Radiological data consolidation and 3D modeling of a building - 15473
A portion of a building at an industrial facility that conducted monazite sands-processing operations in the 1950's under contract to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) became contaminated. Subsequently the U.S. Department of Energy designated the facility for remedial action under the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Remedial investigation, remedial actions and post-remediation surveys have been conducted in portions of the building. Radiological data for the interior of the building were compiled, evaluated and presented in a three dimensional (3-D) model (the model) created by AMEC Foster Wheeler in order to identify areas that meet the Record of Decision (ROD) cleanup criteria, and identity areas that may require remedial action or may require additional investigation due to data gaps. The data from different phases of investigation and remediation cover different portions of the building and in some cases overlap. In addition, the data were collected over a period of more than ten years, for different objectives, and thus the instruments and methods for establishing efficiency were not necessarily consistent. The data consolidation process included determining the relative quality of data points to include in the model and the development of rationale associated with assigning a quality level (i.e. ranking) to each data point. The rationale for ranking data quality included, as the primary determining factors, chronological order of the data (most recent was ranked as more reliable), certainty of the sample locations within the building, and analytical data quality. A 3-D model of the building was created using a laser point cloud scan which was then converted into a 3-D design model. Sample locations were then entered into the model and linked with the analytical database to allow display of the radiological results in the model. The visual model allows both strategic and tactical decisions to be made, depending on the level of detail examined. The evaluation process allowed maximum use of the historical data set, rather than requiring older data to be disregarded, and provided at a minimum a qualitative sense of data quality/confidence in the data. The (authors)process also highlights the importance of collecting high quality data from the very beginning with a consistent locational coordinate system, and the need for a good visualization model in order to assess contaminant locations during remedial action or post-remediation surveys.