iii

This page intentionally left blank.
iv

ABSTRACT

This NUREG-series publication reports the results

of a 2-year investigation to compile information

intended to support the formulation and

characterization of scenarios related to exposure

to residual radioactivity in reused soils. This

information search focused on human interactions

with reused soils in the United States. Using this

information, the staff and contractors of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are

working to define realistic soil reuse scenarios and

to estimate parameters for simulating exposure

pathways if soil is removed from NRC-licensed

facilities. NRC staff and researchers from the

National Agricultural Library (NAL) conducted this

investigation in two phases. Phase 1 was a

general information search structured to query

literature from a wide range of published scientific

and trade sources. Phase 2 was a focused

information search on specific parameters such

as contact time, dust exposures and tillage depths

identified in Phase 1. NAL staff searched

additional sources and contacted individuals in the

Government, academia, and commerce. This

report compiles, for the first time, data and

information sources for parameters specific to soil

reuse. This report also provides information that

is relevant for generic, as well as site-specific

dose assessments, and presents typical

information that may be used in future dose

modeling analyses. This investigation was

coordinated with a companion effort by the

Federal Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation Standards on disposition of sewage

sludge. 
v

This page intentionally left blank.
vi

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................... ix

FOREWORD ............................................................................ xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................... xiv

ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................... xv

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope ............................................................................ 1

1.3 Public Comments ................................................................... 2

1.4 Purpose of this Report ............................................................... 3

1.5 Content of this Report ................................................................ 3

2. INFORMATION CATEGORIES CHARACTERIZING SOIL REUSE SCENARIOS AND

 ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS .......................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................ 5

2.2 Soil Reuse Scenarios ................................................................ 5

2.3 Environmental Pathways ............................................................. 6

3. INFORMATION RESEARCH PROCESS ..................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................ 9

3.2 Interagency Agreement ............................................................... 9

3.3 Phase 1 Methodology ................................................................ 9

3.3.1 Phase 1 Internal Review Process ............................................... 10

3.3.2 Phase 1 Reports and Products ................................................ 10

3.4 Phase 2 Methodology ............................................................... 11

3.4.1 Phase 2 Review Process ..................................................... 12

3.4.2 Phase 2 Reports and Products ................................................ 12

4. PHASE 1: INITIAL LITERATURE SEARCH .................................................. 13

4.1 Strategy Development ............................................................... 13

4.2 Database Selection Process ......................................................... 13

4.3 Literature Survey ................................................................... 15

4.3.1 Search Category G (General) .................................................. 15

4.3.2 Search Category P (Particular) ................................................. 15

4.3.3 Search Category V (Volume) .................................................. 16

4.4 Extent of Available Literature .......................................................... 16

4.5 Internet Searches .................................................................. 23

4.6 Internet Search Results ............................................................. 24

4.7 Defense Technical Information Center Resources ........................................ 25

4.8 Other Sources ..................................................................... 26

4.9 Phase 1 Observations .............................................................. 27
CONTENTS (Continued)

vii

5. PHASE 2: FOCUSED SEARCH FOR PARAMETER VALUES AND RELATED

 INFORMATION SOURCES ............................................................. 29

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 29

5.2 Data Needs for Dose Analyses ........................................................ 29

5.2.1 Specific NAL Research Topics ................................................. 30

5.2.2 NRC Information Searches .................................................... 31

5.2.3 International Information Searches .............................................. 31

5.3 Material Flow Analysis ............................................................... 32

5.3.1 Material Flow Analysis for Soils ................................................. 32

5.3.2 Material Flow Analysis for Water ................................................ 39

5.4 Characterization of the Green Industry .................................................. 41

5.4.1 Greenhouse Practices and Parameters .......................................... 43

5.4.2 Landscape Trade Practices and Parameters ..................................... 44

5.5 Agricultural Practices and Parameters .................................................. 48

5.5.1 Farm and Field Workers ...................................................... 48

5.5.2 Tillage Depth ............................................................... 49

5.5.3 Farm and Field Worker Exposure to Dust ........................................ 49

5.5.4 Water Consumption by Farm and Field Workers ................................... 50

5.5.5 Urban Food Production Practices ............................................... 52

5.5.6 Additional Information Sources from Technical Peer Reviewers ....................... 54

5.6 NRC Staff Research and Results ...................................................... 54

5.6.1 Construction Activities Involving Reused Soil ...................................... 54

5.6.2 Transportation of Reused Soils ................................................ 57

5.6.3 International Studies ......................................................... 58

5.6.4 National Radiological and Technical Guidance ..................................... 58

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN ......................................... 65

6.1 Construction and Approval of the Plan .................................................. 65

6.2 The Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan ............................................. 65

6.2.1 Procedures for Collaborative Review ............................................ 65

6.2.2 QA/QC Audit ............................................................... 66

6.3 Phase 1 External Review ............................................................ 66

6.3.1 Selection of the Phase 1 External Reviewers ...................................... 66

6.3.2 Summary of Phase1 Reviewer Comments and Actions Taken ........................ 67

6.4 Phase 2 Procedures ............................................................... 68

6.4.1 Selection of the Phase 2 Technical Peer Reviewers ................................ 68

6.4.2 Summary of Reviewer Comments and Actions Taken .............................. 69

7. SUMMARY ............................................................................ 71

8. REFERENCES ...................................................................... 73
CONTENTS (Continued)

viii

APPENDICES

A. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON

 DRAFT NUREG-1725 ................................................................. A-1

A.1 Release of NUREG-1725 for Public Comment ........................................... A-1

A.2 Public Comments Received .......................................................... A-1

A.2.1 Comments Outside the Scope of NUREG-1725 ................................... A-1

A.2.2 Comments Suggesting References for Soil Reuse Scenario

 Characterization ............................................................ A-1

A.2.3 Comments Related to Analytical Methods ........................................ A-2

A.2.4 Other Comments ........................................................... A-2

B. PHASE 1 SEARCH STRATEGIES, RESULTS, AND EXTERNAL REVIEW ........................ B-1

B.1 Introduction ...................................................................... B-1

B.2 Search Strategies ................................................................. B-1

B.2.1 General Terms, Labeled G ................................................... B-1

B.2.2 Particular Scenario Terms, Labeled P .......................................... B-3

B.2.3 Volumetric Terms, Labeled V ................................................. B-5

B.2.4 Explanation of Dialog® Search Command Syntax ................................ B-6

B.3 Study Results .................................................................... B-7

B.3.1 Dialog® Database File List .................................................. B-11

B.4 External Review ................................................................. B-16

B.4.1 Introduction .............................................................. B-16

B.4.2 Reviewer Instructions ...................................................... B-16

B.4.3 Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the External

 Reviewers’ Comments .................................................... B-16

B.5 Selected Internet Resources from Phase 1 ............................................ B-18

C. PHASE 2 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES .................................................... C-1

 C.1 Information Resources for the Commercial Sector ...................................... C-1

C.1.1 Inventory Tracking Firms .................................................... C-1

C.1.2 Industry and Professional Associations ......................................... C-1

C.1.3 Marketing Survey Reports and Firms ........................................... C-1

 C.2 Climate and Crops ............................................................... C-2

D. GENERAL INFORMATION ON SOILS ..................................................... D-1

 D.1 The Nature of Soils ............................................................... D-1

 D.2 Soil Variability .................................................................... D-1

D.2.1 Soil Information Resources .................................................. D-2

D.2.2 Soil and Farming/Land Use .................................................. D-2

 D.3 Additional Information on Soil ....................................................... D-3

E. NAL PROJECT INVESTIGATORS ........................................................ E-1
CONTENTS (Continued)

ix

FIGURES

1 Exposure Pathways Considered in RESRAD .............................................. 7

TABLES

2.1 Typical Parameters Used to Characterize Soil Reuse Scenarios .............................. 5

2.2 Possible Human Activities Involving Reused Soils ............................................ 6

4.1 Summary of Concept Set Findings ....................................................... 17

4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections ...................................................... 18

5.1 Research Factors for Dose Analysis ..................................................... 30

5.2 Sale of Soil from BLM-Managed Resources in 1998 ......................................... 34

5.3 Classified Ads for Topsoil on the ShopDirt.Com Web Site .................................... 35

5.4 Telephone Interviews with Five Randomly Selected ShopDirt.Com

 Business Owners .................................................................... 36

5.5 Customers Served and Product Uses for ShopDirt.Com Soil Products .......................... 37

5.6 1998 Market Share by Distributor Category for Lawn and Garden Supplies ...................... 39

5.7 Irrigation Wells on Farms .............................................................. 40

5.8 Vegetable Irrigation Needs ............................................................. 41

5.9 Texas Green Industry Labor Force Statistics ............................................... 42

5.10 Maryland-Based Mass Merchant Soil-Based Business Activities ............................... 42

5.11 Greenhouse Food Crop Production in Selected States ....................................... 44

5.12 Landscape Soil Blends from an Ohio Supply Company ..................................... 47

5.13 Number of Farm Workers Employed and Hours Worked Per Week ............................. 49

5.14 Average Respirable Dust Concentrations from Common Farming Practices ...................... 50

5.15 Urban Agricultural Practices ............................................................ 53

5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections ...................................... 59

B.1 Concept Set Findings ................................................................ B-8
x

B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched ................................................... B-11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This NUREG-series publication reports the results

of a 2-year information search focused on human

interactions with reused soils in the United Sates. 

This investigation sought to compile information

intended to support the formulation and

characterization of scenarios related to exposure

to residual radioactivity in reused soils. Developed

under an interagency agreement between the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the

National Agricultural Library (NAL) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research

Service, this report documents the process and

results of an extensive literature review and

focused information search on human contact

with soil. This report was issued in June 2000 as

Draft NUREG-1725, “Human Interaction with

Reused Soil: A Literature Search,” to solicit public

comments and additional information.

This report describes the methodologies used in

developing the information search strategies and

in selecting the database sources. These

strategies and sources were reviewed by external

reviewers, whose comments are included in the

report. The primary focus of the work was to

identify documented, verifiable references for the

NRC staff to use modeling dose exposures

related to soil reuse.

This report describes the results of the literature

search pertaining to human interactions with

reused soil, and presents typical information

resulting from the search that might be used in

future modeling. This report provides information

on the ways in which soils are reused in

commerce (e.g., landscaping) or by the general

public in the United States. This information is an

important part of the technical basis for assessing

the possible exposures that could result if soil is

released from NRC-licensed facilities. 

Specifically, this information will be used to

develop soil reuse scenarios for use in dose

assessments. To develop these scenarios, it is

necessary to obtain data on the forms of human

contact with soils in the United States. Using this

information, the NRC staff and contractors are

working to define realistic soil reuse scenarios and

to estimate parameters for simulating exposure

pathways involving soil removed from NRClicensed facilities. 

NRC staff and researchers from the NAL conducted

this investigation in two phases. For the initial

literature search in Phase 1, the information

sources searched included the Dialog® (an online

system of more than 500 databases), the Internet,

and other sources. With support from NRC staff

and external reviewers (non-NAL library and

information science and soil science

professionals), the NAL researchers developed

targeted search strategies to retrieve relevant

items from the Dialog® databases. These search

strategies were structured to query literature from

science publishers, academic presses,

professional societies, trade journals and bulletins,

theses and dissertations, as well as information

published in industry standards, newspapers,

company reports, statistical sources, etc. The

Dialog® search was developed by creating three

main categories or concept sets, including

“General” (actions or activities of humans with

soils), “Particular” (specific identified types of

human-soil interactions), and ”Volume” (volume,

quantity, or economic terms that quantify or

delineate the extent of human contact with soil). 

In the Phase 1 effort, the researchers screened the

initial records found in the Dialog® database

searches for relevance to the scope of this

research effort. Through the detailed review of

these records by NAL and NRC researchers, a

small number of documents were identified as

relevant.
xi

In the Phase 2 effort, the emphasis was on

identifying information sources for formulating and

estimating parameters to be used in modeling soil

reuse scenarios involving potential human

exposures. This effort involved directed Internet

searches and telephone interviews of

knowledgeable experts in academia, industry, and

Government. The list of documents from the

Phase 1 effort was expanded by the Phase 2

results. 

The quality assurance/quality control plan for this

study included (1) collaborative review of literature

survey results, retrieval strategies, and information

sources that were developed from guidelines of

the Reference and User Services Association of

the American Library Association, (2) external

reviewers who reviewed the search strategy for

completeness, (3) NAL/NRC meetings to review

progress and comment, and (4) archives of all

online search activities that will be maintained by

NAL for 5 years.

This investigation turned out to be very complex for

many reasons. For example, there is a paucity of

reliable and documented information. Moreover,

this report is a first of its kind effort to address the

realistic material flow of reused soils. 

Although this study revealed that no methodology

currently exists for formulating realistic soil reuse

exposure scenarios and assigning the appropriate

parameter values, it did yield some noteworthy

observations:

• Large-volume transactions (such as 1,000 cubic

yards or more) are generally distributed to

construction projects (e.g., roads, parking lots,

building pads).

• Large-scale greenhouse and landscape

operations have moved away from using natural

soils to specially formulated soilless growth

media.

• Market leaders in packaged potting “soils” use

mineral and organic matter in their formulations.

• Medium to small greenhouse and landscape

operations continue to use natural soil mixtures.

• Small-volume transactions involving natural soils

are primarily distributed to small businesses and

private home owners. 

• There still remains a demand for free or low-cost

soil for diverse uses by the general public.

• Many landfills restrict some categories of

materials for disposal such as yard wastes. This

necessitates alternative uses of these materials.

In addition, the study found the following trends in

greenhouse and landscape operations:

• Industry seeks inexpensive and readily accessible

alternative materials in place of reused soil. 

• Limited and variable fertility associated with

natural soils encourages the use of specially

formulated soilless growth media. 

• The high cost of long-distance transportation and

the low inherent economic value of the reused soil 

encourages use of locally available sources.

This study yielded the following benefits:

• This study supported and complimented the

scoping scenario characterizations under

evaluation in a parallel NRC effort for dose

modeling analyses pertaining to soil reuse.

• This study refined parameter values to reflect

realism in modeling exercises, and further

improvements are expected.

• This study emphasized the significant uncertainty

in material flows and soil reuse characterization

(i.e., probabilistic distributions of uncertainty are

needed).

This study also identified the following human factor

sources of uncertainties: 
xii

• Material flow and exposure scenarios are a

function of human behavior, which varies because

of geographic and environmental aspects of the

locations where the soil reuse occurs.

• Anecdotal sources were useful because of the

shortage of documented information.

This report compiles, for the first time, data and

information sources for parameters specific to soil

reuse. This report also provides information that

is relevant for generic, as well as site-specific

dose assessments. This investigation was

coordinated with a companion effort by the

Federal Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation Standards (ISCORS) study directed

toward the disposition of sewage sludge.

Appendices to this report provide more detailed

information: Appendix A discusses the public

comments received on Draft NUREG-1725;

Appendix B presents the Phase 1 detailed search

strategies and results; Appendix C presents the

Phase 2 additional resources; Appendix D lists

general information on soils; and Appendix E

identifies the NAL investigators. 
xiii

This page intentionally left blank.
xiv

FOREWORD

This technical report, NUREG-1725, was prepared

by the National Agricultural Library (NAL) staff and

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards. The NAL staff performed the

research work under an interagency agreement

(RES-99-005 JCN Y6227) with the NRC’s Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The report

provides information on the results of a

comprehensive information search related to soil

reuse. The NAL research study was undertaken

to support the NRC staff in its development of

technical bases for defining soil reuse scenarios. 

The NRC staff considered public comments

received on Draft NUREG-1725 in preparing this

final report.

It should be noted that this report is not a substitute

for NRC regulations, and compliance is not

required. The information search strategies and

findings documented in this NUREG-series

publication are provided for information only. The

U.S. Government does not warrant or assume any

legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness, or usefulness of any information,

apparatus, product, or process disclosed. Use of

product or trade names is for identification

purposes only and does not constitute

endorsement by the NRC or NAL. In addition, the

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) used to

identify Web sites referenced in this report were

valid as of the indicated date, or the publication

date of this report.

Farouk Eltawila, Director

Division of System Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The NAL and NRC staff responsible for compiling

this report, gratefully acknowledge Mr. Thomas E.

Smith, Team Leader, NRC Technical Library, and

his staff (particularly Mr. Charles Gorday) for their

assistance in obtaining many of the publications

listed in this report. Many of these reports and

articles were obtained through interagency loans,

and we acknowledge the excellent cooperation

between the NRC Technical Library staff and their

colleagues in the libraries of other Federal

agencies.

We also acknowledge the NAL information

researchers identified in Appendix E who

conducted the information searches, and the

external peer-reviewers chosen by NAL: Ms. Carla

Long Casler, University of Arizona; Dr. Rufus

Chaney, USDA/ARS; Mr. Eric Koglin, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Robert

Lacey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Dr.

Dewayne Mays, USDA/NRCS; and Ms. Carol

Reese, American Society of Civil Engineers.

In addition, we acknowledge the NRC publication

review staff (particularly Ms. Paula Garrity, a

Technical Editor in the NRC Office of the Chief

Information Officer), for their helpful reviews of the

manuscripts and suggestions on preparing this

report.

Finally, we acknowledge the diligent efforts of Mr.

Jon Peckenpaugh, NRC/NMSS, in Phase 1 of this

study. 
xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

ARS Agricultural Research Service (USDA)

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASM available soil moisture

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATTRA Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas

BLM Bureau of Land Management (DOI)

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CAB CAB International (formerly known as Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau)

CC category codes (a Dialog® operator)

CD compact disc

CD-ROM compact disc, read-only memory

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIS Congressional Information Systems

CISTI Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

DE descriptor (a Dialog® operator)

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DTIC Defense Technical Information Center

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)

FRN Federal Register notice

HAC Housing Assistance Council

IAA Interagency Agreement

IAALD International Association of Agricultural Librarians and Documentalists

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ID identifies (a Dialog® operator)

ISCORS Federal Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards

MSC Mulch and Soil Council (formerly known as the National Bark and Soil Producers

Association)

NAL National Agricultural Library (USDA)

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA)

NAWS National Agricultural Workers Survey
ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

xvii

NBSPA National Bark and Soil Producers Association (now known as the MSC)

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD)

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NMSS Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NRC)

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

NTIS National Technical Information Service (DOC)

OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

OECD Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RD Respirable Dust

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC)

RUSA Reference and User Services Association, American Library Association

SH subject headings (a Dialog® operator)

SM Statistical Masterfile

STIC Scientific and Technical Information Center

STN STN International

TI title (a Dialog® operator)

TNLA Texas Nursery & Landscape Association 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

URL Uniform Resource Locator

USAIN U.S. Agricultural Information Network

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

(F) field (a Dialog® proximity operator)

(N) near (a Dialog® proximity operator)

(S) subfield (a Dialog® proximity operator)

(W) with (a Dialog® proximity operator)
1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

On June 30, 1999, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) published, for public

comment, an issues paper indicating that the

agency was examining its approach for control of

solid material. Specifically, the issues paper

presented alternative courses of action for control

of solid materials that have very low amounts of,

or no, radioactivity. 

In August 2000, following public comment on the

issues paper, the NRC decided to defer its final

decision on whether to proceed with rulemaking

on control of solid materials while it requested a

study by the National Academies of possible

alternatives for control of slightly contaminated

materials. During the time that the National

Academy of Sciences study is ongoing, the

Commission directed its staff to continue

developing the technical information base

necessary to support a Commission policy

decision in this area. 

As part of this decisionmaking, it is useful to have

information for estimating the potential radiological

exposure that could occur if solid material is

removed from NRC-licensed facilities. This report

focuses on a particular solid material — soil1. 

As part of this ongoing effort, the NRC published for

public comment draft NUREG-1725, “Human

Interaction with Reused Soil: A Literature Search,”

in June 2000. A Federal Register notice (FRN)

published on July 19, 2000, announced the

availability of this draft and requested public

comments. 

1.2 Scope

This NUREG-series publication reports the results

of a 2-year information search focused on human

interactions with reused soils in the United Sates. 

This investigation sought to compile information

intended to support the formulation and

characterization of scenarios related to exposure

to residual radioactivity in reused soils. Developed

under an interagency agreement between the

NRC and the National Agricultural Library (NAL) of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), this report

documents the process and results of an

extensive literature review and focused

information search on human contact with soil. 

This report was issued in June 2000 as Draft

NUREG-1725, “Human Interaction with Reused

Soil: A Literature Search,” to solicit public

comments and additional information.

This report provides information on the ways in

which soils are reused in commerce (e.g.,

landscaping) or by the general public in the United

States. This information is an important part of

the technical basis for assessing the possible

exposures that could result if soil is released from

NRC-licensed facilities. Specifically, this

information will be used to develop soil reuse

scenarios for use in dose assessments. To

develop these scenarios, it is necessary to obtain

data on the forms of human contact with soils in

the United States. Using this information, the

NRC staff and contractors are working to define

realistic soil reuse scenarios and to estimate

parameters for simulating exposure pathways

involving soil removed from NRC-licensed

facilities. 

NRC staff and researchers from the NAL conducted

this investigation in two phases.

1As used in this report, “reused soil” means soil

at or originating from an NRC-licensed site (or Agreement

State-licensed site) that may contain small residual levels

of radioactivity.
2

For the initial literature search in Phase 1, the

information sources searched included the

Dialog® (an online system of more than 500

databases), the Internet, and other sources. With

support from NRC staff and external reviewers

(non-NAL library and information science and soil

science professionals), the NAL researchers

developed targeted search strategies to retrieve

relevant items from the Dialog® databases. 

These search strategies were structured to query

literature from science publishers, academic

presses, professional societies, trade journals and

bulletins, theses and dissertations, as well as

information published in industry standards,

newspapers, company reports, statistical

sources, etc. The Dialog® search was developed

by creating three main categories or concept sets,

including “General” (actions or activities of

humans with soils), “Particular” (specific identified

types of human-soil interactions), and ?Volume”

(volume, quantity, or economic terms that quantify

or delineate the extent of human contact with soil). 

In the Phase 1 effort, the researchers screened the

initial records found in the Dialog® database

searches for relevance to the scope of this

research effort. Through the detailed review of

these records by NAL and NRC researchers, a

total of 56 documents were identified as relevant.

In the Phase 2 effort, the emphasis was on

identifying information sources for formulating and

estimating parameters to be used in modeling soil

reuse scenarios involving potential human

exposures. This effort involved directed Internet

searches and telephone interviews of

knowledgeable experts in academia, industry, and

Government. The list of documents from the

Phase 1 effort was expanded by the Phase 2

results. 

This report supersedes Draft NUREG-1725 in

identifying information on ways in which soils are

reused in commerce or by the general public. 

This information will then be used in assessing the

possible exposures that could result if soil is

removed from NRC-licensed facilities. This

information will assist in developing a reasonably

complete characterization of relevant usages for

these reused soils. 

These soil reuse scenarios will include, but not be

limited to, soil processing, construction,

agriculture, and various commercial and

residential uses of reused soil and soil-related

products. A parallel effort by a Federal

interagency working group is examining exposure

scenarios related to use of sewage sludge and

ash. Although the sewage sludge project is

outside the scope of this report, the soil reuse

effort has been harmonized with it. 

NUREG-1725 is intended as input into the NRC’s

decisionmaking process, with respect to the

potential environmental impacts from reuse of

such soils. It also serves as a basis for identifying

site-specific scenarios for the purpose of dose

modeling. Although soil radioactivity was not

within the scope of the search, it is being

addressed in the NRC staff’s analysis of potential

exposure scenarios from soil reuse.

This report does not address acceptable disposition

of such soil materials, nor does it endorse any

particular commercial use of such material. 

1.3 Public Comments

In response to two FRNs issued on July 19 and

September 18, 2000, the NRC received 190 public

comments. A discussion of these comments

appears in Appendix A. Although many of the

comments were outside the scope of the draft

report, they will be considered in the NRC’s future

deliberations. 

1.4 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to identify the technical

basis and associated information sources for

characterizing the ways in which soils are reused

in commerce (e.g., landscaping) or by the general

public. This information can then be used in

assessing the potential radiation exposures that

could result if soil is removed from NRC-licensed
3

facilities.

As part of this technical basis, it was essential to

obtain available information on the reuse of

excavated soils in the United States. Using this

information, the NRC staff will conduct exposure

pathway modeling, which will reflect a realistic

range of potential scenarios consistent with

realistic reuses of soil.

This report describes the methodologies used in

developing the information search strategies and

in selecting the database sources. These

strategies and sources were reviewed by external

reviewers, whose comments are included in the

report. The primary focus of the work was to

identify documented, verifiable references for the

NRC staff. Therefore, the principal focus of this

study was to search the published literature. 

The information sources searched for this report

include the collections of the NAL; Dialog®, an

online system of more than 500 databases; the

Internet; and other sources. On the basis of the

surveyed literature, the NAL staff made

recommendations to the NRC staff, who selected

a subset of the documents for further analysis. 

These documents are listed in Table 4.2.

1.5 Content of this Report

Section 1 presents the motivation for the research

study, background information, scope and

intended purpose. Section 2 identifies the

information categories sought for characterizing

soil reuse and environmental pathways. Section 3

details the information search process for the two

research phases. Section 4 presents the Phase 1

initial literature search strategy, literature and

Internet sources identified and results. Section 5

details the focused information search identifying

U.S. and international information sources, and

Web sites. Section 6 outlines the quality

assurance and quality control plan. Section 7

summarizes the significant findings of the 2-year

research. Section 8 provides a listing of

references that were cited throughout the report. 

Appendices to this report provide more detailed

information: Appendix A discusses the public

comments received on Draft NUREG-1725;

Appendix B presents the Phase 1 detailed search

strategies and results; Appendix C presents the

Phase 2 additional resources; Appendix D lists

general information on soils; and Appendix E

identifies the NAL investigators. 
4

This page intentionally left blank.
5

2. INFORMATION CATEGORIES CHARACTERIZING SOIL REUSE SCENARIOS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS

2.1 Introduction

This research is intended to yield information for use

in characterizing the ways in which soils are

reused in commerce or by the general public. 

This information can then be used in assessing

the possible exposures that could result if NRC

licensees seek to release soil with very small

amounts of, or no, radioactivity during routine

operations. For example, NRC licensees might

seek to release excess soil during construction

and regrading activities. In order to assess

potential exposures, analysts will need the

information cited in this report in order to

characterize soil reuse scenarios and

environmental pathways. 

There is considerable complexity in defining

information needs for characterizing and

assessing soil reuse scenarios and environmental

pathways because of the broad diversity of NRC

and Agreement State licensees, and the nature of

the case-by-case approach to evaluate and

approve the removal of soils from these diverse

regulated facilities.

2.2 Soil Reuse Scenarios

Soil reuse scenarios include, but are not limited to,

agriculture, landscaping, soil processing,

construction, and recreational activities. These

scenarios were identified by the NRC staff

following review of the Phase 1 literature search

results. The NRC staff anticipated that these

scenarios reflect most of the human interactions

with reused soils. Depending upon the specific

exposure scenario to be modeled, relevant

information may include such aspects as human

contact time, soil composition, number of people

interacting with reused soil, and volumes of soils

(see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Typical Parameters Used to 

Characterize Soil Reuse Scenarios

Number of people interacting with soil 

Proximity of people to reused soil 

Range of hours per day spent in close proximity

to soil

Range of days per year in contact with reused

soil 

Volume of soil involved in the activity

Breathing rate per hour

Daily water consumption

Indigenous fruits and vegetables consumed

Range of dust sizes and amount inhaled

Site-specific climatic and geographical

characteristics (e.g., growing season)

Soil composition (e.g., % of soil additives)

Note: Although soil radioactivity was not within the scope of

the search, it is being addressed in the NRC staff’s

analysis of potential exposure scenarios for soil reuse.

Information cited in this report can be used to model

soil reuse scenarios (such as construction

backfilling around a residence), and activities of

the people living in the residence (such as

landscaping), could be used to define a “rural

resident scenario.” Additional aspects of scenario

formulation include the detailed interactions of

humans with the reused soil to define exposure

pathways. 

Table 2.2 identifies a range of possible human

activities involving reused soils. The NAL and

NRC staff investigators used these categories to

organize their information search strategies on

how soil may be reused and to collect specific
6

details on how people may come into contact with

it. This table was useful in guiding the information

search and organizing the parameter studies (see

Section 5).

During the information search, as more information

became available on current reuses of soil,

parameters such as those listed in Tables 2.1 and

2.2 were being sought for the scenarios. Section

5 presents detailed discussions concerning these

parameters and the related search findings. 

These tables proved to be useful dynamic tools,

which evolved during the iterative search process. 

Table 2.2 Possible Human Activities 

Involving Reused Soils 

Greenhouse production

Farm and field agriculture

Landscaping 

Soil processing 

Construction

Transportation

Landfills

Recreational 1

1 Note: This scenario was not researched in detail, since

the Phase 1 literature indicated that the landscape

workers preparing and maintaining the recreational

venues would be the most likely individuals to spend the

most time and be in routine close proximity to the reused

soil. 

2.3 Environmental Pathways

In order to analyze the exposure scenarios, it is

necessary to identify the pathways by which

humans come into contact with the reused soil. 

For example, for gardening activities within the

suburban scenario, exposure pathways would

include inhalation, ingestion of vegetables or fruits,

inadvertent ingestion of soil, and external

exposure.

The complete scenario may have more than one set

of exposure pathways, depending on the expected

activities of the residents. For example, the

resident may have a home office or bedroom in

the basement, with the associated external

exposure pathway from soil used as backfill. 

Therefore, the search included information on all

of the applicable pathways, including intake

quantities and exposure times.

Figure 1, adapted from the user’s manual for

RESRAD Version 6 (Yu et al., 2001) portrays

these potential environmental pathways for human

exposure. NUREG-1725 provides information

sources (generic and specific) for formulating and

estimating parameters for modeling soil reuse

exposures using a multimedia environmental dose

assessment model such as RESRAD. 
7

 

Figure 1. 

Exposure

Pathways

Considere

d in

RESRAD

(Yu et al.,

2001)
8

This page intentionally left blank.
9

3. INFORMATION RESEARCH PROCESS

3.1 Introduction

This study was conducted in two distinct phases. 

The first phase was a broad sweep of the

published literature to review the extent and nature

of information sources documenting human

interactions with reused soil. The second phase

of the study focused on identifying information

resources for the specific parameters listed in

Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

Bibliographic databases were the primary

information resource searched in Phase 1. The

structured nature of the databases allowed for

development of a highly structured research

approach. Both the approach and results were

thoroughly reviewed. Phase 1 results indicated a

paucity of systematic studies on human

interactions with reused soil in the published

literature. 

As a result of the Phase 1 findings, the research

approach for Phase 2 was modified. Specifically,

Phase 2 searched broader information resources,

relying to a lesser extent on bibliographic

databases and to a greater extent on the Internet

and direct contact with experts and industry

representatives. These contacts were often used

as an integral part of the quality assurance

(QA)/quality control (QC) for the Phase 2 study,

which by its nature was not formally structured. 

3.2 Interagency Agreement

The research project began in July 1999 with

exploratory meetings held at NAL. The research

scope, mutuality of interest, and staff expertise

were established by all parties at these meetings. 

The understanding that was reached was

formalized through an interagency agreement

(IAA) dated August 20, 1999, which spelled out the

scope of the project in detail. 

As stated in the IAA, the objectives were to (1)

conduct focused information searches to support

the formulation and characterization of scenarios

related to reuse of soils removed from NRClicensed facilities, (2) develop a draft NUREG

report for public comment on the literature

findings, and (3) produce a final NUREG report

documenting the search results. In summary, the

information sought in this study was a reasonably

complete characterization of relevant soil reuse. 

The NRC staff will use this information to

characterize exposures to soils that may be

excavated and transported from NRC-licensed

facilities for use in commerce or by the general

public.

3.3 Phase 1 Methodology

Information research is conducted in iterative stages

beginning with an initial problem statement. In the

next stage of the process, information

professionals create search strategies and select

databases and other information resources. Next,

the strategies are run against the selected

databases and the initial results are analyzed for

relevancy and completeness. The initial results

are then reviewed with the client to elicit feedback. 

The process then repeats, beginning with

refinements to the search strategy and database

selection. 

For example, the NRC staff was interested in

quantitative information on temporary and longterm storage of soil. A search strategy was

constructed to first gather records that contained

one or more of the terms: soil, soils, or dirt (soil or

soils or dirt). Next a search was constructed to

gather records containing one or more of the

terms: storage, storing, dispose, disposed,

disposal (storage or store or dispos???). Then

the two sets of records are combined and filtered

using the Boolean operator ?and” — [(soil or soils

or dirt) and (storage or store or dispos???)]. Only

those records containing terms from both sets

pass through the filter. This collection of filtered
10

records is called a concept set. Please refer to

Appendix B for an in depth discussion on

information retrieval methods and strategies used

in this study.

On the basis of discussions between the NRC and

NAL staffs, sets of search strategies were initially

created and organized into three broad conceptual

categories, including general concepts, particular

scenarios, and volumetric studies. The early

strategies were reviewed with the NRC staff. 

Additional terms were added to the strategies, and

the concept sets were ranked and prioritized at

that time (see Table 4.1).

Over the next 6 weeks, the strategies were run

against selected databases, and record titles were

downloaded and shared with the NRC staff for

their review and selection. The NRC staff actively

participated through telephone, electronic mail,

and face-to-face meetings.

The literature search strategies were structured to

query literature from science publishers,

academic presses, professional societies, trade

journals and bulletins, theses and dissertations,

as well as information published in industry

standards, newspapers, company reports, and

statistical sources.

3.3.1 Phase 1 Internal Review Process

A team of information professionals was assembled

to work collaboratively on the NRC project (see

Appendix E). The team reviewed the primary

search strategies with the NAL principal

investigator responsible for comprehensive

search retrieval. Based on team comments,

search strategies were refined prior to final

execution.

The comprehensive searches conducted in the

Phase 1 study were designed to retrieve all

potentially relevant literature. This process

retrieved a large number of titles for consideration. 

The large number of items retrieved through the

comprehensive search is partly attributable to the

inclusion, within the search strategy, of

nonspecific terms (such as “use”) that occur

frequently within bibliographic records. To

facilitate NRC staff and external review, the team

used the following three modifications of the

primary search methodology to further refine and

reduce the total number of titles retrieved and to

improve overall relevancy:

(1) The strategies were made more selective for

example by using field limitations (see

Appendix B, Section B.2.21). 

(2) Databases selected for searching were

focused on 10 to15 highly productive files.

(3) NAL staff reviewed the primary search results

and pre-selected titles for the draft letter

report.

Selected results in the Phase 1 draft letter report,

along with files containing the complete

comprehensive search findings were provided to

the NRC staff. A second round of selections were

made by the NRC staff for the Phase 1 final

report.

3.3.2 Phase 1 Reports and Products

NRC staff selected candidate titles for

further consideration. Complete bibliographic

citation2 information were retrieved for these

candidate titles. When available the citation

information included abstracts. The additional

information enabled the NRC staff to perform a

second round of selections for Draft NUREG1725.

Bibliographic citations include information about

book and journal titles, volumes, page numbers,

and publication dates. Using this information,

copies of full-text reports can be obtained by

request from libraries, bookstores, Government

2

 Use of the term citation throughout this report

refers solely to information describing publication

authorship and source. The term is not used in any legal

or regulatory sense.
11

agencies, publishers, or other access providers.

Database providers typically charge customers for

complete bibliographic citation access. For the

purposes of this project, it was not cost-effective

in the Phase 1 comprehensive search. It was

mutually agreed that NAL would provide in the

Phase 1 final letter report dated November 1999,

complete citation information for each of the NRC

staff selections. 

The draft letter report, dated November 1999,

included the following information:

!instructions to and list of external reviewers

!comprehensive search strategy concept sets

!bibliography of selected titles

Although the primary focus of the IAA between NAL

and the NRC was to locate citable information

from peer-reviewed published literature, it was

also agreed that NAL would search the Internet. 

Preliminary results were cited in the Phase 1 draft

letter report. A more thorough search of the

Internet was conducted in the Fall of 1999. The

results of these searches were given to the NRC

staff in a notebook identified as a “Supplement to

the Draft Letter Report.” 

A final letter report, concluding the work for Phase 1,

was provided to the NRC staff in November 1999. 

This final letter report was revised and then

published as Draft NUREG-1725 in June 2000.

3.4 Phase 2 Methodology

The NRC team reviewed the Phase 1 research

findings and evaluated the information needs for a

dose assessment analysis. The NRC staff then

ranked those Information needs for anticipated

exposure to reused soil and priority of information

needed. Agricultural and landscape workers were

ranked high in both categories.

In March 2001, a larger team of NAL information

research specialists was called upon to study the

specific parameters identified by the NRC staff. 

Meetings were held with NAL, NRC staff, and

contractors at timely intervals. At these meetings,

progress was reviewed and strategies were

refined.

Specific goals for the Phase 2 study were: (1) to

identify citable references and sources with

quantitative data related to the reuse of soil; (2) to

query scientists, extension specialists, and

business representatives about actual practices;

and to provide examples of typical data that might

be used in future modeling.

A broader research approach was necessary for the

Phase 2 objectives. Phase 2 researchers

conducted initial literature searches for their

assigned parameters using techniques similar to

those described in the Phase 1 study. The Phase

2 literature searches identified information

sources, experts, and empirical observations.

In addition to conducting literature searches, NAL

researchers consulted Government Web sites for

statistical information and relevant standards and

regulations. Professional and trade organization

Web sites were reviewed as well. These

searches yielded many valuable resources. In the

absence of published studies, indirect sources

were sought. These indirect sources were

studies where the main objective was not soil

reuse but could provided related information for

estimating parameter values. This information

was found in published papers, through extensive

Internet searches, and by telephone and email

interviews with academic and industry experts.

Typical data were extracted from these diverse

information sources and are presented in Section

5. Wherever possible two or more sources were

compared. Finally, scientists, extension agents,

industry representatives and other professionals

were consulted as a final validation for the

reported trends and data.

The NRC staff contributed additional information

resources through independently conducted

Internet searches, professional contacts, and a
12

review of national and international regulatory

statutes and standards. The NRC staff

concentrated on parameters relating to civil

engineering, and transportation. NRC staff results

are included in Section 5.6 of this report.

3.4.1 Phase 2 Review Process

Two factors that significantly impacted the Phase 2

review process were (1) the diverse and

unstructured nature of the information resources

on the Internet, and (2) the lack of directly relevant

published studies. Therefore, the Phase 2 internal

review processes relied upon independent

validation between anecdotal references and

consultation with experts as described above.

In Phase 1 the external peer-review process

concentrated on a review of the research process. 

In Phase 2, the external peer-review dealt primarily

with the technical content and interpretation of the

overall study. Section 6 describes the external

peer review for this study.

3.4.2 Phase 2 Reports and Products

A briefing for NRC staff was held at the NAL on

August 30, 2001. At the briefing, the Phase 2 draft

letter report documenting the major findings of the

Phase 2 study was presented. NAL and NRC

staff working together used the letter report which

was finalized on October 5, 2001 to produce this

final version of NUREG-1725. The report 

summarizes 2 years of research to establish a

knowledge base of information sources about

human interactions with reused soil. It brings

together the first-of-its-kind research findings from

both NAL and NRC information research

processes.

 
13

4. PHASE 1: INITIAL LITERATURE SEARCH

4.1 Strategy Development

In July 1999, the NRC staff contacted NAL to explore

the possibility of having NAL staff assist the NRC

in developing comprehensive search strategies to

locate and document citable sources covering

every aspect of soil use that might be applicable to

the release of soils from NRC-licensed sites.

Specifically, the NRC staff asked the NAL staff to

document the scope of this broad topic area by

conducting a general survey of the NAL collection

through its AGRICOLA database and other

databases available from Dialog®, a system of

more than 500 databases covering science,

technology, business, news, and other categories. 

This initial survey yielded well over two million

records that contained the terms ?soil” or ?soils”,

or ?dirt” or ?earthen” in the title or as subject

keywords. Further examination of the records

indicated that the vast majority of the records were

not relevant for the NRC project. After detailed

discussions with the NRC staff, NAL developed

targeted search strategies to retrieve relevant

items. 

 

NAL also established general parameters to define

the scope of the searches. For example, all

literature published on relevant topics going back

as far as 1970 was sought. English language

literature was specified, although non-U.S.

publishers were not excluded. In addition, the

parameters excluded items covering normal soil

testing operations for plant nutrients, pH, cation

exchange capacity (CEC), bulk density, etc. 

To stay within NRC-specified parameters, NAL

defined two additional exclusions. First, because

the soils would remain in the United States, export

data on potting soil, for example, was not sought. 

Second, because the focus involved the use or

treatment of soil removed from a native site,

studies treating soils in normal farming and

agricultural settings were not searched. Further,

because even these targeted searches retrieved

thousands of items, it was agreed that the initial

report of search results would be limited to record

titles only. This abbreviated title format allowed

the NRC staff to scan records and select specific

items for complete citation access and further

review.

Initial work on strategy concept development and

term selection was based on concepts and terms

presented by the NRC in the statement of work for

this project. These basic concepts and terms

were extended on the basis of NAL staff expertise

with soil science topics and operations and with

natural resource literature. The search strategies

developed by the NAL principal investigator were

internally reviewed and then shared with the NRC

staff. The preliminary terms and delimiters were

incorporated in the search strategy and concept

set constructions. This established priority

rankings before complete searches and title

downloads were executed. The final search

strategies used are shown in Appendix B.

4.2 Database Selection Process 

Database selection began using the DIALINDEX®

file from Dialog® to identify databases that

contained records with specified search terms

and showed the numbers of records that would be

retrieved by those terms in each database. The

databases available from Dialog® may be

grouped in the DIALINDEX® system into subject

and source categories, including ?allscience” (258

files), ?allbusiness” (348 files), and ?allnews” (160

files). Relevant databases were initially selected

for search by reviewing the number of items

posted for each concept set. These major subject

categories together comprise more than 470

unique database files3 (many files are included in

more than one of the aforementioned categories). 

3 DIALINDEX® includes most but not all of the files

available through the Dialog Corporation.
14

Counts of items retrieved from each database for

all the defined concept sets were the initial results

used in database selection. 

Databases with significant item counts were further

analyzed for sources of records, scope of subject

coverage, and time span of records included. The

general project parameters were used in the

database selection process. The following

databases were excluded:

!business, science, and news databases focused

outside North America

!business databases focused on personnel and

management topics

!business databases focused on stocks, corporate

finance and mergers

!newspaper databases from locations other than

North America

!newspaper databases4

 added to Dialog® after

1990

!science databases for non-subject topics

(biotechnology, computer science and

programming, mathematics).

From the more than 470 unique databases in the

major groups surveyed for file inclusion, 200

databases were specifically selected and actually

utilized in this study. The database file names

with their associated Dialog® file numbers, dates

of record inclusion, and updates are shown in

Appendix B. 

For specific concept sets (Section 4.3 and Appendix

B), major category groups of database files were

sometimes excluded. For example, most

business files were not searched for soil material

flow or soil remediation/reclamation methods, and

economics terms were not searched in all

science databases. 

Other file selection decisions were made after initial

search efforts, including the decision that patent

databases would not be included. NAL and NRC

staff agreed that patents involving soil with impact

in terms of soil-human interactions would likely be

documented in other business, science, or news

database files. This was shown to be the case in

several specific instances, with patents retrieved

from these other sources.

Although database files focused specifically on

geographic areas outside the United States or

Canada were generally excluded, much literature

from non-U.S. examples of soil-human

interactions was retrieved. Items selected by the

NRC staff included citations treating soil topics

involving Chernobyl and other non-U.S. activity

sites and non-U.S. publishing locations. 

Index databases for newspapers covering multiple

titles and wire service index files were also

searched for many topics, as well as popular

literature index databases such as Magazine

Index® and Reader's Guide®, covering generally

nontechnical sources. Specific databases

included for the searches for each concept set are

shown in Appendix B.

The concept sets developed to search the literature

are organized into three strategy groups, each of

which contains three or more specific concept

sets, as listed in the next section. Appendix B

presents the detailed strategy statements, with

notes that describe the concept set purposes and

the terms, codes, and Dialog® commands that

appear in the search statements and database

selections. Proximity operators that are shown

were sometimes adjusted to increase stringency

during final retrieval operations from the initially

approved strategy sets to improve the overall

relevancy of the results.

Dialog® databases are structured information

resources. Each database has specific fields

such as descriptors (DE), identifiers (ID),

4 Recently added newspaper files were generally

local papers. Major stories carried in local papers are also

covered through national wire services that were already

included among the databases searched.
15

abstracts (AB), and others included in the basic

index for each file. Searches retrieve records in

which a term is found in any basic index field

unless particular fields are listed in the search

command to limit retrieval. When it is desired that

a term appears only in one or more specific fields,

the syntax ?term / f1, f2, f3”, etc., may be used,

with selected term tags (DE, ID, etc.) entered after

?term/” , in place of ?f1, f2, f3”. 

Dialog® allows other sophisticated search and

retrieval commands. Those called proximity

commands are based on relative locations

between terms or parenthetically nested groups of

terms. Standard Boolean logic commands may

be utilized to further specify retrieved item

characteristics. Boolean set 5 combination

commands include “and,” “or,” and “not.” These

operators link terms or groups of terms in a

search statement by requiring their respective

occurrence to either “must be”, “may be,” or “must

not be,” included in records retrieved.

4.3 Literature Survey

The literature survey was organized into three broad

categories for searching, including general

(labeled G), particular (labeled P), and volumetric

or quantitative (labeled V). Detailed descriptions

of the actual search strategies, notes on the

Dialog® command syntax, and databases

selected for each set are presented in Appendix B. 

Refer to Appendix B for a complete listing of the

files searched for their file names and coverage

dates. 

4.3.1 Search Category G (General)

Search category G was designed to discover any

activities reporting how humans use soil. The

terms used in these sets were broad and

nonspecific. The group contained six sets that

examined concepts including commercial material

flow, storage, processing, general use, and

Government publications. Altogether, the six

concept sets retrieved a total of 21,310 items for

NRC staff review.

4.3.2 Search Category P (Particular)

At the outset of the research project, certain

scenarios describing human uses of excavated

soils were known. Search category P was

designed to retrieve records relating to these

known scenarios. Scenarios in the category

relate to construction uses; pottery; recreational

uses; dust; potting, garden, and topsoil; and so

forth. Search category P comprised 11 concept

sets and retrieved 27,296 records for NRC staff

review.

4.3.3 Search Category V (Volume)

Parameter information needed for dose modeling

studies includes contact time, number of people

involved, volumes of soil, and so forth. Search

category V was designed to discover relevant

parameter information. The sets searched for

information relating to soil as a commodity,

transportation of soils, and statistical information. 

Search category V comprised three concepts sets

and retrieved a total of 29,271 records for NRC

staff review.

4.4 Extent of Available 

Literature

From more than two million database records

initially found in surveys of Dialog® databases,

approximately 78,000 titles were provided to the

NRC staff for review. Table 4.1 summarizes the

number of titles retrieved for each concept set. 

Additional information on search methodology and

search results is provided in Appendix B.

After NRC staff reviewed titles from the exhaustive

literature search results, selections were made for

obtaining complete citation information. Using this

5

 A Boolean set refers to terms or groups of terms

that are connected using Boolean operators (i.e., “and,”

“not,” “or”). 
16

information, the NRC staff selected 269 specific

items for further review and detailed study. NAL

compiled a complete bibliographic listing of these

selected items for the Phase 1 final letter report. 

Table 4.2 includes the final selections by the NRC

staff, plus additional citations identified following

the Phase 1 literature search which were reported

in the Draft NUREG-1725. 
17

Table 4.1 Summary of Concept Set Findings

Concept Set a Total Bytes Total Records

G1 Soil use 2,992,239 12,424

G2 Soil material flow 116,521 502

G3 Soil process (not soil forming) 146,378 719

G4 Human contact with soil 825,283 2,404

G5 Storing soil 1,082,646 4,966

G6 Soil Publications from applicable Federal 

 agencies

64,237 295

P1 Golf courses and sods 30,172 150

P2 Reclamation methods 1,014,986 5,143

P3 Soil dust 118,490 516

P4 Earthmoving and soil use in construction fill 

 and rammed earth

697,177 3,388

P5-6 Soil in walls, dams, berms and dikes 3,124,201 14,199

P7 Adobe 34,755 177

P8 Pottery production and potting clay 27,035 152

P10 Soil erosion rates b 42,236 39

P11 Potting soil and bagged or bulk soil 669,537 3,254

P12 Topsoil 134,414 278

V1 Soil economics, business activities 2,295,349 9,363

V2 Statistical and numeric data for soils 654,653 2,745

V3 Soil transportation 837,839 17,163

Total 19 concept set results 14,908,148 77,877

a

 No relevant material was found in concept set P9 (detrital materials).

b

 Related materials from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS/USDA) Web pages and links were also provided.
18

Table 4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections

100 Area Hanford soil washing treatability tests.

Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA, Department of Energy environmental remediation conference,

Augusta, GA (United States), 24–28 Oct 1993,Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 10 p., September

1993.

100 Area soil washing: Bench scale tests on 116-F-4 pluto crib soil.

Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 95 p., June 10, 1994.

137Cs mobility in soils and its long-term effect on the external radiation exposure.

Bunzl -K, Jacob -P, Schimmack -W, Alexakhin -RM, Arkhipov -NP, Ivanov -Y, Kruglov -SV, Radiation and

Environmental Biophysics, 36(1): 31-7, February 1997. 

Absorption of radiocesium by sheep after ingestion of contaminated soils.

Cooke -AI, Weekes -TEC, Green -N, Wilkins -BT, Rimmer -DL, Beresford -NA, Fenwick -JD, Science of the

Total Environment, 192(1): 21–29, October 8, 1996.

Alternatives for management of wastes generated by the formerly utilized sites remedial action

program and supplement.

Gilbert -TL, Peterson -JM, Vocke -RW, Alexander -JK, Argonne National Lab., IL (USA) Department of

Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, TN, 39 p., March 1983. 

Ash: A valuable resource. Volume 4. Ash handling/transportation-roads-engineering fill-marketing.

Assessing inhalation exposure from airborne soil contaminants.

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria (South Africa). Presented at Council for Scientific and

Industrial Research Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa, February 2–6, 1987.

Assessing inhalation exposure from airborne soil contaminants.

Shinn -JH, U.S. DOE, Washington, DC, Report No. UCRL-ID-130570, 9 p., April 1, 1998. 

Bark and soil producers product index. 

Lee -SY, Tamura -T, Larsen - IL, National Bark and Soil Producers Association (NBSPA) Membership

Directory, pp. 19-21, NBSPA, Manassas, VA, 1998. 

Biological and chemical tests of contaminated soils to determine bioavailability and environmentally

acceptable endpoints (EAE).

Montgomery -CR, Menzie -CA, Pauwells -SJ., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

17th Annual meeting—Abstract book, “Partnerships for the environment: Science, education, and policy,

November 17-21, 1996, Washington, DC”, p 198–199, SETAC, 378p., Pensacola, FL, 1996.

Building with adobe brick.

Masterson -R, Studio Potter, 4 (2): 54–58, 1975.
Table 4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections (continued)

19

Calculation of soil cleanup criteria for carcinogenic volatile organic compounds as controlled by the

soil-to-indoor air exposure pathway. 

Sanders -PF, Stern -AH, Environmental-Toxicology-and-Chemistry, 13(8): 1367–1373, 1994.

Characteristics of radionuclide-contaminated soils from the Sedan crater area at the Nevada test

site. 

Lee -SY, Tamura -T, Larsen -IL, Essington -EH, Soil Science, 144(2): 113–121, August 1987. 

Chemical contaminants in house dust: Occurrences and sources. 

Battelle, Columbus, OH; Environmetrics, Inc., Seattle, WA; Engineering Plus, Seattle, WA, Funded by

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Atmospheric Research and Exposure

Assessment Laboratory, 8 p., 1993.

Clean slate transportation and human health risk assessment. 

Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, 60 p., 1997. 

Critical pathways of radionuclides to man from agro-ecosystems. Annual progress report October

1980–September 1981.

Smith -MH, Alberts -JJ, Adriano -DC, McLeod -KW, Pinder -JE, III, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 50 p.,

April 1982. 

Dermal exposure assessment: Principles and applications. Interim rept. 

Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA; Funded by Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, 392 p., January 1992.

Determination of transfer coefficients for 137Cs and 60Co in a slime-soil-grassland ecosystem.

Handl -J, Kuehn -W, Health Physics, 38(4): 703–705, April 1980. 

Directory of principal construction sand and gravel producers in the United States in 1997.

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Industry Surveys, pp 1–12, Reston, VA, March

1999.

EPA engineering bulletins: current treatment and site remediation technologies.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Bulletin, Government Institutes, Inc., 172 p., 1993. 

Establishment and maintenance of grassed sports fields - experience from a field experiment on soil

construction alternatives. [Original title: Sportgrasytors etablering och skotsel - erfarenheter fran ett

markbyggnadsforsok.] 

Karlsson - IM, Rapporter-fran-Jordbearbetningsavdelningen, No. 89, Department of Soil Sciences, Swedish

University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 94 p.,1996.

Federal focus: Army base recycles contaminated soil for pavement.

Mouche -C, Pollution Engineering, 31(1): 39–40, January 1999.
Table 4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections (continued)

20

Field measurement of dermal soil loadings in occupational and recreational activities.

Holmes - KK Jr., Shirai -JH, Richter -KY, Kissel - JC, Environmental Research, 80(2 Pt 1): 148–57, February

1999.

First Energy and Barnes Nursery create soils technology, LLC.

Business Wire, Akron, OH, p. 7021143, July 2, 1998.

Fugitive dust emissions from construction haul roads.

Struss -SR, Mikuck i -WJ, Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL, 53 p., 1977.

Geochemistry and mineralogy of soils eaten by humans.

Aufreite -RS, Hancock -RGV, Mahaney -WC, Stambolic -RA, Sanmugadas -K, 

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 48(5): 293–305, 1977.

Hazardous soil to be used in paving mix.

Civil Engineering News 5(4): 29, Civil Engineering News, Marietta, GA, 1993.

The interactions of low-level, liquid radioactive wastes with soils: 1. Behavior of radionuclides in

soil-waste systems.

Fowler -EB, Essington -EH, Polzer -WL, Soil Science, 132 (1): 2–12, July 1981.

The interactions of low-level, liquid radioactive wastes with soils: 2. Differences in radionuclide

distribution among four surface soils. 

Essington -EH, Fowler -EB, Polzer -WL, Soil Science, 132 (1): 13–18, July 1981. 

The interactions of low-level, liquid radioactive wastes with soils: 3. Interactions of waste

radionuclides with soil from horizons of two soil series. 

Polzer -WL, Fowler -EB, Essington-EH, Soil Science 132, (1): 19–24, July 1981. 

Introduction to symposium 19: construction and use of artificial soils.

Koolen -AJ, Rossignol -JP, Kutilek -M (ed.), Horn -R (ed.), Clothier -BE (ed.), State-of- the-art in soil physics

and in soil technology of anthrophic soils, Proceedings of the World Congress of Soil Science, Montpellier,

France, 20–26 August 1998, Soil and Tillage Research 47(1-2): 151–155, 1998.

Issues of risk assessment and its utility in development of soil standards: the 503 methodology an

example.

Ryan -JA, Chaney -RL, Issues of Risk Assessment and Its Utility in Development of Soil Standards: The 503

Methodology as an Example, in Prost -R (ed), Contaminated Soils: Proceedings of International Conference

on the Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements, Paris, France, May 15–19, 1995, pp. 393–413, Colloque No. 85,

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 525 p., Versailles, France, 1997. 

Large-scale adobe-brick manufacturing in New Mexico.

Smith -EW, Circular - New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, (182): 49–56, 1982.
Table 4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections (continued)

21

Lead in paint, soil and dust: health risks, exposure studies, control measures, measurement

methods, and quality assurance. 

Beard -ME, Iske -SDA, (eds), 1993 Boulder Conference on Lead in Paint, Soil and Dust, Boulder, Colorado, 

July 25–29 1993, ASTM STP 1226, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Conshohocken, PA,

422 p., 1995.

Marketing organic soil products.

LaGasse -R, BioCycle, 33(3): 30–33, March 1992.

Methodology to estimate the amount and particle size of soil ingested by children: implications for

exposure assessment at waste sites.

Calabrese -EJ, Stanek -EJ, Barnes -R, Regulatory Toxicolology and Pharmacology, 24(3): 264–268,

December 1996.

A Native American exposure scenario.

Harris -SG, Harper -BL, Risk Analysis, 17(6): 789–95, December 1997.

National Research Council study targets US soil programs.

National Research Council, AGROW World Crop Protection News, (198):13, December 17, 1993. 

Off-Site Radiation Exposure Review Project: Phase 2 Soils Program, Revision.

Water Resources Center, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, Department of Energy

Publication DOENV1038423Rev, Funded by U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 206 p.,

December 1989.

On the effect of probability distributions of input variables in public health risk assessment.

Hamed -MM, Bedient -PB, Risk Analysis, 17(1): 97–105, February 1997.

Probabilistic prediction of exposures to arsenic contaminated residential soil. 

Lee -RC, Kissel -JC, Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 17( 4): 159–168, 1995.

Radiation exposure from radionuclides in ground water: An uncertainty analysis for selected

exposure scenarios.

Prohl -G, Muller -H, Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 35(3): 205–218, August 1996. 

Remediation of uranium-contaminated soils using uranium extractants and microbial uranium

reduction.

Lovley -DR, Landa -ER, Phillips -EJP, Woodward -JC, 203rd American Chemical Society (ACS) National

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 5–10 April 1992, pp. 8688-8690, American Chemical Society, Washington,

DC, 2442 p., 1992.
Table 4.2 Phase 1 Final Literature Selections (continued)

22

Resuspension in contaminated soils by the Chernobyl Accident [Original Title: Resuspension en suelos

contaminados por el accidente de Chernobyl]. 

Martinez Serrano -J, Espinosa Canal -A, Aragon del Valle -A, Radioprotection, 5: 104–115, 1997.

Sand and organic amendment influences on soil physical properties related to turf establishment.

McCoy -EL, Agronomy-Journal, 90(3): 411–419, 1998.

Soil ingestion by humans: A review of history, data, and etiology with application to risk assessment

of radioactively contaminated soil.

Simon -SL, Health Physics, 74(6): 647–72, June 1998. 

Soil ingestion issues and recommendations. 

Calabrese -EJ, Stanek -EJ, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 

Environmental Science and Engineering, 29(3): 517–530, 1994.

Soil recycle and transportation model.

Hanzawa -Y, Matsuda -T, Nomura -K, Research for Tomorrow's Transport Requirements: Proceedings of the

World Conference on Transport Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 1: 717–732,. Vancouver

Centre for Transportation Studies, Vancouver, Canada, 1986.

Soil washing physical separations test procedure - 300-FF-1 operable unit.

Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA, Funded by Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 

117 p., October 8, 1993.

Statistical uncertainties in predicting plutonium dose to lung and bone from contaminated soils.

Garten -CT, Jr., Health Physics, 39(1): 99–103, July 1980. 

Technical basis for establishing environmentally acceptable endpoints in contaminated soils.

Nakles -DV, Linz -DG, Proceedings of the SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environmental Conference:

Government and Industry Working Together to Find Cost-Effective Approaches 

to Protecting the Environment, Houston, TX, 27-29 March 1995, pp. 9–18, Society of Petroleum Engineers,

Richardson, TX, 797 p., 1995.

Testing soil mixed with waste or recycled materials

Wasemiller -MA, Hoddinott -KB (eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Testing Soil Mixed with Waste

or Recycled Materials Conference, New Orleans, LA, January 16–17, 1997, ASTM Special Technical

Publication 1275, American Society of Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA, 327 p., September 1997. 

Uncertainty and variability in human exposures to soil contaminants through home-grown food: a 

Monte Carlo assessment.

McKone -TE, Risk Analysis, 14(4): 449–463, August 1994.
23

Use of recycled soil for the regeneration of contaminated land.

Fleming -G, Thomson -L, Contaminated Soil '93: Fourth International KfK/TNO Conference on Contaminated

Soil, Berlin, Germany, May 3–7, 1993, Arend -F, Annokkee - GJ, Bosman -R, van den Brink - WJ (eds.),

pp. 871-880, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, 1993.

Utilization of fly ash for stabilization/solidification of heavy metal contaminated soils.

Dermatas - D, Meng -X, Advanced Power Assessment for Czech lignite, Task 3.6, Part 2, Sondreal -EA, Mann

-MD, Weber -GW, Young -BC (eds), pp. 563–581, North Dakota University, Grand Forks, ND, 774 p.,

December 1995.

We're in the soils business, remember!

Toffey -WE, BioCycle, 39(12): 57–61, December 1998.

Whole Earth let 'em eat dirt— human and animal earth-eating behavior.

Abel -A, Saturday Night, 113(5): 27–28, June 1998.

4.5 Internet Searches

Acknowledging the importance of this project and

the complexity of the information retrieval, NRC

and NAL staffs decided to scan additional

information sources. The primary purpose of the

Phase 1 scanning was to give the NRC staff an

overview of the availability, extent, and nature of

these resources. These explorations were not

exhaustive because the Internet is unstructured,

diverse and ephemeral. The NRC staff agreed

with this approach because of their high-priority

requirement for citable sources from the literature

as the primary product.

Additional information research included Internet

searches using selected search engines and

specific databases available via the Web, NAL

networked resources, and database resources

available from the library system of the University

of Maryland at College Park. The NAL staff also

explored and reviewed items obtained by

searching the Defense Technical Information

Center Web site, and statistical databases, called

“Statistical MasterFile”, on compact disc (CD)

from Congressional Information Systems (CIS). 

In addition, the NAL staff reviewed titles available

from the Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

(OCLC) “WorldCat” international library cataloging

database and conducted some searches in the

Thomas Register of American ManufacturersK

database on CD.

4.6 Internet Search Results

A recent report in the July 1999 issue of Nature

noted the existence of more than 800 million

indexable pages on the Web.6 Because the

volume is so great, the changes are so frequent

and rapid, and the processing of complex

searches for an involved topic such as this is so

difficult, it was not considered reasonable to

pursue the complete retrieval of all material on the

Internet for this project. Additionally, the results of

Internet searches do not clearly indicate the extent

to which a particular item has been peer-reviewed

or otherwise verified and substantiated. 

Further, recent OCLC studies characterizing the

Web document more than 5 million Web sites

(OCLC, 2000). While the vast majority of Web

sites are publicly accessible, comprehensive

standards are rarely used to construct, format, or

index sites, or for the search engines available to

locate specific information on these sites, and the

more than 800 million pages that they include. 

6

 For more information about Internet search

engines, consult <http://www.searchenginewatch.com/

sereport/99/08-size.html>.
24

Internet coverage of specific topics is arguably as

inconsistent as its rate of growth has been

remarkable. Because of this lack of consistency,

retrieval of subject-specific Web documents in a

complex, multifaceted topic area cannot be readily

planned and structured to ensure comprehensive

coverage of Internet resources. Experts estimate

that as many as 2,000 search engines may be

available (Stanley, 1998), and each may have its

own indexing systems, techniques, and methods

of acquiring new sites and adding appropriate

terms. 

It is also noted that many search engines do not

support the kind of advanced and complex search

statements used in this study to retrieve items

from scientific, technical, and business-related

citation databases (UNN, 1999). Without

truncation, proximity commands, and specific

field-searching capability, the results of most Web

searching for these complex concept groups, if

they could be constructed and actually run, would

lead to significant overflow in retrieval. If particular

sets of terms and concepts can be identified and

developed, some additional success might be

expected for further research using general

Internet search systems and techniques.

In spite of these limitations, Internet explorations

using the following search engines produced

several interesting and valuable documents that

were submitted for NRC review:

!AllTheWeb: <http://www.alltheweb.com>

!AltaVista: <http://www.altavista.com>

!Google URL: <http://www.google.com>

!Metacrawler: <http://www.cs.washington.edu/>

Recommendations from NAL staff and external

reviewers for this project also located additional

resources as a result of searcher skill and

experience, some good fortune, and particular

experience with known sites and familiarity with

particular search engines. These items were

forwarded to the NRC staff in the Draft Letter

Report, Draft Letter Report Supplement, and later

documents. Specific sites providing searchable

database access, such as that provided by the

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and

searchable databases from the Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC), were located

by both external reviewers and NAL staff. 

Although some of these may provide additional

sources of published literature and other

information, there is little to suggest that these

items will differ from those retrieved in the

exhaustive Dialog® searches. Internet Web

pages and related items that were selected by the

NRC staff are listed in Appendix B.

While the NRC’s project needs were national in

scope, pertinent local information was found on

the Internet. Local and regional businesses,

involved with soil as a commodity, were often

listed in subject-oriented directories (i.e., for

construction or landscaping) or through the local

Better Business Bureau.

Although specific information on sand and gravel

was not relevant to the study objectives,

individuals interested in more complete material

flows may explore information provided by the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS

compiles statistical reports by State for sand and

gravel operations. Individuals interested in local

industry should look to their own State Department

of Natural Resources for more information. Ohio,

for example, has provided outstanding information

available on the Web at:

<http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/

odnr/geo_survey/geo_fact/geo_f19/

geo_f19.htm>.

The U.S. Department of Defense has reported on its

significant experience in the cleanup and

remediation of former military bases. These

reports may provide pertinent analogies for the

NRC staff analysis of reused soil. The DTIC can

provide access to much of this literature through

its searchable STINET database on the Internet at:

<http://www.dtic.mil>.

Similarly, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has
25

pertinent experience with the cleanup and

remediation of its nuclear weapons production and

storage facilities. Many reports describing DOE

remediation efforts were found in the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) database

and reported to the NRC through this study.

Chemical contamination of soil and site cleanup are

under the regulation of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Several representative

“Superfund” cleanup reports were provided to the

NRC staff for evaluation.

4.7 Defense Technical Information

Center Resources 

The Internet pages maintained by the DTIC, under

the Scientific and Technical Information Center

(STIC) are an excellent source of defense-related

and other scientific documents that have been

entered into DTIC's Technical Reports Collection

from late December 1974 through the present, as

well as some full- text reports for those citations. 

This resource is searchable, using:

<http://www.dtic.mil:80/stinet/>.

Searches of the STINET database, conducted by

NAL staff yielded a complete listing of more than

11,000 items covering “soil(s)”. Specific DTIC

searches included the DOE OPENNET database

which yielded a listing of about 500 titles covering

soils, from which the NRC staff selected some

items for further study.

One interesting item that was identified in the DTIC

database search and other sources was an article

published in a subject-specific issue of Soil

Science Volume 132 (1) dated July 1981. This

issue contained 18 articles reporting studies of the

behavior of radionuclides in soil environments. 

The articles were reviewed and selected citations

were added to the study results listed in Table 4.1. 

4.8 Other Sources 

Additional sources that were searched for this report

included the OCLC WorldCat library cataloging

database, the Statistical Masterfile (SM) CD, the

Thomas Register of Industrial Products, and the

InfoTrac database. The first three of these

sources include specific data records, and

InfoTrac is a general bibliographic resource. Each

of these sources is discussed below, as is NAL’s 

information research activities. 

The OCLC WorldCat database includes cataloging

records for more than 40 million books and journal

titles held in libraries across the United States, as

well as many international libraries. NAL searched

the WorldCat database to provide a sample of

books that might be reviewed for possible

inclusion, and to evaluate the resources for further

review. 

WorldCat searches for broad concept terms like

“earthmoving” were tried, and several selected

items were forwarded to the NRC staff for their

review and selection. These items covered

equipment used in this industry, in the expectation

that some of this material would help to describe

the physical context of exposure scenarios related

to earthmoving. Other searches with terms such

as “soil”, “soil(s)” and “recycling”, “soil(s) and

material flow”, “soil near5 sale(s)”7, and

“gardening and statistics” were tested as well, but

these searches yielded either numerous records

(over 91,000 for “soil” as a title word, and more

than 120,000 as a subject term), or very few

records (63 for “soil recycling”, 8 for “soil(s) and

material flow(s)”, 9 for “soil(s) near5 sale(s)”, and

54 for “gardening and statistics”). These smallyield search groups identified very few or no

records with relevance for this project. 

The WorldCat database may prove useful to other

researchers in identifying topic-specific

publications for the work of the NRC. Book titles

and their subject headings are often general. 

However, to be effective, the complex strategies

7

?near5” is a proximity operator. Terms located on

either side must both be present for a record to be recalled. 

The terms can appear in any order and can be separated

by up to five words.
26

that were defined for the Dialog® system

database searches would need to be further

refined and tailored for use in the WorldCat

database system. 

The Statistical Masterfile (SM) CD database

includes publications with significant statistical

data from U.S. Government, private, and

international sources. This database was

accessed at the University of Maryland’s College

Park library. The searches produced few relevant

statistical references for this project, but some

items that might be useful were noted and

forwarded to the NRC. Specific search terms

explored were “earthmoving” and “topsoil”. Little

definitive detail was found, but the search did

identify items such as Pit and Quarry: State of the

Industry (ISSN 0032-0293), ENR (a trade weekly

for the construction industry, ISSN 0891-9526),

and several documents that cover aspects of

building and construction industries. Most of

these related to overall industry trends and did not

note the inclusion of details specific to soils. 

Quarries, cement, concrete, and stone data were

mentioned, but not earthmoving, transport, or

other uses of soil materials. 

Searches in the SM database for statistics on

gardening and horticulture produced listings that

addressed overall production of floriculture and

horticulture products. Data covering equipment

such as tractors and implements was also seen,

but nothing directly related to soils or soil use. 

Other searches using the SM CD databases 

focused on waste processing (including nuclear

wastes). Searches were completed for topsoil,

mining, minerals, and quarries, but only sand and

gravel and related topics were found. 

Search efforts using the Thomas Register of

American ManufacturersK CD database provided

another means to identify significant companies

involved in the production of soil-related products. 

If additional source or producer data is required for

any specific products, this would be a most

convenient source of that information. 

Searches using the InfoTrac system retrieved

relevant citations. The NAL staff noted that these

items were already included within the results of

both the Dialog® comprehensive listings and the

focused additional search results that were

presented to the NRC in the draft letter report.

4.9 Phase 1 Observations

Extensive searching in the Dialog® system

databases was the primary objective for Phase 1

of this study. The Dialog® bibliographic

databases provide exceptional access to

published, “citable” literature. 

Unfortunately, the NAL staff determined that little

systematic research or tracking has been

published for parameters related to soil reuse and

how humans interact with reused soil. Phase 2 of

this study identified additional information

resources and compiled data (see Chapter 5).
27

This page intentionally left blank.
28

5. PHASE 2: FOCUSED SEARCH FOR PARAMETER VALUES AND RELATED

INFORMATION SOURCES

5.1 Introduction

Phase 2 focused on specific parameters needed for 

dose analyses using codes such as RESRAD, as

discussed in Section 2 and in Section 5.2, and

related information sources. The specific

parameters selected for study were ranked as

high priority both in terms of anticipated exposure

to reused soil and priority of information needed.

Phase 1 results demonstrated a lack of systematic

study for parameters related to the reuse of soil

and human interaction with soil. Nevertheless, a

realistic understanding of these parameters was

needed. As a result, the Phase 2 study

extensively examined multiple sources to identify

common practices, recommended guidelines, and

real-life accounts. To the extent possible,

inferences drawn from largely anecdotal sources

were verified with secondary sources and through

direct communication with experts and business

representatives.

For Phase 2, a team of NAL reference specialists

was convened to conduct the information

research on the topics listed in Section 5.2.1. 

Team members initially searched online and CDROM bibliographic databases and the Internet. In

addition, team members directly contacted

experts by telephone and email when specific

required information was not found in the

published literature. NRC staff has significant

technical expertise in the areas of civil engineering

and radiological clearance. This expertise was

engaged in Phase 2 to search for pertinent soil

reuse information in the fields of civil engineering,

construction practices, transportation, and for

national and international radiological standards. 

The NRC staff research results are presented in

Section 5.6.

The Phase 2 study was primarily directed toward

identifying information sources and the

presentation of typical data for in-depth

examination by NRC staff and contractors

conducting the dose analysis of exposure

scenarios.

5.2 Data Needs for Dose Analyses

The NRC staff met with NAL researchers to explain

the information needs for dose analyses and to

review potential exposure pathways. These

discussions emphasized the need to identify

quantitative information relevant to the material

flow of reused soil.

On the basis of these discussions, agricultural and

landscape workers were identified as two

potentially high-ranking groups for study, and

further qualified specific information requirements

for these groups. The added qualifications called

for special attention to information concerning

proximity to reused soil, working time, physical

demands on the worker, coincident activities,

reused soil volumes, soil depths, regional aspects

and parameters, and volumes of soil additives. 

Table 5.1 provides an explanation of these factors.
29

Table 5.1 Research Factors for Dose Analyses

Factor Consideration

Proximity Proximity of the worker to the reused soil (e.g., hoe handle length or

distance of cab seat to the reused soil) and whether the worker is in

direct or indirect contact

Working Time Hours per year that workers are in close proximity to the soil (i.e., less

than 3 meters from the soil).

Intensity The level of physical intensity (defined, where possible as moderate to

strenuous) as indicated by such measures as breathing and

perspiration rate

Coincident Activities Eating and drinking on the work site, and time spent per day in contact

with the reused soil

Regional aspects Length of the growing season, hours of daylight, planting and harvesting

dates

Soil Volumes Sizes of truck beds used in transporting soil

Soil Depth Likely depth of soil deposition or depth of tilling/cultivating and planting

Soil Additives Volume or percentage of soil or soil mixtures in bags

Particle Sizes Related to dust particles that may be inhaled or distributed through wind

erosion processes

5.2.1 Specific NAL Research Topics

The NAL researchers initially organized the search

strategy into six categories of human activities

involving soil reuse. Within these categories, the

NAL researchers identified the following as

potentially important in the search process:

! greenhouse production and workers

 – area under greenhouse production

 – number of workers in greenhouses

 – average height of greenhouse 

benches

 – volume of soil used in container or bed

preparation

! retail sales of bagged soil and workers

 – volume of bagged soil sold in retail outlets

 – how bagged soil is handled at the

distribution points

 – number of workers employed to handle

bagged soil at distribution points

 – hours per day workers are in contact with

bagged soil

! farm and field workers

 – number of workers in agriculture likely to

be working with hand-implements

 – days per year workers are in the field

 i range of days per year

 i average number of days per year

 i average number of hours per day

 – depth of soil worked

! exposure of farm and field workers to dust

 – volume of dust inhaled by farm and field

workers

 – particle size range of inhaled dust
30

! sources and volumes of water used for worker

hydration and crop production

 – percentages of crop and fruit agriculture

under irrigation

 – volume of water used in vegetable and fruit

irrigation

 – sources of potable drinking water for farm

and field workers

 – volume of water consumed by farm and

field workers

! landscape workers

 – number of workers employed in the

landscaping trades

i range of hours worked per day

i average hours worked per day

i volume of soil purchased by the

landscaping industry

 – sources of imported soil used in the

landscaping industry

5.2.2 NRC Information Searches

Prior to and concurrent with the NAL research, as

discussed in the previous section, the NRC staff

focused on limited and relevant information

sources related to reused soil. In particular, the

NRC staff considered the following information

categories and parameters:

! reused soil in construction practices

 – geotechnical characteristics of reused soil 

 – volumes of reused soils

 – specific uses of fill materials

 – regional sources of reused soil

 – activities associated with construction use

of reused soils

! transportation of reused soil

 – types of vehicles used

 – vehicle configurations (e.g., covered bed,

isolated cab, and proximity of operator)

 – specific logistics of transport (e.g., duration

and distances) 

 – activities associated with transportation of

reused soils

! landfill use and disposal of reused soil

 – specific application of reused soil (e.g.,

cover, liner, and fill) 

 – geotechnical characteristics of reused soil 

 – volumes of reused soils

 – local and State regulations for disposition

 – regional sources of reused soil

 – activities associated with landfill

management (e.g., bulldozing)

5.2.3 International Information Searches

The NRC and NAL staffs independently considered

international publications and information sources

dealing with reused soil. In particular, the

researchers considered the following sources:

! International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Safety Standards on exemption and clearance

of radiation sources and current practices

! European Commission publications on

clearance and environmental restoration

! United Nations publications (e.g., UNSCEAR

2000)

! Organization for Economic and Cooperative

Development/ Nuclear Energy Agency

publications (e.g., recycling of materials)

! Individual foreign national efforts (e.g., United

Kingdom, Department of the Environment’s

DETR/RAS/98.004 on Derivation of UK

Unconditional Clearance Levels). 

5.3 Material Flow Analysis

Since no directory of reused soil sources was

identified in the study, specific information on

possible origins of reused soil (Section 5.3.1) and

water in contact with this reused soil (Section

5.3.2) were sought. 

5.3.1 Material Flow Analysis for Soils

This Section describes possible sources,

distribution, and use for reused soil. Also,
31

commercial and professional practices regarding

the composition of modern plant growth media are

discussed in Sections 5.3.1.1 through 5.3.1.4.

5.3.1.1 Origin of Reused Soils 

Topsoil is often sold or dispersed as a byproduct of

development. The origin of the soil may be

surplus material from farmland, urban, or

transportation development projects. The soil may

be purchased either for redistribution or in a direct

transaction to the final customer. When sold for

redistribution, the soil is likely to be extended and

enhanced with a variety of additives (such as

organic materials and fertilizers) and adjusted for

pH and other physicochemical properties. 

Statistics for soil transactions are largely

undocumented. Presumably, this lack of

documentation reflects the highly distributed

nature of a low-cost resource. In addition,

because a topsoil industry per se has not

developed, few regulations and legal definitions

exist with respect to topsoil (Boyles, 2000).

In order to develop an understanding about how

reused soil is used a process approach was taken

by NAL investigators. The process begins with

the points of origin of the soil through a transaction

(the point at which native soil becomes reused

soil) to the final use. NAL investigators examined

sources which included Federal agencies, State

sponsored exchanges, and private transactions. 

The results of the investigation are discussed in

the following Sections.

Federal

Federal mineral resources (including soil, see Table

5.2) sold in the Western United States are largely

managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). To sell these

mineral resources, BLM uses a combination of

contracts and free-use permits. A sales contract

is written for a set volume of soil over a defined

period of time, with upper limits ranging between 5

years for noncompetitive contracts to 10 years for

competitive contracts, and multiple loads may be

moved off site within the time frame of the

contract.

By contrast, the vast majority of soil removed from 

BLM administered land is transferred via free-use

permits that are issued to Federal, State, and local

Governments and other non-profit organizations. 

(See <http://www.

blm.gov/nhp/300/wo320/sndgrvl.html>.) The sale

value of the BLM soil ranges from $0.20 to $0.55

per cubic yard. It should be noted BLM does not

sell soil that is essential for growth of vegetation. 

As a followup to this study, the NAL researchers

contacted several State BLM offices by telephone. 

Each office reported that the given State actually

had very little soil to sell; they primarily sold sand,

stone, and gravel to construction companies for

use in road construction, parking lots, and the like. 

State

Several States have established recycling services

or exchanges, and topsoil is a commodity that is

traded or sold via these exchanges. For example,

in January 2001, the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency’s Material Exchange Web site

<http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/recyc/

avail_6.html> posted two notices for raw

unprocessed topsoil, indicating that volumes

available for pick-up were 4,000 and 15,000 cubic

yards, respectively. Both postings originated in

Northern Ohio. 

For example, New Jersey has established State

regulations for the reuse of soils. These

regulations are posted on the Internet at

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/

soilguide/sgd53-66.pdf>. The Association of New

Jersey Recyclers posts a business directory

listing 10 commercial companies that sell

topsoil.<http://www.

anjr.com/Resources/ANJRResources/

RecycledProductsGuide/Grounds&

Recreation.htm>; however, as noted elsewhere in

this report, what vendors describe as topsoil may

in fact be recycled yard waste. 
32

Private

Individuals who barter, sell, or otherwise exchange

soil probably constitute the largest, most

distributed, and least documented source for

reused soils. The high cost of moving soil

(relative to its market value) means that most

reused soil is not moved far from its point of origin. 

State-sponsored exchanges facilitate transactions

between business’ and their customers. Similar

exchanges have also developed in the private

sector. These commercial exchanges facilitate

individual-to-individual and individual-to-business

transactions using the Internet as a ready, and

inexpensive means to reach large audiences. 

One such exchange is ShopDirt.com, which posts

classified ads for fill dirt, topsoil, stone, and

transportation. (See Table 5.3.)

Five randomly selected business operators who had

advertised on the ShopDirt.com Web site were

interviewed by telephone to gather information

about their soil handling 

operations. Table 5.4 summarizes the interview

results. The business operators were also

questioned about the nature of their customers

and how these customers used soil-based

products. (See Table 5.5.) 
33

Table 5.2 Sale of Soil from BLM-Managed Resources in 1998 1

 Contract Sales/Free-Use Permits Production

State Number Quantity 2 Value Number Quantity 2 Value

Nonexclusive

California 6 600 $ 238 6 600 $ 238

Idaho 5 271 55 5 271 55

Nevada 26 8,993 5,246 26 8,993 5,221

New Mexico 11 348 191 11 348 191

Utah 8 787 349 8 787 369

Average 11 2,200 $1,216 11 2,200 $1,215

Exclusive

Arizona 0 0 $0 2 192 $54

California 1 300 210 0 0 0

Colorado 2 1,200 612 12 17,920 1,893

Nevada 2 1,467 750 2 1,462 748

New Mexico 11 11,288 5,248 20 17,778 4,776

Utah 1 350 88 1 350 88

Wyoming 1 57 15 0 0 0

Average 3 2,095 $989 5 5,386 $1,080

Free-Use 

Colorado 0 0 $0 1 64,900 $18,172

Idaho 2 20,500 6,150 0 0 0

Nevada 5 25,200 12,000 14 20,355 9,578

New Mexico 8 196,300 152,540 117 23,076 12,637

Utah 2 32,500 7,150 1 170 37

Wyoming 1 14,000 3,500 3 14,000 3,500

Average 3 48,083 $30,223 23 20,417 $7,321

1

 BLM, 1998 (recent data see <http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls00/pdf/part3-20.pdf.>) 
34

2

 Reported in cubic yards. 

Table 5.3 Classified Ads for Topsoil on ShopDirt.com Web Site (11/10/2001) 1

Location Type Quantity Remarks

Glendora, CA Fill, Topsoil N/A Buys and sells

London, OH Fill, Topsoil N/A “A lot of nice topsoil”

Huntsville, OH Fill, Topsoil N/A Farm dirt / large & small sales

Deptford, NJ Topsoil N/A Buyer must transport

Jackson, NJ Topsoil N/A Free, buyer must transport

Oneco, FL Fill, Topsoil N/A For sale with and with out shipping

Huntington Beach, CA Fill, Topsoil 40 yds Free even with delivery 4-days only

DeBerry, TX Fill, Topsoil,

Clay

N/A Buyer transports

Birmingham, AL Fill, Topsoil N/A Sewer rehab10-yr contract

Oconomowoc, WI Topsoil N/A Conditioned topsoil

Waller, TX Fill, Topsoil N/A Will ship outside of local area

Neptune, NJ Fill, Topsoil 100+

Loads

$50 per load delivered within 5 miles

Hockessin, DE Topsoil N/A Small and large loads, conditioned

Sarasota, FL Fill 1 million

cubic yds

Buyer has option of loading

Houston, TX Fill, Topsoil N/A Company also hauls 

Jackson, NJ Topsoil N/A From site-work 

Jackson, NJ Topsoil 300 yds

Jackson, NJ Topsoil 18 yd

Loads

$225 per load

1

 Listings were posted between February 26, 1999 and November 5, 2001
35

The interviewed companies had annual sales of

soil-based products of 300 to 800,000 cubic

yards. The larger operations typically sold their

products to developers and the construction trade. 

The medium to small operations tended to have

more sales to homeowners and small nurseries. 

For the most part, the interviewed companies sold

their soil or soil-based products in bulk. None of

these business operators participated in trade or

professional organizations. 

Unlike soils, sand, gravel, and clays are highervalue commodities with an industrial base. These

commodities are tracked and annual reports are

available through the U.S. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Current and

historical summaries are available on the Internet

at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/

pubs/mcs/>.

Table 5.4 Telephone Interviews with Five Randomly Selected 

ShopDirt.com Business Owners

Category Company

A B C D E

Screen soils no yes no no no

Mixed with other components no yes no no yes

Percentage of soil in final

mixture

100% 0%

 50%

100%

100% 100% 30%

50%

100%

Typical annual volume of soil

product sales

800,000

cubic

yds

N/A 7–800,000

cubic yds

300 cubic

yds

30,000

cubic yds

Typical volume per individual

sales transaction

5,000

cubic

yds

5 

cubic yds

10–15,000

cubic yds

5

cubic yds

6

cubic yds

Volume range for individual

sales transactions

2–15,000

cubic

yds

2–10

cubic yds

1–100,000

cubic yds

1–20

cubic yds

1–4,000

cubic yds

Product packaging bulk bulk bulk bulk1 bulk

Number of employees in contact

with soil products

5 3 1 4 6

Average hours worked per day 9 9 2 8 8

Range of hours worked per day 2–12 8–10 1–8 6–10 8

1

 Some soil is bagged for sale.
36
37

Table 5.5 Customers Served and Product Uses for ShopDirt.com Soil Products

Company Customer Product Use

A Grading for light commercial construction Parking lots, fill dirt, building pads

B Nurseries, garden centers, country clubs,

homeowners, race tracks, cemeteries

Vegetable gardens, lawns,

landscape, turf

C Developers Fill pads, building pads for drainage

D Homeowners, contractors, landscapers Top dressing for home lawns

E Homeowners, contractors Lawn maintenance

5.3.1.2 Reuse of Soil in Commercial 

Products

At this time, there are no Federally regulated

labeling requirements for soil products other than

normal requirements for weights and measures. 

Labeling for landscape soils and horticultural

growing media is covered under the Voluntary

Uniform Product Guidelines issued July 2001 by

the Mulch and Soil Council (MSC), formerly known

as the National Bark and Soil Producers

Association. MSC has also implemented a

product certification program, which sets

standards for quality and performance. Standard

labels identify product type as outlined in the

Uniform Product Guideline. (See

<http://www.mulchandsoil.org/industry/

NB_Std_Consol_V62.pdf>.)

The relevant labeling guidelines are summarized

as follows:

! Named products that refer to a single

ingredient must contain 100% of the specified

ingredient.

! Mixed-ingredient products with specified

components must have a composition of 50%

or more for the first ingredient mentioned.

! Each of the remaining individually listed

ingredients in mixed-ingredient products must

represent 10% or more of the product.

! Labeled mixed-ingredient products will list

ingredients in descending order by percent of

volume for all materials present over 2% of the

final mixture.

The MSC’s voluntary uniform product guidelines

define the following soil mixtures: 

! Landscape Soil is a material mixture or blend

for in-ground growing of plants, which is made

primarily from natural soils, bark, peat, humus,

compost, and/or manure and other

components.

! Soil is any product or material except peat or

peat moss that is advertised or offered for sale

or sold for primary use as a horticultural

growing medium, soil amendment, or soil

replacement.

! Potting Soil is any material for in-container

growing of plants with general characteristics

and productivity measures as determined with

standard test protocols.

! Premium Potting Soil is similar to potting soil

(described above) but also meets additional

performance criteria.

! Professional Potting Soil is a formula used

in commercial container production

businesses with documented sales to
38

professional growers.

! Topsoil has the same composition described

for “Landscape Soil,” above.

Note: Other than landscape soil, there is no

requirement in the guidelines for a product labeled

“soil” to actually contain soil. 

Examples of other international and voluntary

standards for soils used in landscaping and

gardening are available (Standards Australia

International, Ltd., 1998; and Huinink, 1998).

5.3.1.3 Commercial and Professional 

Practice

Artificial planting media for the production of

horticultural and ornamental crops were

developed in the mid-1950s (Sheldrake, 1980). 

Since their introduction, the use of natural “soil” in

horticulture has continued to decline (Warnicke,

1986). Components in the soil-less media include

peat moss, perlite and vermiculite, various

materials from agricultural or industrial wastes,

and other byproducts that have been found to be

helpful for horticultural production applications. In

recent years, materials such as foams, gels, and

polymers have been added to premium mixtures

to increase water retention and enhance other

performance factors.

There are many reasons to avoid the use of soils

in containerized planting. Bagged materials

containing soil are heavier to prepare, process,

and deliver than other planting mixes. In addition,

natural soils are variable, and commercial

production depends upon consistent and reliable

growth media. By contrast, artificial media provide

growers with dependable porosity, pH, and other

fertility factors. Natural soils also have biotic

components and must be sterilized or treated to

remove pathogens, insects, weed seeds, etc. 

Finally, in defined media, nutrient additions may be

more readily calibrated and controlled to deliver

expected fertility levels for specific applications. 

Lightweight non-soil materials are now the

standard substrate for modern nursery and

greenhouse production. (Boodley and Sheldrake,

1982).

An exception to the general practice outlined

above, limited use of soils or soil materials does

occur in particular situations, especially where

added water-holding capacity of soil or soil

components is needed, as in tropical nurseries. 

For example, ?Soil was once the basis of most

potting mixes. It is still used in nurseries in the

tropics as a means of increasing water-holding

capacity of media for large pots. Elsewhere,

most media are soil-less” (Handreck, 1994). 

Growers may sometimes increase the watersupply capacity of growing media by adding clay

to the potting mix (usually a particular clay

mineral), rather than a composite (natural) soil

material (Ehret, et al., 1998).
39

Table 5.6 1998 Market Share by Distributor Category for Lawn and Garden Supplies 1

Sector Market Share

Kmart and Wal-Mart 36%

Nurseries, garden centers, and florists 18%

National merchandisers (e.g., Sears) 14%

Home centers and discount hardware/building supply

stores

12%

1

 Reported in EPM Communication, Inc., Research Alert, March 6, 1998. Content summarized from

“The Lawn and Garden Market,” from Packaged Facts, Scott Dempster, New York, NY.

5.3.1.4 Distribution of Soil Products

Commercially conditioned soil mixtures are

sold to individuals and businesses either in

packages (bags) or in bulk. Packaged

(bagged) mixtures are sold to consumers at

grocery and hardware stores, major

retailers, and speciality nurseries or lawn

and garden centers. Market leaders in lawn

and garden sales are Home Depot, WalMart, Kmart, and Lowe’s (Howell, 2001). 

Table 5.6 summaries market share by

distribution sector for lawn and garden

suppliers. According to the Scotts

Company, potting soil is the most frequently

purchased item in this category.

<http://www.smgnyse.

com/html/growingmedia.cfm>.

The three market leaders, Scotts, Schultz,

and Bayer-Pursell together account for

about 85% for soil industry sales (Howell,

2001). These three companies reportedly

support the MSC guidelines and standard

testing for premium soils. The Scotts

Company Web site reports a 49% market

share for their products on the basis of a

1999 Triad Market Share Data study

<http://www.smgnyse.com/html/growingme

dia.cfm>. Current soil product descriptions

posted for Scotts and Schultz do not identify

natural soil as a component in their brand

name products

<http://www.schultz.com/potsoil.htm> and 

<http://www.scottscompany.com/

gardening/ProdGuideGarden.cfm>.

Consumer adoption of premium soil-less

growth media has apparently increased

dramatically in the last decade. In 1989,

approximately 80% of all potting soils sold

were the heavy, low-priced topsoil mixes. At

the time, Hyponex (Atlanta) was the market

leader with 22 warehouses (Rodgers,

1989). Presumably, these low-quality soil

mixes actually included soil. The Hyponex

brand is now sold by Scotts. A review of the

current Hyponex product descriptions

suggests that a major change in product

formulation has taken place with an

emphasis today on high organic content

with little or no soil.

5.3.2 Material Flow Analysis for 

Water

Water is a carrier of environmental

contaminants and another important

material flow in agriculture that required

analysis. Crop irrigation and livestock

production are the water uses of interest for

this study.
40

5.3.2.1 Water Use in Crop Irrigation

Crop irrigation returns significant benefits to

farmers through increased yields. In 1998,

the USDA reported average yields of

163 bushels per acre for all irrigated crops

across the country, compared to an average

yield of 114 bushels per acre for nonirrigated crops (USDA, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, 1998, Table 22). 

Yield alone is not the only factor used in

deciding when and how to irrigate. 

Environmental factors like temperature,

humidity, and wind speed are just as

important as economic and property factors

such as, price and availability of water. 

Given the complexity of this decision-making

process, producers relied most on the

condition of their crops or the feel of the soil. 

External factors (such as scheduled water

delivery) was the third most commonly cited

decision-making method. In a small number

of cases, producers used computer

simulation models (USDA, National

Agricultural Statistics Service, 1998, Table

29). 

Irrigation is the predominate use of water in

the Western United States (Solley, et al.,

1998). In 1995, for example, water

withdrawn for irrigation was estimated at

134,000 million gallons per day,

representing 39% of freshwater use for all

offstream categories. Surface water was

the source for 63% of the water used in

irrigation. 

Ground water pumped from wells is another 

significant source of water for irrigation. In

1998, nearly all of the farms with functional

wells used them for irrigation that year. 

(See Table 5.7.)

California alone accounts for 17.4% of the

irrigated land in the contiguous United

States. Texas accounts for an additional

11%, Nebraska 13%, and Florida 3.2% of

the irrigated land. Nearly 100% of the

harvested acres used to grow rice were

irrigated. Similarly, 35 to 70% of the

harvested acres used for orchards, Irish

potatoes, vegetables, berries, sugar beets,

dry edible beans, sugarcane, and cotton

were irrigated (Moore, et al., 1997).

Table 5.7 Irrigation Wells on Farms 1

Category Number

All farms with capable wells 91,500

Number of capable wells 374,072

Number of farms using wells 85,014

Number of wells used 336,040

1 Extracted from Table 12, Irrigation Wells on

Farms: 1998 & 1994; excludes abnormal and

horticultural speciality farms (1998 Farm & Ranch

Irrigation Survey, Census of Agriculture).

Available soil moisture (ASM), an important

determinant for irrigation, varies by soil type

and the amount of water in the soil. Many

crops (including vegetables) are sensitive to

drought damage. A North Carolina

Extension publication recommends applying

up to 1.5 inches of water each week during

hot periods for plants with a surface spread

of more than 12 inches. This irrigation level

can be decreased to 0.75 inches per week

in cooler seasons. In general, application

rates should not exceed 0.4 inch per hour

for sandy soils, 0.3 inch per hour for loamy

soils, and 0.2 inch per hour for clay soils

(Sanders, 1997).

Each crop has critical developmental stages

and preferred minimum soil moisture levels 

dictating irrigation needs for crop production. 

See Table 5.8 for the recommended

irrigation rates for selected vegetable crops

(Sanders, 1997).
41

5.3.2.2 Water Use for Livestock 

Production

In 1995, water withdrawn for livestock

production was estimated at 5,490 million

gallons per day, representing nearly 2% of

freshwater use for all offstream categories. 

Surface water was the source for 59% of

the water used for livestock production. 

This category of water use increased by

22% between 1990 and 1995, largely

because of expanded production of fish

raised in captivity. By State, Idaho

consumes the largest volume for total

livestock production (Solley, et al., 1998).

Table 5.8 Vegetable Irrigation Needs 1

Crop ASM 2 Inches/Days

Irish potato 70% 1/7

Tomato 50% 1/5-7

Beets 20% 1/14

Carrot 50% 1/21

Edible Soy 40% 1/14

Cantaloupe 60% 1/10

Onion 70% 1/7

Lettuce 60% 1/7

1

 Extracted from Sanders, 1997

<http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/

hil/hil-33-e.html>

2

 Available soil moisture is the percent of soil

water between field capacity and permanent

wilting point. 

5.4 Characterization of the

Green Industry

Texas, California, and Florida were selected

for more thorough analysis in this study. 

These States were selected for their

importance in agricultural production, the

diversity and length of their growing

seasons, and their high population densities. 

The Texas Nursery & Landscape

Association (TNLA) published a major study

of the economic impact of the green

industry in Texas for the year 2000 (Hall,

2001). The green industry includes allied

input suppliers, wholesale growers, retail

garden centers, and landscape firms. 

Home centers and mass merchants also

represent a significant portion of green

industry retail sales. Table 5.9 summarizes

relevant labor statistics from the TNLA

report.

Independent validation of the TNLA study

and further characterization of soil

transactions by mass merchants was

sought through contact with local

businesses. Three Maryland-based mass

merchants were contacted by telephone to

review their soils-based business activities. 

Table 5.10 presents the results of these

interviews. Store brand topsoil and

landscape soils sold by mass merchants

may include reused soils.
42

Table 5.9 Texas Green Industry Labor Force Statistics 1

Sector Number

of Firms

Number of

Employees

Average # 

Employees

Retail Market

Share

Home Centers and Mass

Merchants

715 83,292 † 38% (Hm Cntr)

30% (Mass Mer)

Retail Garden Centers 3,464 39,196 23 32%

Nursery Growers 997 19,325 19

Landscape Firms 11,951 80,820 42

1 Extracted from Hall, 2001 (with the Texas Nursery & Landscape Association). 

†

 Lawn and garden departments of home centers (such as Home Depot) and mass merchants (such as WalMart) employ about 33% of the green industry labor force. Firms in all sectors expect a 30% increase in green

industry jobs over the next 5 years.

Table 5.10 Maryland-Based Mass Merchant Soil-Based Business Activities

 

Business Activity Company

A B C

Source of local or generic soils N/A Pennsylvania Delaware

Reported composition of soil products 80% Topsoil Ultra Brand a

blended

product &

plain topsoil 

Topsoil

Typical annual sales of soil products 12,000 

40-lb bags

80,000

40-lb bags

11,000

40-lb bags

Typical volume per individual sale 6–10 bags 10 bags 8 bags

Range of volumes sold per individual sale 1–60 bags 1–60 bags 1–60 bags

Type of customer Individuals Homeowners Homeowners

Number of employees in contact with soil 5 20 5

Average number of hours worked per day 1 7–8 8 8

Range of hours worked per day 2 4–10 8–14 6–8

1

 Across all employees

2

 Work shift range for individual employees
43
44

These merchants distribute their products

primarily to individuals. Individuals purchasing

these soil products appear to use the products for

indoor plantings and, outdoor flowerbeds and

gardens. One business representative felt that a

small number (1 out of 60) were using the soil

products for lawn improvements. Another

business representative also recognized that

individuals were using their soil products for

planting, but noted that the store did not

recommend the product for that application. This

same representative mentioned other more

appropriate uses such as filling holes, fixing

erosion damage, and leveling ground before

planting lawn seed. A representative from another

company mentioned that their soil was also used

in planting trees, shrubs, and grass.

5.4.1 Greenhouse Practices and 

Parameters

Containerized plant culture is a significant

production practice in greenhouses and could be

considered a significant end-use for reused soils. 

Section 5.4.1 discusses what is known about the

composition of plant growth media used, food

crops grown, and general labor statistics in

greenhouse production.

5.4.1.1 National Greenhouse Production

The U.S. vegetable greenhouse industry is a

mixture of small family-run operations (2,500 to

10,000 square feet) and a small number of larger

multi-acre operations (10 or more acres) (Greer

and Diver, 2000). Tomatoes are the leading

greenhouse commodity, followed by European

cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, and culinary herbs. 

California is the leading State in greenhouse

production, followed by Florida, Colorado, Arizona,

Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, each with over a

million square feet.

Soil-based greenhouse production is mentioned in

the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural

Areas (ATTRA) publication, entitled “Organic

Greenhouse Vegetable Production.” The

publication does not offer detailed data for the

extent of this production, but it does note that 40%

of greenhouse acreage was soil-based in 1988,

dropping from 70% in 1974. A literature review

suggests that soil-based greenhouse operations

will use a substrate that is not likely to contain

more than one-third actual “soil,” leaving a very

small percentage of greenhouse production that is

directly involved with soil.

This observation is generally confirmed in a

communication with a California-based county

extension specialist, who made the following

statement:

“The greenhouse veg statistics are actually

not easy to come by. There is no national

association that compiles this, other than

the every 10 years or so Census of

Agriculture. And even then, there is usually

no distinction between soil and soil-less

culture. I can tell you that almost all the

major U.S. producers grow in soil-less

culture. Many of the small, 4000 sq. ft or

less, operations do grow in the soil.” 

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS) gathers an extensive range of

statistical information about many aspects of the

agricultural sector. Regular surveys are

conducted every 5 years for the Census of

Agriculture. (The Census is a complete

accounting of agricultural production for all

operations that would normally expect annual

sales of $1,000 or more.) NASS also works in

collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS). Table 5.11 summarizes NASS 1998 data

for greenhouse food crop production in selected

States.

Table 5.11 1998 Greenhouse Food Crop Production in Selected States 1
45

State Number of

Employees 2

Number of

Operations

Area 

(x 1,000 sq. ft.)

Total Sales

(x $1,000)

Total U.S. Production 215,080 1,015 31,644 222,624

California 137,980 97 9,789 69,027

Florida 16,680 35 3,154 17,169

Colorado 1,370 22 4,113 35,257

Arizona 8,670 11 D 3 D 3

Ohio 1,410 42 829 3,356

Texas 7,340 32 1,475 5,886

Pennsylvania 1,050 68 727 10,009

1

 Extracted from USDA, 1998 Census of Horticultural Specialties

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/horticulture/table37.pdf>

2

 Extracted by State from the 1999 BLS Web site <www.bls.gov> in the labor category, farm workers, and

laborers, crop, nursery, and greenhouse

3

 Data withheld to avoid disclosing information about individual operations

5.4.1.2 Distance Factors

Greenhouse agricultural production commonly

refers to a broad spectrum of covered structures,

ranging from a total glass enclosure (building) to a

pole-supported plastic film covering field plants, or

a shade or temporary cover. Plants grown under

various cover will either be planted directly in the

ground, in raised beds, or in container pots on

greenhouse benches. Organic farmers in Canada

are raising tomatoes in 1-foot-high raised beds

(Greer and Diver, 2000). Most greenhouse

benches are generally 30 to 36 inches tall. Plants

grown using container culture, hydroponic, or

other soil-less production methods are usually

placed on benches. 

5.4.2 Landscape Trade Practices and

Parameters

Landscapers are professionals who purchase,

transport, and deposit soil and soil-like materials in

their work. Their work brings them into close

contact with reused soil. Section 5.4.2 discusses

professional practices, labor statistics, commonly

used equipment, sources of reused soil, and sod

production.

5.4.2.1 Landscape Practices

Nearly 40% of all agricultural service workers

(including landscapers) are employed in

California, Florida, and Texas. Other States

employing significant numbers of landscape

workers are Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio,

and New York. According to the BLS, landscape

workers typically are involved in mowing grass;

planting, watering, and pruning trees and bushes;

mulching; preventative pest spraying; etc. 

Landscape work is often dependant upon regional

season, weather factors, and amount of daylight

available during an average work day. 

For most of the contiguous United States,

landscape employment is seasonal and part-time. 

Landscape workers often work from dawn to

dusk, 6 to 7 days during any given week, from

Spring through Fall (BLS, 1997). Nationally,

landscaping, grounds-keeping, nursery,

greenhouse, and lawn service workers held about
46

1,285,000 jobs in 1998. Employment was

distributed as follows: 

Landscaping and groundskeeping 

laborers...........................................130,000

Lawn service managers....................86,000

Pruners.............................................45,000

Sprayers and applicators..................19,000

Nursery and greenhouse 

managers...........................................5,000

About one-third of wage and salaried workers

were employed in companies providing landscape

and horticultural services. Others worked for

firms operating and constructing real estate,

amusement, and recreational facilities (such as

golf courses and race tracks), and retail nurseries

and garden stores. Some were employed by local

governments, installing and maintaining

landscaping for parks, schools, hospitals, and

other public facilities (BLS, 1997).

It should be noted that undocumented immigrant

workers may confound the accuracy of

conventionally compiled labor data for landscape

workers. Up to 52% of farm and field workers in

California are undocumented (Furillo, 2001). This

problem is of special concern in California, Texas,

and Florida, which have high populations of

undocumented immigrants and which employ a

large number of landscape workers.

Handbooks for time and job estimates provide

practical information by task. These handbooks

are potentially useful in estimating realistic soil

contact time in landscaping and groundskeeping

activities (Nilsson, 1996).

5.4.2.2 Commonly Used Equipment in

Landscaping

The tools and machinery used in soil-related tasks

vary widely, depending on the task being

performed, the scale and nature of the landscape

site, and the size and skills of the work crew. 

Activities involving imported soil include loading,

delivering, and unloading bulk and bagged soil and

soil-like materials; spreading, grading, and leveling

delivered materials; incorporating imported

materials with onsite soil; handling materials used

in installation of hardscape items (pathways,

pools, etc.) and plant material; and topdressing

and aerating established turf and garden areas. 

Specialized applications include golf course and

tennis court construction and maintenance and

leveling of athletic fields.

Large-scale projects may involve front-end

loaders, dump trucks, skid loaders, bulldozers,

backhoes, graders, large tractors, and tractorpulled attachments (such as tillers and spreaders,

trenchers, and tree spades). Smaller jobs and job

sites typically rely on pickup trucks, ride-on type

tractors with appropriate attachments, rototillers,

drop and rotary spreaders, sod rollers, longhandled hand tools, and, in some cases, trowels

and short-handled weeders.

Selected Large-Scale Equipment Used in

Landscaping Tasks

! Large-scale loading and transporting

equipment include a dump truck,

articulated dump truck, pickup truck, frontend loader, loader, four-wheel loader,

backhoe loader, bucket, skid loader, skid

steer loader, skid loader attachments, or

related loader and tractor attachments

(such as a blade, breaker, forks, pallet

forks, tree spade).

! Grading and leveling equipment may include

a earth-moving or excavation equipment,

as well as an excavator, mini-excavator,

earth compacter, grader, motor grader,

bulldozer, dozer scraper, tamper, trencher,

tractor, compact tractor, backhoe, or

related tractor attachments (such as a

blade, scraper or box scraper).

! Spreading and incorporation equipment

may include a spreader, drop spreader,

rotary spreader, wheelbarrow, rake, york

rake, harley rake, broom, scarifier,

cultipack, tiller, rototiller, rotary hoe, rake,

plow; or related tractor attachments (such
47

as a blade, breaker, cultivator, disk,

harrow, scarifier, or tooth bar).

! Plant installation equipment may include a

backhoe, shovel, spade, trowel, or tree

spade.

! Hardscape installation equipment may

include a backhoe, post hole auger/digger,

shovel, spade or other equipment needed

to install irrigation systems.

! Turf maintenance equipment may include an

aerator, corer, vertical mower, thatcher,

dethatcher, edger, or specialized

equipment used at athletic facilities.

Landscape contractors typically use light- or

medium weight trucks from 10,000 to 19,000

pound weight with a hauling capacity of 3-4 tons

(2.7 – 3.6 metric tons) (Wessling, accessed

January 30, 2002). One South Carolina firm hauls

truck loads of 15 to 16 tons (13.5–14.4 metric

tons) (Deese, Landscaping, Hauling, and Grading,

2001). Additional information and equipment

recommendations for landscaping can be found at

<http://www. igin.com/Landscaping/index.html>.

5.4.2.3 Soil Material Sources in 

Landscaping

Today, many factors impact selection decisions

for soil and soil amendments in the landscaping

industry. Among these factors are State and local

laws that reduce the amount and nature of

materials that can be deposited into landfills. 

Environmental regulations mandate nutrient

management plans with important restrictions on

phosphorus loading for soils. Fertility and soil

characteristics are often not optimal for plant

growth, and apparently soil is not always readily or

reliably available. The combination of these

factors is encouraging a trend away from the use

of soil in the landscaping industry.

 

Despite the observed trend, some soils continue

to be used in the landscape industry. The

sources of these soils appear to be largely local

and highly distributed. As a result, the source,

volume, blended mixture composition, and

handling of these soils are not tracked by

professional or Governmental bodies. Anecdotal

information provides insight for consideration. For

example, one Ohio-based landscape supply firm

provides component information for its soil-based

products, and is summarized in Table 5.12.
48

Table 5.12 Landscape Soil Blends from an Ohio Supplier 1

Product Name Composition

Topsoil 60% topsoil, 20% organic compost or humus, and 20% coarse sand,

shredded, pulverized, and screened through a 3⁄4-inch screen

Econ-Blend Soil Approximately 70% soil, 15% compost, and 15% sand, screened

through a 3⁄4-inch screen

Mix Soil 40% topsoil, 30% organic compost or humus, and 30% coarse sand,

shredded, pulverized, and screened through 3⁄4-inch screen

Planting Bed Mix 30% topsoil, 30% organic compost or humus, 20% coarse sand, and

20% pea sized silica gravel, shredded, pulverized, and screened through

a 3⁄4-inch screen

Topdressing Mix 50% course sand and, 50% organic compost or humus, screened

through a 1⁄2-inch screen.

Commercial Soil 100% upland topsoil, screened through a 1-inch screen.

Virgin Soil 75% natural topsoil, 25% organic compost or humus, not shredded or

pulverized, but screened through a 2 inch screen.

Fill Dirt Primarily clay

1

 Recommended uses for these formulations are available on the company’s Web site at

<http://www.three-z.com>.

 5.4.2.4 Commercial Sod Production

Current sod production and harvesting practices

cause little soil depletion. The small amount of

soil that is lost in each sod harvest is somewhat

variable, and differences are mostly attributable to

the variety of grass species harvested. Sod

production is generally seen as an activity that

builds soil rather than depleting soil. Wind and

water erosion of farmland soil is significantly

greater in other agricultural commodities such as

wheat, cotton, and corn (McCarty, 1994). Even

the Internal Revenue Service (Ruling 79-267,

issued September 1979) disallows land

depreciation allowances for soil depletion in sod

operations, (Turfgrass Producers, 1995).

In producing sod, activities centered around

leveling and preparing the seedbed for planting are

the processes most likely to involve substantial

direct contact with soil. Once the fields have been

leveled, the soil is usually compacted to firm the

seedbed. 

Sod is harvested by cutting through the grass root

zone. This root zone is composed of organic

material from the plant roots and a thin layer of

mostly organic material. Usually, soil is not added

back to the harvested fields. This observation

was confirmed through telephone contacts made

by NAL investigators with three large commercial

producers. 

Turfgrass is harvested in several ways. Ideally

only 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch (0.6 to 1.3 cm) of root zone

should be removed when sod is cut (McCarty, et

al., 1999). Large operators use mechanical

cutters and harvest strips that are 12 to 16 inches

(30.5 to 40.6 cm) wide by 24 to 36 inches (61 to

91 cm) long; the tractor-mounted or self-propelled
49

harvesters reap 600 to 800 square yards per hour. 

Small operators typically use a small, handoperated, walk-behind unit and harvest 150 to 200

square yards per hour (125.4 to 167.2 square

meters per hour). 

Sod is either rolled or stacked in flat sheets on

pallets. Approximately 400 to 500 square feet of

sod is stacked per pallet, and a forklift is then used

to load the pallets onto trucks for shipping. The

usual tractor-trailer load consists of 10,000 square

feet of sod. Newer “big roll” harvesting methods

cut continuous strips that are 42 inches wide and

up to 100 feet long. With this method, each

tractor-trailer carries twenty-four

100-foot rolls.

Sod growers can harvest up to 40,000 square feet

per acre per cutting. This represents the upper

end; more typically, growers will cut 28,000 to

38,000 square feet per acre (McCarty, 1994).

5.5 Agricultural Practices and

Parameters

Section 5.5 provides information about the farm

and field work force and the various environmental

pathways (such as dust exposures, tillage depths,

and water consumption) by which these workers

might be exposed to the effects of reused soils.

5.5.1 Farm and Field Workers

The National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), the Economic Research Service (ERS),

and the U.S. Department of Labor collect statistics

on farm labor. On a quarterly basis, NASS

publishes the Farm Labor Survey, which reports

data on the average number of hours worked per

week by region for the United States as a whole. 

The 18 regions average 1 to 3 States per region

(see Table 5.13 for selected data). The reports

are available online at

<http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/

nassr/other/pfl-bb/>. The ERS Web site also has

a “farm labor briefing room” that provides links to a

number of important statistical resources at

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/

FarmLabor/farmlabor/>. Finally, the Department

of Labor compiles the National Agricultural

Workers Survey (NAWS), which provides more

detailed information regarding the working and

living conditions of farm workers. The survey is

available at 

<http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker/naws

.htm>. 

The Sacramento Bee also publishes information

about California farm workers, and its Web site

documents labor and pay abuses and other farm

related stories. On May 21, 2001, the Bee

published a special report on farm labor statistics. 

It should be noted that this survey reported 52% of

farm and field workers were undocumented in

California. 

The usual planting and harvesting dates for

agricultural commodities are another data source

to identify seasonal work periods, which vary by

commodity and geographical location. NASS

publishes Agriculture Handbook Number 628,

“Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S.

Field Crops,” which reports dates by State and

field crop. The publication is available online at

<http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/

reports/nassr/field/planting/>.
50

Table 5.13. Number of Farm Workers Employed and Hours Worked Per Week 1

Item Florida California Texas &

Oklahoma

Total United

States

All hired workers 2

Jan 7–13, 2001 55 190 65 678

Oct 8–14, 2000 50 242 61 952

Jan 9–15, 2000 60 204 44 685

Average hours 

Jan 7–13, 2001 37.6 35.7 38.1 36.9

Oct 8–14, 2000 38.9 43.2 37.3 41.2

Jan 9–15, 2000 41.9 42.7 37.6 38.4

1

 Extracted from the Florida Agriculture Farm Labor Report, a joint publication of the USDA, NASS, the Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the University of Florida, Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences, issued February 21, 2001.

2

 Reported in thousands 

5.5.2 Tillage Depth

The depth to which soil is prepared for planting

varies by plant variety, soil condition, and

production practices. Tree root balls, for example,

are typically placed into holes that are at least 6

inches deeper than the expanse of the root ball

(which can reach several feet in diameter), while

lettuce seeds are spread on the soil surface with a

very light covering of soil or compost. Typical

tillage depths recommended to enhance soil

conservation are provided by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service in its ?CORE4

Conservation Practices Training Guide: The

Common Sense Approach to Natural Resource

Conservation.” Some general guidelines from the

training guide include:

Chisel plows 4 to 8 inches

Disk harrow primary cutting 4 to 8 inches

Disk harrow finishing 2 to 6 inches

Moldboard plow 4 to 8 inches

Row planters 1 to 2 inches

Row cultivators 1 to 3 inches

General information about the CORE4

conservation program is available on the Internet

at <http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/

Core4/Core4Main.html.>

Recommended planting depths for corn varies

from 1 to 3 inches, depending upon the planting

date, soil moisture, and temperature, among other

factors. A good average planting depth is 1.5

inches, as recommended by the Purdue

University Extension Service at

<http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/

rln-bio.htm>.

5.5.3 Farm and Field Worker Exposure to 

Dust

Any activity that rips the land generates a range of

particles that can become airborne. Some of

these particles are of sizes and shapes that pose

inhalation health risks to humans. Particles in the

size range (i.e., smaller than 4 μm in diameter)

that can deeply penetrate the lung cavity are of

particular concern. These particles are commonly
51

referred to as respirable dust (RD). Clausnitzer

and Singer (1997) studied the concentration and

mineral content of RD generated by agricultural

practices in California. They concluded that corn

and tomato production were the most intensively

cultivated crops in their study and the crops that

generated the greatest concentrations of RD (see

Table 5.14).

The source materials for RD generated through

agricultural production practices were further

studied by Clausnitzer and Singer (1999), who

determined that the mineral composition of the RD

paralleled that found in the source soil. In this

study, the authors also analyzed particle sizes

and shapes and found that approximately 60% of

the sampled dust particles generated in soil

ripping operations were under 4 μm. (Clausnitzer

and Singer, 1999).

Table 5.14 Average Respirable Dust Concentrations from Common Farming Practices1

Farming Operation/Source Dust Concentration (mg/m3 air)

First finish disking 3.788

Second & third finish disking 4.936

Land planing 13.604

Disking wheat stubble into soil 7.158

Tomato harvest 75 cm above surface 3.681

Ripping first and second 9.885

Plowing 6.463

Corn harvest 6.688

1

 Excerpted from Clausnitzer and Singer, 1997.

5.5.4 Water Consumption by Farm

and Field Workers

Water use involving surface water and/or

ground water that have contacted the

reused soil is an important environmental

pathway. Consequently, the researchers in

this study sought information on water

ingestion and other contacts with water. 

Agricultural work is primarily conducted

outdoors and frequently when ambient

temperatures are high. Subsequently,

agricultural workers are at high-risk for heatrelated illnesses. This condition is usually

prevented by increased water consumption. 

Data on water use by agricultural workers at

high risk heat-related illnesses were

identified. (See <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

nasd /docs2/nj00800.html>.)

The U.S. Military and the National Institute

for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH)

have issued guidelines for water

replacement, recommending that workers

drink 24 oz/hr during moderate work when

the temperature is 82–90E F. Water

replacement rates should increase to

33 oz/hr for more strenuous activity or when

ambient temperatures are 90E F. 

The guidelines further recommend replacing

water frequently in small amounts and

resting every hour. (See
52

<http://www.capnhq.gov/nhq/cp/

encampments/AETC.htm> for further

detail.)

National and State regulations have been

established to protect the health and safety

of farm and field workers. The Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

directs employers with 11 or more

employees to provide toilets, potable water,

and hand-washing facilities for workers

engaged in “hand labor operations in the

field.” (See

<http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/

Fact_data/FSNO92-25.html>.)

It is difficult to track compliance with the

regulations. For the period from 1996

through1998, 39 violations were recorded

for the entire State of California. The

Director of the Virginia Commonwealth’s

Occupational Health Compliance Division

reported that violations were generally

recorded only after a complaint was lodged

or an illness occurred. On the other hand,

the National Agricultural Workers Survey

(NAWS) for 1997–1998 reported that 98% of

the surveyed workers had access to

drinking water, but 16% reported not having

water to wash their hands. (See

<http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker

/ report_8.pdf>.)

Agricultural worker hydration is under study

at the University of California at Berkeley

<http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/>. To date,

the university conducted two small field

trials

<http://are.berkeley.edu/heat/heat2/trial1.ht

ml#Findings>, which indicated that the

actual consumption of water by workers is

influenced by several factors. Basis of pay

was one factor; workers who were paid on a

“piece work” basis were less likely to stop

for water breaks than those who were paid

on an hourly basis. Convenience of access

to the coolers was also important in how

frequently the workers stopped for water. 

Climatic conditions affecting the harvest

dramatically affected worker activities,

including the number of hours worked and

the amount of water consumed. Finally, the

field trial generally observed that workers

stopped for water fewer times and drank

larger volumes than recommended in the

guidelines for optimal hydration. (See

<http://are.berkeley.edu/ heat/> and

<http://are.berkeley.edu/heat/ heat2/>.)

Even less information is available regarding

the sources of drinking water provided to

farm and field workers. According to the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), groundwater is the source of drinking

water for 53% of all Americans. (See

<http://www.epa.gov/safewater/

wot/wheredoes.html>.) Groundwater is the

more usual source of drinking water in rural

areas. (See <http://www.epa.gov/

safewater/dwh/where.html>.)

Workers providing their own water are likely

to obtain that water from their homes. 

Therefore, it is important to know the

proximity of the worker’s home to the fields.

Beginning in December 1997, the Housing

Assistance Council (HAC) conducted a

10–month survey of farm worker housing for

the Eastern migrant worker stream. The

survey collected information on 1,566 units

housing 8,965 people. Commonly, 39% of

these units were directly adjacent to farm

fields (although it varied from 11–93%). The

usual length of stay in these units was 5.3

months (although it varied from 2.5 to 6.7

months with the longer stays predominate in

southern States such as Florida) (see

<http://www.ruralhome.org/

pubs/farm worker/meager/toc.htm#table>).

The NAWS survey found that up to 28% of

all farm and field workers use housing

provided either free of charge or rented

through their employers. The smaller HAC

survey found that 55% of farm worker

housing units were owned by the
53

employers. A large percentage of these

housing units are adjacent to farm fields

(63–88%). 

5.5.5 Urban Food Production 

Practices

People are moving out of rural regions and

into cities. This year more than 50% of the

world’s population lives in metropolitan

areas. As cities grow, they tend to sprawl

outward from the city center to overtake

productive farmland. These trends together

increase food costs to consumers.

Responding to the need for an affordable

food supply, many community action groups

are working to develop “sustainable cities.” 

Sustainable cities supply their citizens with

locally produced food. This food is largely

grown using organic production principles,

which focus on waste reduction and nonchemical solutions. Organic production

emphasizes soil building through recycling

yard and food residue, and other municipal

wastes. 

Urban agriculture is not limited to the inner

city. Gardening for food production is an

activity enjoyed by many. Nugent, 1997,

noted that in 1991, urban areas accounted

for an estimated 33% of all crop and

livestock sales and involved approximately

25% of all households. New York City alone

has more than 1,000 community gardens

(Canada, Office of Urban Agriculture, 1997).

Urban agricultural practices are more

diverse than rural operations. Metropolitan

food production takes place in container

pots on rooftops or window sills, abandoned

city lots, backyards, community gardens,

recreational farms, and adaptive farms, as

well as traditional farming operations.

Land is often a limiting resource in urban

settings and, as a result, the land is more

intensively cultivated. U.S. urban farms sell

13 times more per acre than non-urban

farms. Local restaurants purchase a high

percentage of their produce from local

sources (Canada, International

Development Research Centre, 1994, and

Heimlich and Barnard,1992).

Beginning in May 2000, Canada’s Office of

Urban Agriculture posted a 1-month survey

on the City Farmer Web site. The survey

asked questions about the nature of and

interests in urban food production practices. 

The 100 responders from 16 countries

provide information on the realistic practices

of food production in metropolitan settings. 

Table 5.15 summarizes the results of the

survey. The Canadian survey is supported

by similar data from the 1996–1997 National

Gardening Survey, conducted by the Gallup

Organization, Inc. on behalf of the National

Gardening Association (Butterfield 1997). 
54

Table 5.15 Urban Agricultural Practices 1

Category Response % of Respondents

Urban food production 81%

Size of production area 0–100 sq ft 

100–1,000 sq ft

1–10,000 sq ft 

> 10,000 sq ft 

35%

 37%

10%

 3%

Location of production area Home gardens

Community gardens

Window Sills

Balconies

Other 2

35%

21%

14%

10%

—

Product grown Vegetables

Herbs

Fruit

Legumes

77%

72%

45%

36%

Country of Origin United States

Canada

14 other countries

(combined)

56%

26%

—

1 Results of Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture Survey, conducted in May 2000, excerpted from City Farmer. 

2

 Including rooftops, school gardens, parking lots, vacant lots, etc. 

In 1998, the American Community Gardening

Association conducted a study on the status of

community gardens. The respondents included

more than 6,000 representatives from 38 cities. 

Only 1.5% of the gardens were “owned” or in a

permanent land trust. Neighborhood gardens

predominated (67.4%), followed by public housing

gardens (16.3%, approximately 978, of which 834

were in New York), and school gardens (8.2%).

Gardens administered by senior, mental health,

rehabilitation, and economic job center gardens

together made up the balance (3.4%). Community

gardens had grown in number by approximately

30% in the 5 years preceding the survey (MonroeSantos, 1998).

A survey conducted in 11 Latin American

countries found that urban agriculture could not

fully replace other work to support family needs. 

Working 1 to 1.5 days per week was required to

maintain the urban garden for the average Latin

American family (Nugent, 1997).

Raised beds are often used for intensive, smallscale gardening. The “Journey to Forever” Web

site recommends digging trenches to prepare a

“deep growth zone” for the roots of plants growing

in raised beds. The bed is constructed by first

digging a trench to a depth of 16 inches and

mixing 4 inches of compost with the soil taken

from the trench. Walls are built to hold the beds to

a height of 12–15 inches. Beds are

recommended to be no more than 30 inches wide,

but preferably 24 inches in width and 8 feet long

with a 15-inch path around the beds. Local

municipalities and agricultural extension offices
55

were listed as sources for compost to be used in

place of added soil. <http://journeytoforever.org/

garden_sqft.html>

5.5.6 Additional Information Sources from

Technical Peer Reviewers

NRC staff reviewed the Phase 2 technical peer

reviewers’ comments for identifying additional

information sources. One technical reviewer

discussed the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA)

technical support documents for biosolids, (known

as the “503 Biosolids Rule,” EPA, 1994 available

at <http://www.epa.gov/owm/ bio/503pe/>). 

Technical assessments for the “503 Biosolids

Rule,” are provided in EPA, 1995 and is available

at

<http://www.epa.gov/owm/bio/503rule/503gtoc.pdf

>. The NRC staff has reviewed this work as part

of its cooperative efforts in ISCORS project to

develop technical guidance on sewage sludge. 

This ISCORS project is also assessing land

application scenarios, and the NRC staff has

reflected this coordination with the NRC staff soil

reuse study.

Additional comments focused on information

related to soil ingestion and garden foods. These

references are: Chaney and Ryan, 1993; Ryan

and Chaney, 1993; Chaney and Ryan, 1994; and

Chaney et al., 2001. In the context of soil removal

and reuse, the NRC staff views soil ingestion as a

secondary human pathway and will consider this

information in the scenario characterization and

modeling analysis.

Further information sources on this topic focused

on the measurement of soil ingestion by children

and sources of error in such estimations. These

references are Stanek et al., 2001 and Cohen et

al., 1998. 

5.6 NRC Staff Research and 

Results

The NRC staff utilized the Phase 1 literature

findings to search for additional information

sources in the areas of construction activities,

transportation, international studies, and national

radioactivity standards. The search process

involved reviewing professional journals and

documents promulgated by the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Nuclear Energy

Agency (NEA), and various Federal agencies

including documents prepared by national

laboratories operated by the U.S. Department of

Energy for information sources related to soil

reuse activities and dose assessment studies. 

Table 5.16 lists specific literature citations and

Web sites identified in the NRC staff Phase 2

search.

5.6.1 Construction Activities Involving

Reused Soil

The engineering properties of soil materials used

in the construction industry may vary, but are often

improved by selection, compaction, moisture

control and mixing. In particular, the types of soil

materials that may be specified for construction

include dumped fill, selected fill, blended fill,

modified fill, hydraulic fill, and backfill. Each

application requires specific materials and

conditions, as described in the following

paragraphs.

One of the oldest building materials still in use

today as the primary building material in many

parts of the world and to some extent in arid

regions of the United states is ordinary soil. There

are several types of building practices using

earthen materials, the most common being adobe

and rammed earth construction.

5.6.1.1 Fill Materials

Dumped fill involves moving soil materials from an

excavation site, and depositing those materials to

fill an area to surveyed lines and grades, as in the

construction of roadways, canals, land

reclamation projects, covers for landfills, and

dams. Dumped fills generally must be free of tree

stumps, organic matter, trash, sod, peat and other

such materials. However, in the reclamation of

wet lands, swamps, or water fronts, dumped fill
56

may include construction waste (e.g., broken up

concrete, bricks, metal scrap, and similar

incompressible materials).

 

Select fill includes selected sands, gravels, rockfill

or rip-rap, and impervious fills (clays/silts) for

various specific engineering purposes. Blended

fills contain two or more materials that by

themselves do not have adequate engineering

properties but when combined together produce a

satisfactory material. Such materials may be

used as sub-bases or bases for roadways or the

construction of dams, and so forth.

Modified fills are fabricated by adding minute

quantities of selected admixture (such as lime,

cement, or asphalt). Hydraulic fills involve the

placement of fill materials under conditions of

excess water content. These situations may

involve excavating and transporting fill using

flowing water or placing fill in still water.

Backfills are used to refill around structures in

confined spaces. Backfills may be compacted

clayey or silty soils or compacted cohesionless

free-draining soils (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1990).

5.6.1.2 Soil as Building Material

Soil can be used to fabricate building materials

such as adobe, or may used to build structures

such as rammed earth construction. Adobe is soil

moistened with water and sometimes mixed with

chopped straw or other fibers added for strength. 

This mixture is placed into molds to create

sundried blocks for building construction. Soil

materials used for adobe construction consist of

sand and clay. Ideally, the best adobe soil will

have between 15% to 30% clay to bind the

material together. Too much clay will cause the

adobe to shrink and crack, while too little will

cause the block to come apart. Sometimes, small

amounts of cement or asphalt emulsion are added

to the soil mixture to keep it intact during

excessive wet weather. Detailed information on

adobe construction is provided in Smith, 1982 and

Masterson, 1975.

Rammed earth construction is similar to adobe

construction with the difference that the soil mix in

this type of construction is compacted within a

formwork to create vertical walls. These forms

are then removed leaving solid earth walls. The

soil used is a processed engineered material

consisting of screened soil. Small amounts of

cement or asphalt emulsion is then added to this

processed material. The mixture is placed in 8

inch layers within the formwork, and compacted to

5 inch thicknesses. Home building information

using adobe and rammed earth construction can

obtained from Hartworks, 2001 available at

<http://www.greenhomebuilding.com>.

Reused soil, if used in adobe or rammed earth

construction, needs to be processed. This

processing involves screening, and often adding

admixtures of straw, cement, asphalt, or other

specified materials to fabricate the specified

engineering properties.

Workers involved in the mixing, screening, and

processing operations of the reused soils would

have exposure to the reused soil. Another

exposure to the reused soil for construction

materials involves occupants of the adobe or

rammed earth structure. However, this exposure

would be much less than the workers who have

close proximity when processing the reused soil.

5.6.1.3 Non-Radiologically Contaminated

Soils

In order to better understand soil reuse, the

researchers examined the construction related

use of non-radiologically contaminated soil. A

recent publication on the reuse and recycling of

non-radiologically contaminated soils discusses

the regulatory aspects, reuse and recycling

technologies, laboratory and field test methods,

and chemical characterization of the

contaminated soil (Testa, 1997). The definition of

contaminated soils varies from State to State, but

in general, contaminated soil is defined as soil

containing one or more contaminants from an

intentional or unintentional spillage, leakage,

emptying, emitting, or dumping of a hazardous
57

substance or pollutant at a concentration that fails

to satisfy any applicable standard. For example,

in New Jersey, soils are considered hazardous

when the following criteria are met (see 

<http://www.state.nj.US/dep/

dshw/rrtp/contsoil.htm>):

! Soil tests positive for characteristics of a

hazardous waste as defined by Title 40, Part

261, Subpart C, paragraphs 21–24 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

! Soil contains a listed waste, as defined by 40

CFR Part 261, Subpart D, paragraphs 31–33.

! Soil is a mixture of a solid waste (nonhazardous) and one or more hazard wastes

listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D,

paragraphs 31–33.

Sources of non-radiologically contaminated soil

include businesses, retail establishments,

governments, and individuals. Quantities vary

greatly depending on site-specific situations, from

a few tons to hundreds of tons (See

<http://www.state.nj.US/dep/dshw/rrtp/contsoil.ht

m>.)

The remedial action options for non-radiologically

contaminated soils also vary somewhat from

State to State. In New Jersey, for example

remediation actions include onsite remediation,

offsite management as a hazardous waste and, in

some instances, recycling hazardous soils treated

on site after receiving all applicable permits. 

Hazardous soils being moved off site for

management must be properly manifested, and

transported by licensed and insured haulers to a

facility that is authorized to accept hazardous soils

(<http://www.state.nj.US/dep/dshw/rrtp/contsoil.ht

m>). New Jersey’s Department of Environmental

Protection issued revised guidance on the

remediation of contaminated soil, which includes

soil reuse (New Jersey, 1998, available at 

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/soilguide/sgd

0-xii.pdf>).

The disposal and reuse options for contaminated

soils are specified in State regulations. For

example, Massachusetts has requirements,

standards, management practices, and approvals

for the testing, tracking, transport, reuse, and

disposal of contaminated soils at landfills

(Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection, 1997). There are limits on the

contaminant levels for the reuse of soils at lined or

unlined landfills. Contaminated soils that satisfy

the criteria established by the State, can be

reused as covers or pre-capping contour

materials. The contaminants in the soils can

include heavy metals, hydrocarbons, PCBs and

other compounds. In cases where the criteria

cannot be met and consistent with State laws,

contaminated soils can be disposed at lined or

unlined landfills depending on the nature and

concentration of the contaminants in the soil. The

listing of contaminants does not include

radioactively contaminated soil and its disposal

management options (Table 1 of Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection, 1997,

available at

<http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/files/comm9701

.pdf>).

There are many publications (e.g., Testa, 1997)

and magazines (e.g., AEHS, 2001) available for

reviewing case studies and guidance on soil

remediation.

5.6.1.4 Radiologically Contaminated Soils

The literature search yielded very little information

on the disposal management and reuse of

radioactively contaminated soils. The only

exception was extensive references in the

literature relating to the reuse or disposal of

uranium tailings contaminated materials (e.g., in

tailings dams and other fill applications) or

byproduct contaminated materials and slags

produced from mineral extraction processes

(other than uranium). These types of radioactively

contaminated materials, and related reuse

scenarios analyses have been extensively studied

elsewhere.

The NRC staff is also aware of reuse of uranium
58

mill tailings, which is not considered to be soil for

the purposes of this report. NRC regulations in 10

CFR Part 40 address the tailings or waste

produced by extracting or concentrating uranium

or thorium for its source material content. 

Therefore, uranium and thorium mill tailings and

waste from uranium leaching (i.e., solution

extraction) processes are regulated. Most

uranium mill tailings that were inadvertently used

in construction have been remediated and placed

in engineered disposal cells (U.S. DOE, 1997). 

Although this information does not concern reused

soil, it does provide a perspective on how free fill

has been used.

5.6.2 Transportation of Reused Soils

The transport of soil materials from their source to

their destination varies depending on the scale

and nature of the task at hand and the equipment

available. Large-scale projects could involve

bulldozers, backhoes, graders, scrapers, and

other equipment to excavate, spread, and mix the

soils; front- end loaders, backhoes, and other

equipment to collect and load the soil onto dump

trucks, which in turn transport the materials to the

construction site (in the case of uncontaminated

or reuse soil materials) or disposal sites or

landfills (in the case of contaminated soils). 

Smaller- scale projects typically rely on smaller,

single-axle dump trucks, pickup trucks, or trailer

assemblies attached to pickup trucks or similar

sized vehicles.

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in their

publication “Standard Specifications for Highway

Bridges,” 16th edition, 1996, discusses the

standard truck and lane loadings on the roadways

of bridges in the United States. The load from a

standard truck is designated as an H loading,

which consists of a two-axle truck or a

corresponding lane loading on a bridge. The

specific loading for a given truck is designated as

H followed by a number indicating the gross

weight (in tons) of the standard truck. In this

description, standard H loading is designated as

an H15, which is a truck with a single rear-axle

with a gross rear-axle load of 24,000 pounds (12

tons) or a truck with two rear axles with a gross

load of 16,000 pounds (8 tons) per axle, each

spaced 4 feet apart. The weights to be assigned

in computing the dead gross weight of the truck

include 100 lbs/cu ft for loose soil materials.

Typical dump trucks transport 6 to 8 cubic yards

(8 to10 tons or 7.2 to 9 metric tons) of soil and

belong to the single rear axle class of truck

loadings. Larger dump trucks can transport 8 to

15 cubic yards (10 to 20 tons or 9 to18 metric

tons) of soil or more. Smaller trucks, generally

used by smaller contractors, transport 2 to 5 cubic

yards (3 to 4 tons or 2.7 to 3.6 metric tons) of soil

materials, while pickup trucks, depending on their

size, can transport about 0.75 to 1.5 cubic yards

of soil materials (see <http://www.cars.com>).

5.6.3 International Studies

The NRC staff identified a relevant study from the

United Kingdom’s Department of the Environment

on “Derivation of UK Unconditional Clearance

Levels for Solid Radioactively Contaminated

Materials” (Hill et al., 1999). The report discussed

“recycling/re-use of soils,” focusing on scenarios

involving residential gardeners, and landscape

workers in public gardens and parks. Specifically,

the report identified these scenarios as leading to

higher doses to individuals than scenarios dealing

with “recycling” of large volumes of soils (such as

commercial agricultural workers). When 

contacted via email during the current study, the

report’s principal author indicated that the

parameters for these scenarios were estimated

and there were no literature sources.

Recently, the European Commission developed

guidance on general clearance levels for

practices, and issued recommendations by a

panel of experts which, however, did not directly

address reused soil (European Commission,

2000).

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the

Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)

published a report on Sources and Effects of
59

Ionizing Radiation, which identified instances of

uranium mill tailings used in construction, and

estimated radon emanations rates of various

material such as uranium mill tailings and soil

(UNSCEAR, 1977).

A symposium paper (Reisenweaver and Linsley,

2000) summarized IAEA development of

principles and criteria for regulating the release of

material from regulatory control. The paper

focused on the clearance process; however, it did

not specifically address reused soil.

The NRC staff also identified a series of

somewhat relevant reports from the international

Biosphere Model Validations Study II (BIOMOVS),

which was published as a special issue of the

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 42(2–3),

(in Davis, ed., 1999). These reports cite

Chernobyl data to discuss radionuclide transport

in soils, including radionuclide wash-off from

contaminated watersheds.

5.6.4 National Radiological and Technical

Guidance 

The NRC staff identified a recent national

document on “Recommended Screening Limits

for Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of

Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies: NCRP

Report No. 129,” issued in 1999 by the National

Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCRP). Although the publication

discussed a wide variety of soil-related scenarios

and provided parameter values, it did not address

soil reuse. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) issued two reports on

soil screening guidance for radionuclides; “Soil

Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: User’s

Guide” (EPA/540-R-00-007), and “Soil Screening

Guidance for Radionuclides: Technical

Background Document” (EPA/540-R-00-006). As

with the NCRP report, these documents provided

useful information on indigenous, native soils, but

not on reused soil scenarios. The EPA also

issued an “Environmental Factors Handbook” in

1997, which provided parameter values for soil

ingestion and inhalation, along with plant uptake

values. A recent publication on soils, the

Handbook of Soil Science (Sumner, 2000),

provided excellent information on soil properties,

soil transport processes and soil water

movement. Similarly, Brady and Weil, 2000

discusses the nature and properties of soil.

Table 5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections

Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS), Contaminated Soil, Sediment, & Water,

Amherst, MA, 2001, (information available at <http://www.aehsmag.com/> as of January 27, 2002).

Chen, S.Y., N. Ranek, S. Kamboj, J. Hensley and A. Wallo, “Authorized Release of DOE’s Non-Real

Property: Process and Approach,” Health Physics, 77(2) Supplement, pp. S40–S48, August 1999.

Davis, P. (ed.), “Special Issue: BIOMOVS II,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 42(2–3), Elsevier

Press, New York, NY, 1999.

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, “Radiation Protection 122: Practical Use of

the Concepts of Clearance and Exemption—Part 1, Guidance on General Clearance Levels for Practices,”

Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2000.

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, “Radiation Protection 124: Radiological

Considerations with Regard to the Remediation of Areas Affected by Lasting Radiation Exposure as a Result

of a Past or Old Practice or Work Activity,” Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2001.

Gofman, J.W., Radiation and Human Health, Pantheon Books, New York, NY, 1983.
Table 5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections (continued)

60

Hill, M.D., M.C. Thorne, P. Williams, and P. Leyshon-Jones, “Derivation of UK Unconditional Clearance

Levels for Solid Radioactively Contaminated Materials,” DETR Report No. DETRA/RAS/98.004, U.K.

Department of the Environment, W.S. Atkins & Electrowatt, UK, March 1999.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and

Practices from Regulatory Control,” Safety Series No. 89, Vienna, Austria, 1988.

IAEA, “Application of Exemption Principles to the Recycle and Reuse of Materials from Nuclear Facilities,”

Safety Series No. 111-P-1.1, Vienna, Austria, 1992.

IAEA, “Clearance Levels for Radionuclides in Solid Materials, Application of Exemption Principles,” IAEA -

TECDOC 855, Vienna, Austria, 1996.

IAEA, “Technologies for Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Sites,” IAEA-TECDOC-1086, Vienna,

Austria, June 1999.

Kennedy, W.E., Jr., and D.L. Strenge. “Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning:

Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent-Final

Report,” Volume 1, NUREG/CR-5512, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1992.

Los Alamos National Laboratory, “MCNP 4A Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport System, RSIC Computer

Code Collection (CCC) 200),” Los Alamos, NM, 1995.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, “Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at

Massachusetts Landfills,” Policy #COMM-97-001,” Boston, MA, August 15, 1997, available at

<http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/files/comm9701.pdf>.

Meyer, P.D., and G.W. Gee, “Information on Hydrologic Conceptual Models, Parameters, Uncertainty

Analysis, and Data Sources for Dose Assessments at Decommissioning Sites,” NUREG/CR-6656, PNNL13091, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, December 1999. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Recommended Screening Limits for

Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies,” Report No.129,

Bethesda, MD, 1999.

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), “Radiological Protection Objectives for Land Contaminated

with Radionuclides,“ Volume 9, No. 2, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom, 1998.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Maps and Publications, “Guidance Document for the

Remediation of Contaminated Soils,” Trenton, NJ, 1998, available at

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/soilguide/sgd0-xii.pdf>.

Nicholson, T.J., and J. Parrott, “Proceedings of the Workshop on Review of Dose Modeling Methods for

Demonstration of Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” NUREG/CP-0163,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, May 1998.
Table 5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections (continued)

61

Nisbet, A.F., and R.F. Woodman, “Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Radiocesium and Radiostrontium in

Agricultural Systems,” Health Physics, 78(3):279–288, March 2000.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose

Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion,” Federal Guidance Report No. 11, Oak Ridge,

TN, 1988.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management,

“Policy and Procedure Establishing Criteria for Use of Uncontaminated Soils, Rock, Stone, Unused Brick

and Block, Concrete and Used Asphalt as Clean Fill,” Doc. No. 258-2182-773, Harrisburg, PA, February 29,

1996.

Regens, J.L., et al., “Modeling Radiological Risks to Human Health from Contaminated Soils: Comparing

MEPAS, MMSOILS, and RESRAD,” Human Ecological Risk Assessment, 6(5):777–788, Washington, DC,

October 2000.

Reisenweaver, D.W., and G. Linsley, “International Development of Principles and Criteria for Regulating the

Release of Material from Regulatory Control,” Proceedings of the 4th U.S. Department of Energy International

Decommissioning Symposium, June 12–16, 2000, Knoxville, TN, 2001.

Renauld, P., J. Real, H. Maubert and S. Roussel-Debet, “Dynamic Modeling of the Cesium, Strontium and

Ruthenium Transfer to Grass and Vegetables,” Health Physics, 76(5):495–509, May 1999.

Sheppard, S.C., and W.G. Evenden, “Variations in Transfer Factors for Stochastic Models:

Soil-To-Plant Transfer,” Health Physics, 72(5):727-733, 1997.

Shlein, Bernard (editor). The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook, Silva Spring, MD: Scinta

Inc., 1992.

Simon, S.L., “Soil Ingestion by Humans: A Review of History, Data, and Etiology with Application to Risk

Assessment of Radioactively Contaminated Soil,” Health Physics, 74(6):647–651, 1998.

Smith, J.T., D.R.P. Leonard, J. Hilton, and P.G. Appleby. Towards a Generalized Model for the Primary and

Secondary Contamination of Lakes by Chernobyl-Derived Radiocesium,” Health Physics, 72(6):880–891,

June 1997.

Sumner, M.E., Handbook of Soil Science, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999. 

Syracuse Research Corporation, User's Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead

in Children (IIEUBK) Windows« version. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.

Testa, S.M., The Reuse and Recycling of Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1997.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Sources and Effects of

Ionizing Radiation, New York, NY, 1977.
Table 5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections (continued)

62

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

Project: Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report to Stakeholders,” U.S. DOE, Washington, DC, December 31, 1997.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Third Edition, Washington, DC, 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “1997 National Resources

Inventory,” Revised December 2000, available at <http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov//land/lgif/m5058l.gif> as of

July 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Program, “Clean Materials Program,” available

at <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanmetals/> as of January 27, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Factors Handbook, Washington, DC, 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential for Recycling of Scrap Metals from

Nuclear Facilities, Washington, DC, 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: User’s Guide,”

EPA/540-R-00-007, Washington, DC, October 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: Technical Background

Document,“ EPA/540-R-00-006, Washington, DC, October 2000. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning:

Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent,”

NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1, PNL-7994, Washington, DC, October 1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: User’s

Manual DandD Version 2.1,” NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 2, SAND2001-0822P, Washington, DC, April 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning:

Parameter Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,” NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.3., SAND99-2148, Washington, DC,

October 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Summary and Characterization of Public Comments on the Control

of Solid Materials,” NUREG/CR-6682, Washington, DC, September 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Probabilistic Modules for the RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD

Computer Codes: User's Guide for RESRAD Version 6.0,” NUREG/CR-6692, Washington, DC, 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking

on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1495,

Volumes 1–3, Washington, DC, July 1997.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Decision Methods for Dose Assessments to Comply with

Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” NUREG-1549, Washington, DC, July 1998.
Table 5.16 Phase 2 NRC Staff Final Information Source Selections (continued)

63

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC Information on Control of Solid Materials,” available at

<http:www.nrc.gov/NMSS/IMNS/controlsolids.html> as of August 23, 2001.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), “Application of Soil Performance Standards Guidance,”

PUB-RR-676, Memorandum from Mark F. Giesfeldt to DNR Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment

Staff, Statewide, Madison, WI, October 8, 2001, available at 

<http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR676.pfd> as of November 27, 2001.

Yu, C., et al., “Development of Probabilistic RESRAD 6.0 and RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Computer Codes,”

NUREG/CR-6697, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2000.

Yu, C., et al., “Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESRAD, Version

5.0,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1993.

Yu, C., et al., “Users Manual for RESRAD Version 6,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 2001.
64

This page intentionally left blank.
65

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

6.1 Construction and Approval of

the Plan

By virtue of the continuously expanding base of

available resources, information retrieval is a more

qualitative than quantitative process. For

example, it has been estimated that as many as

14,000 technical reports are written each day in

the United States. Another complicating factor to

the reliable retrieval of information is the 

ephemeral nature of some sources, notably those

on the Internet. As a result, the Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan

developed for this project emphasized study

methodology.

All systems, including information retrieval

systems, are constrained in three ways by time,

quality, and cost. Each constraint is operative at

all times, although their relative importance varies. 

Quality measures for information retrieval are

founded on two components, precision and recall. 

Precision refers to the percentage of valid or

highly significant citations as a function of the total

number of citations retrieved (recalled). Recall is

evaluated as the percentage of significant

publications retrieved relative to the total number

of significant publications available at the time the

search was performed. 

Quality measures for any project therefore depend

upon the stated information needs of the client,

balanced with the other constraints of time and

cost. For the purposes of this report, the search

quality performance for Phase 1 emphasized

recall over precision. A reasonably extensive

search was required to support the information

needs of the NRC staff. The research plan was

constructed in a way that minimized, to the extent

possible, the negative impacts of a high-recall

comprehensive survey. Phase 2 quality

requirements emphasized precision. In addition,

Phase 2 required significant investigator analysis,

synthesis, and interpretation. 

The development of a quality assurance or quality

control plan was required by the terms of the

Interagency Agreement (IAA). NAL drafted the plan

during the initial phase of the IAA and submitted it

to the NRC staff for their review and approval. 

Suggested changes were incorporated into the

plan. The plan was written for the comprehensive

search process used in Phase 1. Modifications to

the original plan were made to reflect the

procedures of Phase 2 .

6.2 The Quality Assurance/

Quality Control Plan

The project’s final QA/QC Plan, as approved by

the NRC staff, is summarized in Sections 6.2.1

and 6.2.2.

6.2.1 Procedures for Collaborative Review

Procedures for collaborative review of literature

survey results, information sources, and retrieval

strategies were established using guidelines set in

1996 by the Reference and User Services

Association of the American Library Association

(RUSA, 1996). NRC and NAL staffs reviewed the

initial search strategies, concepts, definitions and

descriptions, search terms, and database

selections. Initial survey results were also

reviewed in titles-only format. Suggested

modifications were made and the results were

incorporated into the Phase 1 draft letter report for

external peer review.

6.2.2 QA/QC Audit

External peer review by non-NAL library and

information science and soil science

professionals was an important quality control

measure. Reviewer recommended changes

were incorporated as needed. Additional search

results were presented to the NRC staff for their

consideration.
66

The Phase 1 draft letter report was provided to the

external reviewers for the QA/QC audit. The draft

letter report included search strategies, data

sources, and a reasonable sampling of the titlesonly results. The reviewers were asked to

evaluate the strategy for completeness. 

Specifically, the search terms were evaluated for

any missing concepts, the strategies were

analyzed for logic and, finally, the reviewers were

asked to assess the retrieved results for

inclusiveness of seminal works.

NAL staff met with NRC staff to consider the

comments from both the external and NRC

reviewers. Refinements were made to searches,

as needed, to ensure maximum precision and

completeness. NRC staff then selected specific

titles for complete citation retrieval which are

included in the Phase 1 final letter report. 

Copies of all Phase 1 Dialog® session logs will be

maintained by NAL until November 2004, 5 years

from the completion of the Phase 1 final letter

report. Session logs include information about

costs, search terms and databases searched. 

Also, copies of the following Phase 1 reports will

be held by NAL until November 2004: draft letter

report, supplement to the draft letter report, and

the final letter report. NAL will also maintain

copies of the Phase 2 draft letter report and final

NUREG-1725 until November 2004.

6.3 Phase 1 External Review

A key element in the QA/QC Plan was to engage

external (i.e., non-NAL) experts to review research

procedures. Two potential benefits expected

through independent review were: (1) to alert NAL

and NRC researchers to concepts missed in

strategy development; and (2) to identify important

information sources that may have been

overlooked. These benefits were best achieved

through careful selection of experts for the

external review, as described in the next

subsection.

6.3.1 Selection of the Phase 1 External

Reviewers

NAL and NRC staff jointly determined that external

reviewers should come from three key disciplines,

including (1) soil science, (2) civil engineering, and

(3) information science. Soil science experts

provide the best opportunity to identify new

technical terms that could be added to the search

strategies to enhance recall of relevant citations.

The field of civil engineering (with its focus on

construction) provides many important scenarios

for the reuse of soils. Finally, professional

information specialists are best suited to

understand the complex syntax and logical search

strategy construction, and are the most

knowledgeable about available information

sources. 

Having established the expertise needed in the

reviewers, the NAL staff sought capable experts. 

It should be noted that, in all cases, the reviews

were voluntarily conducted without payment.

The following experts were selected by the NAL

and approved by the NRC staff to serve as

external reviewers:

Dr. Dewayne Mays

Head, USDA, NRCS, Soil Survey Laboratory

Dr. Mays has a Ph.D. in Soil Science from the

University of Nebraska and is currently heading

the National Soil Survey Laboratory for the USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Carol H. Reese

American Society of Civil Engineers

Ms. Reese has a Master of Library Sciences

degree. She has developed and is maintaining

databases for the American Society of Civil

Engineering and is responsible for indexing the

Society’s publications. In addition, Ms. Reese has

16 years of reference research experience at a

University. She serves as a board member of the

Engineering Division of the Special Libraries
67

Association.

Carla Long Casler

Arid Lands Information Center

University of Arizona

Ms. Casler has a Master of Library Sciences

degree. She has compiled information resources

on ?Soils of Arid Regions of the United States and

Israel,” ?World Desertification Bibliography,” and

other soil-related projects. Ms. Casler has had

professional involvement in both the United States

Agricultural Information Network (USAIN) and the

International Association of Agricultural Information

Specialists (IAALD). She has 10 years of online

bibliographic search experience in the Arid Lands

Information Center. In addition, for 8 years Ms.

Casler served as the North American

Representative to CAB International (a key

database resource used in the current study). 

6.3.2 Summary of Phase 1 Reviewer

Comments and Actions Taken

NAL requested that each reviewer consider four

specific elements in conducting the review for the

project:

! specific terms used in the strategies and to

suggest additional terms

! search string logic or construction

! database selection

! recall of highly relevant publications.

With respect to the last point, NAL asked the

reviewers to identify any highly relevant literature

that was not found in the materials under review. 

The reviewers were sent the draft letter report,

which provided a copy of the comprehensive

search strategy concept sets and sample title

listings. These titles were felt to be an adequate

sampling for review.

The external reviewers provided comments on

search terms, strategy syntax, and information

sources.

One reviewer suggested the additional search

terms “removal” and “cost” for concept sets V3

and V1, respectively. These enhancements were

made to the strategy statements. A syntax error

was also noted and corrected in the strategy

statement for concept set P3.

The reviewers recommended assessing 

additional information sources including 

dissertations and theses; publications by the

USGS, STN International, and the Canadian

Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

(CISTI). 

Dissertations and theses are indexed in Dialog®

file 35, Dissertation Abstracts Online, which was

searched in 15 of the final 42 searches. USGS

publications are indexed in Dialog® file 89,

GeoRef, which was used in 25 of the final 42

searches. Database and information access

providers STN and CISTI were also considered. 

The reviewer selected list of CISTI journal titles

were indexed in many of the Dialog® files

previously searched. Further screening

suggested that the depth of coverage in these

resources was not sufficient to warrant further

analysis at this time. (They remain potential new

sources should additional research become

necessary.) 

Information sources recommended by one

reviewer included Web sites related to Chernobyl

and Three Mile Island. Information about these

sites was relayed to the NRC staff for their

consideration.

Appendix B contains additional details of the

external review, comments, and actions taken.

6.4 Phase 2 Procedures

The Phase 2 study was distinctly different in

nature than the Phase 1 study and required a
68

variation to the Phase 1 QA/QC plan. In Phase 1

NAL researchers primarily used structured data

resources, and they developed and executed

detailed strategies after carefully reviewing

search terms, logic, syntax, and data resource

selections. The goal of the Phase 1 study was to

identify citable published sources documenting

practices and parameters for the reuse of soil in

the United States. These sources were not found.

In contrast, the goal of the Phase 2 research was

to develop a realistic basis for parameter

estimation and validation. The process involved

sifting facts, trends, and anecdotal information

from a wide range of sources. In this case, there

were no structured query sets accessible for

external review of search terms, logic, syntax, and

data resource selections. 

As in Phase 1, NAL researchers conferred at

timely intervals with the NRC staff to

collaboratively review progress and to refine

search and retrieval procedures. Because Phase

2 was the first of its kind synthesis, NAL

researchers relied to the extent possible on

independent verification of facts and inferences

through multiple source confirmation and, where

possible, direct contact with experts and business

representatives via telephone or email interviews. 

6.4.1 Selection of Phase 2 Technical Peer

Reviewers

Emphases of the Phase 2 peer review were

focused on the interpretations presented in the

final report, rather than the information research

procedures. As a result, Phase 2 reviewers were

selected for their combined expertise in

environmental sciences, civil engineering, and

agronomy. Again it should be noted that in all

cases the reviews were voluntarily conducted

without payment.

The following experts were selected by NAL and

approved by the NRC staff to serve as external

reviewers:

Eric Koglin

Senior Environmental Scientist

National Exposure Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Koglin received his B.S. in geology from

Indiana State University, and his M.S. in hydrology

from the University of Arizona. He has worked as

a Superfund Remedial Project Manager. 

Currently, Mr. Koglin is specializing in the testing

and evaluation of analytical methods to detect

environmental contaminants in the field.

Robert M. Lacey

Assistant Technical Director, Military Land

Management

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Lacey received his B.A. in geography and his

M.S. in city and regional planning from Southern

Illinois University. Mr. Lacey’s research has

focused on installation natural resource

management emphasizing land use planning. As

Chair of the Tri-Service Conservation Pillar, he

coordinated natural and cultural resources

research conducted throughout the Department of

Defense. Through these and other assignments,

Mr. Lacey has represented a broad range of

environmental research issues related to natural

and cultural resources management on military

installations.

Rufus L. Chaney

Research Agronomist

Animal Manure and By-Products Laboratory

USDA, Agricultural Research Service

Dr. Chaney received his B.S. in chemistry from

Heidelberg College and his Ph.D. in biochemistry

from Purdue University. Mineral metabolism in

soybeans was the focus of Dr. Chaney’s graduate

studies. His postdoctoral work examined the

mechanism of iron uptake in plants. Currently Dr.

Chaney is conducting research on the fate, foodchain transfer, and potential effects of soil

microelements. These studies include: plant

uptake of metals; speciation of metals in plants
69

and bioavailability to animals; development of

crops for the remediation of contaminated soils;

testing the bioavailability of lead and other metals

in soils, biosolids, and composts; and methods to

reduce food-chain transfers of toxic metals. Dr.

Chaney has advised state and federal agencies

regarding development of regulations to govern

the use of biosolids. Specifically, Dr. Chaney is a

technical consultant to the cooperative ISCORS

project for sewage sludge analysis.

6.4.2 Summary of Reviewer Comments and

Actions Taken

The reviewers were provided with a copy of the

final draft of NUREG-1725 and asked to comment

upon the study methodology, scope of coverage,

and to recommend useful information sources not

cited in the report under review.

All three of the reviewers acknowledged the

problematic nature of assembling information in

the material flow of reused soils in open

commerce. The scarcity of available information

and the collection of such information in integrated

sources (e.g., publications, Internet web pages)

made this enterprise challenging, and the

reviewers expressed encouragement on the effort

made to integrate such information.

The external reviewers provided comments in 3

general categories:

! editorial and technical corrections,

! process-related recommendations, and

! suggestions relevant to the reuse of soils, but

outside the scope of the information search.

The NAL and NRC staff revised the report to

correct typographic errors and other formatrelated problems in the text provided to the

external reviewers. 

The majority of the process-related comments

were in the form of additional documents, which

the reviewers recommended be included in the

final publication of the information search results. 

However, a number were not included, primarily

for scope reasons. The NRC is searching for

information related to common practices in use of

soils, which may have been removed from areas

at or around nuclear facilities. Many of the

suggested references relate to use of virgin (noncontaminated) soils, and the inclusion of these

references would obscure the construction of

likely scenarios for soils reuse. A number of the

suggested citations do provide useful information

on the parameterization of soils reuse and have

been included in the citations listed in this

publication.

The last category of comments made suggestions

on how to model scenarios, how to select

parameters, how to compute exposures and other

relevant topics to the dose analysis of potential

soils reuse scenarios. These references and

suggestions did not address the question of

material flow of reused soils, but rather the

impacts from exposure to such soils after

“delivery” to their final location. Although this is

relevant to the NRC’s overall development of

technical bases for decision making, they were

outside of the scope of this document. However,

these references and the suggestions made by

the reviewers were forwarded to those NRC staff

offices responsible for the development of the

technical basis supporting decision making in this

area.
70

7. SUMMARY

This reports presents results of a 2-year

investigation to compile information on current

practices with regard to soil reuse. This

information is intended to supplement the

technical basis for formulating and characterizing

scenarios related to exposure to residual

radioactivity in reused soils. This process was

both iterative and interactive, and involved timely

review of both search strategies and results. 

Using this approach, the investigation team refined

and improved the research effort; however, this

process turned out to be complex for many

reasons. For example, there is a paucity of

reliable and documented information. Moreover,

this report is a first of its kind effort to address the

realistic material flow of reused soils. 

Although this study revealed that no methodology

currently exists for formulating realistic soil reuse

exposure scenarios and for assigning the

appropriate parameter values, it did yield some

noteworthy observations:

• Large-volume transactions (such as 1,000

cubic yards or more) are generally distributed

to construction projects (e.g., roads, parking

lots, building pads).

• Large-scale greenhouse and landscape

operations have moved away from using

natural soils to specially formulated soilless

growth media.

• Market leaders in packaged potting “soils” use

mineral and organic matter in their

formulations.

• Medium to small greenhouse and landscape

operations continue to use natural soil

mixtures.

• Small-volume transactions involving natural

soils are primarily distributed to small

businesses and private home owners. 

• There still remains a demand for free or lowcost soil for diverse uses by the general

public.

In addition, the study found the following trends in

the greenhouse and landscape operations:

• Industry seeks inexpensive and readily

accessible alternative materials for use in

place of reused soil.

• Limited and variable fertility associated with

natural soils encourages the use of specially

formulated soilless growth media. 

• The high cost of long-distance transportation

and the low inherent economic value of the

reused soil encourages use of locally

available sources.

This study yielded the following benefits:

• This study supported and complimented the

scoping scenario characterizations under

evaluation in a parallel NRC effort for dose

modeling analyses pertaining to soil reuse.

• This study refined parameter values to reflect

realism in modeling exercises, and further

improvements are expected.

• The study emphasized the significant

uncertainty in material flows and soil reuse

characterization (i.e., probabilistic distributions

of uncertainty are needed).

The study also identified human factor sources of

uncertainties: 

• Material flow and exposure scenarios are a

function of human behavior, which varies

because of geographic and environmental

aspects of the locations where the exposures

occur.
71

• Anecdotal sources were useful because of the

shortage of documented information.

This report compiles, for the first time, data and

information sources for parameters specific to soil

reuse. This report also provides information that

is relevant for generic, as well as site-specific

dose assessments. This investigation was

coordinated with a companion effort by an

ISCORS study that is directed toward the

disposition of sewage sludge and dose modeling.
72

8. REFERENCES

Addison, K., and M. Hiraga, “Building a Square Food Garden,” Journey to Forever Web site, available at

<http://journeytoforever.org/garden_sqft.html> as of November 27, 2001.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “Standard Specifications for

Highway Bridges,” 16th edition, 1996.

Baker, K.F., “The U.C. System for Producing Healthy Container-Grown Plants,” California Agricultural

Experiment Station Manual 23, 1957.

Biocycle, “Mulch and Topsoil Fit the Bill in Florida,” Biocycle (Journal of Composting and Recycling),

41(2):71–72, February 2000.

Boodley J. and R. Sheldrake, Cornell Peat-Lite Mixes for Commercial Plant Growing, Cornell University

Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY, 1982.

Boyles, P., “Dirty Business,” The Granite State Consumer, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, July

19, 2000, available at <http://ceinfo.unh.edu/Common/Documents/gsc71900.htm> as of November 27,

2001.

Brady, N., and R. Weil, Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle

River, NJ, 2000.

Butterfield, B.W., National Gardening Survey, National Gardening Association, 180 Flynn Ave., Burlington,

VT 05401, 1997.

Canada, International Development Research Centre, “Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy Framework 

for Planners in North America, Europe, and Asia,” 1994, available at <http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/rep09_e.html>

as of November 27, 2001.

Canada, Office of Urban Agriculture, “City Farmer’s Urban Agriculture Survey Results,” May 20, 2000,

available at <http://www.cityfarmer.org/surveyresults.html#surveyresults> as of January 16, 2002. 

Cars.com Web site <http://www.cars.com > as of November 28, 2001.

Chaney, R.L. and J.A. Ryan, “Heavy Metals and Toxic Organic Pollutants in MSW-Composts: Research

Results on Phytoavailability, Bioavailability,” pp. 451-506, In H.A.J. Hoitink and H.M. Keener (eds.), Science

and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects, Ohio State

University, Columbus, OH, 1993.

Chaney, R.L. and J.A. Ryan, “Risk Based Standards for Arsenic, Lead and Cadmium in Urban Soils,” (ISBN

3-926959-63-0) DECHEMA, Frankfurt, Germany, 130 pp., 1994.

Chaney, R.L., J.A. Ryan, U. Kukier, S.L. Brown, G. Siebielec, M. Malik and J.S. Angle, “Heavy Metal Aspects

of Compost Use,” pp. 323-359, in P.J. Stofella and B.A. Kahn (eds), Compost Utilization in Horticultural

Cropping Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2001.
73

Clausnitzer, H., and M. Singer, “Intensive Land Preparation Emits Respirable Dust,” California Agriculture,

51(2):27–30, University of California, 1997.

Clausnitzer, H., and M. Singer, “Mineralogy of Agricultural Source Soil and Respirable Dust in California,”

Journal of Environmental Quality, 28(5):1619–1628, October 1999.

Cohen, J.T., B.D. Beck, T.S. Bowers, R.L. Bornschein and E.J. Calabrese, “An Arsenic Exposure Model:

Probabilistic Validation using Empirical Data,” Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 4:341–377, 1998.

Craul, P., “Compost in Urban Soil Design,” Biocycle, 38(11):39-40, 42, November 1997.

Davis, P. (ed.), “Special Issue: BIOMOVS II,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 42(2-3), Elsevier

Press, New York, NY, 1999.

Deese Landscaping, Hauling and Grading, “Price List for Fort Mill and Rock Hill (North Carolina) Areas,”

1998, available at <http://web.cetlink.net/~dirt/> as of January 1998.

Ehret, D. Et al., “Clay Addition to Soilless Media Promotes Growth and Yield of Greenhouse Crops,” 

HortScience, 33(1):67–70, 1998.

EPM Communications, Inc., “A Blooming Trend Most Americans Are Gardeners,” Research Alert, March 6,

1998.

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, “Radiation Protection 122: Practical Use of

the Concepts of Clearance and Exemption—Part 1, Guidance on General Clearance Levels for Practices,”

Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2000.

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, “Radiation Protection 124: Radiological

Considerations with Regard to the Remediation of Areas Affected by Lasting Radiation Exposure as a Result

of a Past or Old Practice or Work Activity,” Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2001.

Furillo, A., “California Farm Labor by the Numbers,” Sacramento Bee, May 20, 2001, available at

<http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/workers/20010520_numbers.html> as of May 21,

2001.

Gouin, F., “Selecting Organic Soil Amendments for Landscapes,” Biocycle, 38(12):62-63, December 1997.

Greer, L. and S. Diver, “Organic Greenhouse Vegetable Production: Horticulture Systems Guide,”

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Fayetteville, AR, January 2000, available at

<http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ ghveg.html> as of January 27, 2002.

Hall, Charlie, “Economic impact of the green industry in Texas,” The Texas Nursery & Landscape

Association, 2001, available at <http://www.txnla.org/pdf_files/impact.pdf> as of January 27, 2002.

Handreck, K., Growing Media for Ornamental Plants and Turf, University of New South Wales Press, page

119, New South Wales, Australia, 1994.
74

Hartworks, Inc., “Building Today for Tomorrow,” PO Box 632, Crestone, CO 81131, 2001, available at <http://www.gr

Heimlich, R., and C. Barnard, “Agricultural Adaptation to Urbanization: Farm Types in Northeast Metropolitan

Areas,” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics, 21(1):50–60, 1992.

Hill, M.D., M.C. Thorne, P. Williams, and P. Leyshon-Jones, “Derivation of UK Unconditional Clearance

Levels for Solid Radioactively Contaminated Materials,” DETR Report No. DETRA/RAS/98.004, U.K.

Department of the Environment, W.S. Atkins & Electrowatt, United Kingdom, March 1999.

Housing Assistance Council. “Abundant Fields, Meager Shelter: Findings From a Survey of Farm worker

Housing in the Eastern Migrant Stream,” 2001, available at <http://www.ruralhome.org/pubs/farm

worker/meager/toc.htm#table> as of November 27, 2001.

Howell, D., “Premium Soils Set to Outgrow Mix-it-Yourself Solutions, (Scotts Co.),” DSN Retailing Today

40:2, 33, January 22, 2001.

Huinink, J.T.M., "Soil Quality Requirements for Use in Urban Environments," Soil and Tillage Research,

Proceedings of the World Congress of Soil Science on “State of the Art in Soil Physics and in Soil

Technology of Anthrophic Soils,” Montpellier, France, August 20–26, 1998, 47(1–2):157–162, 1998.

Irrigation & Green Industry Network–Landscaping Web site, <http://www.igin.com/Landscaping/> as of

December 18, 2001.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, “Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at

Massachusetts Landfills,” Policy #COMM-97-001, Boston, MA, August 15, 1997, available at

<http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/files/comm9701.pdf> as of December 14, 2001.

Masterson, R., “Building with Adobe Brick,” Studio Potter, 4(2):54–58, Daniel Clark Foundation, Goffstown,

NH, 1975.

McCarty, L.B., “Basic Guidelines for Sod Production in Florida,” Florida Cooperative Extension Service,

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Bulletin 260, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Revised June

1994.

McCarty, B., G. Landry Jr., J. Higgins, and L. Miller, “Sod Production in the Southern United States,” Circular

702, 43 pp.,Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson, SC, 1999.

Mehta, K., et al., “Findings from the United States Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997–1998,” 2000,

available at <http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker/report_8.pdf> as of November 27, 2001.

Monroe-Santos, S., “Recent National Survey Show Status of Community Gardens in U.S.” Commercial

Greening Review, 8:12,17, 1998.

Moore, M., W. Crosswhite, and J. Hostetler, “Agricultural Water Use in the United States, 1950–85,” National

Water Summary 1987, USGS Water Supply Paper 2350, USGS, Reston, VA, 1997.
75

Mulch and Soil Council, “Voluntary Uniform Product Guidelines for Horticultural Mulches, Growing Media and

Landscape Soils,” National Bark & Soil Producers Association Document V–6.3, Manassas, VA, 2001,

available at <http://www.nbspa.org/industry/NB_Std_Consol_V62.pdf> as of January 27, 2002.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Recommended Screening Limits for

Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies,” Report No.129,

Bethesda, MD, 1999.

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), “Radiological Protection Objectives for Land Contaminated

with Radionuclides,“ Volume 9, No. 2, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom, 1998.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Maps & Publications, “1998 Revised Guidance

Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils,” Trenton, NJ, 1998, available at

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/soilguide/sgd0-xii.pdf> and specifically for soil reuse at

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/soilguide/sgd53-66.pdf>. As of November 28, 2001, the Web site

available at <http://www.anjr.com/newsite/buyrecycled/buy_rec_fr.html> is replaced by

<http://www.anjr.com/Resources/ANJRResources/RecycledProductsGuide/Grounds& Recreation.htm>

which has been reorganized since the initial access on November 5, 2001.

Nilsson, Philip, Labor Time Data Handbook, Nilsson Associates, 374 Hart Street, Southington, CT 06489,

1996. 

Nugent, R., "The Significance of Urban Agriculture," Urban Agriculture Notes, City Farmer— Canada's

Office of Urban Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada, 1997, available at <http://www.cityfarmer.org/racheldraft.html>

as of August 13, 2000.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “OSHA’s Field Sanitation Standard,” 1992, available at

<http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Fact_data/FSNO92-25.html> as of November 27, 2001.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, “Ohio's Materials Exchange TOPSOIL,” available at

<http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/recyc/avail6.html> as of January 23, 2001. 

Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Office of Research, “Web Characterization Project: Statistics,” 1999,

available at <http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/projects/webstats/statistics.htm> as of January 23, 2001).

Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference

and Information Professionals,” Section 4, American Library Association, January 1996, available at

<http://www.ala.org/rusa/stnd_behavior.html> as of January 18, 2002. 

Rodgers, A., “Growth Opportunities in Soils and Amendments,” Lawn & Garden Marketing, 28(7):36, August

1989.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension, “Preventing Heat Stress in Agriculture,” available at 

<http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nasd/docs2/nj00800.html> as of November 27, 2001.

Ryan, J.A. and R.L. Chaney, “Issues of Risk Assessment and its Utility in Development of Soil Standards:

The 503 Methodology as an Example,” pp. 393–414, in R. Prost (ed.), Contaminated Soils: Proc. Third
76

International Symposium on Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements, Paris, May 15–19, 1995, Colloque No. 85,

INRA Editions, Paris, France, 1997.

Ryan, J.A. and R.L. Chaney, “Regulation of Municipal Sewage Sludge under the Clean Water Act Section

503: A Model for Exposure and Risk Assessment for MSW-Compost,” pp. 422–450, in H.A.J. Hoitink, and

H.M. Keener (eds.), Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and

Utilization Aspects, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1993.

Sanders, D., “Vegetable Crop Irrigation,” North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 1997, available at

<http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-33-e.html> as of November 27, 2001.

Sheldrake, R., “Artificial Mix Substrates Commonly Used in U.S.A,” Acta Horticulturae, 99:47–49, 1980.

Schultz Company, “Potting Soils,” available at <http://www.schultz.com/potsoil.htm> as of January 27, 2002.

Scotts Company, “Scotts Company Product Guide Winter 2001–2002,” available at

<http://www.scottscompany.com/gardening/ProdGuideGarden.cfm> as of January 27, 2002.

SMG Investor Relations: Business Segment, “North American Consumer: Consumer Growing Media

Group,” available at <http://www.smgnyse.com/html/growingmedia.cfm> as of January 27, 2002.

Smith, E.W., “Large-Scale Adobe-Brick Manufacturing in New Mexico,” Circular (182): 49–56, New Mexico

Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM, 1982.

Solley, W., R. Pierce, and H. Perlman, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995,” Circular

1200, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 1998, available at <http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/>

as of November 27, 2001.

Sommers, P., and J. Smith, “Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy Framework for Planners in North

America, Europe, and Asia,” Cities Feeding People, CFP Report Series Report 9, International Development

Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 1994, available at <http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/rep09_e.html> as of January

30, 2202.

Standards Australia International Ltd., Soils for Landscaping and Garden Use, Doc. #AS 4419-1998, Sydney,

Australia, 1998, only the scope and abstract are available at

<http://www.standards.com.au/catalogue/script/Details.asp?DocN=stds000022925> as of January 25,

2002.

Stanek, E.J., E.J. Calabrese, and M. Zorn, “Soil Ingestion Distributions for Monte Carlo Risk Assessment in

Children,” Human Ecol Risk Assess. 7:357–368, 2001.

Stanley, Tracey, “Meta-Searching on the Web,” Ariadne, Issue 14, 1998, available at

<http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue14/search-engines/> as of January 23, 2000.

Sumner, M.E., Handbook of Soil Science, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999.

Testa, S.M., The Reuse and Recycling of Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1997.
77

Three–Z–Inc., “Soil Blends,” Valley View, OH, available at <http://www.three-z.com/> as of December 18,

2001.

Turfgrass Producers International, “Farmland and Urban Soil Conservation Resulting from Cultivated

Turfgrass Sod,” Turfgrass Producers International, Rolling Meadows, IL, Revised 1995.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Sources and Effects of

Ionizing Radiation, New York, NY, 1977.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Grounds Maintenance Workers,” Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1997,

available at <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos172.htm> as of December 18, 2001.

U.S. Civil Air Patrol, “AETC Policy on Fluid Replacement During Training in Hot Environments,” 2001,

available at <http://www.capnhq.gov/nhq/cp/encampments/AETC.htm> as of November 27, 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Farm Labor: Farm Labor Data,” available at

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/FarmLabor/farmlabor/> as of December 7, 2000.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “1998 Farm & Ranch Irrigation

Survey, Census of Agriculture, Tables 22 & 29,” (The 1997 Census is available at

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/tbl22.pdf>).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, “Farm

Labor,” 1995–2001, available at <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pfl-bb/> as of

November 27, 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Usual Planting and Harvesting

Dates for U.S. Field Crops,” 1997, available at <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/planting/>

as of November 27, 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Sciences, and the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, “Florida

Agriculture Farm Labor Report,” 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “1997 National Resources

Inventory,” Revised December 2000, available at <http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov//land/lgif/m5058l.gif> as of

July 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System

of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys,” Agriculture Handbook #436, second edition,

1999.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil

Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, Agriculture Handbook No. 436, Washington, DC,

1951. (More recent soil maps are available at <http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m4025.html>. ) 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

Project: Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report to Stakeholders,” Washington, DC, December 31, 1997.
78

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “How to Obtain Sand, Gravel and other

Mineral Materials from BLM Administered Federal Lands,” BLM-WO-GI-92-002-4140, April 1992, available at

<http://imcg.wr.usgs.gov/usbmak/sndgrvl.html> as of January 27, 2002.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Third Edition, Washington, DC, 1990.

U.S. Department of Labor, “The National Agricultural Workers Survey,” available at 

<http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker/naws.htm> as of March 28, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Technical Support Document for the 40 CFR 503 Standards for the

Use or Disposal of Sewage sludge,” Washington, DC, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “40 CFR Part 257 et al. Standards for the Use or Disposal of

Sewage Sludge; Final Rules,“ Federal Register 58(32):9248-9415, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Program, “Clean Materials Program,” available

at <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanmetals/> as of January 27, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Factors Handbook, Washington, DC, 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential for Recycling of Scrap Metals from

Nuclear Facilities, Washington, DC, 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: User’s Guide,”

EPA/540-R-00-007, Washington, DC, October 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: Technical Background

Document,“ EPA/540-R-00-006, Washington, DC, October 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Water Management, “A Guide to the Biosolids Risk

Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule,” EPA/832–B–93–005, Washington, DC, 1995, available at

<http://www.epa.gov/owm/bio/503rule/> as of January 30, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Water Management, “A Plain English Guide to the

EPA Biosolids Rule,” EPA/832/R–93/003, Washington, DC, 1994, available at

<http://www.epa.gov/owm/bio/503pe/> as of January 30, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “Where Does My Drinking Water Come From?,”

2001, available at <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/where.html> as of November 27, 2001.

U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Program, “Mineral Commodity Summaries,” available at

<http://minerals.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs/mcs/> as of January 30, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning:

Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent,”

NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1, PNL-7994, Washington, DC, October 1992.
79

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: User’s

Manual DandD Version 2.1,” NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 2, SAND2001-0822P, Washington, DC, April 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning:

Parameter Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,” NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.3., SAND99-2148, Washington, DC,

October 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Summary and Characterization of Public Comments on the Control

of Solid Materials,” NUREG/CR-6682, Washington, DC, September 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Probabilistic Modules for the RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD

Computer Codes: User's Guide for RESRAD Version 6.0,” NUREG/CR-6692, Washington, DC, 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking

on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1495,

Volumes 1–3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, July 1997.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply with

Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” NUREG-1549, Washington, DC, July 1998.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC Information on Control of Solid Materials,” available at

<http:www.nrc.gov/NMSS/IMNS/controlsolids.html> as of August 23, 2001.

University of California, Berkeley, “Battling Heat Stress,” 1999, available at 

<http://are.berkeley.edu/heat/heat2/trial1.html#findings> as of November 27, 2001.

University of California, Berkeley, “Battling Heat Stress in Agriculture,” available at 

<http://are.berkeley.edu/heat/> as of November 27, 2001.

University of Northumbria at Newcastle (UNN), “Web Search Service Features,” 1999, available at

<http://www.unn.ac.uk/features.htm> as of 23 January 2000.

Vogel, K. and D. Block, “An Eye for Quality, Bringing Composted Feedstocks to Market,” Biocycle,

39(10):33-34, October 1998.

Warnicke, D., “Analyzing Greenhouse Growth Media by the Saturation Extraction Method,” HortScience,

21(2):223–225, 1986.

Wessling, S., “The Right Truck for the Right Job,” Irrigation and Green Industry Network Web site,

Landscape, Irrigation & Maintenance Contractors, <http://www.igin.com/Landscaping/ index.html> as of

December 18, 2001.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), “Application of Soil Performance Standards Guidance,”

PUB-RR-676, Memorandum from Mark F. Giesfeldt to DNR Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment

Staff, Statewide, Madison, WI, October 8, 2001, available at 

<http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR676.pfd> as of November 27, 2001.
80

Yu, C., et al., “Development of Probabilistic RESRAD 6.0 and RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Computer Codes,”

NUREG/CR-6697, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2000.

Yu, C., et al., “Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESRAD, Version

5.0,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1993.

Yu, C., et al., “Users Manual for RESRAD Version 6,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 2001.
81

This page intentionally left blank.
A-1

APPENDIX A. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT

NUREG-1725

A.1 Release of NUREG-1725 for 

Public Comment

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

is examining its approach for controlling release of

solid material at NRC-licensed facilities. As part

of developing technical information to support a

Commission policy decision in this area, the NRC

published a Federal Register notice (FRN), dated

July 19, 2000 (65 FR 44843), requesting public

comments on Draft NUREG-1725, “Human

Interactions with Reused Soil: A Literature

Search.” This FRN indicated that the public

comment period would last until September 18,

2000. The specific purpose of the draft NUREG1725 was to review existing literature on potential

ways in which soils are currently reused in

commerce or by the general public. This

information would then be used in assessing the

potential radiation exposures that could result if

soil is released from NRC-licensed facilities. 

To solicit further comments for identifying

information sources and technical bases for

characterizing soil reuse scenarios, copies of the

subject report were sent to land-grant universities

and selected Federal agency libraries. In addition,

a second FRN, issued on September 7, 2000 (65

FR 54326), extended the public comment period

to November 17, 2000.

A.2 Public Comments Received

The NRC received 190 public comments in

response to the subject FRNs. These comments

can be categorized and analyzed as follows.

A.2.1 Comments Outside the Scope of

NUREG-1725

The majority of the comments received did not

address the specific purpose of the FRN, which

(as described in Section A.1 above) was to solicit

additional information from the public as to ways in

which soil is currently reused. 

Although these comments did not provide

information within the scope of the FRN, they did

indicate a strong objection to the release of any

soils — contaminated or otherwise — from NRClicensed facilities. The NRC will consider these

comments in the context of its broader

examination of the agency’s policies on control of

solid material. It is anticipated that this

examination will take place following a study that is

currently being conducted for the NRC by the

National Academy of Sciences, which is

scheduled to be completed early in 2002. 

A.2.2 Comments Suggesting References

for Soil Reuse Scenario Characterization

Some comments suggested references, which

the investigators reviewed for relevancy to soil

reuse scenario characterization: 

• The NRC staff had previously identified one of

these references in Phase 2 of the information

search. This reference, National Council on

Radiation Protection and Measurements

Report No. 129, “Recommended Screening

Limits for Contaminated Surface Soil and

Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific

Studies,” is mentioned in Section 5.

• Some comments suggested broadening the

scope of the information search to include

such information as soil reuse in urban areas. 

This type of information is part of the scope of

the literature already reviewed, particularly in

the context of soil reuse in construction,

agriculture, and recreation, and is mentioned

in Section 5.
A-2

• The investigators determined that the other

recommended references were not relevant to

soil reuse scenario characterization because

they deal with cancer and radioactivity, rather

than the different ways that soil can be reused.

A.2.3 Comments Related to Analytical

Methods

Some commenters suggested that the NRC

should investigate references that provide

information on radionuclide transport in the

environment. However, because these

comments did not relate to the ways in which soil

is reused, they were considered to be outside the

scope of this document. Nonetheless, these

suggestions will be reflected in the analytical

methods that are being developed under a

separate contract to assess the impacts of soil

reuse.

In addition, some comments suggested editorial

corrections and improvements to the draft version

of NUREG-1725. These comments are reflected

in this final NUREG.

A.2.4 Other Comments

A few comments included suggestions for text

improvements and the use of terminology. 

Specifically, a commenter questioned the use of

terminology, such as “adequate,” “realistic,” and

“soil reuse.” The aim of the draft report was to try

to envelop the possible uses that exist or may

exist for soils transported from NRC-licensed

facilities. The information gleaned from this

exercise will assist in defining which scenarios are

possible, which are unlikely, and which are not

supported by actual practice. The report defines

“reuse” in this regulatory context. The final report

has improved the explanations of terminology

unique to this area.

Finally, one comment supported the usefulness of

the literature review for the NRC’s decisionmaking

process.
B-1

APPENDIX B. PHASE 1 SEARCH STRATEGIES, RESULTS, AND EXTERNAL

REVIEW

B.1 Introduction

In Phase 1, the investigators conducted extensive

literature searches to identify human interaction

with soil. In doing so, the investigators focused on

locating published, verifiable sources of

information, which is primarily indexed in

bibliographic citation or full-text databases. These

databases can be accessed through commercial

vendors through either online services or compact

disc (CD) formats. 

For Phase 1 of this study, the investigators

primarily relied on online access to the

bibliographic citation and full-text databases, and

the Dialog® Corporation was the primary online

access provider. In some instances, the

investigators searched databases using the

SilverPlatter® CD platform. Records accessed

using this interface are equivalent to those

available from the Dialog® system.

This appendix provides exact details of the

methodology employed in Phase 1 of this study. 

Section B. 2 describes the detailed search

strategies used to search the literature. Section

B.3 summarizes the Phase 1 results. Section B.4

discusses the Phase 1 external review and

Section B.5 identifies Internet resources of general

interest.

B.2 Search Strategies

The searches were organized into three

categories, including: general terms (labeled G),

particular scenarios (labeled P), and quantitative

or volumetric terms (labeled V). Sections B.2.1

through B.2.3 describe each of these three

categories, followed by each of the related

concept sets (each of which is identified by a

label and a narrative purpose description). The

actual strategy then appears on a separate line

beginning with “S” (the search command for

Dialog®), followed by a listing of the selected

databases searched. See Section B.2.4 for more

information about Dialog® command syntax. 

B.2.1 General Terms, Labeled G

For the general category, the investigators

designed six concept sets for searches to

discover and retrieve records of human actions or

activities that involve soils and were not

specifically identified by the NRC or NAL staffs. 

Search results could identify particular additional

"scenario" names or terms or help to quantify

particular soil contact parameters.

Concept Set G1

The G1 concept set retrieved many records

describing soil use. These results were provided

in five separate files because of the high number

of records retrieved. 

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N) (USE

OR USERS OR USING OR USES OR USED

OR USAGE? ? OR REUSE OR REUSING OR

REUSED) 

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number8:

7,9,33,63,67,119,139,146,148,194,211,258,

262,318,323,474,475,483,484,492,494,495,

496,497,571,583,603,624,632,633,634,638,

639,640,642,649,701,702,704,705,706,707,

708,713,714,716,718,719,721,724,738,739,

741,743

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

8

The Dialog® file numbers are listed in the order

actually used in the search. This order determines

which database file will be used to download records in

the case of duplicate records.
B-2

searched, by file number:

10,6,50,60,8,15,16,18,20,35,47,49,58,

64,68,77,87,89,92,99,103,109,110,111,118,

143,144,238,257,266,292,319,335,479,484,

535,553,559,608,635,636,655,764

Concept Set G2

The G2 concept set retrieved records about

material flow and soil. Material flow refers to the

transfer or movement of a material or substance

within a physical or commercial environment.

S SOIL? ?/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC AND MATERIAL?

?()FLOW?

Dialog® science databases selected and

searched, by file number:

5,203,6,50,60,34,440,63,484,2,8,35,40,44,

71,89,94,103,108,117,118,144,156,162,

266,292,315,340,347,348,351,353,652,653,654

Concept Set G3

The G3 concept set retrieved records covering all

forms of soil processing or processes, with the

exception of soil formation.

S ((SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N)

PROCESS???) NOT (SOIL? ? (2W) FORM?)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

118,63,119,266,2,16,19,108,148,636,240,

484,7,109,67,624,323,621,813,111,583,18,553,19

4,262,633,649,516,635,15,238,47,

51,64,92,211,479,139,474,705,727,733,141

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

50,10,6,89,8,65,292,103,68,110,76,58,

143,77,40,41,87,60,29,357,99

Concept Set G4

The G4 concept set searched for records related

to direct human contact with soils.

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (S)

(CONTACT? OR EXPOSURE OR HUMAN? ? OR

PEOPLE? ? OR PERSON? ? OR WORKER? ?

OR LABORER? ? OR WORKMEN OR 

WORKMAN)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

7,9,15,16,20,33,47,49,93,115,139,146,148,180,24

8,258,474,475,484,492,494,496,497,498,535,584,

603,608,630,631,632,633,634,636,638,641,642,65

5,701,702,704,705,707,708,713,714,721,723,732,

733,734,736,738,740,743,781

Selected SilverPlatter® CD science-related

databases: 

AGRICOLA, 1970–1999/069; CAB 1972–1999/04;

NTIS, 1983–1999 1–18

Concept Set G5

The G5 concept set searched for records related

to temporary soil storage (e.g., surcharge piles) or

long-term warehousing of stored soil. 

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N)

(STORAGE OR STORED OR STORING OR

DISPOS??? OR SURCHARGE()PILE? ?)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

194,118,315,63,60,266,119,109,98,323,

148,636,108,474,484,16,99,553,262,87,92,603,11

1,559,660,655,317,195,49,238,335,

479,527,635,492,634,707,737,319

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

6,10,50,8,89,103,68,292,58,143,29,41,

2,35,96

9

The SilverPlatter® CD-based databases are

followed by date ranges of subject coverage; the two-digit

number following the slash represents the release month

for the CD.
B-3

Concept Set G6

The G6 concept set retrieved records from

specific U.S. Government agencies with missions

and responsibilities related to regulating

radionuclides and describing soil.

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (F) (AEC

or DOE (S) (FOCUS () GROUP or STABIL?) OR

ERDA or NRC) 

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,6,203,5,50,65,2,73,76,89,123,108,109,

117,144,148,155,156,241,266,285,292,440,624,63

6,655,660

B.2.2 Particular Scenario Terms, Labeled

P

For the particular scenarios, the investigators

designed concept sets for 11 searches to retrieve

items pertaining to specifically identified types of

human-soil interactions.

Concept Set P1

The P1 concept set retrieved records on soil uses

for golf courses and for sod farming and sod roof

construction. 

S SOIL? ?/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (S)

(GOLF()COURSE? ? OR (SOD OR

TURF)()(FARM? ? OR ROOF? ?))

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

10,50,76,5,203,8,35,41,60,65,71,77,16,18,

19,47,103,143,144,266,286,292,479,516,

555,630,631,632,633,634,641,707,708,713,714,71

6,723,725,733,742,777,781,34,440

Concept Set P2

The P2 concept set is composed of two subsets

combined to retrieve records describing

techniques used in the cleanup of contaminated

soils. The combined Boolean operation is

displayed as:

S SOIL? ?/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (3N)(REMEDIAT? OR

RECLAM? OR RECLAIM??? OR WASH??? OR

CLEAN??? OR PROCESS??? OR RECYCL???

OR STABILIZ?) 

 -andS (METHOD? OR TECHNIQUE? ? OR

MECHANISM? ? OR PROCEDUR?? OR

OPTION?? OR PLAN???? OR ACTIV????? OR

ACTION??)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,6,50,76,203,8,15,16,18,19,35,40,41,58,

60,63,65,68,77,87,89,92,98,99,103,110,

111,117,118,144,148,238,266,285,292,315,317,48

4,527,535,553,559,621,624,636,660,764,766,813,

7,194,262,649 

Concept Set P3

The P3 concept set is composed of two subsets

combined to retrieve records describing dust from

soil. The combined Boolean operation is

displayed as:

S DUST? ?/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (3N)(LOAD? OR

LEVEL? ? OR VOLUME? ? OR QUANTIT? OR

AMOUNT??? OR HAZARD? OR LOSS OR

LOSSES OR DAMAG? OR TRANSFER? OR

CONTAMINAT?) NOT (DUST (2N) (HOUSE? ?

OR MITE? ?)) 

 -andS (SOIL? ? OR DIRT OR EARTH? ?)

/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

10,50,6,5,103,40,89,110,41,73,144,8,2,76,

337,117,155,68,474,65,109,63,655,108,

119,315,334,7,240,16,323,60,77,161,9,19,

31,99,317,535,636,111,118,262,475,747 

Concept Set P4

The P4 concept set retrieved records covering the
B-4

use of soil in construction.

S (EARTHMOV??? OR EARTH()MOVING OR

RAMMED()EARTH OR (BACKFILL??? OR

FILL()DIRT OR (BACK OR CLEAN OR

CONSTRUCTION OR RESIDENTIAL () 

FILL))(F)(SOIL? ? OR DIRT OR

EARTH??)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

7,9,49,146,269,474,475,478,483,484,492,

494,495,527,535,553,555,559,570,603,608,621,62

4,632,634,563,633,636,638,639,640,641,642,649,

655,660,704,707,708,712,713,714,718,723,738,74

3,781,813

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,6,50,203,8,15,16,18,20,35,41,47,58,63,

64,180,194,195,196,257,285,635,636,14,

19,68,77,87,89,98,99,156,161,292,103,109,117,11

8,144,110

Concept Set P5-6

The P5-6 concept set retrieved records covering

soil use in walls, berms, dams, etc.

S (SOIL? ? OR EARTH?? OR

DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N) (REINFORC? OR 

EMBANKMENT? ? OR DAM? ? OR LEVEE? ?

OR DIKE? ? OR BERM?? OR WALL?? OR

ADMIXTURE? ?) 

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

63,8,65,89,118,144,10,6,50,203,103,15,33,34,35,5

0,67,119,194,262,248,535,559,624,670,765,2,19,3

1,35,47,40,44,58,68,41,77,

87,92,96,98,89,110,117,430,238,99,240,

266,292,293,440

Concept Set P7

The P7 concept set included terms to retrieve

records describing adobe building materials and

construction.

S (ADOBE/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC NOT (SOFTWARE

OR PROGRAM??? OR COMPUT??? OR

DESKTOP? ? OR ILLUSTRATOR OR

PHOTOSHOP OR PRINTSHOP OR

ACROBAT))(F) (SOIL? ? OR DIRT OR

MATERIAL? ? OR SOURCE? ? OR MAKING)

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

10,6,203,5,89,531,118,103,47,65,68,2,

148,634,35,111,475,16,87,99,292,492,

603,9,132,262,498,630,713,716,719,732

Concept Set P8

The P8 concept set retrieved records covering

pottery production or potter’s clay. 

S ((POTTING OR POTTERY OR

POTTERS)()CLAY? ?)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC OR

((POTTING OR POTTERY OR POTTERS)()

CLAY? ?)(F)(SOURCE? ? OR SITE? ? OR 

PRODUC??? OR SUPPL???? OR

MANUFACTUR?)

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

5,6,89,47,2,15,117,20,63,571,58,8,103,109,

118,146,148,535,583,483,704,708,716,717,

719,724,608,632,519,633,634,638,641,642,

718,781,736,702,703,706,725,734,492,

494,737,248,335,624,723,733,740,741,743

Concept Set P9

The P9 concept set was designed to retrieve

records covering detrital materials; however, no

relevant material was found.

S (DETRIT?? AND (SOIL OR DIRT OR

EARTH??))/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC 

Concept Set P10

The P10 concept set retrieved records discussing

soil erosion rates. Additional related documents

from the USDA, NRCS Web-site were also

retrieved.
B-5

S SOIL()EROSION/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (F) RATE

Selected SilverPlatter® CD database: AGRICOLA

(1970–1999/06) 

Concept Set P11

The P11 concept set retrieved records on bulk or

packaged soil mixes, including potting soil.

S SOIL? ?/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N) (BULK?? OR

PACKAG??? OR BAGGED OR BAGGING OR

MIX??? OR POTTING)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

18,67,116,119,141,194,358,474,475,478,

484,492,494,495,527,531,559,603,632,633,634,63

9,640,701,702,703,704,705,706,707,708,712,713,

714,715,718,720,724,731,735,736,781,813,861,73

3,9,15,647,285,319,

479,535,553,621,624,635,766,7

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,50,5,6,60,8,63,68,89,103,117,143,

144,285,292,516,515

Concept Set P12

The P12 concept set retrieved records with topsoil

as a subject term, excluding records retrieved

from other searches using soil and dirt terms.

 

S TOPSOIL? ? NOT (SOIL? ? OR

DIRT))/TI,DE,ID,SH,CCV) 

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number:

50,6,76,34,40,41,47,2,9,44,58,68,77,89,92,99,103,

110,117,118,143,144,148,180,238,

285,479,484,516,535,571,608,624,635,636,637,66

5

B.2.3 Volumetric Terms, Labeled V

For the quantitative or volumetric category, the

investigators designed concept sets for three

searches. Using volume, quantity, or economic

terms, these searches retrieved records to

quantify, specify, or delineate the extent of human

contact with soils.

 

Concept Set V1

The V1 concept set is composed of three subsets

combined to retrieve records covering the

economic literature for soils, while excluding the

economic discussions regarding soil erosion and

conservation, soil fertility, pesticides, soil surveys,

etc. The combined Boolean operation is displayed

as:

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC

(S)(ECONOM? OR DOLLAR? ? OR PRICE? ?

OR PRICING OR PAYMENT? ? OR EXPENS?

OR CASH OR VALU????? OR BUSINESS?? OR

RETAIL?) 

 -orS (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (S)

(WHOLESALE? OR PROFIT? OR COST??? OR

INDUSTR??? OR COMMERC??? OR

BUSINESS?? OR INVEST? OR MARKET??? OR

SALE? ? OR PURCHAS??? OR DOLLAR? ?) 

 -notS (EROSION OR EROD? OR FERTIL? OR

LOSS OR LOSSES OR POLLUT? OR 

RECLAM? OR RECLAIM? OR SAMPL? OR

INVESTIGAT? OR CONSERV? OR

SOIL()SURVEY? ?)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

7,63,139,47,474,111,484,20,16,635,713,

483,603,553,110,99,636,2,29,660,49,705,

642,18,87,475,634,98,621,258,631,718,

624,119,632,633,19,92,103,559,148,

531,285,194,266,109,9,479,47,535,765 

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,50,6,89,103,60,292,68,65,8,143,266,35,58,40,7

7,109,118

Concept Set V2

The V2 concept retrieved records with specified

numeric data for soils, excluding topics related to

erosion, pesticides, and fertility. 

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (2N)
B-6

(QUANTIT? OR STATISTIC? OR AMOUNT? ?

OR WEIGH? OR VOLUME? ?) NOT (EROSION

OR EROSIV??? OR EROD??? OR LOS??? OR

WEIGHTED OR FERTILI? OR YIELD??? OR

PESTICIDE? ? OR HERBICIDE? ?)

Dialog® business-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

763,240,118,119,109,108,2,92,266,716,

194,99,484,7,474,609,708,357,148,248,

315,317,636,483,738,9,16,111,553,559,

475,494,633

Dialog® science-related databases selected and

searched, by file number:

10,50,6,103,68,58,292,143,41,110,40,60,

98,29

Concept Set V3

The V3 concept set is composed of two subsets

to retreive records covering soil movement,

shipment, or transportation, but excluding

movement of fertilizer elements, pesticides, or

other chemicals applied to soils. The combined

Boolearn operation is displayed as:

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT)/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (F)

(TRUCK? OR SHIP? OR TRANSPORT? OR

HAUL? OR BARG? OR TRAIN? OR RAIL? OR

CONVEY??? OR REMOV? OR 

RELOCAT? OR REPLAC? OR PLACE? ? OR

PLACEMENT) 

-notS (FERTIL? OR CHEMICAL? ? OR

INSECTICIDE? ? OR SEED? ? OR NUTRIENT? ? 

OR PESTICIDE? ? OR HERBICIDE? ?)

Dialog® databases selected and searched, by file

number: 10,6,50,2,58,67,68,89,103,109,143,292,9,

15,16,18,19,20,33,47,49,63,64,92,98,99,

111,118,119,180,211,238,240,241,245,248,266,26

9,479,516,527,535,553,559,570,571,608,621,624,

635,636,637,660,813,7,474,

475,258,262

B.2.4 Explanation of Dialog® Search

Command Syntax

The following sections describe the Dialog®

search command syntax used in this study, as

reported in Sections B.2.1 through B.2.3, above.

The Search Command

The Dialog® information system can perform

many types of operations. The operation to

search files for records is initiated using the

search command. The syntax for the search

command is an "S", placed at the beginning of

each statement. The statement identifies terms

and operations used in the search.

Truncation Command

Word truncation is a method used to capture

spelling variations, such as suffixes of -ed or -ly

added to the root word. The Dialog® system

truncation command, “?”, can be used in the

following ways: 

! A single “?” will retrieve all records containing

the root word. This use of the command

allows an indeterminate number of characters

to follow the root word. 

! A double “?” (“? ?”) can be used to limit

spelling variations to no more than one

character after the root word.

! Additional “?” commands, such as “???” or

“????”, can limit the ending length of the root

word for any number of characters up to one

less than the number of “?” commands

shown. 

Boolean Operators

Boolean operators “and”, “or”, or “not” specify

whether terms occurring on either side of the

operator must be, may be, or cannot be contained

within a record, respectively. 

Suffix-Coded Field Tags

Dialog® databases are generally structured into

specific fields identified with tags. It is possible to

use the database field tags to limit searching to

specific fields. This type of limitation can generally

improve the relevance of the search findings. 
B-7

The Dialog® syntax for using suffix-coded field

tags is a “/” followed by the field name abbreviation

[ /TI, DE, ID, SH, CC ]. Terms appearing

immediately before the "/" must be present within

a specified field. The fields used here include TI =

titles, DE = descriptors (subject terms), ID =

identifiers, SH = subject headings and CC =

category codes.

Proximity Operators

Proximity operators [(F), (S), (3N), or ()] indicate

the allowed location of terms within a record. (F)

requires that terms on either side of the operator

must be in the same field; (S) requires that terms

must be in the same subfield (i.e. in the same

phrase or "sentence"); (nN) requires that terms on

either side of the operator must be separated by

not more than "n" terms, where “n” is a number, in

any order; the “()” operator requires that terms on

either side of the operator must be both adjacent

and in the specified order.

Parenthetical Grouping

Parentheses group terms together for processing. 

Such grouping is used for Boolean operations

(and, or, not), or to apply field search limits (/TI,

DE, ID, SH, CC) or proximity operators [(F), (S),

(3N), etc.] to all terms within a parenthetical group. 

Command operations are performed first within

parenthetical groupings before any other

operations are processed. This command syntax

is analogous to the precedence of operations

seen in mathematical equations.

Field Limitations

Proximity operators that search for terms within a

given field or subfield will by default limit other

linked but unlimited terms to the same field or

subfield. 

For example, searching a given set of terms that

have been limited to fields, as in /TI,DE,ID,SH,CC,

when linked to another term or parenthetical group

using (F) or (S) requires all terms in the second

group must also occur in one of the specified

fields (/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC), by virtue of the (F) or (S)

requirements. 

B.3 Study Results

From more than two million database records

initially found in surveys of Dialog® databases, the

NAL investigators presented approximately 78,000

items to the NRC from results of the searches

outlined in the previous section. The majority of

these items were titles that were provided to the

NRC staff in electronic format.

An inventory of the complete count of items

retrieved by the completed searches is shown in

Table B.1. Because of the large amount of data

retrieved, processing limits of the Dialog® system

did not allow all of the results from many of the

individual concept sets to be included into single

files. Therefore, many concept set results were

split into two or more files as seen in Table B.1. 

Specific details on these processing limits and the

techniques that were used to separate the data

into multiple files are presented at the end of the

table.

Table B.1 Concept Set Findings
B-8

Concept Set Included Files File Size in Bytes Count

G1

Soil use 

G1BIZ.TTL 

G1SCI1.TTL

G1SCI2.TTL

G1SCI3.TTL

G1SCI4.TTL

 146,325

 652,687

 668,994

 819,476

 704,757

 (2,992,239)

 696 titles

2,797 titles

2,928 titles

3,624 titles

2,379 titles

 (12,424 titles) 

G2

Soil material flow

G2SCI.TTL 116,521

 (116,521)

 502 titles

 (502 titles)

G3

Soil process (not 

soil forming)

G3BIZ.TTL

G3SCI.TTL

 114,157

 32,221

 (146,378) 

 

 574 titles

 145 titles

 (719 titles)

G4

Human contact with

soil

G4AGR.TTL

G4AGR.TXT

G4BIZ.TTL

G4CAB.TTL

G4CAB.TXT

G4NTIS.TTL

G4NTIS.TXT

 97,511

 43,427

 189,395

 91,292

 85,997

 133,183

 184,476

 (825,283)

571 titles (CD)

 49 selected records

442 titles (CD)

559 titles (CD)

 19 selected records

724 titles (CD)

 40 selected records

 (2,296 titles) 

 (108 records)

G5

Storing soil

G5BIZ.TTL

G5SCI.TTL

 119,052

 963,594

 (1,082,646)

 587 titles

 4,379 titles

 (4,966 titles) 

G6 

Publication on soil

from applicable

Federal Agencies

G6.TTL 64,237

 (64,237)

 295 titles

 (295 titles)

P1

Golf courses and

sods

P1.TTL 30,172

 (30,172)

 150 titles

 (150 titles)

P2

Reclamation

methods

P2ALL1.TTL

P2ALL2.TTL

 534,222

 480,764

 (1,014,986) 

 2,747 titles

 2,396 titles

 (5,143 titles)

P3 Soil dust P3.TTL 118,490

 (118,490)

 516 titles

 (516 titles)
Table B.1 Concept Set Findings (continued)

Concept Set Included Files File Size in Bytes Count

B-9

P4

Earthmoving and soil

use in construction

fill and rammed earth

P4BIZ.TTL

P4SCI.TTL

 244,778

 480,764

 (697,177) 

 1,158 titles

 2,230 titles

 (3,388 titles)

P5-6 a

Soil in walls, dams,

berms, and dikes

P56BIG6.TTL

P56BIG62.TTL

P56NTIS.TTL

P56OTHER.TTL

 916,776

1,200,346

 444,637

 562,442

 (3,124,201)

 4,038 titles

 5,485 titles

 1,787 titles

 2,889 titles

 (14,199 titles)

P7

Adobe

P7.TTL 34,755

 (34,755)

 177 titles

 (177 titles)

P8 

Pottery production

and potting clay 

P8.TTL 27,035

 (27,035)

 152 titles

 (152 titles)

P10

Soil erosion rates

P10AGRIC.TXT

P10WEB.TXT

 19,620

 22,616

 (42,236)

39 titles

Web Resources b 

 (39 records)

P11

Potting soil and

bagged or bulk soil

P11BIZ.TTL

P11SCI.TTL

 82,003

 587,434

 (669, 537)

 433 titles

 2,821titles

 (3,254 titles)

P12

Topsoil

P12ALL.TTL 134,414

 (134,414)

 278 titles

 (278 titles)

V1

Soil economics,

business activities

V1ABIZ.TTL

V1ASCI.TTL

V1BBIZ.TTL

V1BSCI.TTL

 286,444

 961.951

 826,537

 220,487

 (2,295,349)

 953 titles

 4,034 titles

 3,384 titles

 992 titles

 (9,363 titles)

V2

Statistical and

numeric data for

soils 

V2BIZ.TTL

V2SCI.TTL

V2SCI89.TTL

 132,438

 513,626

 8,589

 (654,653)

 641 titles

 2,069 titles

 35 (sample titles)

 (2,745 titles) 

V3

Soil transportation

V3BIZ.TTL

V3SCIPRT.TXT

V3SCIB1.TXT

V3SCIB2.TXT

V3SCIB3.TXT

V3SCIB4.TXT

 788,143

 49,696

 701,727 

 791,884

 687,442

 871,151

 (837,839)

 3,554 titles

 205 (sample titles) c

 3,040 titles

 3,372 titles

 3,074 titles

 4,123 titles 

 (17,163 titles)
Table B.1 Concept Set Findings (continued)

Concept Set Included Files File Size in Bytes Count

B-10

Totals 19 concept

set results

42 search files 14,908,148 bytes 77,730 titles, plus 147

complete citations

a

 P5-6 is represented by P56 in the electronic file name for the consistency in file nomenclature.

b

 P10 results included USDA, NRCS Web pages and links. 

c

 This file only included a sampling of titles. Complete listings were provided to the staff of the NRC at a later date in files

V3SCIB(1-4).TXT. The 205 titles are encompassed within the complete files and are not counted in the total.

For the purposes of this project, two Dialog® 

system limitations impacted the processing of the

searches. Specifically, these limitations were (1)

the total number of files that could simultaneously

be searched, and (2) the total number of items

that could be processed to remove duplicate

records. 

The Dialog® system limits multiple database

searching to a maximum of 60 simultaneous files;

however, some search concepts required

exploration of more than 60 files. In those cases,

the same search strategy was run several times

against different groups of databases until all

selected databases had been searched. Often,

databases were grouped into science-focused

“SCI” or business-focused “BIZ” categories.

Overlap of literature coverage exists between

databases where the same journals are indexed. 

Dialog® can process the removal of duplicate

records from multiple database searches up to a

maximum of 5,000 items; however, this limit was

often exceeded. In those cases, the records were

separated into groups of less than 5,000. In most

cases, appropriate groupings were made using

publication dates as group delimiters.

When particular searches included the use of

SilverPlatter® CD versions of specific databases,

results files from each database were kept

separate. This was done because duplicates

among multiple databases could not be removed

by processing commands within the

SilverPlatter® system. For these various

reasons, many results groups listed in Table B.1

include more than one file. 

In addition to the comprehensive database output

described in this appendix, research results came

from review and selection of specific resources

from the Internet, WorldCat® (OCLC’s

comprehensive national multi-library database),

Statistical Masterfile on CD, DTIC databases, and

the Thomas Register of American

ManufacturersK database. These results and

processes are described in Section 4. A specific

list of selected Internet resource URLs is shown in

Section B.5. 

B.3.1 Dialog® Database File List

With more than 500 databases, Dialog® is one of

the most comprehensive information resources

available today. The Dialog® system contains

more than 330 million articles, abstracts, and

citations with information covering a broad

spectrum of topics. 

This valuable resource was extensively searched

for literature describing how humans come into

contact with soil, how soil is used (or reused),

how contaminated soils are cleaned or reclaimed,

and what models are used to calculate potential

exposures.

The databases searched were carefully selected

using the following criteria:

! journals indexed,

! focus or scope of the database, and
B-11

! date ranges of database material.

The validity of the database selections was further

verified by sampling the search output for

relevancy.

Sections B.2.1 through B.2.3 present a detailed

description of the concept sets searched. 

Database selection was tailored for each unique

set. The specific Dialog® databases searched for

each concept set are listed in Sections B.2.1

through B.2.3 by their identifying Dialog® file

number designation. In addition, Table B.2

Identifies the database file name with their

corresponding file number.

Detailed descriptions of each database are

available on the Internet at:

<http://library.dialog.com/bluesheets>. The

descriptions include information related to subject

coverage, date ranges, update frequency, sources

of information, record formats, and other aspects.

Information about Dialog® is also available online

at: <http://products.dialog.com/

products/dialog/index.html>

Table B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched

File Name Date of last update 1 (as of Oct 25, 1999)

 2 INSPEC 1969-1999/Oct W1

 5 Biosis Previews(R) 1969-1999/Sep W4 2

 6 NTIS 64-1999/Nov W3via 2

 7 Social SciSearch(R) 1972-1999/Oct W3

 8 Ei Compendex(R) 1970-1999/Oct W3

 9 Business & Industry(R) Jul 1994-1999/Oct 25

 10 AGRICOLA 70-1999/Oct 2

 14 Mechanical Engineering Abs 1973-1999/Nov

 15 ABI/INFORM Aug 1971-1999

 16 Gale Group PROMPT(R) 1990-1999/Oct 25

 18 Gale Group F & S Index 1988-1999

 19 Chemical Industry Notes (CIN) 1974-1999

 20 World Reporter May 1997-1999

 29 Meteor.& Geoastro.Abs. 1970-1999/Sep

 31 World Surface Coatings Abs 1976-1999/Jul

 33 Aluminum Ind Abs 1968-1999/Nov

 34 SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sc 1990-1999/Oct W3

 35 Dissertation Abstracts Online 1861-1999/Oct

 40 Enviroline(R) 1975-1999/Jul

 41 Pollution Abs 1970-1999/Nov

 44 Aquatic Sci&Fish Abs 1978-1999/Oct

 47 Gale Group Magazine DB(TM) 1959-1999/Oct 25

 49 PAIS INT. 1976-1999/Aug

 50 CAB Abstracts 1972-1999/Sep 2

 51 Food Sci.&Tech.Abs 1969-1999/Oct

 58 GeoArchive 1974-1999

 60 CRIS/USDA 1996-1999

 63 Transport Res(TRIS) 1970-1999/Sep

 64 Global Mobility Database (R) 1965-1999/Aug

 65 Inside Conferences 1993-1999/June W2

 67 World Textiles 1970-1999/Sep
Table B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched (continued)

File Name Date of last update 1 (as of Oct 25, 1999)

B-12

 68 Env.Bib. 1974-1999/Sep

 71 ELSEVIER BIOBASE 1994-1999/Sep W2

 73 EMBASE 1974-1999/Sep W4

 76 Life Sciences Collection 1982-1999/Aug

 77 Conference Papers Index 1973-1999

 87 TULSA (Petroleum Abs) 1965-1999/Oct W4

 89 GeoRef 1785-1999/Sep B2

 92 IHS Intl.Stds.& Specs. 1999/Oct

 93 TableBase(R) Sep_1997-1999/Oct W3

 94 JICST-EPlus 1985-1999/Jul W1

 96 FLUIDEX 1973-1999/Sep

 98 General Sci Abs/Full-Text 1984-1999/Sep

 99 Wilson Appl. Sci & Tech Abs 1983-1999/Sep

 103 Energy Science & Technology 1974-1999

 108 Aerospace Database 1962-1999

 109 Nuclear Science Abstracts 1948-1976

 110 WasteInfo 1974-May/99

 111 TGG Natl.Newspaper Index(SM) 1979-1999/Oct 25

 115 Research Centers & Services 1994-1998/Dec

 116 Brands and Their Companies —

 117 Water Resour.Abs. 1967-1999/Sep

 118 ICONDA-Intl Construction 1976-1999/Oct

 119 Textile Technol.Dig. 1978-1999/Oct

 123 CLAIMS(R)/Current Legal Status 1980-1999/Oct 12

 132 S&P`s Daily News 1985-1999/Oct 22

 139 Econ. Lit. Index 1969-1999/Oct

 141 Readers Guide 1983-1999/Jul 

 143 Biol. & Agric. Index 1983-1999/Sep 2

 144 Pascal 1973-1999/Sep

 146 Washington Post Online 1983-1999/Oct 25

 148 Gale Group Trade & Industry DB 1976-1999/Oct 25

 155 MEDLINE(R) 1966-1999/Dec W3 2

 156 Toxline(R) 1965-1999/Sep

 161 Occ.Saf.& Hth. 1973-1998/Q3

 162 CAB HEALTH 1983-1999/Sep 2

 180 Federal Register 1985-1999/Oct 25

 194 CBD 1982/Dec-1999/Jul

 195 CBD Aug 1999-1999/Oct 26

 196 FINDEX 1982-1999/Q2

 203 AGRIS 1974-1999/Jul 2

 

 211 Gale Group Newsearch(TM) 1997-1999/Oct 25

 238 Abs. in New Tech & Eng. 1981-1999/Oct

 240 PAPERCHEM 1967-1999/Jul

 241 Elec. Power DB 1972-1999Jan

 245 WATERNET(TM) 1971-1999Q1

 248 PIRA 1975-1999Nov W4

 257 API EnCompass(TM):News 1975-1999/Oct 22
Table B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched (continued)

File Name Date of last update 1 (as of Oct 25, 1999)

B-13

 258 AP News Jul_1984-1999/Oct 24

 262 CBCA Fulltext 1982-1999/Jul

 266 FEDRIP 1999/Jul

 269 Materials Bus.(TM) 1985-1999/Nov

 285 BioBusiness(R) 1985-1998/Aug W1

 286 Biocommerce Abs.& Dir. 1981-1999/Oct B1

 292 GEOBASE(TM) 1980-1999/Sep

 293 Eng Materials Abs(R) 1986-1999/Nov

 315 ChemEng & Biotec Abs 1970-1999/Oct

 317 Chemical Safety NewsBase 1981-1999/Oct

 318 Chem-Intell Chem Manu Plnts 1999/Jul

 319 Chem Bus NewsBase 1984-1999/Oct 25

 323 RAPRA Rubber & Plastics 1972-1999/Oct B2

 334 Material Safety Label Data 1999/Q2

 335 Ceramic Abstracts 1976-1999

 337 CHEMTOX (R) Online 1998/Q3

 340 CLAIMS(R)/US Patent 1950-99/Oct 12

 347 JAPIO - Patent Abstracts of Japan Oct 1976-1999

 348 European Patents 1978-1999/Oct W42

 351 DERWENT WPI 1963-1999/ 3

 353 APIPAT 1964-1999/Oct W3

 357 Derwent Biotechnology Abs 1982-1999/Sep B1

 358 Current BioTech Abs 1983-1999/Sep

 430 British Books in Print 1999/Aug

 440 Current Contents Search(R) 1990-1999/Oct W5

 474 New York Times Abs 1969-1999/Oct 22

 475 Wall Street Journal Abs 1973-1999/Oct 22

 478 Houston Chronicle 1990-1999/Oct 24

 479 Gale Group Company Intelligence(R) 1999/Oct 25

 483 NEWSPAPER ABSTRACTS DAILY 1986-1999/Oct 21

 484 Periodical Abstracts Plustext 1986-1999/Oct W2

 492 Arizona Repub/Phoenix Gaz 1986-1999/Oct 23

 494 St LouisPost-Dispatch 1988-1999/Oct 24

 495 The Columbus Dispatch 1988-1999/Aug 29

 496 The Sacramento Bee 1988-1999/Oct 24

 497 (Ft.Lauderdale)Sun-Sentinel 1988-1999/Oct 23

 498 Detroit Free Press 1987-1999/Oct 23

 515 D&B-Dun`s Elec. Bus. Dir.(TM) 1999/06

 516 D & B - Duns Market Identifiers 1999/Aug

 519 D&B-Duns Finan.Records Plus(TM) 1999/Apr

 527 S&P`s Register-Corp. 1998/Oct

 531 Amer. Bus. Directory 1999/Aug

 535 Thomas Register Online(R) 1999/Q1

 553 Wilson Business Abstracts Full Text Jan 1983-1999

 555 Moody`s(R)Corp.Profiles 1999/Feb W4

 559 CORPTECH Dir of Tech Companies 1999/Sep

 563 Key Note Market Res. 1986-1999/Oct 24
Table B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched (continued)

File Name Date of last update 1 (as of Oct 25, 1999)

B-14

 570 Gale Group MARS(R) 1984-1999/Oct 22

 571 Piers Exports(US Ports) 1999/Aug

 583 Gale Group Globalbase(TM) 1986-1999/Oct 26

 584 KOMPASS USA 1999/Jul

 603 Newspaper Abstracts 1984-1988

 608 KR/T Bus.News. 1992-1999/Oct 13

 609 Bridge World Markets News 1989-1999/Oct 24

 621 Gale Group New Prod.Annou.(R) 1985-1999/Oct 25

 624 McGraw-Hill Publications 1985-1999/Oct 21

 630 Los Angeles Times 1993-1999/Oct 23

 631 Boston Globe 1980-1999/Oct 22

 632 Chicago Tribune Jan 1988-1999

 633 Phil.Inquirer 1983-1999/Oct 24

 634 San Jose Mercury Jun 1985-1999/Oct 16

 635 Business Dateline(R) 1985-1999/Oct 22

 636 Gale Group Newsletter DB(TM) 1987-1999/Oct 25

 637 Journal of Commerce 1986-1999/Oct 22

 638 Newsday/New York Newsday 1987-1999/Oct 24

 639 The Houston Post 1988-1995/Apr 18

 640 San Francisco Chronicle 1988-1999/Oct 23

 641 Denver Rky Mtn News Jun 1989-1999/Oct 22

 642 The Charlotte Observer 1988-1999/Oct 24

 647 CMP Computer Fulltext 1988-1999

 649 Gale Group Newswire ASAP(TM) 1999/Oct 25

 652 US Patents Fulltext 1971-1979

 653 US Pat.Fulltext 1980-1989

 654 US Pat.Full. 1990-1999/Oct 19

 655 BNA Daily News from Washington Jun 1990-1999

 660 Federal News Service 1991-1999/Mar 01

 665 U.S. Newswire 1995-1999/Apr 29

 670 LitAlert 1973-1999/Oct W2

 701 St Paul Pioneer Pr Apr 1988-1999/Oct 17

 702 Miami Herald 1983-1999/Oct 22

 703 USA Today 1989-1999/Oct 22

 704 (Portland)The Oregonian 1989-1999/Oct 22

 705 The Orlando Sentinel 1988-1999/Oct 24

 706 (New Orleans)Times Picayune 1989-1999/Oct 24

 707 The Seattle Times 1989-1999/Oct 23

 708 Akron Beacon Journal 1989-1999/Oct 24

 712 Palm Beach Post 1989-1999/Oct 18

 713 Atlanta J/Const. 1989-1999/Oct 25

 714 (Baltimore) The Sun 1990-1999/Oct 10

 715 Christian Sci.Mon. 1989-1999/Oct 25

 716 Daily News Of L.A. 1989-1999/Oct 21

 717 The Washington Times Jun 1989-1999/Oct 22

 718 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Jun 1990-1999/Oct 22

 719 (Albany) The Times Union Mar 1986-1999/Oct 21
Table B.2 Dialog® Database Files Searched (continued)

File Name Date of last update 1 (as of Oct 25, 1999)

B-15

 720 (Columbia) The State Dec 1987-1999/Oct 24

 721 Lexington Hrld.-Ldr. 1990-1999/Oct 22

 723 The Wichita Eagle 1990-1999/Oct 23

 724 (Minneapolis)Star Tribune 1989-1996/Feb 04

 725 (Cleveland)Plain Dealer Aug 1991-1999/Oct 23

 727 Canadian Newspapers 1990-1999/Oct 24

 731 Philad.Dly.News 1983- 1999/Oct 23

 732 San Francisco Exam. 1990- 1999/Oct 22

 733 The Buffalo News 1990- 1999/Oct 22

 734 Dayton Daily News Oct 1990- 1999/Oct 23

 735 St. Petersburg Times 1989- 1999/Oct 23

 736 Seattle Post-Int. 1990-1999/Oct 19

 737 Anchorage Daily News 1989-1999/Oct 22

 738 (Allentown) The Morning Call 1990-1999/Oct 24

 739 The Fresno Bee 1990-1999/Oct 23

 740 (Memphis)Comm.Appeal 1990-1999/Oct 23

 741 (Norfolk)Led./Pil. 1990-1999/Oct 22

 742 (Madison)Cap.Tim/Wi.St.J 1990-1999/Oct 23

 743 (New Jersey)The Record 1989-1999/Oct 22

 747 Newport News Daily Press 1994-1999/Oct 24

 763 Freedonia Market Res. 1990-1999/Jul

 764 BCC Market Research 1989-1999/Sep

 765 Frost & Sullivan 1992-1999/Apr

 766 (R)Kalorama Info Market Res. 1993-1999/Sep

 777 EdgarPlus(TM)-Annual Reports 1999/Oct 22

 781 ProQuest Newsstand 1998-1999/Oct 24

 813 PR Newswire 1987-1999/Apr 30

 861 UPI News 1996-1999/May 27

1

 W = week, B = biweekly, M = month, Q = quarter

2

 This file was also reviewed in its CD format.

3

 Note: UD=, UM=, & UP=199943

B.4 External Review

This section describes the external review

process used in Phase 1. Instructions to the

reviewers is outlined in Section B.4.2. Section

B.4.3 outlines actions taken in response to the

reviewer comments.

B.4.1 Introduction

External review of project results by non-NAL

experts was a key element of the QA/QC Plan. 

As a result the NAL staff recruited qualified

independent reviewers in the fields of soil science,

civil engineering, and information science. It

should be noted that the reviews were voluntarily

conducted without compensation. 

B.4.2 Reviewer Instructions

NAL requested that each reviewer consider four

specific elements in conducting the review of

project results:

(1) Identify additional terms.
B-16

(2) Review search string syntax for logical

construction.

(3) Review database selection.

(4) Identify any known highly relevant sources not

presented in the reviewer package.

B.4.3 Summary of Actions Taken in

Response to the External Reviewers’

Comments

The responses of external reviewers for this

information research project included comments,

suggestions, and minor corrections to improve the

searches and the information subsequently

retrieved. All reviewer notes were addressed in

revisions or additions to the comprehensive

strategy statements (Section B.2), or through

additional Web searches, and the inclusion of

pages from noted sites for examination by the

NRC staff. These changes were provided to the

NRC in the “Supplement to the Draft Letter

Report,” dated October 13, 1999 and the “Final

Letter Report” dated November 1999.

Carol Reese of the American Society of Civil

Engineering (ASCE) suggested three specific

changes and additions to the basic search

strategy text. Specifically, these included using

“removal” in addition to “remove” in concept set

V3. Note that the final executed version of this

command line includes “remov?”, shown in bold

face text below. This truncated form retrieves all

endings for the “remov” root, so that remove,

removal, removing, removed, etc., were all

included and retrieved in the final searches for this

set. 

Concept Set V3:

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT) /TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (F)

(TRUCK? OR SHIP? OR TRANSPORT? OR

HAUL? OR BARG? OR TRAIN? OR RAIL? OR

CONVEY??? OR REMOV? OR RELOCAT? OR

REPLAC? OR PLACE? ? OR PLACEMENT) 

Ms. Reese also noted that the term “cost” had

been omitted from the draft version of the search

concept set labeled V1. This change was also

completed before final execution of the

comprehensive search statements, using the

truncated form “cost???” (shown below in bold

face type). The final version of this set retrieved

all 

endings with up to three characters following the

“cost” root, and included cost, costs, costing,

costed. 

Concept Set V1

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT) /TI,DE,ID,SH,CC (S)

(WHOLESALE? OR PROFIT? OR COST??? OR

INDUSTR??? OR COMMERC??? OR

BUSINESS?? OR INVEST? OR MARKET??? OR

SALE? ? OR PURCHAS??? OR DOLLAR? ?) 

In addition, Ms. Reese observed that a closing

parenthesis was needed in the P3 concept set. 

This error in the draft version was noted and

corrected in execution of the final searches, as

shown in boldface type below.

Concept Set P3:

S (SOIL? ? OR DIRT OR EARTH? ?)

/TI,DE,ID,SH,CC

Ms. Reese also recommended two additional

information providers, STN and CISTI: however,

both were examined and determined not to be

significant new sources of project-relevant

information. Considerable overlap of database

coverage exists between the STN and Dialog®

database systems. The notable strengths in the

STN database system include intellectual property

and patents, materials and mechanical

engineering, and German-language sources. 

Each of these categories had previously been

excluded by mutual agreement. Therefore, NAL

researchers concluded that searching STN was

unlikely to yield new or unique results in any

meaningful quantity. 

CISTI, is primarily a publicizing and document

ordering service available over the Internet at:

<http://cat.cisti.nrc.ca>. Survey searches

conducted in the CISTI system indicated fewer

than 7,500 records containing the terms “soil” or

“soils” in the combined catalogues. Without the

availability of a sophisticated search engine on the

site, in-depth research of this resource was not

deemed to be cost- effective. The selected list of
B-17

CISTI indexed journals suggested by Ms. Reese

were in each case indexed in multiple DIALOG®

files searched for this study. 

Dr. Dewayne Mays of the USDA Soil Survey

Laboratory did not comment on the strategy, but

he did suggest specific data sources that should

be used for the searches, including theses and

dissertations. Dialog® file 35, “Dissertation

Abstracts,” contains these document types. This

database was one of the key files searched for the

comprehensive titles listing delivered to the NRC

on September 29, 1999, as listed in Appendix A. 

This database file was included in 15 of the 42

searches that produced the comprehensive lists

of titles delivered to the NRC. At least one thesis

title was initially selected by the NRC.

Dr. Mays also noted a specific Web site covering

USGS documents. The USGS database was

among those included in the comprehensive

searches conducted on the Dialog® system,

listed in Table B.2 as file 89. This Dialog®

database file was used in 25 of the 42 specific

searches completed. 

Ms. Carla Casler, of the Arid Lands Research

Institute, added no specific comments on the

strategy statements, but noted the need to

consider international sources in the information

survey and review processes. Although search

results were limited to English language

documents, a great many of the databases

searched included international literature by

default because a vast majority of these items are

published in English or are posted with English

language titles. This enabled their retrieval despite

the use of English language limitations. A number

of these non-English records were selected by the

NRC staff. 

In addition, Ms. Casler suggested the following

Web sites for access to specific reports covering

radiation exposure incidents at Three Mile Island

and the Chernobyl site:

! <http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/

thisweek/preview/chernobyl/ paper5.html> 

! <http://www.libraries.psu.edu/

crsweb/tmi/resources.htm>

Pages from both sites were forwarded to the NRC

staff for their review. Note that the NRC staff was

familiar with the Three Mile Island Web materials.

Ms. Casler made another point in reference to the

long-term and epidemiological impacts of radiation

exposure through soil contact scenarios of various

sorts, including gardening. Specifically, she noted

that it might be valuable to consider Russian

literature covering Chernobyl, as well as sources

about the long-term effects or impacts of the

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs on soils. 

Studies related to these topics were among the

many items selected by the NRC staff from the

titles listed in the text of the draft letter report and

the files of titles in the comprehensive search

results. Note that the unintentional exposure

hazard from high-level radiation that occurred in

the cases Ms. Casler mentioned is significantly

different from the anticipated exposure derived

from soils intentionally released from the NRCregulated locations.

B.5 Selected Internet Resources

From Phase 1

The primary focus for this study was to identify

verifiable information by conducting traditional

literature research. Nonetheless, in today’s

information environment, no research project can

be considered complete without a preliminary

survey of the Internet.

The Internet is an important new source of

information. However, as valuable as this

resource undoubtedly is, it has significant

limitations, most notable among which is the

inability to conduct comprehensive complex

searches. 

Search engines and specific resources searched

are described in Section 4 of this report. Notable

information resources were discovered. These

resources were reviewed by the NRC staff, who

selected the following:
B-18

! Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

Geological Survey, “GeoFacts No. 19, Sand

and Gravel,” <http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/

geo_survey/geo_fact/geo_f19/ geo_f19.htm>

! Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New

York, “Important Web Links,” 

<http://www.dne.bnl.gov/ssn/ Weblinks.html>

! Ohio Site Technology Coordination Group,

“Technology Needs, Ashtabula,”

<http://www.ohio.doe.gov/oh-stcg/ needs.asp>

! Mineralogical Society, “Publications,”

<http://www.minersoc.org/ publicat.htm>

! Clay Minerals Society, “Homepage,”

<http://cms.lanl.gov/>

! US Mix, “US Mix Products,”

<http://www.usmix.com/usmix.html>

! Bolin Enterprise, Inc., PowerLift Foundation,

Repair Division, “Foundation Repair

Specialists,”

<http://www.foundationspecialists.

com/html/advanced.htm>

! A.B. Chance, Hubbell Power Systems, “Earth

Anchors and Foundations,”

<http://www.hubbell.com/ abchance/>

! ENA, Inc., “Excavation and Road Construction

Specialists,” <http://a1.com/ena/index.html>

! PRISM - World Resource Foundation, “Landfill

Mining Technical Brief,” 

<http://www.wrfound.org.uk/ wrftblfm.html>

! Purdue News, “Purdue-Made Soil,”

<http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/97060

6.Tishmack.soil.html>

! Oklahoma State University, Plant and Soil

Sciences Department, “CMLS94: Chemical

Movement in Layered Soils,”

<http://clay.agr.okstate.edu/software/cmls94a.

htm>

! Canadian Government, Department of Indian

and Northern Affairs, “Building a Future, Sand

and Gravel,” <http://www.inac.gc.ca/building/

sands/sand.html>

! Off-Road.com, “DirtBikes Online,”

<http://www.off-road.com/dirtbike/>

! National Dirt Digest, “Dirt Late Model News,” 

<http://www.latemodel.com/ nddigest/>

! AMA Pro Racing, “Dirt Track,” 

<http://www.ama-cycle.org/prorace/99dt/99dt.

html>

! McGraw-Hill Construction Information Group,

“Sweets Web Links,”

<http://www.sweets.com/topic/ weblinks.htm>

! New Jersey, Department of Environmental

Protection, “Site Remediation Program 1998

Revised Guidance Document for the

Remediation of Contaminated Soils,”

<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/regs/

soilguide/>

! CRC Press LLC Online, “The Reuse &

Recycling of Contaminated Soil,”

<http://www.crcpress.com/index.htm?catalog/

L1188>

! Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural

Areas (ATTRA), “Organic Potting Mixes -

Horticulture Technical Notes,”

<http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ potmix.html>.
B-19

This page intentionally left blank.
C-1

APPENDIX C. PHASE 2 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

C.1 Information Resources for the

Commercial Sector 

Additional information resources for the

commercial sector include inventory tracking

firms, industry and professional associations, and

market survey reports and firms as discussed in

Sections C.1.1 through C.1.3. 

C.1.1 Inventory Tracking Firms

SKUfinder.com and 1-800-DATABASE, LTD.

work in partnership with product manufacturers

and their trade associations. The company has a

comprehensive database containing images and

information about hundreds of thousands of

consumer products, including information from the

American Hardware Manufacturers Association. 

(See <http://www.skufinder.com/>.)

Vista Information Services produces market

research reports on the basis of point-of sale

scanner data. These reports track products that

are sold in key home improvement retail channels,

and include information about independent

hardware stores, lumber yards, home centers

(Home Depot, Lowes, etc.) and mass merchants.

(See <http://www.triad.com/vista/home.htm>.)

C.1.2 Industry and Professional 

Associations

TechSavvy.com provides company directories,

historical data, commercial and industry

standards, U.S. military documents and parts

information. Some of the identified titles are “

Specifications for topsoil used for landscaping

purposes,” “Specification for topsoil,” and “soils

manuals.” (See <http://www.techsavvy.com>.)

The following organizations are identified as

possible sources of information on soil which may

be related to soil reuse:

• Mulch and Soil Council (formerly the National

Bark and Soil Producers Association), 10210

Leatherleaf Ct., Manassas, VA 20111-4245,

WEB: <http://www.nbspa.org/>

• Lawn & Garden Marketing and Distribution

Association, 1900 Arch Street, Philadelphia,

PA 19103-1498, telephone: 215-564-3484,

WEB: <http://www.lgmda.org/>

• National Gardening Association, 1100 Dorset

St., South Burlington, VT 05401, telephone:

802- 863-5251, WEB:

<http://www.garden.org/>

• American Nursery & Landscape Association,

1250 I Street, NW Suite 500, Washington, DC

20005-3922, telephone: 202-789-2900, WEB:

<http://www.anla.org/>

• Materials Handling & Management Society,

8720 Red Oak Blvd., Suite 201, Charlotte, NC

28217, telephone: 704-676-1183, WEB:

<http://www.mhia.org/ps/PS_MHMS_Home.cf

m>

• Warehousing Education and Research

Council, 1100 Jorie Blvd., Suite 170, Oak

Brook, IL 60523-4413, telephone: 630-990-

0001, WEB: <http://www.werc.org/>

C.1.3 Marketing Survey Reports and 

Firms

A review of the marketing survey reports and firms

identified the following related groups and reports:

• The Annual National Garden Survey,

sponsored by the National Gardening

Association

• Lawn and Garden Market, report by Package

Facts

• Kline and Co. Survey of the Lawn and Garden

Industry

• American Community Gardening Association
C-2

• Canadian Office of Urban Agriculture.

C.2 Climate and Crops

Soil use varies with respect to climate and

weather. Information on these factors, on a

national scale, is available via several Internet

resources. In particular, the National Atlas of the

United States of America, available at

<http://www.nationalatlas.gov> provides maps

showing first and last freeze dates in autumn and

spring. Temperature means, maxima, and

minima are also shown. In addition, maps are

available that graphically depict the winds, average

rainfall, days of precipitation and sunshine, and

sky cover data for the United States. 

The USDA’s Agriculture Handbook #664, “Major

Crop Areas and Climatic Profiles,” provides a

discussion of crop-climate associations. Other

online USDA resources offer additional information

of this type:

• mean annual precipitation maps (with access

to State-specific maps, and data sets)

available at

<http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/prism/

prism.html> or

<http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/climate/

prism/prism.html>

• National and State-specific graphics and data

for precipitation and temperature, available at

<http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/

prism/prismmaps.html>.

In addition, the NASS provides Web access to

graphics showing the kinds of data described

above. NASS also provides crop-specific planting

maps, data, and weather details; labor; production

expenditures; land in farms; and other graphic

data sets at National and State-specific levels

available at <http://www.usda.gov/nass/

aggraphs/graphics.htm>.

Long-term plant survival is dependent on a

number of factors including the ability to survive

low temperatures over the winter. In 1960

USDA/Agricultural Research Service scientists at

the U.S. National Arboretum collaborated with the

American Horticultural Society and other

horticulturists to create the USDA “Plant

Hardiness Zone Map.” Map zones are based on

validated average annual minimum temperatures. 

Average temperatures were determined using at

least 10 years of data. The most

up-to-date version of the USDA “Hardiness Zone

Map” is available at

<http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/hrdzon2.ht

ml>.
D-1

APPENDIX D. GENERAL INFORMATION ON SOILS

D.1 The Nature of Soils

Soils comprise mixtures of mineral and biotic

components, with spaces where air or water are

found. Soils are often characterized according to

the ratio of three principle components, namely

sand, silt, and clay (in order of decreasing particle

size). Different soils develop in different locations,

as a result of the particular impacts of local

environmental factors with specific local geologic

(parent) materials. They also develop and change

over time through the interactions of the parent

materials with the local topography, weather and

climate, vegetation, and external disturbances.

Soils provide physical support for plants, as well

as their supply of nutrient ions. Available nutrients

from the soil are delivered to plants via water from

layers within the soils; water in the soil pore

spaces and in the porous materials of the soil; or

water bound in clay mineral layers. Soil air

spaces allow gas exchange to the plant roots. 

Through these processes, soils enable the

production of food, animal feed, and fiber for the

world’s populations. 

Soils also provide structural support for buildings

and insulation for inhabited areas that are

underground. Soils may be used as part of the

foundation for roads, highways and other

construction. Soils also provide a habitat for large

and small animals, insects and microbes.

D.2 Soil Variability

Soils vary greatly over regions, within local areas,

or even within a single farm field, lawn, or garden

plot. Variations may include differences in texture

(relative proportions of sand, silt and clay particle

sizes), structure (size and shape of soil

aggregates or blocks), moisture characteristics

(water content, water supply capacity and waterholding capacity), chemistry and reactivity

(amounts, kinds, and forms of minerals, elements,

and ions) and biota (soil-dwelling microbial, insect,

and other arthropod species). Soil biota may

include fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes,

worms, and others—both vegetative bodies and

individuals, as well as propagules (eggs, spores,

cysts, etc.) or virus particles, fragments, etc., and

wastes and residues from once-living organisms. 

Information on soil and soil types, as well as the

dominant soil orders (major groups of soil types)

and their distribution may be seen online at

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.

gov/land/index/soils.html>. The characteristics

and properties used to define different soils in the

United States are presented in the USDA’s

Agriculture Handbook #436 “Soil Taxonomy: A

Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and

Interpreting Soil Surveys,” (second edition 1999)

prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) and is available at

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/

soils/soiltax/>. Similarly, soil taxonomy maps are

also provided in USDA, 1999. For the latest map

of dominant soil orders in the United States,

derived from the State Soil Geographic Database

(STATSGO), see

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/

meta/m4025.html>.

Soil scientists in the United States and worldwide

have made considerable effort to study, identify,

and classify soils for agriculture, construction,

recreation and other uses. The USDA’s Soil

Survey program, in operation for more than 100

years, has described and classified the soils in

nearly every region of the United States, on a

county-by-county basis. 

Access to soil survey work is available from the

Web site of the USDA’s NRCS (previously known

as the Soil Conservation Service) found at

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv/sslists

/sslisthome.html>

From this Web site, one may obtain a recently

updated survey for each State by accessing the

State-specific pages, which are accessed from

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv/survey
D-2

s/onlineman.html>.

Printed soil surveys are available in local (county)

libraries, or from the land-grant university library in

each State. A list of these locations may be

obtained from

<http://www.nal.usda.gov/pubs_dbs/

landgrant.htm >.

Other USDA NRCS Web pages provide

considerable information about soils such as the

“Keys to Soil Taxonomy” available at

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/ keytax/>. 

Additional valuable online information resources

are available at the

National Soil Survey Center Soil Science

Education Web site at <http://www.statlab.

iastate.edu/soils/nssc/ educ/Edpage.html>.

D.2.1 Soil Information Resources

In addition to NRCS resources, the Internet offers

many other useful Web sites for soil-related 

information. These may be helpful in learning

more about soils in general, or about specific soil

studies:

• “Soil Science Literature Searching— General

Soil Science” (from Humboldt University)

<http://library.humboldt.edu/~rls/ gensoil.htm>

• “Soil Science Resources on the Internet” (from

the University of Wisconsin)

<http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/

Steenbock/electron/soilsci.htm>

• “Soil and Water Web” (Dr. John E. Thomas,

Gainesville FL) <http://soilweb.tripod.com/

soilsite.htm>.

D.2.2 Soil and Farming/Land Use

Soil suitability for particular crops or farming and

production practices is detailed extensively in soil

survey reports. The USDA Land Use Capability

Classification scheme comprises eight major

classes (Class I–Class VIII). Only Classes I–IV

are suited for cultivation, and Classes III and IV

have severe limitations to crop production that

must be overcome by limiting crops and

practices, and/or extensive management input. In

addition to limits indicated by land use capability

classification of specific soils, other limits on soil

use are determined by weather and climate, crop

tolerances (for weather, wetness, salinity, etc.),

and length of the growing season. 

Information on specific agricultural uses of soils in

the Untied States is provided by a number of

online and printed resources. A few of these are

Web sites; some are also available in printed

form:

• “Table 4— Land Cover/Use on NonFederal

Rural Land, by Land Capability Class and

Subclass, by Year,” from the 1997 National

Resources Inventory—Summary Report”

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov

/NRI/1997/summary_report/original

/table4.html>

• “Agricultural Resources and Environmental

Indicators, 2000,” (including figures and tables

with specific land use details) from USDA’s

Economic Research Service, Resource

Economics Division

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/emphases/harmony

/issues/arei2000/AREI1_1landuse.pdf>

• “Percent of Non-Federal Area in Cultivated

Cropland, 1997,” from NRCS’s Resource

Assessment Division 

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m4

962.html>

• “Figure 1. How Our Land is Used,” from the

1997 National Resources

Inventory—Summary Report 

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/1997/sum

mary_report/original/figures.html#figure1>

• “Broad Land Cover/Use by State, 1997" from

the NRCS

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/lgif/

m5150l.gif>.
D-3

Other graphic displays covering land use are

available from USDA NRCS, Web pages at

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/ land/index/>. 

Crop specific information is also available from

<http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/index/croplnd

.html>.

D.3 Additional Information on Soil 

Because soils are heavy and variable, their use is

largely dictated by location. Soil materials are

heavy because they have high particle densities

(averaging about 2.6 g/cc) and a bulk density

(including soil pore spaces) that averages about

1.3 g/cc for cropped mineral soils. This means

that an acre (43,560 square feet) of field soil (dry)

1 foot deep would weigh more than 3.5 million

pounds (about 1,766 tons). The ratio of bulk

density to particle density represents the pore

space in the soil, which is normally filled with air

and/or water. If the same soil was fully wetted, the

weight of that acre-foot of soil would increase by

another 1.3 million pounds. With a truck

shipment cost of around $0.26 per ton-mile, the

cost of moving 1 acre of soil 1 foot deep would be

over $450 for each mile traveled, thus generally

prohibiting the relocation of soil for crop

production. Calculations and cost data are shown

at <http://www.soils.umn.edu/academics/

classes/soil3125/doc/lecslwt.htm> and

<http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cecw/fusrap/techp

ap/pkgin.htm>.

The use of natural “soil” in horticulture has

continued to decline since the publication of the

early work on using artificial planting media (e.g.,

the U.C. mix) for the production of horticultural

crops, vegetables, fruits and ornamental potted

(i.e, containerized) plants, transplants, and

greenhouse plugs (Baker, 1957). Lightweight nonsoil materials are now the standard substrate for

modern nursery and greenhouse production. In

addition to peat moss, pearlite, and vermiculite,

numerous materials from agricultural or industrial

wastes and byproducts have been found to be

very helpful for horticultural production

applications. Additionally, new media materials

(such as foams, gels and polymers) have been

developed and tested, many are now in use. 

There are many reasons to avoid soil use in

containerized planting. Bagged materials

containing soil are heavier to prepare, process

and deliver than other planting mixes. Soil use in

horticultural nursery and greenhouse production,

limited by weight and transportation costs, is

further minimized by quality and consistency

requirements. Loss of water flow pathways alter a

soil’s water supply characteristics in greenhouse

or other potted plant applications. Also because

natural soils have biotic components, they must

be sterilized or treated to remove pathogens,

insects, weed seeds, etc. In addition, the

grower’s needs to regulate and control fertility, pH,

and water supply capacity are more readily met by

using defined and tested mixes of non-soil media

materials. With defined media, nutrient additions

may be more readily calibrated and controlled to

supply needed fertility levels for each specific

application.

 

Limited use of soils or soil materials does occur in

particular situations, especially where the added

water supply capacity of soils or soil components

is needed, as in tropical nurseries. For example,

soil was once the basis of most potting mixes. It

is still used in nurseries in the tropics as a means

of increasing water-holding capacity of media for

large pots. Elsewhere, most media are soil-less

(Handreck, 1994). Growers can sometimes

increase the water supply capacity of growing

media by adding clay to the potting mix (usually a

particular clay mineral), rather than adding a

composite (natural) soil material. 

Many growing media mixes and similar products

offered by nursery and garden supply companies,

and also used by commercial growers, may be

named with phrases such as “potting soil”, or

“topsoil”. Nonetheless, only a few of these

products actually contain any soil at all. 

Inconsistencies among even similar soils, the

need for fumigation or sterilization to preclude

disease and pest infestation, and the weight and

related transport costs make it desirable for both

nursery producers and suppliers to use standard

media mixes, with predictable characteristics and

performance for their production needs. 
D-4

Informal surveys in local retail outlets in Queen

Anne’s County on the Eastern Shore of Maryland

revealed few examples of potting mix or “topsoil”

products that contained any soil at all. Ingredient

lists from some products labeled “topsoil” did

include “soil” materials, but often only as a second

or third ingredient. Media product label information

and packaging text examples (from product lists)

were located at <http://www.hortnet.com> and

<http://www.vitalearth.com>.

Soil transfer or removal and relocation in

construction may involve moving soil from one

area to another, but soils rarely shipped more than

short distances, because of the costs. One

notable exception to this might be the case of

reclamation processing of contaminated soils,

from chemical waste contamination or spills. In

many such cases, when a large amount of soil is

being processed, the machinery may be brought

to the site of the contaminated soil and treated in

situ.
E-1

APPENDIX E. NAL PROJECT INVESTIGATORS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

and the National Agricultural Library (NAL)

established an interagency agreement to conduct

information research on human-soil interactions. 

This appendix identifies the NAL investigators who

participated in this study.

• Abiola Adeyemi, B.S.

(Phase 1 team member)

Program Assistant/Information Specialist

Alternative Farming Systems Information

Center

Mr. Adeyemi holds a Bachelor of Science degree

from the University of Maryland Department of

Agriculture and Natural Resources. He also has

extensive training in international agroecology from

the University of California, Berkeley. He 

specializes in information gathering in the areas of

sustainable agriculture, urban/community farming,

and international development.

• Tim Allen, M.S.

(Phase 1 team member)

Reference Consultant and Technical

Information Specialist

Animal Welfare Information Center 

Mr. Allen has a Master of Science in Animal

Science. He conducted research in private

industry before joining the National Agricultural

Library. Mr. Allen has extensive search and

retrieval experience and conducted the first

Defense Technical Information Center Web

search. In addition, he served as an internal

project reviewer.

• Andy Clark, Ph.D.

(Phase 1 team member)

Coordinator, Sustainable Agriculture Network

Reference Consultant

Dr. Clark has a Ph.D. in Agronomy and serves as

the Coordinator for the Sustainable Agriculture

Network, a part of the USDA-funded Sustainable

Agricultural Research and Education Program. 

For this study, he helped screen the initial large

G1 data set, and his selections were incorporated

into the draft letter report.

• Stuart Gagnon, M.S.L.S.

(Phase 2 team member)

Librarian 

Water Quality Information Center

Mr. Gagnon graduated from the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Information and

Library Science (SILS) with a Master of Science

degree in Library Science. He has worked in

environmental librarianship (developing reference

resources, building Web-accessible databases

and researching environmental terminology) for

several years. Mr. Gagnon is a cooperator with

the University of Maryland Libraries.

• Mary V. Gold, M.L.S.

(Phase 2 team member)

Librarian/Information Specialist

Alternative Farming Systems Information

Center (AFSIC)

Ms. Gold has a Master of Science degree in

Library Science and, for the past several years,

has specialized in reference services related to

alternative and sustainable agriculture systems,

including the searching and retrieval of electronic

and print information. She has also been trained

as a Master Gardener with the University of

Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, and is a

member of the Garden Writers Association of

America.

• Terrance Henrichs

(Phase 1 and 2 team member)

Program Support Assistant.

Ms. Henrichs led the project support effort in

formatting, sorting, and compiling the initial

bibliography of both the Phase 1 and 2 final letter

reports. She also composed Figure 1, and
E-2

provided other graphical support. In addition, she

provided support in copying and shipping reports

to the NRC.

• Judy Keen, M.L.S.

(Phase 2 team member)

Librarian and Reference Specialist Information

Research Services Branch

Ms. Keen earned a Master of Library Sciences

degree from Catholic University. She is a key

reference specialist located at NAL’s Washington

D.C. Reference Center. In addition to her work

with the NAL Phase 2 Soil Working Group, Ms.

Keen has recently worked with teams working on

invasive species and “Biosecurity, the Threat to

Agriculture.” 

• Susan McCarthy, Ph.D.

(Phase 1 and 2 team member)

Technical Information Specialist

Principal Investigator and coauthor 

Dr. McCarthy has a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology, 9

years of experience in reference services, and

more than 15 years of bench research. She

conducted Internet and CD-ROM searches for the

project, coauthored the draft, supplement, and

final reports, and served as project manager.

• Sharon Middleton

(Phase 1 team member)

Program Assistant

Ms. Middleton provided project support in report

assembly and packaging, and shipped copies of

the reports to the external reviewers and NRC

staff. Her most important role was to reformat

selected citations for the Phase 1 final letter

report.

• Maria Pisa, M.L.S.

(Phase 1 and 2 team member)

Associate Director of Public Services

Principal Investigator for administrative issues

and coauthor of draft report 

Ms. Pisa has a Master of Library Science degree

and more than 20 years experience in library

services.

• M. Louise Reynnells, B.S.

(Phase 2 team member)

Technical Information Specialist

Rural Information Center 

Mrs. Reynnells has 14 years of experience as a

subject specialist in rural agricultural and

community development issues. Prior to her

current position, Mrs. Reynnells worked at the

University of California, Cooperative Extension

Service in Riverside, CA, as a State Research

Associate doing original research in the poultry

sciences. Mrs. Reynnells’ educational

background includes a Bachelors degree in

Agricultural Science/Animal Science, from

California State Polytechnic University, which

included course work in soil sciences. In addition,

her background includes graduate work in Library

and Information Sciences at the University of

Maryland.

• Karl Schneider, M.L.S.

(Phase 1 and 2 team member)

Reference Specialist in Soils

Principal Investigator for searching and subject

matter and coauthor 

Mr. Schneider has a Master of Library Science

degree, many years of reference and online

search experience, as well as graduate research

and training in soils and related sciences.

• Michael Shochet, M.L.S. 

(Phase 2 team member)

Reference Librarian 

Technology Transfer Information Center

Mr. Shochet provides scientific, technical, and

business information regarding patents, and the

commercialization of new technologies to an

international community. He earned his Bachelor

of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in Anthropology

from Cornell University and Northwestern

University, respectively, and his Master of Library

Science degree from the University of Maryland. 
E-3

His previous experiences include providing

reference services to support Navigant

Consulting, a business firm that specializes in

valuations of intellectual property; providing

reference and bibliographic instruction services at

the Baltimore City Community College; and

assisting people with disabilities to develop and

achieve their goals and objectives.

• Mary Stevanus, M.L.S.

(Phase 1 Team Member)

Reference Specialist 

A principal contributor to the Phase 1 draft

letter report. 

Ms. Stevanus has many years of reference and

online search experience. She also worked for a

number of years as an information specialist for

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In

Phase 1 of this study, Ms. Stevanus served as an

internal project reviewer, refined the

comprehensive strategies used in the draft letter

report, and conducted WorldCat, Internet, and

other searches.