

3.13 SCARIFIER

3.13.1 Description of Process

The scarifier technique is best suited for the removal of thin layers (up
to one inch in thickness) of contaminated concrete. The tool, marketed under
the trade name of "Scabbier" by the MacDonald Air Tool Company, New Jersey,
U. S.A., consists of pneumatically operated piston heads which strike the sur-
face to chip off the concrete. The piston heads are available in either 5-point
or 9-point tungsten carbide bit sizes depending on the degree of surface rough-
ness allowable. The 5-point bit has 1/4 inch high points and the 9-point bit
has 1/8 inch high points.
The pistons are mounted in a wheeled-floor chasis which is available in 5,
7 and 9 piston sizes. The chasis is pushed along the floor to remove the surface
layer. The chasis can be modified to include a HEPA filtered vacuum exhaust
system to capture contaminated dust. Other tool models include a 3-piston wall
scabbler which may be spring counter-balanced to relieve the tool weight. Smal-
ler hand-held units are available but are not intended for large surface area
removal.

The scabbler tool is recomnended for applications where the concrete sur-
face is to be reused after decontamination. The scarified surface is generally
level with coarse finish (k to 4 inch peak-to-valley height) resulting from the
9-point bit. The coarse surface is suitable for bonding to a concrete finish
cap, and the smoother surface suitable for epoxy, polymer and similar finishes.
A 7-piston floor model scabbler was used at the SRE decommissioning program
to scarify slightly contaminated floors. An HEPA filtered vacuum exhaust system
was fitted to the floor scabbler to control the release of contaminated dust.
3.13.3 Performance and Cost Factors .
The concrete surface removal rate is 5 square yards per hour per bit (Ref.
13) for the floor scabbler, which represents 35 square yards per hour for a 7-
piston unit. The three-piston wall scabbler will remove 8-12 square yards of
surface per hour.
The approximate unit cost in 1979 dollars for floor and wall scarifying is
$1.40/yd 2 for the 7-piston floor model, and $6.25/ft 2 for the 3-piston wall
model. The unit cost includes operator cost, air consumption cost, dust and
chip removal, subcontractor overhead, and profit. A typical crew consists of
the tool operator and one laborer for chip removal.

3.14 WATER CANNON

3.14.1 Description of Process

Two types of high-pressure jet spalling devices have been developed under
the comnon name of water cannon (Ref. 14): Type (I), the Glycerine Gun, fires
solidified glycerine capsules in a modified 458 magnum rifle through a nozzle.
Type (2), the Water Cannon, uses compressed gas to drive a piston which forces
water through a small diameter nozzle.
(1) Glycerine Gun: The glycerine gun uses a 458 magnum rifle with a short
smooth bore barrel. A nozzle is threaded onto the end of the barrel to reduce
the diameter from 0.45 inches to 0.17 inches. A 9-inch diameter funnel-shaped
shield is placed around the nozzle to protect the operator and collect chips and
dust through a vacuum exhaust system. Rubble pieces are 0.5 inches to 0.75
inches in diameter, and are covered with glycerine which contains the dust. The
shield extends one inch beyond the nozzle to provide the necessary standoff from
the workspace. Figure 3 shows the glycerine gun.
The glycerine gun fires solidified glycerine capsules 2 inches long by a
0.45 inch diameter. The capsules are propelled by gun powder loaded into conven-
tional cartridge cases. The glycerine is accelerated by the propellant, and is
extruded through the nozzle at very high velocity. Wax is placed in the
cartridge case to hold in the powder, and to create a moving seal around the
glycerine to prevent combustion gases from bypassing the glycerine.
(2) Water Cannon: The water cannon uses compressed gas to drive a piston
and force a small quantity of water through a nozzle. Figure 4 shows a schema
tic of the water cannon components. A funnel-shaped shield is placed over the
nozzle to protect the operators and collect debris through a vacuum system. The
gas which ljropels the piston is compressed by a hydraulic impactor. Firing
rates of up to 5 shots per second are possible. Water is injected into the
chamber in front of the piston after each shot.
The unit is usually mounted on a back hoe or excavator and may be articu-
lated to spa11 concrete walls, floors or ceilings.

GUN POWDER GLYCERINE

L// CARTRIDGE CASE

SHIELD WITH
I
VACUUM PORT

FIGURE 3. 458 Magnum Water Cannon

NOZZLE -.

I
PISTON
WATER FILLED AREA
T

.:A.

COMPRESSED -9

GAS

FIGURE 4. Schematic of a Water Cannon Basic Components

 The glycerine gun has been extensively tested, and has been shown to create
spa11 craters 3 to 4 inches in diameter and 0.75 inches 'deep. The shots are
fired about 3 inches apart in a triangular pattern. The glycerine gun is most
effective when fired around and behind embedded aggregate. Shots at hard, round
river gravel will result in small spalls.

3.14.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Tests in high-strength concrete required 24 shots to remove 1 ft2 of

surface and took 5 to 6 minutes (approximately 10 ft2 /hr) . The glycerine gun
can be positioned and held by hand, and can be fired as fast as the operator can
reload and position the gun.
The water cannon generally exhibits slower rates of removal than the glyce-
rine gun. Typical rates of 1 ft2 in 15 minutes (4 ft2/hr) have been demon-
strated. The water jet serves to coat the rubble particles and thus helps to
reduce the spread of contamination.
No detailed cost information is available yet on removal costs since these
tools are still in the developmental stages at Battelle Pacific Northwest Labor-
atory. A typical crew would consist of the gun operator and one laborer.

3.15 GRINDING

3.15.1 Description of Process

The grinding process includes a large number of similar tools for the
removal of thin layers of surface contamination from concrete. In many cases
the contamination is limited to the paint coating or concrete sealer finish.
The technique consists of abrading the surface using coarse-grained abrasives
in the form of water-cooled diamond grinding wheels or multiple tungsten-
carbide surfacing discs. Machines to power these abrasives are of the circular
floor grinding type where the grinding head rotates parallel to the floor.
Water required for cooling is injected into the center of the grinding head
'
eliminating any possibility of dust. Supplementary contamination control can e

be accomplished through the use of HEPA filtered vacuum systems attached to or

held near the machine. The surface may be moistened before and during grinding
to hold down dust levels.

3.15.2 Applications

Grinding is recommended primarily for thin layers of contamination because

of the rapid disintegration of the abrasives when in contact with concrete.
Floor and hand-held grinding machines have been successfully used at the
San Onofre Unit 1 Nuclear Plant to remove surface contamination.

3.15.3 Performance and Cost Factors

Typical diamond grinding removal rates with disc type rotary floor grind-
ers are capable of removing several thousand square feet (per day) of surface
approximately % inch deep, and lesser areas to as much as 1 inch deep. The
machine may be operated by one operator.
The approximate unit cost in 1979 dollars for concrete floor grinding is
$36.00/~d~(Ref. 11). The approximate unit cost includes operator cost, grind-
ing wheels and discs, electricity, dust removal and packaging, and subcontract-
or overhead and profit.
A typical crew consists of the machine operator and one laborer for dust
removal and packaging.

4. REFERENCES

1. Havers and Stubbs, "Handbook of Heavy Construction," McGraw Hill, Second

Edition, 1971. 2

2. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.), "Blasters Handbook," 1977.

3. Personal Communication with Mr. J. Mark Loizeaux, Vice President, Control- T:

led Demolition, Inc., October 12, 1979.

4. Dodge Building Cost Services, "1978 Dodge Guide for Estimating Public
Works Construction Costs," Annual Edition No. 10, McGraw Hill, 1977.
5. United Power Association, "Final Elk River Reactor Program Report ,I1

COO-651-93, prepared under USAEC Contract No. ~ ~ ( 1 1 --651,

1) ~eptember
1974.
6. Personal comnunication with Mr. Will Megin of Meticulous Wrecking, Brook-
field, Connecticut, August 1979.
7. R.I. Smith, et al, "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a
Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0130,
Appendix G, June 1978.
8. Personal comnunication with Mr. Ben Ureda of Atomics International,
Rockwell Division, Canoga. Park, California, September 1979.
9. Personal comnunication with Mr. Edward Dempsey, Concrete Coring Company,
Hawthorne, Cal iforni a, July 1978.
10. Watanabe, Y., General Manager, Development Department, Onoda Cement Co.,
Ltd., 1-1-7 Toyosu Koto-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Cable Address: ONOSEME TOKYO;
Telex No.: 2523945 ONOCEM-J.
11. Personal comnunication with Mr. Larry Martin, Sales Manager, Concrete
Coring Company, 12900 S. Prairie Avenue, Hawthorne, California, October
1979.
12. Personal Comnunication with Mr. Walt Johannes, Explosive Technology, Fair-
field, California, November 1979.
13. Personal communication with Mr. Len Hendri, MacDonald Air Tool Company,
South Hackensack, New Jersey, September 1979.
14. Personal comnunication with Mr. J.M. Halter, Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, October 1979.