ENGINEERING DATA TRANSMITTAL 622827

ENGINEERING DATA TRANSMITTAL of J

622827

2. To: (Receiving Organization)

Distribution3. From: (Originating Organization)

NHC/TWRS Immob/S&D Project4. Related EDT No.:

5. Proj./Prog./Dept./Div.:

W519/TWRS Privat. Phase I

6. Design Authority/ Design Agent/Cog.

Engr.:

J. W. Shade

7. Purchase Order No.:

8. Originator Remarks:

For Approval and Release plus DOE-RL Receipt Acknowledgement9. Equip./Component No.:

10. System/BLdg./Facility:

11. Receiver Remarks: 11A. Design Baseline Document? [] Yes [X] No 12. Major Assm. Dwg. No.:

13. Permit/Permit Application No.:

14. Required Response Date:

DATA TRANSMITTED

(A)Item (B) Document/Drawing No.

(D)Rev.No.

(E) Title or Description of DataTransmitted

ApprovalDesig-nator

for

mittat

Origi-natorDispo-

Receiv-er

Dispo-

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001 TWRS Phase IPrivatization SiteEnvironmentalBaseline andCharacterization Plan

Approval Designator (F) Reason for Transmittal (G) Disposition (H) & (I)

E, S, Q, D or N/A(see WHC-CM-3-5,Sec. 12.7)

1. Approval 4. Review2. Release 5. Post-Review3. Information 6. Dist. (Receipt Acknow. Required)

1. Approved2. Approved w/comi3. Disapproved w/ct

4. Reviewed no/comment5. Reviewed w/comment6. Receipt acknowledged

17. SIGNATURE/DISTRIBUTION(See Approval Designator for required signatures)

(K) Signature ID Date (M) MSIN(H)

Disp. (L) Date (M) MSIN

Design A u t h o r i t y R. J. Parazin

Design Agent

Cog.Eng. J.U. Shade ̂ (jj, U. T. Thompson

Cog. Mgr.A.F. choho

OA N/A

Safety: N/A

18.

J. W, Sha<

SigriatureofEDTOriginator

Authorized Representative Datefor Receiving Organization

A. R. ChohoMl*Design Authority/Cognizant Manager

2 1 . DOE APPROVAL ( i f requ i red)C t r l . No.

[] Approved[] Approved w/comments[] Disapproved w/comments

BD-7400-172-2 (05/96) GEF097

BD-7400-172-1

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ENGINEERING DATA TRANSMITTAL(USE BLACK INK OR TYPE)

Pre-assigned EDT number.

Enter the individual's name, title of the organization, or entity (e.g.. Distribution) that the EDT is beingtransmitted to.Enter the title of the organization originating end transmitting the EDT.

Enter EDT numbers which relate to the data being transmitted.

BLOCK(11*

(2)

13)

(4)

15] •

TITLEEDT

To: (Receiving Organ

From: (Originating Or

Related EDT No.

Proj./Prog./Dept./Div.

ization)

ganization)

(7)

(8)*

(9)

(10)

(11)

(11 A)*

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)*

(16)

Purchase Order No.

Originator Remarks

Equipment/Component No.

System/BIdg. /Facility

Receiver Remarks

Design Baseline Document

Major Assm. Dwg. No.

Permit/Permit Application No.

Required Response Date

Data Transmitted

(A)* Item Number

(B)* Document/Drawing No.

(C)* Sheet No.

(D)* Rev. No.

(E) Title or Description ofData Transmitted

(F)* Approval Designator

(G) Reason for Trans mitt a I

(H) Originator Disposition

(I) Receiver Disposition

Key

Signature/Distribution

IQ)

(H)

(J)

IK)'

(L>*

(Ml*

Reason

Disposition

Name

Signature

Date

MSIN v /

Signature of EDT Originator

(19) Authorized Representativefor Receiving Organization

(20)* Design Authority/CognizantManager

(21)* DOE Approval

Enter the Project/Pro gram/Department/Division tttle or Project/ProgiOrder Number or Organization Code.

Design Authority (for Design BaselineDocumentsJ/Cognizant Engineer (forall others)/Design Agent

acronym or Project Number, Work

Enter the name of the individual identified as being responsible for coordinating disposition of the EDT.

Enter an ~X" in the appropriate bo:Documents, if required.

• Enter related Purchase Order (P.O.) Number, if available.

• Enter special or additional comments concerning transmittsl, or "Key" retrieval words may be entered.

9 Enter equipment/component number of affected item, if appropriate.

• Enter applicable system, building or facility number, if appropriate.

• Enter special or additional comments concerning transmtttal.

Consult with Design Authority for identification of Design Baseline

Enter applicable drawing number of major assembly, if appropriate.

Enter applicable permit or permit application number, if appropriate.

Enter the date a response is required from individuals identified in Block 17 (Signature/Distribution).

Enter sequential number, beginning with 1, of the information listed on EDT.

Enter the unique identification number assigned to the document or drawing being transmitted.

Enter the sheet number of the information being transmitted. If no sheet number, leave blank.

Enter the revision number of the information being transmitted, if no revision number, leave blank.

Enter the title of the document or drawing or a brief description of the subject if no title is identified.

Enter the appropriate Approval Designator (Block 15). Atscitem listed, i.e., SQ, ESQ, etc.

indicate the appropriate approvals for each

nittal (see Block 16).Enter the appropriate code to identify the purpose of the data tra

Enter the appropriate disposition code (see Block 16).

Enter the appropriate disposition code (see Block 16).

Number codes used in completion of Blocks 15 (G), (H), and (I), and 17 (G), (H) (Signature/Distribution).

Enter the code of the reason for transmittal (Block 16).

Enter the code for the disposition (Block 16).

Enter the signature of the individual completing the Disposition 17 (H) and the Transmittal.

Obtain appropriate signature(s).

Enter date signature is obtained.

Enter MSIN. Note: If Distribution Sheet is used, show entire distribution (including that indicated on Page 1of the EDT) on the Distribution Sheet.

Enter the signature and date of the individual originating the EDT (entered prior to transmittal to ReceivingOrganization). If the EDT originator is the Design Authority (for Design Baseline Documents)/CognizantEngineer (for all others) or Design Agent, sign both Blocks 17 and 18.

Enter the signature and date of the individual identified by the Receiving Organization Design Authority (forDesign Baseline DocumentsJ/Cognizant Engineer (for all others) as authorized to approve disposition of theEDT and acceptance of the data transmitted, as applicable.

Enter the signature and date of the Design Authority/Cognizant Manager. (This signature is authorizationfor release.)

Enter DOE approval (if required) by signature or control number that tracks the approindicate DOE action. , , ,

al to a signature, and

'Asterisk denote the required minimum items check by Configuration Documentation prior to release; thei e the minimum releas

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001, Rev. 0

TWRS PHASE I PRIVATIZATION SITEENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ANDCHARACTERIZATION PLAN

C.H. Chou, V.S. Johnson, S.P. Reidel, J.W. Shade*Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352* Numatec Hanford Company, Richland, WA 99352U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC06-96RL13200

EDT/ECN: • 62047§Org Code: 8C452B&R Code: EW3130010

630Charge Code: D633DTotal Pages: •-W5J54

Key Words: TWRS Phase I Privatization, Environmental Baseline,Characterization Plan

Abstract: This document provides a plan to characterize and develop anenvironmental baseline for the TWRS Phase I Privatization Site beforeconstruction begins. A site evaluation study selected the former GroutDisposal Area of the Grout Treatment Facility in the 200 East Area asthe TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site. The site is generally clean andhas not been used for previous activities other than the GTF. A DQOprocess was used to develop a Sampling and Analysis Plan that wouldallow comparison of site conditions during operations and after Phase Iends to the presently existing conditions and provide data for thedevelopment of a preoperational monitoring plan.

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific conmercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply itsendorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof orits contractors or subcontractors.

Printed in the United States of America. To obtain copies of this document, contact: DocumentControl Services, P.O. Box 950, Mailstop H6-08, Richland WA 99352, Phone (509) 372-2420;Fax (509) 376-4989. '

VrtsM^J\.

DATE: ^ KANFORD

elease Approval Release Stamp

Approved for Public Release

A-6400-073 (01/97) GEF321

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001Revision 0

TWRS Phase I Privatization SiteEnvironmental Baseline andCharacterization Plan

C. J. ChouV. G. JohnsonS. P. ReidelJ. W. Shade

Date PublishedSeptember 1997

Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management

Project Hanford Management Contractor for theU.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-96RL13200

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited


CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1.11.1 Approach 1.1

1.1.1 Site Considerations 1.21.1.2 Development of the Plan 1.2

1.2 Background 1.31.3 Disposal Decisions 1.4

1.3.1 Phased Privatization Concept for Treatment of Tank Waste 1.51.3.2 Location of Facilities 1.6

2.0 Hanford Site Physical and Environmental Description and Background Information 2.12.1 Geography 2.12.2 Climate 2.1

2.2.1 Temperature 2.42.2.2 Precipitation 2.42.2.3 Dust and Blowing Dust 2.42.2.4 200 East Area Climate Data 2.4

2.3 Geology 2.52.3.1 Geologic Setting of the Hanford Site : 2.52.3.2 Geology of the TWRS Phase TDemonstration Site ; 2.10

2.4 Hydrogeology 2.152.4.1 Hanford Hydrogeologic Setting 2.152.4.2 Uppermost Aquifer System 2.152.4.3 Hydrogeology of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 2.15

2.5 Groundwater Quality/200 East and 200 West Areas Contaminant Plumes 2.182.5.1 Metals-Arsenic (Filtered) 2.192.5.2 Anions-Nitrate 2.292.5.3 Tritium 2.292.5.4 Beta-Emitting Radionuclides 2.302.5.5 Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides 2.30

2.6 Soil Quality 2.322.7 Air Quality 2.352.8 Summary 2.35

3.0 Data Quality Objectives Process 3.1Description of Data Quality Objectives Process 3.1

3.2 Description of the Issue to be Addressed 3.13.2.1 Conceptual Model 3.3

3.3 Decisions to be Made : 3.73.4 Inputs to Decision 3.10

3.4.1 Information Categories 3.103.4.2 Resource Constraints and Cost Saving/Deferral Alternatives 3.103.4.3 Information Sources 3.11

3.5 Study Boundaries 3.123.6 Decision Rules 3.12

3.6.1 Constituents of Concern 3.123.6.2 Sample Size 3.12


CONTENTS (cont.)

3.7 Specify Limits on Decision Error 3.153.7.1 Statistical Objectives 3.153.7.2 Selection of the Statistical Parameter 3.153.7.3 Sample Size Determination (for Estimating Means) : . . 3.16

3.8 Optimize Design for Obtaining Data 3.173.8.1 New Data 3.183.8.2 Application of the Baseline Data 3.21

4.0 Description of Characterization Tasks 4.14.1 Surface and Near-Surface Characterization 4.1

4.1.1 Anthropogenic Features and Surface Contamination Map 4.14.1.2 Surface Soil Characterization Activities 4.3

4.2 Subsurface Characterization 4.44.2.1 Vadose Zone Characterization Activities 4.44.2.1.1 Shallow (3 m) Borings 4.44.2.1.2 Deeper (15-m) Borings 4.44.2.1.3 Geophysical Logging 4.54.2.2 Sampling and Analysis 4.5

4.3 Airborne Paniculate Contaminant Baseline Monitoring 4.5

5.0 References 5.1

APPENDIXES

A Sampling and Analysis Plan

Al Field Sampling PlanA2 Quality Assurance Project Plan

B Relative Hazard Index Values for Envelope D Tank Waste Constituents


LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Map Showing TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 1.72.1 Map of Hanford Site and TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 2.22.2 Major Geographic Features of the Hanford Site 2.32.3 Joint Frequency Diagram for Wind Directions at the Hanford Site 2.62.4 Generalized Geologic Features of the Hanford Site 2.72.5 Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Hanford Site 2.82.6 Late Neogene Stratigraphy of the Pasco Basin Emphasizing the Ringold Formation 2.92.7 Location of Boreholes at and near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 2.122.8 Stratigraphic Units and Lithology at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 2.132.9 Geologic Map of the 200 East and West Areas and Vicinity 2.14

2.10 Hanford Site and Outlying Areas Water Table Map, June 1996 2.172.11 200 East Area and Adjacent Areas Water Table Map, June 1996 2.202.12 Arsenic Contamination in the 200 East and 200 West Areas 2.212.13 Nitrate Plume in the 200 East and 200 West Areas 2.222.14 Tritium Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas 2.232.15 Gross Beta Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas 2.242.16 Technetium-99 Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas 2.252.17 Iodine-129 Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas 2.262.18 Gross Alpha Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas 2.272.19 Operable Unit Boundaries for the 200 East Area 2.282.20 Aerial Radiation Survey (conducted July-August 1988) 2.312.21 Spot Gamma Contamination Identified by Ground Level Radiation Survey 2.332.22 Sampling Locations in and near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 2.342.23 The 200 East Area Air Sampler Locations 2.362.24 Annual Average 90Sr, 137Cs, and 23™°Pu Concentrations in Air

for Hanford Separations Area and Vicinity 2.383.1 DQO Process Flow Chart 3.23.2 Conceptual Model of Existing Soil Column Near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site 3.43.3 Conceptualization of a Spill Scenario 3.6

3.4a Hypothetical Release of Airborne Contaminants from Waste Immobilization Plant 3.83.4b Deposition Pattern from Hypothetical Release of Particulates

from Waste Immobilization Plant 3.93.5a Surface Soil Sampling Grid for Phase I Demonstration Site 3.193.5b Surface Soil Sampling Grid for Phase I Demonstration Site 3.203.5c Surface Soil Sampling Locations for the Waste Transfer Corridor 3.22


LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Annual Average Paniculate Radionuclide Concentrations from Air MonitorsNear the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, FY 1995 2.37

3.1 Sample Sizes Needed for Various Combinations of Margin of Errorsand CV (%) at 95% Level of Confidence 3.17

4.1 Summary of Various Tasks for the TWRS Phase I Characterization 4.2


TERMS

AL action levelANOVA analysis of varianceCRBG Columbia River Basalt GroupCSB canister storage buildingCV coefficients of variationDCG Derived Concentration GuidesDL detection limitDOE U.S. Department of Energy'sDST double-shell tanksDQO Data Quality ObjectivesDWS drinking water standardEcology Washington State Department of EcologyEIS environmental impact statementEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGPR ground-penetrating radarGTF Grout Treatment FacilityHMS Hanford Meteorological StationHLW high-level radioactive wasteILAW immobilized high-activity wasteJFD joint frequency distributionLAW low-activity wasteLLW low-level wasteMCL maximum contaminant levelMDC minimum detectable concentrationmsl mean sea levelMT metric tonMTU metric tons of uraniumOBL operating background levelPC privatization contractorsPCB polychlorinated biphenylPFP Plutonium Finishing PlantPHMC Project Hanford Management ContractorsPUREX Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (process or Plant)REDOX Reduction-Oxidation (Facility)RFP request for proposalROD record of decisionSAP sampling and analysis planSST single-shell tanksTBP tributyl phosphateTEDF Treated Effluent Disposal FacilityTri-PartyAgreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent OrderTWRS Tank Waste Remediation SystemWAC Washington Administrative Code


TERMS (continued)

WHC Westinghouse Hanford CompanyWRS Wilcoxon Rank SumWWQS Washington Water Quality Standard


1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site in Washington State has the most diverse andlargest amount of radioactive tank waste in the United States. Recently, as part of the cleanup mission, DOEawarded privatization contracts for pretreatment and immobilization of the waste for final disposal. Thework will begin with a demonstration phase (discussed in Section 1.3.1). The demonstration phase is dividedinto Phase IA, a project planning and conceptual design phase, and Phase IB, the demonstration facilityconstruction and operation phase that is expected to process up to 13% of the Hanford Site tank waste.

This report contains the plan for characterizing the environment and developing an environmentalbaseline at the demonstration site before construction activities begin. The report also contains the DataQuality Objectives (DQO) used to define the input requirements needed to obtain characterization data toestablish a preconstruction environmental baseline and a summary of existing information on the Phase IDemonstration Site.

1.1 Approach

The DOE requires environmental baseline surveys before the startup of new facilities as part of itsgeneral environmental program (DOE 1988a) and as required by DOE Order 5484.1 (EnvironmentalProtection, Safety and Health Protection Information Reporting Requirements [DOE 1981]).Characterization plans are necessary to determine existing conditions and assess relative risks and hazardsbefore construction and operation of facilities. In addition, baseline site conditions must be known toimplement privatization site lease agreements with DOE.

The DOE guidance on the management of low-level waste (LLW) (DOE 1990a) indicates that a completeenvironmental monitoring program should consist of four phases. These phases should correspond with thefour phases in the life cycle of the facility: (1) characterization (preconstruction), (2) preoperational,(3) operational, and (4) post-operational.

This plan covers only the preconstruction characterization phase. The plan addresses the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site; the utility and road corridors are addressed separately by the Project HanfordManagement Contractors (PHMC). A primary use of the preconstruction characterization data is to confirmthe suitability of the site and to decide optimum locations for the demonstration plants within thepredesignated area. Data acquired and considerations made during the characterization phase are designed tobegin establishing an environmental baseline. In addition, the data will be used to either extend or confirmthe adequacy of existing data for the preoperational phase. Until the process design is established and theexact location of the plants within the designated construction area are specified, a preoperational,operational, or post-operational monitoring plan cannot be prepared. However, this plan provides afoundation on which the later plans can be based and provides early characterization data on whichconstruction-related decisions can be based. Ultimately, the final environmental baseline will be developedusing data collected from this plan and from the preoperational plan.

The characterization activities are the responsibility of the PHMC; the DOE has designated that anindependent third party will collect the data and establish the environmental baseline.

1.1


1.1.1 Site Considerat ions

The Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Phase I Demonstration Site was initially designated as theGrout Disposal Area, which would have contained the vaults of grouted LLW produced by the GroutTreatment Facility (GTF). An initial characterization effort (Swanson et al. 1988) and performanceassessment (Kincaid et al. 1995) were conducted for that project. At the west end of the site, the GTF projectexcavated a pit about 100 m by 120 m by 15 m deep where 5 grout vaults were constructed. In addition,21 boreholes were drilled at the GTF site.

The TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site was selected through a site evaluation process (Shord 1996). Alarge database of characterization and environmental monitoring information is available for the site.Geohydrology, hydrology, and groundwater quality data are available in Hanford Site documents. Siteenvironmental activities include monitoring air, soil, groundwater, and biota. Annual environmentalmonitoring reports are issued by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the DOE management andoperations contractor (previously Westinghouse Hanford Company [WHC] and Rockwell HanfordCompany).

AH available reports and information were used to select the GTF as the TWRS Phase I DemonstrationSite (Shord 1996). Other than for the GTF project, the site has not been used, although several areas west ofthe site were used for waste disposal. During GTF characterization activities, borehole drilling, andconstruction and excavation of the GTF vault pit, no subsurface contamination was encountered. Minorsurface radiological contamination was located as part of previous characterization activities, but all datasuggest that the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is a "clean" site. Existing groundwater contaminationbeneath the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is from upgradient sources (see Section 2.5).

1.1.2 Development of the Plan

This plan was originally intended for use in developing an environmental baseline that would allowcomparison of project site conditions during operations and after Phase I ends to existing conditions. It alsowas intended as a guide for characterizing the site and, to the extent possible, to provide data for developinga preoperational monitoring plan.

After reviewing all the available data, the DQO process was used to develop a sampling and analysisplan. The DQO process was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure thatthe type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used in the decision-making process are appropriate fortheir intended use. The DQO process includes both qualitative and quantitative components. Thequantitative aspect uses statistical methods to design the most efficient field investigation that controls thepossibility of making an incorrect decision. The qualitative aspect seeks to encourage good planning for fieldinvestigations and complements the statistical design. The process is both flexible and iterative. The endproduct or objective of this effort is a cost-efficient sampling and analysis plan (SAP). For the data collectioneffort, emphasis is on addressing the question "what data are needed to address the decisions that need to bemade?"

Characterization activities are costly. Typically, characterization samples are required from the surfaceand subsurface and are analyzed by laboratories for various compositions and properties. In the past, manycharacterization plans were criticized because sampling schemes could not be justified and the types ofanalyses really required were unclear. As a result, arbitrary grids with close spacings often were set up andanything that could be analyzed for was obtained from samples sent to the laboratories (e.g., Appendix IX list

1.2


of analyses). By emphasizing what decisions will be made with the data, the DQO process focused on keyproblems or questions that the characterization plan was to address so that only needed data were collected.However, this required critical information on past uses of the land and, equally important, why thecharacterization was required. That is, what would be done on the land, where would facilities be placed, howwould they be constructed, and what kind of processes would be used in the facilities? •

In 1996 after the privatization contractors (PC) were selected, it was recognized that PC input wasessential so that information required for the preconstruction baseline could be incorporated into the DQOprocess. The types of data important to the DQO process included the following:

• The area required and the type, layout, preliminary design, and location of facilities (i.e., location ofprocessing facilities, feed tanks, and depth of excavations needed for foundations)

• The general nature of the process. The nature of the process is required to assess various releasescenarios, routes of exposure, and potential environmental hazards associated with the plantoperations.

Unfortunately, the DQO team could not get adequate information to develop the plan as originallyintended because the privatization contract does not require conceptual designs for immobilization facilitiesuntil December 1997. Much of the information required to complete a more detailed site characterizationplan tailored to site-specific needs is expected to be contained in several documents requested from the PC atthe end of Phase IA. These include the following:

• Technical report (Standard 2), which includes the process flow sheet description and waste treatmentprocess.

• Product and secondary waste plan (Standard 3), which describes the method of compliance withwaste specifications.

• Deactivation plan (Standard 8), which describes the procedures for deactivating the facility afterPhase IB is completed.

1.2 Background

High-level radioactive waste (HLW) has been stored in large underground tanks at the Hanford Site since1944. The total number of storage tanks is 177; 149 are single-shell tanks (SST) and 28 are double-shelltanks (DST). The caustic waste contained in the tanks consists of many different chemicals and radionuclidesin various phases and forms, including liquid, slurry, salt cake, and sludge. Estimates of the total tank wasteinventory vary, depending on the assumptions used to develop them. The total inventory of HLW in the177 underground tanks was estimated at 232,000 m3 (61 Mgal) by Schmittroth (1995). The privatizationrequest for proposal (RFP) (Wagoner 1996) indicates an inventory of approximately 240,000 metric tons(MT) of processed chemicals (about 56 Mgal) with 177 million curies of activity. These are the sameapproximations listed in the recently issued TWRS final environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE 1996).Waste was retrieved from some of the tanks to reduce the heat load. The waste was processed to recover MSrand 13?Cs, which were converted to salts, then doubly encapsulated in metal containers and stored in waterbasins. This inventory consists of approximately 1,900 capsules measuring 6.7 cm (2.6 in.) in diameter by52 cm (20.5 in.) long. The capsules contain 134 MCi, decayed to December 31, 1999 (Petersen 1996). Thisinventory will be processed in addition to the tank waste. An effort to develop a best basis standard inventory

1.3


of chemicals and radionuclides in Hanford Site tanks is under way. When completed, the effort will produceboth global and tank-by-tank inventories (Kupfer et al. 1996).

The radioactive waste came from plutonium and uranium recovery processing of approximately100,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU) from irradiated fuel, radionuclide recovery processing of tank waste,and other sources including laboratories and reactor decontamination solutions). The major chemicalseparation processes included the following:

• The bismuth-phosphate process for plutonium recovery• The tributyl phosphate (TBP) uranium recovery process• The reduction-oxidation (REDOX) process• The plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) process• B Plant waste fractionation.

Smaller waste volumes were generated from various development programs and the Plutonium FinishingPlant (PFP) operations.

Waste volumes have been reduced by decanting dilute waste to ground and conducting evaporatorconcentration processes with the evaporator bottoms returned to tanks. Other uranium recovery and volumereduction programs resulted in the addition of ferrocyanide and other chemicals to selected tanks. Over theyears, waste has been transferred and mixed among individual tanks in some tank farms either by specifictank-to-tank transfer or by cascade, as well as waste transfer among tank farms, resulting in considerablevariability in individual tank inventories. (See Kupfer et. al [1996] for a more detailed description of tankwaste variability.)

1.3 Disposal Decisions

An EIS issued in 1987 (DOE 1987) and a record of decision (ROD) issued in 1988 (53 FR 12449)focused on disposal of the tank waste. Conclusions from the ROD are as follows:

• Strontium and cesium capsules would be packaged and disposed of in a geologic repository.

• DST waste would be separated into two fractions. The high-activity fraction would be vitrified anddisposed of in a geologic repository. The low-activity fraction would be solidified with grout anddisposed of in near-surface vaults.

• Additional development and evaluation would be done on SST waste before making a disposaldecision.

Since the 1988 ROD was issued, the following events have occurred:

• Significant tank safety issues were identified concerning ferrocyanide and flammable gas generation.

• The DOE, EPA, and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) signed the HanfordFederal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1989).

• B Plant was eliminated from consideration as a waste pretreatment facility.

1.4


• The TWRS Program was established by WHC in 1991 to safely treat, store, and dispose of the tankwaste.

• Retrieval of SST waste was included as a planning basis in the TWRS Program.

• The 1989 Tri-Party Agreement was renegotiated in September 1993 (Ecology et al. 1994) and wassigned by all parties in January 1994. A decision was made to use the vitrification option for bothLLW and HLW. The grout concept was put on hold because of retrievability problems andperformance uncertainties related to hazardous materials.

• A TWRS EIS was issued in August 1996 and includes a multiple disposal option (DOE 1996).

• A program to establish standard inventories of chemicals and radionuclides in individual tanks and aglobal inventory of all 177 tanks was initiated (Kupfer et al. 1996). This program established thebest basis inventories, resolved inconsistencies, and provided both global and tank-by-tankinventories for a variety of Hanford Site waste management activities.

The TWRS Program now focuses on resolving tank safety issues, planning for waste retrieval,developing waste pretreatment and treatment facilities, and evaluating waste storage and disposal needs.Vitrification and onsite disposal of LLW are embodied in the strategy described in the Tri-Party Agreement.The pretreatment and immobilization operations for both LLW and HLW will be conducted by privatecontractors. In response to the RFP (Wagoner 1996), two teams received contracts for the demonstrationphase of tank waste immobilization.

1.3.1 Phased Privatization Concept for Treatment of Tank Waste

As noted in Section 1.3, DOE has decided to privatize the treatment of most of the radioactive hazardouswaste contained in the underground waste storage tanks on the Hanford Site. Privatization is defined asvendors, under contract with DOE, using private funding to design, permit, construct, operate, and deactivatetheir own equipment and facilities to treat radioactive hazardous tank waste (or mixed waste as defined in theWashington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-303). Payment for these services takes the form of a fixedprice per unit of product meeting DOE specifications. Vendors are selected through a competitive process.

Privatization activities have been divided into two phases. Phase I, a "proof of concept" phase, is todemonstrate the capabilities of privatization through the treatment of up to 13% of the mixed waste stored atthe Hanford Site. Once demonstrated, privatization will be expanded into Phase II to treat the rest of thewaste.

During Phase I, readily retrievable and well-characterized selected DST waste would be retrieved andprocessed in two separate demonstration facilities. The waste processed during Phase I could also includeselected SST waste. Compositions of the low-activity waste (LAW) to be processed in Phase I are given inwaste composition Envelopes A, B, and C in the RPP; HLW compositions in Phase I are given in EnvelopeD. Both facilities would process liquid waste to produce immobilized LAW; one facility would produce bothimmobilized LAW and HLW. The facilities for LAW and HLW would be constructed as separate parts, butboth could be on the same site.

Phase I will be conducted in two parts. Phase IA will last about 20 months with 16 months for planningand conceptual design by the private contractor and 4 months for DOE review. Phase IB will consist of plant

1.5


construction and operation to process about 2800 MT of sodium waste as LAW and 245 MT of wasteoxides, excluding the sodium and silicon, as HLW. A possible extension of the Phase IB contract wouldproduce an additional 2300 MT of sodium waste as LAW. Phase IB is expected to last 10 to 14 years with a5- to 9-year process period. Up to 13% of the Hanford Site waste will be processed in Phase IB, which willconclude with the completion of facility deactivation.

The immobilized LAW (ILAW) would be sealed in packages at treatment facilities and then transportedto an interim onsite storage facility, where it would be stored for eventual disposal. Based on the RFPspecification, between 13,000 and 18,000 ILAW waste packages are expected to be produced during Phase I.Currently, the four remaining grout vaults are being considered as an interim storage facility forapproximately the first 5,000 ILAW packages, with the rest slated to be stored in newly constructed facilities.The HLW would be placed in canisters and transported to an interim onsite storage facility, currentlyconsidered to be a part of the spent fuel canister storage building (CSB), where it would await shipment to apermanent geologic repository, currently anticipated to be the Yucca Mountain Project.

The LAW treatment facility would operate for 10 years. The HLW treatment facility is planned tooperate for 6 years, but could be extended to 10 years.

Phase II would be implemented as a separate contract following successful implementation of Phase I.Implementation of Phase II could involve continued operation of Phase I facilities plus construction of a full-scale separations and LAW vitrification facility and a full-scale HLW vitrification facility. Phase II wouldinclude the retrieval and treatment of the remaining DST and SST waste, as well as the waste contained in themiscellaneous underground storage tanks.

1.3.2 Location of Facilities

The two Phase I facilities will be located on the east side of the 200 East Area within the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site (Figure 1.1). This site originally was to be the GTF but that project was canceled. Wastetransfer lines and utility lines would be constructed through corridors into the Phase I Demonstration Site.Phase II facilities are currently planned for construction in the central part of the 200 East Area (Shord 1995)along with additional ILAW storage and disposal facilities.

1.6

N 136250

CANTON AVENUE

ELECTRIC SUBSTATION

LAV DOWN AREA

LAYDOWN AREA

UPGRADED ROAD

UTILITY CORRIDOR

LIQUID EFFLUENT

3

g"

O N 135000

3O D151A

POTABLE WATER

OVHO ELECTRIC

WASHINGTON STATEGRID SYSTEMCOORDINATE INMETERS

" N "135250 "N 135750 jm jm

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001, Rev. O

2.0 Hanford Site Physical and Environmental Descriptionand Background Information

The Hanford Site was established in 1944 as a U.S. Government nuclear materials production facility.During its history, Site missions have included nuclear reactor operation, storage and reprocessing of spentnuclear fuel, and management of waste. Current activities primarily involve waste management and Siterestoration. The inactive fuel reprocessing facilities and the radioactive waste management facilities arelocated in the 200 East Area and 200 West Area (Separations Area). These facilities are currently operatedbythePHMC.

Chapter 2 summarizes the physical and environmental conditions of the Hanford Site. This summary isbased on an extensive database obtained from characterization studies, waste management activities, andnuclear projects over the past 50 years. These reports and databases are too numerous to list in this overview.

2.1 Geography

The Site covers 1450 km2 (560 mi2), as shown in Figure 2.1, comprising parts of Benton, Franklin,Grant, and Adams counties. Use of the Site is institutionally controlled by DOE for national security andhealth and safety reasons.

The Columbia River enters the Hanford Site at the northwest corner and crosses over to form part of theeastern boundary as it flows southward. The Yakima River flows from west to east, forming part of thesouthern boundary of the Site and emptying into the Columbia River at the Tri-Cities (Richland, Kennewick,and Pasco). The Site is bordered on the north by the Saddle Mountains and on the west by the RattlesnakeHills (Figure 2.2). Dominant natural features include the Columbia River, anticlinal ridges of basalt in andalong the Hanford Site boundary, and sand dunes located near the Columbia River. The surrounding basalticridges rise to elevations as high as 1100 m (3600 ft).

The most broadly distributed vegetation is sagebrush, wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and other shrubplant species common to central Washington State.

2.2 Climate

The climate of the Pasco Basin can be classified as midlatitude semiarid or midlatitude desert, dependingon the classification scheme used. Summers are warm and dry with abundant sunshine. Large diurnaltemperature variation results from intense solar heating during the day and radiational cooling at night.Daytime high temperatures in June, July, and August periodically exceed 38°C (100°F). Winters are coolwith occasional precipitation. Outbreaks of cold air associated with modified Arctic air masses can reach thearea and cause temperatures to drop below -18°C (0°F). Overcast skies and fog occur periodically during thewinter.

2.1

WASHINGTON

•ao

TWRSPhase I

200 AREAS Demonstration,


Figure 2.2. Major Geographic Features of the Hanford Site.

2.3


2.2.1 Temperature

At the Hanford Site, the annual average temperature is 12°C (53 °F). July is typically the warmest monthwith an average maximum temperature of 33°C (91 °F), an average minimum temperature of 16°C (61 °F),and an average temperature of 25°C (76°F). January tends to be the coolest month with an averagemaximum temperature of 4°C (38°F), an average minimum temperature of -4°C (24°F), and an averagetemperature of 0°C (32°F). Observed temperature extremes for the Hanford Site range from 45 °C (113 °F)to -31 °C (-23°F). The highest temperature ever recorded on the Site was 46°C (115°F) on July 27,1939.The lowest temperature ever recorded was -33 °C (-27°F).

2.2.2 Precipitation

The annual average precipitation value at the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS) is 16.8 cm (6.6 in.).The wettest year was 1950 at 29.1 cm (11.45 in.); the driest was 1976 at 7.6 cm (2.99 in.). On average, 54%of normal annual precipitation falls during November through February. December is the wettest month,receiving, on average, 2.6 cm (1.03 in.), and July is the driest month receiving, on average, only 0.46 cm(0.18 in.). The wettest month on record is June 1950 with 7.4 cm (2.92 in.); September 1991, August 1988,and August 1955 recorded no precipitation. An average of 125 days per year have a trace (less than0.013 cm [0.005 in.]) or more of precipitation. The average number of days per month with a trace or moreranges from 16 days in January to 5 days in July. Only 24 days a year receive totals of 0.25 cm (0.1 in.) ormore. During the 49-year period of record (1945 through 1994), only 3 days have had 2.5 cm (1 in.) or moreof precipitation.

Total annual snowfall, which includes all frozen precipitation, varies from a low of 0.76 cm (0.3 in.) to142 cm (56.1 in.). The average annual snowfall is 38 cm (15 in.). The record snow depth at HMS is55.9 cm (22 in.) in December 1996, but the record snow depth on the Hanford Site is 61 cm (24 in.) inFebruary 1916.

2.2.3 Dust and Blowing Dust

Dust and blowing dust (locally resuspended) occur frequently, with blowing dust the most commonlyobserved. Dust and blowing dust are recorded at HMS when horizontal visibility is reduced to 9.65 km(6 mi) or less. Dust is carried into the area from distant sources and may or may not occur during strongwinds. Dust has been observed with wind speeds ranging from 1.8 m/s (4 mph) to 13.4 m/s (30 mph).Blowing dust occurs when dust is resuspended locally by strong winds. Wind speeds during blowing dustrange from 8.5 m/s (19 mph) to 35.8 m/s (80 mph). The average number of days per year with dust orblowing dust is 5. The greatest number recorded in any year is 20, while the fewest is 0. The greatestnumber of days with dust or blowing dust in any month was 9 in May 1980, just after the Mt. St. Helenseruption. Dust and blowing dust occur most frequently between March and May and again in September andoccur least frequently during November and December.

2.2.4 200 East Area Climate Data

Data collected from the 200 East Area meteorological tower are from the location closest to the TWRSPhase I demonstration site. This makes them the most accurate data for characterizing the dispersionclimatology of the 200 East Area. The joint frequency distribution (JFD) of hourly averaged wind data from

2.4


the 200 East Area meteorological tower for the 9-year period from January 1982 to December 1991 areprovided in Schreckhise et al. (1993). Figure 2.3 is a wind rose and a wind speed histogram representing theJFD data for the Hanford Site. The wind rose data indicate that winds from the west-northwest sector occurmost frequently (nearly 20% of the time). That is, the emissions are transported toward the east-southeastsector. Winds out of the northwest and west also occur with a relatively high frequency (12% and 11%,respectively). For hours of unstable directions, wind from the west-northwest and northwest sectors occurmore frequently than the other directions. Winds also are more frequently from the west-northwest sectorduring stable conditions.

2.3 Geology

2.3.1 Geologic Setting of the Hanford Site

The Hanford Site lies within the Columbia Plateau, which consists of a thick sequence of tholeiitic basaltflows called the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG). These flows have been folded and faulted over thepast 17 million years, creating broad structural and topographic basins separated by asymmetric anticlinalridges. Sediments up to 518 m (1,700 ft) thick have accumulated in some of these basins. Basalt flows ofthe CRBG are exposed along the anticlinal ridges, where they have been uplifted as much as 1097 m(3,600 ft) above the surrounding area. Overlying the CRBG in the synclinal basins are sediments of the lateMiocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene ages. The Hanford Site lies within one of the larger basins, the PascoBasin. The Pasco Basin is bounded on the north by the Saddle Mountains and on the south by RattlesnakeMountain and the Rattlesnake Hills (Figure 2.4). Yakima Ridge and Umtanum Ridge trend into the basin andsubdivide it into a series of anticlinal ridges and synclinal basins. The largest syncline, the Cold Creeksyncline, lies between Umtanum Ridge and Yakima Ridge and is the principal structure containing the DOEwaste management areas and the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site. The geology of the Hanford Site isdescribed in detail in Volume 1 of DOE (1988b).

Figure 2.5 shows the main stratigraphic units at the Site. In ascending order, they are the CRBG(Miocene), the Ringold Formation (Miocene-Pliocene), the Plio-Pleistocene unit, and the Hanford formation(Pleistocene). A regionally discontinuous veneer of recent alluvium, colluvium, and/or eolian sedimentsoverlies the principal stratigraphic units.

2.3.1.1 Ringold Formation. The Neogene-age Ringold Formation is composed of weakly to moderatelyconsolidated and compacted fluvial coarse-grained gravels and sands as well as fine-grained muds associatedwith lacustrine and fluvial overbank environments (Figure 2.6). These strata record a history of alluvial-lacustrine sedimentation and pedogenic activity associated with the ancestral Columbia River system (Fechtet al. 1987; Lindsey 1991; Reidel et al. 1994). Ringold deposits overlie basalts and are overlain by latePliocene- and Pleistocene-aged deposits.

The Ringold Formation at the Hanford Site represents deposits of the ancestral Columbia and SnakeRivers between 8 and 3 million years ago. The depositional system was a braided stream channel with thetwo rivers joining in the area of the present White Bluffs. The deposits on the Hanford Site represent aneastward shift of the Columbia River from the west side of the Site. The Columbia River first flowed acrossthe west side and up Dry Creek, crossing over the Rattlesnake Hills at Sunnyside Gap. The river eventuallyshifted to a course that took it through Gable Gap and south across the present 200 East Area and the TWRSPhase I Demonstration Site.

2.5


0 10 20 30Frequency of Occurrence (%)

0 4 8 Kilometers1 i ii—r0 2 4 6 8 Miles

Lines indicate direction from which wind blows;line length is proportional to frequency of occurrence.

SG97010239.3

Figure 2.3. Joint Frequency Diagram for Wind Directions at the Hanford Site.Hanford Meteorological Station Monitoring Network Wind Roses at 10-m Level, 1995.

2.6

3do'

3

O

O

Sentinel Frenchman HillsGap j

zT'r :>;>'^^?

Sadfllo Mountar - v

Pfisco BasinBoundary

' • • / - —

-N-

; * Itanlord Site; ^ < Bouncliiry

PalouseSlope

15 Kilometers

Anticline

•j—I Syncline

Thrust Fault


(Formal and Informal)Sediment Stratigraphy

or Basalt Rows

ijillji ij!! i ill! 1' 111!!JS!SS!3!eiS!Hanford formation

PHo-Plelstocene Intervalmember of Savage Island

d Formation /member of Taylor Flat/ member of Wooded Island

Ice Harbor Member

Elephant Mountain Member

Pomona Member

Esquatzel Member

Asotln Member

Wilbur Creek Member

Umatllla Member

Priest Rapids Member

Frenchman Springs Member

member of Sentinel Bluffs

of Slack Canyon

of Grouse Creekof Wapshllla Ridgeof Mt. Horribleof China Creekof Teepee Butteof Buckhorn Springs

member of Rock Creek

lember of American Bar

basalt of Basin Cttv

basalt of Ward GaptaB of Elephant Mountain

Rattlesnake Ridge Interbedbasalt of Pomona

basalt of Gable Mountain

basalt of Huntzlngerbasalt of Lapwalbasalt of Wahlukebasalt of Sllluslbasalt of Umatllla

Mabton interbed

basalt of Rosalia

basalt of Roza

basatt of Lyons Ferrybasalt of Sentinel Gapbasalt of Sand Hollmbasalt of Silver Fallsbasatt of Ginkgobasalt of Pa louse Falls

basalt of Museumlisa It of Rocky Coulee

basatt of Leveringbasalt of Cohassettbasalt of BirKettbasalt of McCoy Canyonbasalt of Umtanum

•The Grande Ronde Basalt consists of at least 120 major basaK flows comprising 17 members.Nj, R2. N-j, and Rj are magnetostratigraphic units.

Figure 2.5. Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Hanford Site.

2.8


Idealized Suprabasalt Subsurface Stratigraphy of the Hanford Siteand Stratigraphic Nomenclature

S°°c

- • = — = \ Plio-Pleistoce^^gJL. j Pre-Missoula

liliili

mm

Gravel-rich

Sand-rich

Silt-rich

Pedogeniccarbonate

Basalt

Stratigraphic Units

- Hanford formation

Ringold unit E

Ringold unit E

^ • Ringold sub E unit

Ringold unit C

Ringold sub C unit

Ringold unit B/D

-X, Ringold lower mud unit

Ringold unit A

Sub Rinqold fine sediments

Basalt

Figure 2.6. Late Neogene Stratigraphy of the Pasco Basin Emphasizing

the Ringold Formation. (Column not to scale)

2.9

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001,Rev. 0

Traditionally, the Ringold Formation in the Pasco Basin and Hanford Site has been divided into thefollowing informal units from bottom to top: (1) gravel, sand, and paleosols of the basal unit; (2) clay andsilt of the lower unit; (3) sand and gravel of the middle unit; (4) mud and lesser sand of the upper unit; and(5) basaltic detritus of the fanglomerate unit (DOE 1988b). Ringold strata also have been divided on thebasis of facies types and fining upwards sequences (Tallman et al. 1981; DOE 1988b; Lindsey et al. 1992).

2.3.1.2 Hanford Formation. The Hanford formation is an informal name that represents all the deposits ofthe cataclysmic floods of the Pleistocene (2 Ma to 13 ka). Glacial Lake Missoula formed in the Clark ForkRiver valley behind continental glaciers that spread south as far as the present Columbia Plateau. GlacialLake Missoula was impounded behind an ice dam that may have given way as many as 40 times, allowing theimpounded water to spread across eastern Washington and form the Channeled Scablands. These floodwaters collected in the Pasco Basin and formed Lake Lewis, which slowly drained through the small watergap in the Horse Heaven Hills called Wallula Gap. Evidence has been found for at least four majorcataclysmic flood sequences in and around the Hanford Site. Three principal types of deposits were leftbehind by the floods: high-energy, coarse-grained facies, low-energy slackwater rhythmite facies consistingof rhythmically bedded silt and sand of the Touchet Beds, and plane-laminated sand facies representing anenergy- transition environment.

The Hanford formation typically has been divided into a variety of sediment types, facies, or lithologicpackages. Recent reports covering the Hanford formation (Lindsey 1991; Reidel et al. 1992) have recognizedthree basic facies: gravel-dominated, sand-dominated, and silt-dominated. These facies generally correspondto the coarse gravels, laminated sands, and graded rhythmites, respectively. The Hanford formation thickensfrom as little as 30 m (100 ft) in the 200 West Area to more than 100 m (300 ft) in the 200 East Area.

Gravel-dominated strata consist of coarse-grained sand and granule-to-boulder gravel that displaymassive bedding, plane to low-angle bedding, and large-scale cross-bedding in outcrop. Matrix commonly islacking from the gravels, giving them an open-framework appearance. The sand-dominated facies consists offine- to coarse-grained sand and granules that display plane lamination and bedding and, less commonly,plane and trough cross-bedding in outcrop. Small pebbles and pebbly interbeds (<20 cm [8 in.] thick) may beencountered. The silt content of these sands varies, although, where its content is low, an open-frameworktexture may occur. The silt-dominated facies consists of silt and fine- to coarse-grained sand formingnormally graded rhythmites. Plane lamination and ripple cross-lamination are common in outcrop.

2.3.1.3 Holocene Surficial Deposits. Holocenesurficial deposits consisting of silt, sand, and gravel forma thin (<5 m [16 ft]) veneer across much of the Hanford Site. In the 200 West Area and the southern part ofthe 200 East Area, these deposits consist primarily of laterally discontinuous sheets of wind-blown silt andfine-grained sand.

2.3.2 Geology oftheTWRS Phase I Demonstration Site

The geology and hydrology of the 200 Areas have been the subject of much study and many reports overthe years (i.e., Myers et al. 1979; Myers and Price 1981; Gephartetal. 1979; Tallman et al. 1979; Grahamet al. 1981; Routson and Johnson 1990; DOE 1988b; Lindsey, 1991; Lindberg et al., 1993).

The 200 East Area lies on the Cold Creek bar, a geomorphic remnant of the cataclysmic floods of thePleistocene. As the flood water raced across the lowlands of the Pasco Basin and Hanford Site, it lost energyand began leaving behind deposits of sand and gravel. The 200 Area Plateau is one of the most prominent

2.10


deposits. The Plateau lies just south of one of the major channelways across the Hanford Site that forms thetopographic lowland south of Gable Mountain.

Borehole data provide the principal source of geologic, hydrologic, and groundwater information for the200 East Area and the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site (Figure 2.7). Numerous boreholes (both vadosezone boreholes and groundwater monitoring wells) have been drilled in the 200 East Area for groundwatermonitoring and waste management studies. However, data are limited within the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site; only one characterization borehole (2-E25-234) (Figure 2.8) was drilled, and it did notpenetrate the entire stratigraphic section. Most boreholes in the 200 East Area have been drilled using thecable tool method. Some boreholes were drilled with rotary and wire-line coring methods. Geologic logsbased on these boreholes are constructed by examining chips and cuttings, which limits information on all butthe broadest stratigraphic units. Chip samples typically taken at 1.5-m (5-ft) intervals are routinely archivedat the Hanford Geotechnical Sample Library.

2.3.2.1 Structural Framework. The TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is located south of the GableMountain segment of the Umtanum Ridge anticline and about 3 km (2 mi) north of the axis of the Cold CreekSyncline (Figure 2.8), which controls the structural grain of the basalt bedrock and Ringold Formation. Thebasalt surface and Ringold Formation trend roughly southeast-northwest parallel to the major geologicstructures of the site. As a result, the Ringold Formation and the underlying CRBG gently dip to the southoff the Umtanum Ridge anticline into the Cold Creek syncline.

Geologic mapping at the Hanford Site has not identified any faults in the vicinity of the TWRSPhase I Demonstration Site (Figure 2.9) (DOE 1988b). The closest faults are along the Umtanum Ridge-Gable Mountain structure north of the site and the May Junction fault east of the site.

2.3.2.2 TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site Stratigraphy. The post-basalt stratigraphy for the TWRSPhase I Demonstration Site is shown in Figure 2.8. Approximately 100 to 125 m of suprabasalt sedimentsoverlie the basalt bedrock at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

Basalt Bedrock. The Elephant Mountain Basalt forms the bedrock beneath the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site. It dips to the south from 105 m elevation above mean sea level (msl) at the north end ofthe site to 75 m above msl at the south end.

Ringold Formation. Most of the area beneath the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site consists of asingle coarse-grained fluvial sequence belonging to unit A of the Ringold Formation. The upper surface ofunit A is relatively flat to the north but dips southward beneath the southern portion of the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site. The relatively flat northern portion of unit A was probably truncated and beveled offduring Pleistocene cataclysmic flooding, which caused more erosion to the north of the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site (Lindberg et al. 1993). Distinguishing the unit A of the Ringold Formation from theoverlying lower gravel sequence of the Hanford formation is often difficult because of their similar coarse-grained textures.

2.11


• 2-E26-8

2-EZ7-7

2-E27-13

2-E26-6

•2-E24-6

2-E25-13

2-E26-43

2-E25-9* *

• 2-E25-34

• 6-43-452-E26-13*

• 2-E26-12

/

210 B-3P'ii'J Syste-JM*n Lol-S,

Pi: '6-43-43

6-42-42B» ~

' " ! 6-42-42A»

2-E25-28 /

((2-E25-2

2-E24-5 2-E25-1

2-E25-42* ' ' ^ • 2 - E 2 5 - 2 3 42-E25-35»2-E25-37J»

T2-E25-17 * • •j 2-E25-19 /j 2-E25-20

| 2-E25-22

2-E17-4

2-E17-12

2-E17-6

200 East Area Boundary

2-E16-11

6-36-46P«

• 2-E25-32P

2-E25-29*

2-E25-39

I TWRSj_Phase II Demonstration| Site

6-37-43

SG96120139.22

Figure 2.7. Location of Boreholes at and near

the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

2.12


North

225

200

175

150

125

TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site

GroutPit

2-E25-26 1 2-E25-33 2-E25-27

2-E25-234 ,

South

Elephant Mt. MemberColumbia River Basalt Group

teSSS] Sandy Mud to Muddy Sand

Sand

Gravelly Sand

Sandy Gravel toMuddy Sandy Gravel

Boulders or Cobbles

Columbia River Basalt

20 m

4 m I VE-5X

Hug ~ Hanford formation,Upper Gravel Sequence

H s ~ Hanford formation,Sandy Sequence

Hlg — Hanford formation,

Lower Gravel Sequence

Unit E - Ringold Fm. Unit E

LM - Ringold Fm. Lower Mud Unit

Unit A -Ringold Fm. Unit A

2-E25-27 -Wel l NumberSG96120139.14

Figure 2.8. Stratigraphic Units and Lithology at the TWRS Phase I

Demonstration Site. (See Figure 2.7 for well locations.)

2.13

i<fa'

iS>

Fault, bar and ball on down throw side,teeth on thrust fault

Ql=LoessQa = Alluvium

Qda = Active Sand Dunes

L-V>-V.-Vj Stabilized Sand Dunes

Hanford Formation - Sands

f | Hanford Formation - Gravel

Columbia River Basatt Group

R25E Yaklma Ridge Anticline R26E R27E


The fine-grained overbank and lacustrine deposits of the lower mud unit are not present beneath most ofthe TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site but do appear to exist along the eastern edge of the site to B-Pond andto the south of the site. The lower mud unit is significant hydrologically because it may act as a confininglayer that influences the movement of groundwater in the area. However, the lower mud unit is not presentdirectly beneath the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, so it should not affect the groundwater flow systemin this area. Near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, cataclysmic floods eroded into the RingoldFormation and blanketed the area with mostly coarse-grained, loosely consolidated deposits of the Hanfordformation.

Hanford Formation. Within the area, the Hanford formation has been divided into threelithostratigraphic sequences: a lower gravel sequence, a sandy sequence, and an upper gravel sequence(Lindsey et al. 1992). The lower gravel sequence consists of deposits composed predominantly of poorlysorted, basalt-rich sandy gravels with occasional discontinuous lenses of gravelly sand, sand, and muddy sandto sandy mud. The sandy sequence consists of multiple beds of loose sand interstratified with layers of sandygravel, gravelly sand, muddy sand, and sandy mud. The upper gravel sequence is not present in theimmediate vicinity of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

Fine-grained beds of mud and sand in the vadose zone beneath waste-disposal facilities could cause localperching of groundwater and lateral migration of contaminants. These types of strata are discontinuouswithin the Hanford formation and do not extend far laterally, but they could lead to localized spreading asliquid waste moves through the vadose zone.

The Hanford formation varies from about 65 to 95 m thick and consists predominantly of sands andgravelly sands. The lower gravel to gravelly sand is about 10 to 30 m thick and rests on an irregular Ringoldsurface. The Hanford formation sandy sequence varies from 30 to 80 m thick. The upper gravelly sandsequence is irregular, varying from 0 to 15 m across the area.

Holocene Deposits. Much of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site has been excavated and cleared ofvegetation. Only parts of the northern and eastern portions are undisturbed. Across most of the area, theHolocene sediments are at most a few meters thick. These are primarily stabilized eolian deposits.

2.4 Hydrogeology

Hanford Site hydrogeology is discussed in several studies (Gephart et al. 1979; Graham et al. 1981;Graham etal. 1984; DOE 1988b, Vol. 2, Chapter 3; and Delaney et al. 1991). Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.3summarize Hanford Site hydrogeology.

2.4.1 Hanford Hydrogeologic Setting

Primary surface-water features associated with the Hanford Site are the Columbia River and its majortributaries, the Yakima and Snake Rivers. West Lake, about 4 ha (10 acres) in area and less than 1 m (3 ft)deep, is the only natural lake within the Hanford Site (DOE 1988b). Wastewater ponds, cribs, and ditchesassociated with nuclear fuel processing and waste disposal activities also are present.

Recharge rates are suggested to range from near 0 to more than 10 cm/yr (4 in./yr), depending on surfaceconditions (Gee 1987; Routson and Johnson 1990). Low recharge rates occur in fine-textured sediments

2.15


where deep-rooted plants grow. The larger values are interpreted to occur in areas having a coarse gravellysurface and no vegetative cover (e.g., disturbed areas such as around the tank farms).

Approximately one-third of the Hartford Site is drained by the Yakima River system. Cold Creek and itstributary, Dry Creek, are ephemeral streams within the Yakima River drainage system. Both streams drainareas along the western part of the Yakima River. Surface flow, which may occur during spring runoff orafter heavier-than-normal precipitation, infiltrates and disappears into the surface sediments.

The hydrogeology of the Pasco Basin is characterized by a multiaquifer system that consists of fourhydrogeologic units corresponding to the upper three formations of the CRBG and the sediments overlyingthe basalts. The basalt aquifers consist of the CRBG flood basalts and relatively minor amounts ofintercalated fluvial and volcaniclastic sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. Confined zones in the basaltaquifers are present in the sedimentary interbeds and/or interflow zones that occur between dense basaltflows. The main water-bearing portions of the interflow zones are networks of interconnecting vesicles andfractures of the flow tops and flow bottoms (DOE 1988b). The aquifer above the basalt is a regionallyunconfined aquifer and is contained largely within the sediments of the Ringold Formation and Hanfordformation.

2.4.2 Uppermost Aquifer System

The uppermost aquifer system is unconfined regionally beneath the Hanford Site and lies at depthsranging from less than 0.3 m (1 ft) below ground surface near West Lake and the Columbia and Yakimarivers to greater than 107 m (350 ft) in the central portion of the Cold Creek syncline. Groundwater in theaquifer system occurs within the glaciofluvial sands and gravels of the Hanford formation and thefluvial/lacustrine sediments of the Ringold Formation.

A water table contour map of the uppermost aquifer for the Hanford Site is shown in Figure 2.10. Theposition of the water table in the western portion of the Site is generally within Ringold unit E gravels. Thewater table in the eastern portion of the Site is generally within the Hanford formation. Hydraulicconductivities for the Hanford formation (601 to 3048 m/day [2,000 to 10,000 ft/day]) are much greater thanthose of the gravel facies of the Ringold Formation (186 to 930 m/day [610 to 3,050 ft/day]) (Graham et al.1981).

The base of the uppermost aquifer system is defined as the top of the uppermost basalt flow. However,fine-grained paleosols, overbank, and lacustrine deposits in the Ringold Formation locally form confininglayers for Ringold fluvial gravels underlying gravel unit A. The uppermost aquifer system is boundedlaterally by anticlinal basalt ridges and is approximately 152 m (500 ft) thick near the center of the PascoBasin.

Sources of natural recharge to the uppermost aquifer system are rainfall and runoff from the higherbordering elevations, water infiltrating from small ephemeral streams, and river water along influent reachesof the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. Discharge from the uppermost aquifer is primarily to the ColumbiaRiver (Graham et al. 1981, DOE 1987, DOE 1988b).

Artificial recharge to the uppermost aquifer occurs principally from Hanford wastewater disposalpractices at surface ponds, ditches, and various cribs in the 200 East and 200 West Areas. Two of the largestrecharge mounds have developed beneath the 200 West and 200 East Areas at U-Pond and B-Pond,respectively. Under U-Pond, which was decommissioned in 1985, the water table had risen in excess of 26 m

2.16


• Basalt Above Water Table

~ Water-Table Co

Dashed W W

' Monitoring Well

97jpm004 March 11,1997 '

Figure 2.10. Hanford Site and Outlying Areas Water Table Map, June 1996.(From Hartman and Dresel 1997)

2.17


(85 ft) after 40 years of operation. The mound under B-Pond has risen more than 9 m (30 ft) (Graham et al.1981). These facilities are associated with wastewater disposal from fuel and waste processing activities andreceive or have received treated liquid effluents with varying chemical characteristics. Liquid effluent is nowrouted to a disposal site north of 200 West Area and the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF). Withdecreasing discharges to the groundwater, the water table at these artificial mounds is decreasing.

2.4.3 Hydrogeology of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site

Two major hydrogeologic units are present beneath the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site: the vadosezone and the saturated zone. The vadose zone, which is about 80-m thick, consists of high-permeabilitysediments of the Hanford formation.

The uppermost aquifer in the vicinity of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is dominated by thefluvial gravel unit A of the Ringold Formation. The water table is in the Ringold Formation in the westernand central portion of the demonstration site and in the Hanford formation in the southeastern andnorthwestern portions. The aquifer thickens to the south; the saturated thickness of unit A, combined withthe saturated portion of the Hanford formation, is approximately 30 m in the northern portion of the site andas much as 60 m in the southern portion (Swanson et al. 1988, Lindberg et al. 1993).

Although the general groundwater flow direction is from west to east in the vicinity of the 200 East Area,artificial recharge from the B-Pond system perturbs this general trend. For example, the resultinggroundwater mound (Figure 2.11) creates flow directions in the vicinity of the TWRS Phase I DemonstrationSite that are currently opposite the general west-to-east flow directions. The inferred flow, based on current,water table elevations, is from the northeast to the south-southwest beneath the project site (i.e., from higherto lower water table elevations). As the influence of the groundwater mound diminishes with distance, thegeneral west-to-east flow prevails. As discharge volumes continue to decline in the future, the perturbationsin groundwater flow direction discussed earlier will subside.

2.5 Groundwater Quality/200 East and 200 West AreasContaminant Plumes

Groundwater quality for the 200 East Area and TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is closely linked togroundwater quality in the 200 West Area. Groundwater analyses of wells from the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site are available in Hartman and Dresel (1997) and are modeled in Figures 2.12 through2.18. Plumes from the 200 West Area commingle with 200 East Area contaminant plumes now or will in thefuture, depending on changes in the hydrologic flow regime induced primarily by wastewater discharges to theB-3 expansion lobe of B-Pond and the TEDF pond. Contaminant plume distribution patterns also are goodindicators of the response of past groundwater flow directions to changes in wastewater disposal practices.

Several contaminant plumes have been detected in the groundwater in the 200 East Area. These includelocalized plumes of arsenic, 137Cs, 90Sr, and 239/2«pu as well as plumes of cyanide, alpha, beta, IMI, and "Tc,which are of more intermediate extent. Widespread contaminant plumes exist for nitrate and tritium.

The following plumes have many different sources and are associated primarily with past-practicedisposal activities. The following discussion is limited to contaminants that exceed drinking water standards.For additional details about groundwater quality conditions, see Hartman and Dresel (1997) and

2.18


Groundwater Field Characterization for the 200 Agregate Area Management Study (WHC 1993a). Theplumes that exceed the drinking water standards are discussed in the following order:

• Metals-arsenic• Anions-nitrate• Tritium• Beta-emitting radionuclides-gross beta, "Tc, and'29l• Alpha-emitting radionuclides-gross alpha.

Each contaminant map illustrates the extent of the plume that exceeds the most stringent regulatorystandard applicable to the contaminant. The standards have been noted in the legend for each map. In somecases, the detection limit (DL) or minimum detectable concentration (MDC) is greater than the most stringentstandard (e.g., arsenic). In each of these cases, the minimum isopleth has been selected at a value close to theDL. For reference, the operable unit boundaries for the 200 East Area are shown in Figure 2.19.

An additional contour that is less than the most stringent regulatory standard has been added to illustratethe potential extent of some contaminant plumes (e.g., tritium and MTc). When such a contour is included, adashed line has been used to help distinguish it from the standard-exceeding contours.

2.5.1 Metals-Arsenic (Filtered)

The Washington Water Quality Standard (WWQS) for arsenic is 0.05 ppb as defined in WAC 173-200.This value is two orders of magnitude less than the detection limit (i.e., 5 ppb) and three orders of magnitudemore stringent than the drinking water standard (DWS) and maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50 ppb.Arsenic contamination is illustrated in Figure 2.12. The only regulatory standard exceeded in any well in the200 East and 200 West Areas is the WWQS.

The source of arsenic in the groundwater is from discharges from the PUREX Plant and B Plant. Arsenicwas discharged near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site at the 216-A-37-2 Crib, the 216-A-30 Crib, andthe216-A-37-lCrib.

Concentrations of arsenic are very low or below detection in wells upgradient of the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site, while arsenic is common in monitoring wells downgradient. Generally lowconcentrations of arsenic are found in the groundwater within the deeper portions of the unconfined aquifer,the semiconfined aquifer, and the confined aquifer.

In most cases, arsenic levels in downgradient wells from the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site havebeen decreasing or have remained constant over the last several years. The arsenic level in Well 299-E25-30,which approached the DWS of 50 ppb in 1988 (46 ppb), dropped dramatically in 1989 and has remainedrelatively low (<15 ppb). Since 1988, none of the other wells has exceeded 20 ppb arsenic. It appears thatarsenic will continue at current relatively low concentration levels for some time.

2.19


Figure 2.11. 200 East Area and Adjacent Areas Water Table Map, June 1996.(From Hartman and Dresel 1997)

2.20


200 Areas Arsenic (filtered)Groundwater Plume Map^ Concentration Isopleth In Parts per Billion {ppb)

* Concentration values shown ifor the period 1/1/91 -10/1/93Detection LimitDrinking Water StandardMaximum Concentration UmftWa Water Quality Standard1/25 Derived Concentration Guide

BC Cribs

TWRSPhase[

DemonstrationSite

SyCtibsB Pond Complex

0 3,000 Feet' i i r 11 I l I I0 1,000 Meters

SG97010239.6

Figure 2.12. Arsenic Contamination in the 200 East and 200 West Areas.

2.21


200 Areas NitrateGroundwater Plume Map* W Concentration Isopleth In Parts per Billion

' Concentration values Mown are average valuesfortfte period 1/1/91 - 10/1/93

Detection Umlt SOD ppbDrinking Water Standard 45,000 ppbMaximum Concentration Umlt 45,000 ppbWa Water Quality Standard N/A.1/25 Derived Concentration Guide N/A

• Well

TWRSPhase I

BC Cribs Demonstration

0 3,000 Feet

SG97010239.7NEW

Figure 2.13. Nitrate Plume in the 200 East and 200 West Areas.

2.22


200 Areas TritiumGroundwater Plume Map

SConcentration values shown ereaverage values for the period1/1/91 -10/1/93

Detection LimitDrinking Water StandardMaximum Concentration LimitWa Water Quality Standard

SG97010239.8

Figure 2.14. Tritium Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas.

2.23


200 Areas BetaGroundwater Plume Map

Detection UmKOrinHng Water StandardMaximum Concentration UmKWa Water Quality Standard1/25 Derived Concentration Guide

EHE33

• 1

0-50 ppb

50 -250 ppb

250-500 ppb

500-1000ppb

>1000 ppb

• Well

^ Basalt

* By Cribs

K«4 B Pond Complex

0

0

3,000 Feet

i i i1,000 Meters

BC Cribs

TWRSPhase I

DemonstrationSite

Figure 2.15. Gross Beta Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas.(Contour units are in pCi/L.)

2.24

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-OOl, Rev. 0

200 Areas Technetium-99Groundwater Plume Map*Soo Concentration Isopleth In pCI/L

* Concentration values shown are average valuesfor the period 1/1/91 -10/1/93Detection UmitDrinking Water StandardMaximum Concentration UmitWa Water Quality Standard

15pCUL900pCi/L900pCl/L

1/25 Derived Concentration Guide 4000 pCl/L

B-PondComplex

BC Cribs DemonstrationSite

0 3,000 Feet

1 i i i I0 1,000 Meters

Figure 2.16. Technetium-99 Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas.

2.25


200 Areas Iodine-'Groundwater Plume Map^ U Concentration tsopleth In pCl/L

Detection Limit 1 pCI/LDrlnWng Water Standard 1 pCE/LMaximum Concentratlofl Limit 1 pCl/LWa Water Quality Standard N/A1/25 Derived Concentration Guide 20pCI/L

SG97010239.11

Figure 2.17. Iodine-129 Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas.

2.26


200 Areas Gross AlphaGroundwater Plume Map

Concentration tsopleth in pCi/L

Concentration values shown are average valuesfor the period 1/1/91 -10/1/93Detection Limit 1 pCl/LDrinking Water Standard 15 pCl/LMaximum Concentration Limit N/AWa Water Quality Standard 15 pCi/L1/25 Derived Concentration Guide N/A

BC Cribs

[•.-"••V/j 0-15pCi/L

^ ^ 15-1S0pCi/L £

| l ® 1 5 0 - 1500 pCl/L g

• • >1500pCi/L

• Well

%3 Basalt

!??j B Pond Complex

•k By Cribs

0 3,000 Feet

I i i i 10 1,000 Meters

TWRSPhase 1

DemonstrationSite

SG97010239.12

Figure 2.18. Gross Alpha Distribution in the Uppermost Aquifer Beneath the 200 Areas.

2.27

3era'

I

w

B Plant AA

B-PondComplex

TWRSPhase I

DemonstrationSite

Legend:

0 1000 Feet

0 ^300 Meters

200 East Area Fence

Aggregate Area Boundary

Operable Unit Boundary

TWRS Treatment Complex

SG97010239.13


2.5.2 Anibns—Nitrate

Nitrate contamination (>45,000 ppb) is widespread in the 200 West Area with smaller plumes in andnorth of the 200 East Area (Figure 2.13). The contamination from the 200 West Area has been transportedfar beyond the eastern boundary of the area. Insufficient wells have been installed in the area immediatelywest of the 200 East Area to assess the potential for this plume to have reached the border of the 200 EastArea. The same problem exists in the interpretation of the extent of tritium contamination.

The highest average concentration of nitrate in and adjacent to the 200 East Area is 350,000 ppb andoccurs in Well 699-50-53 A, which is located just to the north of the 200 East Area. The contaminationappears to result from disposing of scavenged uranium recovery wastes to the BY cribs in the 200 East Areaduring the 1950s. Two plumes located in the southeastern corner of the 200 East Area are centered on wellsthat monitor facilities that have at some time received effluent from either the PUREX Plant or the242-A Evaporator. The maximum average concentration associated with a facility receiving PUREX effluentis 293,000 ppb and occurs in Well 299-E25-13 in the A-AX tank farm. Nitrate also has been detected in onewell located in the northwestern corner of the 200 East Area and two wells just north of the basalt subcropnortheast of 200 East Area near the decommissioned Gable Mountain Pond. The contaminant levels are justabove the DWS of 45,000 ppb.

Nitrate levels in 200 East Area downgradient (southeast) wells have been slowly decreasing or remainingconstant over the last several years. Nitrate levels in upgradient (northwest) wells, on the other hand, havebeen increasing since 1991 but are still well below the DWS. These increases are probably caused by thediversion of most nitrate-bearing wastewater from the surrounding cribs and ditches directly to B-Pond.

2.5.3 Tritium

Tritium is discussed separately from the other beta-emitting radionuclides because it is an extremelyweak beta emitter and its unique chemistry makes it the most mobile of the radionuclides and an excellentcontaminant tracer to determine water flow paths and travel times. Tritium contamination (DWS of20,000 pCi/L) extends beneath large portions of the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Figure 2.14).

A large plume of tritium originates in the southern part of the 200 West Area, extends eastward towardthe 200 East Area, and may intercept plumes beneath the 200 East Area. Well control is insufficient to definethe relationship of the plumes.

Tritium contamination extends diagonally from northwest to southeast beneath the 200 East Area andunderlies the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site. Highest average concentrations are found in the southeastcorner of the area in wells monitoring disposal facilities associated with the PUREX Plant. A discussion ofthe potential for B-Pond to be a hydraulic driver influencing contaminant distribution is presented inWHC (1993b). The highest average concentrations in the plume are found in Well 299-E17-20. A plume ofcontamination is moving to the northwest of the 200 East Area and is indicated by the 20,000-pCi/L contourthat appears in the north-central portion of Figure 2.14.

Tritium levels rose continuously starting in 1983 (restart of the PUREX Plant) through 1987, but sincehave leveled off or slightly decreased. Upgradient wells (to the west-northwest), however, have shown aslight increase in tritium levels between 1991 and 1992; these appear also to have leveled off. Tritium levelscan be expected to decrease over time through the radioactive decay process because of the relatively shorthalf life of tritium (12.3 years).

2.29


2.S.4 Beta-Emitting Radionuclides

The general distribution of beta-emitting radionuclides in the uppermost aquifer is presented inFigure 2.15. The DWS and WWQS equivalent standard is 50 pCi/L for gross beta.

2.5.4.1 Gross Beta

The largest beta plume in the 200 East Area extends north from the 200 East Area. At least twocontaminant sources contributed to the beta contamination: the BY Cribs and Gable Mountain Pond. Thehighest average concentration in the plume occurs in Well 699-50-53A. This well is the locus for otherelevated contaminant concentrations (nitrate and cyanide). Technetium-99, '"Co, and "Sr are the primarybeta emitters contributing to the plume distribution. A tightly constrained beta plume located in the north-central portion of the 200 East Area is associated with contamination in the vicinity of the 216-B-5 reversewell CSr and 137Cs). The highest average gross beta concentration in this plume is in Well 299-E28-23.Another plume beneath the 200 East Area is in the southeast corner in wells that monitor disposal facilitiesrelated to the PUREX Plant. Technetium-99 and MSr are the primary contributors to beta contamination.

2.5.4.2 Technetium-99

The DWS for "Tc is significantly higher than the MDC (900 versus 15 pCi/L) (Figure 2.16). In thevicinity of the 200 East Area, a plume extending northward from the area is centered on Well 699-50-53A,the same well with the maximum average values for cyanide and '"Co. The plume originates from beneaththe BY Crib area along the northern margin of the 200 East Area.

2.5.4.3 Iodine-129

The MDC for n 9I is equivalent to the DWS of 1 pCi/L. The minimum isopleth contoured in Figure 2.17is equal to this value. Nearly the entire central portion of the 200 East Area is underlain by 129I-contaminatedgroundwater. In addition, the northern portion of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site is underlain by 1MI(1-5 pCi/L). The highest average concentrations are found in wells in the southeastern corner of the area.Well 299-E17-1 monitors the PUREX disposal crib 216-A-10 and has the highest concentration. Anotherplume extends out of the mapped area to the southeast and is large and very poorly constrained. It vaguelymimics the tritium contaminant plume that extends southeasterly from the 200 East Area and out of themapped area.

2.5.S Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides

Gross alpha contamination in the 200 Areas is shown in Figure 2.18. The DWS and WWQS for grossalpha is 15 pCi/L. The two alpha-emitting radionuclides that are responsible for the contamination areuranium and plutonium. A single plume is identified within the boundaries to the 200 East Area. Plutoniumcontamination beneath the 216-B-5 reverse well is the alpha-emitting radionuclide responsible for the plume.The highest average contamination is in Well 299-E28-25.

2.30

S

2

B . 1

Man-Made Gross Count (MMGC)Conversion Scale

Letter Label

ABCDEFGH

Counts Per Second<7.0x(10J)

7.0- 22x(102)2 .2-7.0x(10 3 )

7.0- 22x[i<fi)2.2 - 7.0 X (10*)7.0- 22x(10*)2.2-7.0x(1O»)7.0- 22x(10 i)

The data shown here have been processedIn a manner that suppresses the naturalbackground. The results are displayed asrelative levels ot man-made radionudideactivity. It is nearly impossible to convertthe relative levels ot activity to a meaningfulexposure rate because of the complexdistribution of the nuclides.

TWRS Phase I Demonstration SiteWaste TransferCorridors FEET

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

I I I . . I

1000

METERS

i


2.6 Soil Quality

The Hanford Site contains 15 different soil types (Hajek 1966). The surface soils of the TWRS Phase IDemonstration Site are sand to silty and sandy loam. The TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site does notcontain any prime or unique farm land.

Surface and Vadose Zone Contamination

This section summarizes radionuclide and chemical contamination in the soils and vadose zone of theTWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

Chemicals

Background chemical data on organic and inorganic Hanford soil sites were determined in a recent survey(DOE/RL 1994). Analyses were obtained from six soil sites in the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site. Thesites were exposed along the walls of the GTF vault pit. Seven samples were analyzed from burial ground218-E-12B adjacent to the GTF. In addition, topsoil samples were collected from sites proximal to thesouthern and eastern boundaries of the 200 East Area.

No volatile or semivolatile organic chemicals, pesticides, metals, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)were detected in or adjacent to the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site (DOE/RL 1994).

Radionuclides

Surface contamination information is available from two surveys. Aerial radiological surveys (surfaceand near-surface gamma radiation) were conducted at various times over the Hanford Site. The most recent(Reiman and Dahlstrom 1990) detected 137Cs (Figure 2.20). In February 1985, a survey of the GTF andsurrounding areas was performed using a hand-operated beta and gamma counter (Swanson et al. 1988). Thefollowing discussions are based on information gathered in Swanson et al. (1988). No beta activity abovedetection levels was found, but moderate levels of spot gamma contamination were detected at 20 locations;the gamma, assumed to be 137Cs, was found at the locations shown in Figure 2.21.

The spot contamination discovered with ground-level gamma survey instruments was not of sufficientintensity or areal extent to be detected in the overflight gamma or radiometric survey (Figure 2-21). Thelatter survey indicates low-level contamination in only part of the site. Spot contamination can occur becauseof deposition of feces and urine from predators that consume contaminated prey (e.g., rodents) capturedoutside the study area. The spot contamination could also have been caused by decomposition ofcontaminated tumbleweeds originating from upwind soil contamination sites such as the BC cribs, locatedsouth of the 200 East Area fence. The latter possibility is less likely in the future because a security fencenow surrounds the study site. (Fence lines are common collection points for tumbleweeds and are routinelychecked with gamma survey instruments.) The fence also may keep out predators or other large animals (deeror elk).

Swanson et al. (1988) sampled 50 sites (Figure 2.22) in spring 1985 and fall 1986. Composited soilsamples were analyzed for 137Cs, 90Sr, 238Pu, 23«™pu, U, "Tc, and m l . Mean values for 137Cs in the soilswere 4.39 pCi/g in 1985 and 4.28 pCi/g in 1986. Concentrations of wSr were 0.83 pCi/g and 0.71 pCi/g,respectively. Both sets of analyses are above background values.

2.32


Figure 2.21. Spot Gamma Contamination Identified by Ground Level Radiation Survey.(February 1985) (Source: Swanson etal. 1988)

2.33


216-A-24 Cr ib___^ -—^3

3 * 9<

6 . 5 , 8 , 7T7 /117«/

241-AP

TankFarm

' '

r * 2 6 3*o14 #31

•28 41 •

<\2*O^»40

' «44

• 43• 42 • ,

32 33

. • 2 0

216-A-42\>216^-^ \ ^ 2 1

216-A-30~~\̂ ^ .̂25» ^ \ ^ ^

24

• Location of the radioeoology sampling stationat the GTF (near surface 50g/2.5cm)

M6-A-29 Ditch/

/

/

18 /

/

•46

34

1 9 , 465m

/ «50

/ »49

/• 48

• 4 7

36 37 l?a

216-A-37-2

2 3 *

39

270m

Figure 2.22. Sampling Locations in and near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.(Source: Swanson et al. 1988)

2.34


Mean values for other radionuclides (isotopes of plutonium, uranium, technetium, and iodine) were below1.0 pCi/g. Values for 238Pu for the two periods were 0.0005 and 0.006 pCi/g, respectively; 2 3 M 4 0p u valueswere 0.033 and 0.51 pCi/g; uranium values were 0.3 and 0.47 pCi/g, respectively; only one 129I sample out of18 was above counting error.

Little or no radionuclide contamination was detected in sediments collected from wells in the depth rangeof 3.05 to 42.7 m (10 to 140 ft) in and around the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site. Traces of 137Cs, * & ,and 239Pu were detected in the upper 3.05 m (10 ft). Cesium-137 ranged from 0.08 to 1.3 pCi/g; '"Sr, 0.04 to0.43 pCi/g; and 239Pu, 0.0006 to 0.37 pCi/g (Swanson et al. 1988).

2.7 Air Quality

Ambient air is monitored in the 200 Areas (Figure 2.23) to obtain baseline concentrations ofradionuclides, determine the impact of operations on the local environment, and monitor diffuse emissionsfrom sources in the Separations Area. To help assess the impact of operations, the results are compared toDOE Derived Concentration Guides (DCG).

The concentrations of airborne paniculate radionuclides measured in 1995 on air filters in the vicinity ofthe TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site (exclusive of blowing vegetation such as tumbieweeds) are given inTable 2.1. Table 2.1 also shows concentrations from an air monitoring station at Sunnyside, Washington,which is over 50 km upwind of the Hanford Site. These results and results from other air monitors in the200 Areas are far lower than the DCGs and are below applicable DOE guidelines (Schmidt et al. [1996], andDirkes and Hanf [1996]).

Over the past 12 years (Figure 2.24) radionuclide concentrations have been declining as a result ofoverall improvement in operational environmental controls and reduced Site operations. Results from 1995are consistent with this overall decline.

2.8 Summary

The review of existing hydrogeologic and environmental information presented in this section illustratesthe potential impact of past-practice waste disposal activities and contaminant dispersal processes on thePhase 1 Demonstration Site. In particular, the following items are addressed in Chapter 3 as an integral partof the DQO process.

• Windborne particulate contaminants. The prevalence of windblown dust in the Pasco Basin andthe prevailing winds from the west-northwest in the 200 East Area indicate that particulatecontaminants from facilities located west of the demonstration site are likely to occur in the area.

In addition, contaminants could have been spread by windblown tumbieweeds and other vegetation.The aerial and ground-level radiation surveys tend to support this expectation.

2.35


Figure 2.23. The 200 East Area Air Sampler Locations.

2.36


Table 2.1. Annual Average Paniculate Radionuclide Concentrations fromAir Monitors Near the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, FY 1995.

(See Figure 3.6 for location of samples).

Isotope(concentrationsare in pCi/m3)

« K

-"Co

*>Sr

134Cs

137Cs

154Eu

155Eu

2MU

235JJ

2 3 8 U

2 3 8 P u

239/40pu

Upwind Samples

N977

1.2E-02

2.1E-05

1.1E-04

-5.2 E-05

6.9E-05

5.3 E-04

1.0E-04

1.9E-06

-2.4 E-07

2.0 E-07

-1.6 E-07

8.2 E-07

N985

1.4E-02

-4.6 E-05

5.6 E-05

1.8 E-05

1.7 E-04

-5.3 E-04

5.2E-06

8.1 E-06

1.1E-06

9.0 E-06

-6.4 E-07

1.6 E-06

DownwindSamples

PNL-5*

2.1E-02

5.28 E-04

1.59 E-04

1.5 E-04

2.3 E-04

ND

ND

1.6 E-05

-4.0 E-07

1.5 E-05

-8.4 E-08

7.5 E-07

Off Siteupwind

Sunnyside,W A '

1.0 E-02

1.6 E-04

-1.8 E-06

3.4 E-05 .

-9.1 E-05

ND

ND

1.9 E-05

3.0 E-07

1.8 E-05

1.4 E-08

5.7 E-08

ND = Not determined'Strict comparisons with Westinghouse Hanford Company data cannot be madebecause of different sampling techniques. See Schmidt et al. (1996) for discussion ofdifferences in sampling techniques.

2.37


j- Derived Concentration Guides

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95Year

1000

100

10

1

0.1

0.01

1.000E-03

1.000E-04

(B)

j_ DCG

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95Year

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95Year

SG96120139.19

Figure 2.24. Annual Average 90Sr, 137Cs, 239/24Opu Concentrationsin Air for Hanford Separations Area and Vicinity.

2.38


Biological dispersion. Both plants and animals can spread near-surface contamination. Plants,especially tumbleweeds, growing on contaminated soil become dislodged and are carried across thesite by wind. Burrowing animals transport contaminated soil to the surface where it can be furtherdispersed by the wind. Animals also ingest the salt associated with some near-surface soil columndisposal and surface spill sites. Animals (both prey and predator) that come in contact with thesesources disperse the contaminants through deposition of urine and fecal matter. Finally, spotcontamination can occur as a result of decomposition of animal carcasses. Spot contaminationoccurs randomly as a result of these biodispersion processes and is identified by ground-levelradiometric surveys and opportunistic sampling of biologic media, as available.

Soil column contamination. Lateral and vertical transport of contaminants from adjacent cribs andditches may have allowed lateral spreading of contaminants along the borders and through someportions of the demonstration site. This is especially true for the waste transfer line corridor.Although, as indicated earlier in this section, soil column data acquired for the Grout DisposalFacility suggest soil column contamination may be minimal in general, relatively high concentrationsmay occur in small areas. Such occurrences will need to be considered in routing utility and wastetransfer lines (e.g., the 216-A-29 Ditch area that lies adjacent to the northern waste transfer linecorridor). Existing information also suggests that low-level radioactive contamination in surficialsoils occurs in an irregular pattern across the study area.

Groundwater quality. Mobile contaminants at concentrations near or above DWS exist ingroundwater beneath and upgradient of the Phase I area; these contaminants also occur incomponents of the waste to be vitrified. Groundwater flow directions and contaminant plumes areshifting as discharges to the soil column decline and wastewater disposal sites change.

2.39


This page intentionally left blank.

2.40


3.0 Data Quality Objectives Process

This chapter applies the relevant components of the general DQO process as an aid in designing a cost-efficient data collection plan for ihtpreconstruction environmental baseline for the Phase ITWRS project.As indicated in Chapter 1.0, the purpose of this plan is to characterize the environment before any operationor construction activities have begun. Information gained in the preconstruction/characterization phaseshould also be used in designing the preoperational, operational, and postoperational monitoring plans.

3.1 Description of Data Quality Objectives Process

The DQO process is intended to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used inthe decision-making process are appropriate for their intended purpose. The process involves the followingseven steps, which are discussed in this report as indicated:

1. State the problem, question, or issue to be addressed (Section 3.2)

2. Identify decisions (Section 3.3)

3. Identify inputs to the decision (Section 3.4)

4. Define the study boundaries (Section 3.5)

5. Develop decision rules (Section 3.6)

6. Specify limits on decision errors (Section 3.7)

7. Optimize sampling design (Section 3.8).

The DQO process includes both qualitative and quantitative components. The quantitative aspect usesstatistical methods to design the most efficient field investigation that controls the possibility of making anincorrect decision. The qualitative aspect seeks to encourage good planning for field investigations andcomplements the statistical design. The process is both flexible and iterative. The end product or objectiveof this effort is a cost-efficient SAP. For the data collection effort, emphasis is on addressing the question,"what decision will be made using the data or information acquired?" A general flow chart depicting theoverall DQO process is shown in Figure 3.1.

3.2 Description of the Issue to be Addressed

The issue for the TWRS Phase I Demonstration site can be stated as follows.

3.1


Define theSample Area

Determine theConstituents of

Interest

Specify theDecision and

StatisticalParameters)

of Interest

Specify theDecision Rule(s)

and Limits onDecision Errors

InitialSample Size

Determination

Develop SAP• Field Sampling Plan• Quality Assurance

Project Plan

Collect andEvaluate

Data

- largervariabilitythan expected

- spatial clusters- temporal segments Yes

Calculation of PreliminaryBaseline

Means and VariancesBased on:

- time segments- spatial clusters

S696120139.11

Figure 3.1. DQO Process Flow Chart.

3.2


The proposed project site (see Figure 1.1) and waste transfer corridors are located close to surface andsubsurface contamination sources associated with past PUREX- and Tank Farm-related operations.

An environmental baseline is needed before startup of the Phase I Demonstration Plants to assess the degreeto which previous facility operations affected the immediate environs (DOE Order 5484.1, Chapter 1.0 ofthis plan). Existing soil, air, and surface water (runoff, enhanced infiltration over adjacent waste sites, etc.)conditions must be defined before the site is disturbed by the operating facility.

Conceptual Model

A conceptual model is used to describe and illustrate the potential contaminant pathways and the knownand suspected sources of contamination, which in turn helps determine the type and amount ofcharacterization data needed. The conceptual model recognizes that both the surface and subsurface must befactored into data needs. Elements of the conceptual model include sources of potential soil contamination inthe construction zone, such as potential airborne particulates and liquid leaks associated with transfer piping,tank tie-in lines, and liquid waste feed tanks (AP106 and AP108) and contaminant dispersal pathways.

Elements of Conceptual Model—Residual Soil Contamination

Based on process knowledge and past waste disposal practices (summarized in Chapter 2), soil columncontamination that could be encountered or may exist in the project area (Figure 3.2) is as follows.

• The 216-A-29 Ditch and PUREX cribs lie along the boundaries of the TWRS Phase I Demonstrationsite.

• Large volumes of contaminated wastewater were discharged to the soil column in these facilities.Subsurface lateral migration of contaminants may have occurred that extended to an unknown depthand distance into the site.

• Prevailing winds from the southwest and west-northwest may have transported contaminant-bearing,fugitive dust particles onto the site from upwind sources (PUREX and tank farm spills; dried,contaminated soil in ditches; etc.).

• Vegetation such as tumbleweeds that have grown over waste sites and are blown by winds could havecarried contaminants across the site.

• Burrowing animals could have carried contaminants from waste sites to the surface through ingestionor surface contact. These contaminants could then be spread across the site by deposition of urineand feces.

3.3


Wind Rose for200 East Area

Adjacent waste sources

; ; ; ; Utility corridor

Zone of potential subsurfaceI soil contamination from past

liquid waste disposal operations

. Deposition of airbornepaniculate contaminants

2 1 L A

SG96120139.6a

Figure 3.2. Conceptual Model of Existing Soil Columnnear the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

3.4


• Spills that flowed into the 216-A-29 Ditch left residual contamination at unknown levels in the soilcolumn immediately beneath the ditch that may be encountered during installation of the utility linesor the northern waste transfer line.

• An abandoned pond in the area is recorded on engineering drawing H-2-56635.

Elements of Conceptual Model—Potential Spills (during proposed facility operations)

Although it is recognized that the PCs will take all reasonable precautions, not all potential spills can beforeseen. Thus, a possible spill scenario is shown in Figure 3.3 and described as follows:

• A faulty seal causes a line to separate from a junction box; wastewater then seeps into the soil for anunknown length of time.

• Overlying soil is disturbed (vegetation removal, coarse backfill, etc.), allowing enhanced infiltrationof natural precipitation. Subsurface contamination from hypothetical leaks from transfer lines and/ortanks would be subject to enhanced transport through the vadose zone. The mobile constituentswould move with the moisture under unsaturated flow conditions. Transport through the vadosezone from a leaking potable and/or fire hydrant water line is another driving force that, while perhapsless probable, could occur.

• Contaminants are transported to groundwater after continual drainage of natural precipitation (orother water source) through the leak site.

Elements of Conceptual Model—Plant Release Scenario

In addition to the conceptual model of existing contamination and possible subsurface contaminationcaused by line leaks or spills as illustrated in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, plant emissions will need tobe considered for the preoperational baseline. As noted, a plant design and exact location within thedesignated area have not yet been specified. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, to help identifypossible constituents of interest and to contribute to final siting decisions, a general design is assumed for thefollowing release scenario.

Participate Emissions. If the process selected involves preconcentration of the liquid waste byevaporation (e.g., flash evaporation or fluidized bed calcining), vapor phase and particulate emissions couldoccur regularly or accidentally. Routine or continuous releases over time would result in downwind dispersalover an area defined by the prevailing wind directions. Short-term releases (minutes or a few hours) could bedispersed in any direction at any time, although certain directions are more probable than others. In theabsence of an actual plant design or even a conceptual design, only the simplest release models can bepostulated.

The physical and chemical nature of the air emissions would also influence the dispersion pattern.Vapor-phase contaminants and small particulates could be transported long distances with little deposition.Large particles would be deposited close to the release point. The height of the release would also influencethe likelihood of intercepting the plume with air monitoring stations. For purposes of this plan, the followingassumptions were made.

• Continuous releases of either vapor or small particulates will remain airborne within 1,000 m of therelease point

3.5


SoilPrecipitation

•iiiiiii'//////At/////////////////^/^

Waste Transfer Line ' V ^ s I I ~ T r a n s f e r B o x L e a k

Vadose Zone

Water Table

V . . _ _ „ „

Saturated Zone ^""~—-^ • ! - ! \ \ \ \ ' X j

Groundwater Row Direction • ^ - ^ - ^ . ^ .

Mobile constituents (99Tc,129l, NO3, 60Co-CN, CN".14C, Cr04,238'235U

Moderately mobile SOSr, Mn, 237Np, 152,154EU

Slightly mobile 137Cs, 239Pu, 241Am

V~70m

Figure 3.3. Conceptualization of a Spill Scenario.

3.6


• Deposition of some fraction of the transported particulates will occur at a uniform rate beginning atthe point of release

• The release point will occur at a height of less than 15 m

• Building backwash will distribute the contaminants to ground level before the plume passes beyondthe fenced area of the demonstration site.

These assumptions are illustrated schematically in Figure 3.4a. It is also assumed, in the absence of anydefinitive information on the exact location of the plants, that the emissions will occur in central areas of thefenced location.

A conceptual release model of an areal distribution of paniculate emissions based on the scenario andthese assumptions is illustrated in Figure 3.4b. As indicated, the hypothetical paniculate deposition would begreatest in the downwind shaded areas. If the release point were farther to the west, more of the fenced areawould receive deposition of hypothetical particulates. If located farther to the east, then deposition would beminimal within the study area and more would fall outside the fenced area.

Transfer Line Leak for Liquid Waste Generated. Large volumes of tritiated water vapor would begenerated from the preconcentration step. The water vapor will, in turn, require handling and disposal.Assuming the vapor will be condensed and further processed, routing of the condensate to the EffluentTreatment Facility (immediately east of the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility [Figure 3.4b]) will involveadditional piping runs for which leak scenarios are possible. Assuming that double containment designs forall waste lines entering and leaving the facility will be equipped with leak detection and double containment,no other consideration is given to this secondary release scenario. However, the possibility of releasing avapor phase of tritiated water may need to be considered in the preoperational monitoring or baseline phase(downwind air monitoring).

3.3 Decisions to be Made

Primary decisions to be made, based on the conceptual model, can be presented as follows:

(1) Determine the contaminants of concern in surface soils, subsurface soils, air, and available biotic media.

(2) Determine the number of samples that should be obtained to establish a baseline that is statisticallysufficient.

(3) Provide information, such as the answers to the following questions, so the PCs can make decisions aboutsite suitability.

- Are there any areas of contaminated surface soil that would present a hazard to workers duringconstruction or the plant employees after construction?

- Are there any areas of contaminated subsurface soil that would present a hazard to workers duringconstruction or the plant employees after construction?

3.7


Particulate Deposition

Vapor and Particulate Plume ReleasePoint

Wind

15m

* . - . * • " *

S.c-

Air. Monitoring

Station

Figure 3.4a. Hypothetical Release of Airborne Contaminants from Waste Immobilizeulization Plant.

3.8


1000 Feeti

—i

300 Meters

Legend

Boundaries Defining>75% of Wind Directions

Single Most Prevalent WindDirection (-30% of the Time)

Wind Direction! and Velocity

Monitoring Station

SG96120139.20

Figure 3.4b. Deposition Pattern from Hypothetical Release of Particulatesfrom Waste Immobilization Plant (based on annual average wind rose).

3.9


- Will the reentrainment or deposition of contaminated or potentially contaminated airborneparticipates on the site present a hazard to workers (on site) or to receptors downwind from the site?

- What is the existing groundwater qualify in the vicinity of the site and will a groundwater monitoringprogram be required?

The decisions cited earlier provide the basic framework. The answers to these questions will provide arationale to support the current sampling and analysis plan to gather the necessary information for theintended uses of the data. Baseline information provided according to this plan should be integrated and/orrevised (using conceptual models provided in Section 3.2.1) with other phases of the monitoring programswhen more information becomes available.

3.4 Inputs to Decision

The following inputs identified for the demonstration site baseline include information types that can besubjected to statistical design considerations (quantitative) and that support decisions more subjective orjudgmental in nature (qualitative). The quantitative approach is applied where appropriate.

3.4.1 Information Categories

The following general information categories are needed to address the decision/questions:

• Confirmatory radiometric survey (ground level)

• Baseline biotic survey (biomonitoring)

• Concentrations of primary constituents of interest (Appendix A) in surface soil for establishing anenvironmental baseline

• Indicators (e.g., gamma log) of contaminant distribution with depth in or near soil excavation sites

• Ground penetrating radar (GPR) (to locate underground lines, etc.)

• Wind direction/frequency

• Near-surface stratigraphy

• Baseline airborne particulate contaminants (primary constituents of interest, Appendix A).

3.4.2 Resource Constraints and Cost Saving/Deferral Alternatives

Resources to obtain sufficient additional information to address the key questions (Section 3.3) areassumed to be available. Effective or cost-efficient use of resources includes applying existing data to themaximum extent possible, restricting analytes of concern to only those that contribute materially to potentialreceptor exposure ("critical analytes/critical pathway approach") or to potential soil management decisions,and archiving samples for analysis at a later date as a backup to the use of a reduced analyte list.

3.10


Use of Existing Data. Both airborne particulate and groundwater data are available as a result of on-going monitoring programs in the vicinity of the demonstration project site. The existing air particulatemonitoring data in the vicinity of PUREX and both upwind and immediately downwind of the constructionsite are considered adequate for assessing the construction/worker safety question before construction. Asdiscussed in Chapter 2, airborne particulate contaminants of interest are two to three orders of magnitudebelow the DCGs for inhalation exposure and are nearly as low as offsite upwind concentrations in nearbycommunities. Use of this existing information can significantly reduce the sampling and analytical burden toaddress potential inhalation hazards for construction workers and plant operators caused by residualcontamination from past facility operations located upwind. The air monitoring network in the vicinity of theproject site area, however, may have to be modified and/or supplemented for the preoperational, operational,and postoperational monitoring phases. For example, during the lifetime of the demonstration project,remedial actions at adjacent soil contamination sites may cause resuspension of airborne particulatecontamination. Air monitoring stations between these sources (e.g., the 216-A-29 Ditch) and the projectfence line would be needed to differentiate contamination generated by upwind sources from contaminationgenerated by the demonstration project.

Existing groundwater monitoring networks and data are judged to be adequate for the environmentalbaseline. Use of the existing networks for the preoperational, operational, and postoperational monitoringperiods would substantially reduce the costs associated with installing a groundwater monitoring network ifone is found to be necessary. In addition, because of the shifting groundwater flow direction expected duringthe Phase I Demonstration Project (see Chapter 2), designing a network before groundwater flow has reachedequilibrium with new wastewater discharge conditions would not be prudent. Once the exact location anddesign are firm, more consideration can be given to the need for and/or design of a groundwater monitoringnetwork. Alternatively, if containment and engineered barriers are adequate and/or vadose monitoring isused, a waiver from groundwater monitoring may be sought. Considering the uncertainties in thegroundwater flow regime, the latter approach may be the best alternative.

Identification of Critical Analytes/Pathways. The primary exposure route for either humans orecological receptors is by airborne transport of particulates. Application of a relative hazard index approachto limit the analytes to those that contribute to a major fraction of the potential inhalation dose (90% to 95%)can greatly reduce the number of analyses required. This approach, described in detail in Appendix B, wasused to reduce the critical analyte list so that only three or four analytical procedures are needed to account forover 95% of the potential inhalation hazard. The alternative is to analyze all media for every constituentidentified in the waste feed. Analyzing for every constituent, regardless of its hazard potential and relativesource strength, is inconsistent with the DQO process.

Sample Archival. Sample media can be archived at a modest additional cost using existing samplestorage facility. Archival would be restricted to those constituents that do not require refrigeration. Most ofthe primary constituents of concern can be stored at room temperature under field moisture conditions. Thisapproach will be used where appropriate.

3.4.3 Information Sources

Existing data are available from the previous Grout Project Treatment Facility environmental baselineand from published results of on-going environmental monitoring programs. The existing information will beevaluated and will be supplemented with resampling and resurveys as needed.

3.11


3.5 Study Boundaries

The study boundaries are temporal as well as spatial (physical dimensions of the study area). For purposesof this baseline, the spatial boundaries are defined by the fenced area for the TWRS Phase I DemonstrationSite and the smaller area associated with the waste transfer lines and feed tanks in the AP Tank Farm (seeFigure 1.1). The utility line corridors and road corridors are beyond the scope of this plan. The overall timeperiod of interest covers preconstruction to postclosure. However, the period of interest for this phase of theenvironmental planning for the project is only the preconstruction period. The preconstruction/environmentalbaseline data acquired, however, will be used to develop a preoperational baseline plan once the facilitydesign and exact location are specified. The study boundaries may expand in the downwind direction,especially if hypothetical airborne contaminant release points from the new facility are in the far easternsector of the existing fenced area.

3.6 Decision Rules

Decision rules address the major or key questions and issues previously discussed. In accordance withthe DQO process, "if-then" statements are formulated that lead to actions based on the data or information.However, not all issues or questions identified are amenable to this approach. The following major decisionsor questions are grouped as identified in Section 3.3 and are presented in the if-then decision format to theextent possible.

3.6.1 Constituents of Concern

Constituents of concern to be analyzed in environmental media (e.g., air, soil, biota) in the vicinity of thesite will be based on the most probable exposure routes using the following criteria:

If the cumulative relative hazard index for exposure routes using DCGs and the envelope Dcomposition (maximum concentrations) exceed a specified percentage (e.g., 99% for radionuclides),then the corresponding analytes accounting for this coverage will be considered adequate to definethe analytes of concern (see Appendix A).

3.6.2 Sample Size

The number of samples needed can be based on general statistical criteria in accordance with thefollowing:

If the limits of acceptable errors are specified, for example if the level of confidence is 95%, margin oferror is 10%, and the statistical parameter of concern is the mean, then the number of samples can bespecified.

This applies primarily to soil samples. Existing data for airborne paniculate contaminants are consideredadequate for the preconstruction baseline. Statistical criteria for preoperational and operational phases willbe addressed in subsequent plans (see Section 3.8).

3.12


Biotic media may not be amenable to systematic sampling. In this case, judgment must be used based onconsideration of disturbance to the desert ecosystem and on availability of biological material. Also, if livetrapping and return is used, only spectral gamma analysis can be performed. Biotic sampling is moreappropriate for the preoperational phase and is thus not included in this plan.

3.6.3 Site Suitability

Site suitability factors include worker safety (radiation and inhalation hazard), contaminated surface andsubsurface soils in the construction area, and existing groundwater quality. These should be resolvable basedon a combination of existing and preliminary baseline data. Proposed decision rules for which the PC coulduse the environmental baseline data generated for this plan are discussed in the following paragraphs.

General Conditions. A comprehensive survey of the area in which construction activities could occurwill be conducted using GPR to detect buried anthropogenic objects or discontinuous geologic features and aground-level radiometric survey to screen for anomalous gamma-emitting radionuclides. If geophysical orradiometric anomalies are encountered, follow-up sampling and/or excavation will be conducted at thosesites. Except for radiometric survey results in key areas (see below) a decision rule is not appropriate forthese "discovery" type activities; however, the information may be used to alter construction plans (pipelinepath, demonstration plant location, etc.), depending on the findings.

Worker Safety. The preconstruction/worker safety issue involves both whole body gamma radiationexposure and inhalation of particulate contaminants. Possible decision rules that could be used by the PCinclude the following:

If above-background whole body gamma fields are less than 100 mrem/yr, then unrestricted workaccess will apply.

If average ambient particulate radionuclide concentrations (air filters) of key constituents in thevicinity of the project site are less than 1/lOOth of the DCG, then (I) respiratory protection(radiological) will not be required and (2) existing airborne contaminants from upwind sources willnot be a hazard to plant operators or to construction personnel.

Based on the review of particulate radionuclide concentrations in the vicinity of the demonstration site(Chapter 2), the airborne particulate criteria can be met for preconstruction assessment purposes usingexisting data. Respiratory protection from blowing dust associated with excavation and related constructionactivities is a separate issue that must be assessed on an as-needed basis by the PC's industrial hygienist.Good management practices during construction (e.g., wetting down exposed surfaces) can minimize thisproblem and reduce any resuspension of (potential) particulate contaminants.

Surface Soil Contamination. Existing data suggest some areas of the project site may contain lowlevels of surface contamination. However, the areal coverage of soil sample results is inadequate to map theentire area potentially available for location of the demonstration plants. Results from a statistically basedsampling plan for surface soils can be used to address this issue as well as provide an estimate of existingcontaminant variability for use in plans for subsequent environmental phases of the project. A suggesteddecision rule using surface soil sample results for assessing suitability for plant location within the studyboundaries could be

3.13


If (or where) concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface soil samples are less than theMTCA industrial standards or equivalent Hanford cleanup standards, the area can be consideredsuitable for the plant location and access by construction personnel.

The expectation is that all of the designated area will meet the criteria noted above. However, somelocations may be preferred based on relative background levels.

Subsurface Soil Contamination. As noted in the conceptual model and discussion of past-practicesources in Chapter 2, some potential may exist for lateral spreading of contaminants at greater depths nearthe northwest and southwest fence lines of the GTF. Existing data based on groundwater monitoring wellsand auger samples obtained for the GTF baseline will be supplemented with cone penetrometer/gross gammasurveys at selected locations where contamination may have spread into the proposed construction areas.Placement will be based on judgment (e.g., locations nearest to the 216-A-29 Ditch that received largequantities of chemical and radioactive waste in the past). Because the location along the northwest fence lineis the closest to a potential subsurface source (216-A-29 Ditch) the absence of contamination will be taken asevidence that distances farther away (to the southeast) from the ditch are not contaminated. If subsurfacegamma activity above background is observed (e.g., a detector response greater than three times thebackground signal for comparable lithology) or if contamination is suspected based on professionaljudgment, auger samples will be taken and submitted for laboratory analysis.

The rationale for using gamma activity as an indicator is based on the observation that 137Cs, a commonlydetected gamma emitter in subsurface soils at the Hanford Site, can spread tens of meters laterally from anear-surface release point in Hanford formation sands (Schmidt et al. 1996). As discussed in Chapter 2, theupper vadose zone in the study area is underlain by gravelly sand and coarse sand layers; the 216-A-29 Ditch(adjacent to northwest fence line) and the 216-A37-1 Crib (adjacent to southwest fence line) received largequantities of 137Cs along with other radiological and chemical waste. Other gamma emitters may also bepresent. As noted, these two areas can be covered by gamma logging using a combination of existingmonitoring wells and additional cone penetrometer boreholes.

Shallow Soil Contamination. In addition to potential "deep" contamination, excavations (~1.5 m deep)for waste transfer lines connecting the AP Tank Farm and the demonstration plant could encounter potentialnear-surface soil contamination from past spills or leaks. Surface gamma surveys and follow-up shallowauger holes will be used to assess this type of contamination. Indications of soil contamination from theradiometric screening survey may require soil augering and sampling to assess contaminant depthdistribution; or, if several "hot spots" are identified, may indicate the need for a more systematic assessmentof depth distribution along the entire length of the pipeline easement. The primary concern is worker safetyand the potential need to dispose of excavated soil at a future date. Sampling strategy to address workersafety concerns is provided in Appendix A (Section Al-3.2.2). Samples taken for baseline purposes (i.e., todefine existing conditions immediately beneath the planned depth of the pipeline) can be archived for futureanalysis if the waste transfer lines are removed at the end of the project. Thus, shallow auger holes to 3 mdeep along the pathline can be used, if necessary, to meet both preconstruction and preoperational baselineobjectives. The upper (excavation zone) can be used for preconstruction decision-making and the lower1.5 m interval for baseline purposes. The full length of the auger hole will be gamma logged as a fieldscreening tool.

Disposal of Contaminated Soil. The disposition of contaminated soil at construction/excavation sitesidentified during the baseline survey will involve decisions concerning the need to transfer to the WasteReceiving and Processing Facility for further processing or to the Environmental Restoration DisposalFacility for final disposal. The decision rules covering this issue are as follows:

3.14


If soil concentrations of key constituents exceed the industrial MICA levels or equivalent risk-basedstandards established by the Hanford Site environmental restoration contractor, such soil will have tobe removed and transferred to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.

Good management practices also apply to control of excavated soil left at the construction site (i.e., spoilpiles that minimize dispersal of windblown, dust, dust suppressants, etc.).

Groundwater Quality. As indicated in Chapter 2, the concentrations of contaminants in groundwaterbeneath and near the project site are currently lower than drinking water standards (MCLs for inorganics or1/25 DCG for radionuclides). However, flow reversal may occur during the life cycle of the demonstrationplant. In this event, some upgradient groundwater contamination that exceeds DWS (e.g., tritium) that ispresently moving to the west of the project site could reverse direction and move beneath the southern end ofthe fenced area. Alternatives, also as previously noted, are to use engineered barriers, leak detection, andvadose monitoring to obtain a waiver from additional groundwater monitoring.

The use of groundwater during the construction phase for dust suppression, makeup water, etc. shouldnot be required because abundant raw water (Columbia River water) from the Hanford Site distributionsystem is available.

3.7 Specify Limits on Decision Error

This section describes statistical considerations used to augment the quantitative decisions and decisionrules discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.6. Specifically, methods are provided to obtain the needed number ofsamples for characterizing existing environmental conditions before startup of the Phase I demonstrationplants. In addition, applications of these baseline values for determining compliance with applicablestandards (e.g., applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, limitations, criteria, and requirements) arediscussed. The following methods should be used to determine all important parameters in pathways(e.g., soil, water, and air) likely to indicate a contaminant release from the disposal site.

3.7.1 Statistical Objectives

Statistically, the primary objectives are to obtain adequate information for establishing thepreconstruction/characterization baseline and identify and estimate the sources of data variability (i.e., spatialand temporal). A sufficient number of samples must be taken to determine, with some degree of statisticalconfidence, the variation in existing or background concentrations (baseline condition) for each parameter ofinterest. Statistical considerations relative to monitoring program design are described in Sections 3.7.2 and3.7.3. These considerations are based on guidance found in DOE (1990a), EPA (1989a, 1989b, and 1992),and Ecology (1992 and 1995).

3.7.2 Selection of the Statistical Parameter

To obtain an adequate number of samples, it is important to select the appropriate statistical parameters(e.g., the mean concentration or a specified upper percentile of the distribution or both) and develop relevantdecision rules to address the questions described earlier. For example, for a compliance decision (e.g.,surface soil contamination decision, [see Section 3.6]) if the regulatory standards are based on short-term oracute toxic effects on human health or the environment, an upper percentile soil concentration should be used

3.15


to evaluate compliance with standards. However, if the regulatory standards are based on chronic orcarcinogenic threats, the mean concentration should be used to evaluate compliance with standards unlesscoefficients of variation (CV) [CV, (x/s) * 100] are large or a large percentage of concentrations are belowthe limit of detection. More discussions on compliance with soil standards can be found in Ecology (1996)and EPA (1989a).

For decisions related to environmental baseline conditions, defining background level in statistical termsis important. For this plan, the objective is to adequately characterize the background conditions for thepreconstruction phase. In this case, the statistical objective is to provide adequate numbers of samples todefine the mean and standard deviation for the identified key constituents of concern (i.e., parameters ofinterest).

3.7.3 Sample Size Determination (for Estimating Means)

As noted in Section 3.7.2, the statistical objective is to ensure that enough data are collected to obtainadequate estimates of the central tendency and variation in background for each parameter of interest.Attempts should be made to identify and estimate the sources of data variability (i.e., spatial and/or temporalvariations). If the data contain a significant temporal component, it is appropriate to consider different timesegments (e.g., seasons) for which separate background averages are calculated. Similarly, if significantspatial variation exists, separate background averages should be computed for each spatial group.

The sample size needed to yield a (1 - a}% confidence interval with a specified width is determined:

• level of confidence, (1 - a )%

• variability presented in the population, a2

• magnitude of error that can be tolerated, d = | x - u |

The sample size needed is

(1)

where z1M is the 100(l-a/2)%lh quantile of the standard normal distribution. When a reliable value for a2 isnot available, but the relative population standard deviation (the coefficient of variation = a//j) is known, theneeded sample size becomes

(2)

Table 3.1 shows the sample size needed for various combinations of CV (%) and acceptable margin oferror. A confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 10% is recommended in DOE (1990a, page 5.3).

3.16


Table 3.1.

CV(%)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100

120

150

Sample Sizes Needed for Various Combinations of Margin of Errorsand CV (%) at 95% Level of Confidence

10%

16

35

62

96

139

189

246

385

554

865

Margin of Error

20%

4

9

16

25

35

48

62

97

139

217

25%

3

6

10

16

23

31

40

62

89

139

30%

2

4

7

11

16

21

28

43

62

97

If the data exhibit temporal and/or spatial variations, more than one background average is needed andthe required sample size must be increased accordingly. For example, assuming CV% is estimated to be 30%(using prior information) and a 10% margin of error is deemed acceptable, a sample size of 35 is needed if asingle background is determined to be sufficient to represent the entire set of characterization monitoring datafor a given parameter. If two time segments are expected (say, summer and winter), the total number of

samples = 35 * \J2 + 2 = 52 and the number of samples (to be collected for each season) is 26. Specific

temporal and spatial variations can be identified using analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures once the

characterization data have been collected.

Final determination of time segments and/or spatial clusters should be made only after thecharacterization data become available. Before preoperational monitoring, only a general idea of the numberof time segments (or spatial clusters) is needed to permit determination of the total sample size for initialpreoperational sampling. After initial data are analyzed, additional preoperational sampling may be requiredto provide adequate sample sizes within each time segment or spatial cluster.

3.17


3.8 Optimize Design for Obtaining Data

3.8.1 New Data

Although considerable data are available from the Grout Treatment Facility project, the statistical samplesize considerations previously discussed illustrate that a larger areal coverage (and/or number of samples perunit area) is required than originally used. Also, the existing conditions need to be brought up to date on aspatial scale more appropriate for the demonstration project. Thus, while the existing data are useful inproviding preliminary information concerning variability for some parameters (e.g., 137Cs), they areinadequate for a DQO-based environmental baseline, hi addition, only those data needs subject to statisticaldesign are considered in this section. Other information and alternatives such as GPR, gamma survey ofvegetation, "deep" subsurface soil contamination survey, and shallow subsurface survey of transfer linetrench areas are described in Sections 3.6 and Chapter 4.

3.8.1.1 Statistical Design of Surficial Soil Sampling

The statistical model defined by Equation (2) is used for the following discussion. This approach takesadvantage of existing data to estimate the expected variability needed for sample size determination. Thenumber of soil samples needed to define existing conditions within limits with a desired margin of error of10% (Table 3.1) vary widely depending on the CV for the area under consideration.

The LLW guidance document (DOE 1990a, page 4.7) recommends a sample spacing of 100 m x 100 mfor designing a baseline soil sample collection grid. This can be designed as either a square grid or a squaregrid with a 45° rotation (referred to as a diagonal grid) as shown in Figures 3.5a and 3.5b, respectively. Anangle of 45 ° was chosen after considering the prevailing wind direction (WNW and NW) as well as potentialsource terms. The diagonal grid provides the same spatial coverage (systematic sampling) as the square gridbut requires only 61 samples compared to over 80 for the square grid. Because the diagonal grid provides thesame spatial coverage with fewer samples, this is the most cost-efficient design. As discussed previously, theinitial baseline sample results should be used to determine if an adequate number of samples have been taken.If not, the grid can be supplemented.

For 61 samples (the number of 100-m grid line crossings within the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site,Figure 3.5b) and a margin of error of 10%, the calculated CV for preoperational data must be no more than38% (Equation 2). Considering the range of CV for 137Cs and 90Sr from existing data, the grid design shownin Figure 3.5b can reasonably be expected to result in the collection of an adequate number of baseline soilsamples. This can be confirmed with the CVs from the analytical results for the initial 61 samples collectedand the sample size increased to satisfy Equation (2) if necessary. That is, if the CV for a constituent is lessthan 38%, no additional samples would be needed. If the CV is greater than 38%, a larger sample size wouldbe needed to satisfy Equation (2).

Other data needs for which "systematic sampling" and uniform spatial coverage across the entire GTFarea are needed can use the same grid spacing array. Ground-penetrating radar and the ground-levelradiometric survey of soil and sagebrush will use this same track line arrangement.

3.18


216-A-24Crib216-A-29 Ditch

465m

216-A-30

840m216-A-37-2 270m

900m

Figure 3.5a. Surface Soil Sampling Grid (Oriented N-S, E-W)for Phase I Demonstration Site.

3.19



465m

216-A-42

216-A-30

900m

840m216-A-37-2 270m

SG9612O139.10A

Figure 3.5b. Surface Soil Sampling Grid (Rotated 45°)

for Phase I Demonstration Site.

3.20


Also, initial sampling results collected from the construction sites (when exact locations for the facilitiesare finalized) should be evaluated to determine whether intensive sampling of these areas is needed. Thisevaluation, using Equation (2), should be based on the following: the spatial variability from the constructionsites, desired level of confidence, and acceptable margin of error.

Waste Transfer Corridor. Surface soil will be sampled at locations shown approximately inFigure 3.5c using the 100 m x 100 m diagonal grid. Sampling efforts are focused on the area outside thewaste transfer/feed line easements based on the feed line corridors shown in Figure 1.1. The grid is arrangedto collect more edge samples (seven samples) than a regular square grid because of the smaller areas of thecorridor compared to the size of the grid. Determining whether enough samples are collected for baselinepurposes should follow earlier discussions.

3.8.1.2 Air Monitoring Data

Statistical requirements for establishing the airborne paniculate baseline are similar to the soil baselineconsiderations, except seasonal effects in the air monitoring data are more likely. As discussed earlier, theexisting air paniculate monitoring data are judged to be adequate for addressing the construction/workersafety decision. The air monitoring network near the project site area, however, may have to be modifiedand/or supplemented for the preoperational, operational, and postoperational monitoring phases. Forexample, during the life of the demonstration project, remedial actions at adjacent soil contamination sitesmay cause resuspension of airborne paniculate contamination. Air monitoring stations between these sources(e.g., the 216-A-29 Ditch) and the project fence line would be needed to differentiate contamination fromupwind sources from contamination generated by the demonstration project.

Air monitoring data collected during the preoperational and/or operational phase may be evaluated usingthe control chart approach discussed in Section 3.8.2. If a seasonal effect is indicated, raw data will beadjusted to account for the temporal variation using techniques from DOE (1990a, p 5.12 and 5.13).

Details concerning location of the monitoring stations (in relation to assumed plant locations, prevailingwind directions, sample handling procedures, etc.) that are relevant for the preoperational and operationalphases are discussed in the SAP.

3.8.2 Application of the Baseline Data

Although a discussion of future uses is beyond the scope of this plan, recognizing how thecharacterization baseline data will be used in the future is important. Future uses may include the following:

• As an aid to finalizing the design of'thepreoperational monitoring program where baselines will beestablished for environmental parameters of concern.

• As baselines for performance evaluation during the operational monitoring phase, which continuesfrom the start of site operations until the site is decommissioned. Operational data are statisticallycompared to the preoperational baseline data and/or to regulatory controls to meet the monitoringobjective (detection of a release).

3.21

AP Tank Farm

oooooooo


Transfer/Feed LineCorridors/Easements

SG96120139.18

Figure 3.5c. Surface Soil Sampling Locations for the Waste Transfer Corridor.

3.22


• As baselines for performance evaluation (attainment of cleanup standards) during thepostoperational monitoring phase.

The applications and possible actions or decisions are summarized in Figure 3.6 and discussed asfollows. It should be noted that at a future date operational and postoperational monitoring programs will bedeveloped based on the monitoring objectives using the DQO process.

3.8.2.1 Analysis of Variance

The ANOVA is a statistical method that provides an initial overall test of the equality of two or moremeans and also provides the quantities necessary for further specific comparisons among the means. In thecontext of environmental monitoring, monitoring points (collected over different time spans) or group ofmonitoring points (collected over the same time) can be evaluated using the ANOVA procedure. For exam-ple, one comparison of interest is between the mean concentration of the baseline data and the meanconcentration of the compliance (e.g., operational) data. Parametric ANOVA usually assumes that the dataare distributed normally with a common variance. If data are not suitable for a parametric ANOVA, ANOVAbased on ranks (nonparametric ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis test) may be appropriate. Details of thesevarious ANOVA methods are given in EPA (1989b and 1992).

3.8.2.2 Confidence Interval

During operational monitoring, operational data may be required for comparison with a fixed regulatorystandard (such as an alternate concentration limit) as stipulated in the facility permit. In this situation, theconfidence limit on the mean of the operational data (for a particular constituent of concern) may becalculated and compared to the applicable regulatory standard. A lower one-sided 99% confidence limit isrecommended by EPA (1992). If the lower confidence limit exceeds the fixed regulatory standard, it isinterpreted as statistically significant evidence that the true mean concentration exceeds the regulatorystandard and, therefore, as a possible permit violation.

3.8.2.3 Tolerance Intervals

During the operational phase, if the monitoring objective is to provide timely results to alert managementabout unusual conditions, tolerance limits can be constructed using preoperational (detection monitoring) oroperational (compliance monitoring) data. A tolerance interval is constructed in such a way that it contains atleast a specified proportion, P (called the coverage), of the population with a specified degree of confidence,(1 - a ) % (referred to as the tolerance coefficient). A coverage of 95% and a tolerance coefficient of 95% areused following recommendations in EPA (1989b and 1992). These recommendations are consistent withmethods for defining background concentrations as required under the "Model Toxics Control Act CleanupRegulation," WAC 173-340 (Ecology 1996 amended). Tolerance intervals can be constructed from thepreoperational monitoring data. Individual samples (collected during the compliance monitoring period)found to be outside the tolerance limits signal possible environmental contamination.

3.23


Operational/Post-OperationalPerformance Evaluation

r

I l l 1Comparisons

on Means• Confidence

Interval• ANOVA

Comparisonson Upper

percentiles• Tolerance

Interval

Trend Analysis• Control Chart• Regression• Prediction

Interval

Attainment ofBackground BasedCleanup Standards• Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test• Quantile Test• Kolmogorov-Smrnov Test

SG96120139.12

Figure 3.6. Application of Preoperational Monitoring Data.

3.24


Parametric tolerance limits (appropriate for normally or log-normally distributed data) are of the form

x + ks (one sided)

x ± ks (two sided)

•where x is the sample mean; k is a multiplier based on the coverage, the confidence level, and sample size;

and s is the sample standard deviation. Values of k can be obtained from Natrella (1966). Before using these

parametric limits that depend heavily on the normality (or log-normality) assumption, the adequacy of using

normal (or log-normal) distribution as a model should be assessed by probability plots and/or statistical

goodness-of-fit tests, such as the Shapiro-Wilk test or the Lilliefors test of normality (Gilbert 1987, Conover

1980).

When the normal or log-normal distribution cannot be justified, the use of nonparametric toleranceintervals may be considered. The upper tolerance limit is usually the largest observed value in a randomsample. However, the nonparametric tolerance intervals require a large number of samples to provide areasonable coverage and tolerance coefficient. The number of samples need for a coverage of P% and atolerance coefficient of (1 - a)% is (Gumbel 1958, page 68):

(3)( 3 )

To have a minimum coverage of 95% with 95% confidence, 59 samples are needed. Additionally, fortolerance limits to be useful, resampling has to be allowed before a decision is reached. This is because thetolerance limits have a built-in failure rate of (1 - P)%. For example, 1 in every 20 samples would beexpected to be outside of the 95% tolerance limits. To decrease the chance of a false positive decisionbecause of either the built-in failure rate or the effects of gross errors in sampling and analysis, verificationresampling is necessary. This is the best available approach to balance false positive and false negativedecisions (Gibbons 1994).

3.8.2.4 Prediction Intervals

Prediction intervals are constructed to contain the next sample values from a population or a distributionwith a specified probability (e.g., 95%). Prediction intervals are useful in two types of comparisons. Thefirst is when compliance data are being compared to background (baseline) values. In that case, theprediction interval is constructed from the baseline data. Any future compliance data found to fall outside theupper prediction limit signal possible environmental contamination. The second type is when intrapoint(e.g., well) comparisons are being made on an uncontaminated sampling location. In that case, the predictioninterval is constructed on past data sampled from the location and used to predict the behavior of futuresamples from the same sampling location. Details on how to construct prediction intervals are provided inEPA (1989b and 1992).

3.25


3.8.2.5 Control Charts

In many industrial applications, a control chart is constructed to compare the operational mean for agiven constituent at a given time to the action level. For these applications, the sample mean is a betterestimate of the true population mean than an individual value. Thus, the probability of a decision error can bereduced. However, for a LLW disposal site, the control chart must be designed to compare individual valuesrather than means unless replicate values are obtained from the same sampling location. This comparison isneeded because of the directional nature of releases from the site. Not all sampling locations will be affectedequally from a release of a contaminant that is transported by air or water. In fact, in most cases only a fewsampling locations are likely to be affected. If overall means were compared, a significant release might goundetected. The following steps to construct a control chart for individual sample values are recommendedby DOE (1990a, pages 5.24 through 5.40):

1. Determine the operating background level (OBL) on the basis of preoperational background data.

(4)

where x b and sb are the preoperational background mean and standard deviation, respectively. Equation

(4) assumes that normal and proper operation of a waste disposal site can result in some increase of

concentrations above preoperational levels.

2. Set the action level (AL) as

(5)

where OBL and sb are defined in the first step.

3. Construct a plot of concentration versus time for each constituent of interest at each sampling location

showing lines representing x b, OBL, and AL. As the operational data are collected, plot the individual

values, compare them to the AL. Watch for values exceeding the AL as well as for any long-term trendsexhibited in the data. Such trends may be indicative of a system that is out of control even though theAL may not have been exceeded.

Equation (5) can be expressed in the general form

AL = OBL + k • sb (6)

3.26


It can be shown that when k is chosen to be 1.5, the probability of a false positive is 6.7% (or 1 of 15).In addition to a false positive, a false negative decision error (or, in statistical terminology, a Type II error)can result from failing to detect a problem that does exist. A lower AL reduces the chance of making a falsenegative error, but it increases the chance of a false positive. A proper balance can be achieved with anappropriate setting of the AL. Setting AL = OBL + 1.5 * sb would give the optimum balance between the twotypes of decision errors if the costs associated with the false negative error are roughly the same as those for afalse positive. The probability of making each error is 6.7%. Based on recommendations made in DOE(1990, page 5-40), the AL should be set at OBL + 1.5 * sb (for individual samples) initially to protect againstthe possibility of either type of error. After some experience is gained from the site, if the costs of makingfalse alarms are greater than those associated with a false acceptance, AL might have to be revised upwards.

Another important aspect is monitoring trends in the control chart. If a trend (departure from randombehavior) can be detected at the time AL is exceeded, it should be taken as a signal for corrective action.

3.8.2.6 Attainment of Background-Based Standards

During operational and/or postoperational monitoring periods, if the regulatory compliance standards(e.g., cleanup levels) are based on background monitoring data, statistical tests such as the Wilcoxbn RankSum (WRS) test and/or the Quantile test may be used (Gilbert and Simpson 1990). If the remedial action has"uniformly" reduced contaminant levels, but not to background levels, the WRS test should be used because ithas greater power than the Quantile test. However, if most of the cleanup unit has been remediated tobackground levels and only a few "hot spots" remain, the Quantile test is preferred because it has more powerthan the WRS test. Gilbert and Simpson (1992) give detailed procedures on how to perform these tests aswell as how to determine the total number of samples needed. Note that the WRS test is sensitive todifferences between two means or medians; it may not detect differences in variances. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test (see Conover 1980, p. 368-369) has the advantage over the WRS test because it isconsistent for all types of differences that may exist between the two distribution functions.

The WRS and Quantile tests both can be used to determine whether the cleanup unit has attained thereference-based (background-based) standard. The WRS test can better detect when the remediated cleanupunit has concentrations uniformly (over space) higher than the area. However, the WRS test allows for fewerless-than measurements than the Quantile test. Generally, the WRS test should be avoided if more than about40% of the measurements in either the reference area or the cleanup unit are less-than data.

The Quantile test has more power than the WRS test to detect when only a small portion of the cleanupunit has not been successfully remediated (i.e., has higher concentrations than the reference area). Also, theQuantile test can be used even when more than 50% of the cleanup unit measurements are below the limit ofdetection.

Both the WRS and Quantile tests are conducted for each remediated cleanup unit to detect both types ofunsuccessful remediation (uniform and spotty). However, the tests can only detect a shift in concentrationfrom the reference (background) distribution. Other types of differences, such as differences in variances,may exist between the distribution functions of the remediated cleanup unit and the reference area. TheKolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test can detect all types of differences between the distribution functions.

3.27



3.28


4.0 Description of Characterization Tasks

This chapter summarizes the tasks needed to acquire the characterization data and information discussedin the previous chapters. The detailed specification of number, location, and analyses for the various samplemedia are included in the SAP (Appendix A). These tasks are developed according to the decisions to bemade (see Section 3.3) and are intended to integrate and coordinate sampling and analysis activities necessaryfor characterizing the site. Analytes and the rationale for determining the constituents of concern arediscussed in Section 3.6. Table 4-1 summarizes the tasks, sample media, analyte/category measured, extent,and time periods. As described earlier, this plan covers only the preconstruction phase. Primary uses of thedata are to confirm the suitability of the site, decide optimum locations for demonstration plants within thepredesignated area, and aid in designing future monitoring plans (e.g., preoperational phase). This planprovides a foundation on which the subsequent plans can be based and provides early site characterizationdata with which construction-related decisions can be made.

4.1 Surface and Near-Surface Characterization

The surface and near-surface studies include preliminary screening and sampling for radiological andchemical soil contamination and the location and description of buried structures and waste disposal sitesusing GPR.

The top 5 cm of soil constitutes the depth for surface soil based on considerations of the potential fordirect exposure and the chemical and physical properties of potential contaminants of interest. Thisdefinition is consistent with site characterization guidance (DOE 1990b).

4.1.1 Anthropogenic Features and Surface Contamination Map

Objective. A comprehensive survey of the area in which construction activities could occur will beconducted using GPR to detect buried anthropogenic objects or discontinuous geologic features and a ground-level radiometric survey to screen for anomalous gamma-emitting radionuclides. Ifgeophysical orradiometric anomalies are encountered, follow-up sampling and or excavation will be conducted at thosesites. This task will produce a surface map showing anthropogenic features and will provide a preliminarychemical and radiological assessment of the surface sediments or soils of the planned TWRS Phase IDemonstration site. There are no known areas of extensive contamination in and around the constructionsites, and contamination is not expected to be found. However, as previously noted, some areas ofcontamination are located adjacent to the site designated for construction.

4.1

Table 4.1. Summary of Various Tasks for the TWRS Phase I Characterization.

Radiometric Survey

Surface Geophysics (GPR)

Surface Characterization

Subsurface Characterization:

Shallow Vadose Zone

Deep Vadose Zone

Air Monitoring:

Biotic Monitoring:

Groundwater Monitoring

Media

Soil/sagebrush

Near-surface soil

Surface Soil(top 5 cm)

Subsurface Soil(top 3 m)

3-15m

Air

Biota

Groundwater

Analyte/CategoryMeasured

Gamma and beta screen

Buried anthropogenicfeatures anddiscontinuousgeologic features

Radionuclides andinorganics (seeAppendix A)

Gross gamma logging11

Gross gamma loggingbcd

Ambient air quality

Key radionuclidesand inorganics (seeAppendix A)

Spectral gamma of plant andanimal tissues

Existing groundwater quality

Extent

• TWRS Phase I Site• Waste Transfer Corridor• Feed Tank Area

• TWRS Phase I Site* Waste Transfer Corridor• Feed Tank Area

• TWRS Phase I Site• Waste Transfer Corridor• Offsite (~ 1 to 5 km)

• Waste transfer lineconstruction and excavationareas

Area along northwest and southwestfence line and excavation areas

• No new data needed forpreconstrvction purposes

• Upwind and downwindstations properly located*

As available

No new data needed forpreconstruction purposes

Time Period

Preconstruction

Preconstruction

Preconstruction andpreoperationai monitoringinput

Preconstruction

Preconstruction

NA

Preoperationai andoperationalmonitoring

Preoperationai andOperational monitoring

NA

'See Appendix A-1, Field Sampling Plan for detail.bSoil samples will be collected and submitted for lab radionuclide analysis if anomalous zones are detected.*15 existing groundwater wells and boreholes in the TWRS Demonstration Area will be geophysically logged.•"Gamma emitting radionuctides in or on sagebrush will be detected as part of the ground level radiometric survey.eSeek exemption from groundwater monitoring for preoperationai and operational phases.

s

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-Q01, Rev. 0

Data Needs. The data needs for this characterization effort are the location of buried objects and/or disposalsites, the location of radioactive and hazardous chemical contamination, and wind direction.

Extent of Surveys. Extent of surveys will be conducted at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, the tanksthat will contain the waste, the transfer corridors, and the area beyond or downwind of the boundaries of thestudy area.

Surface Geophysics. GPR, an electromagnetic sounding method that uses radio frequencies to probe theground, will be used throughout the site to identify buried anthropogenic features (e.g., pipelines, barrels) andto examine disturbed subsurface areas that could have been past disposal sites. This will be done inconjunction with soil sampling and analysis. The use of GPR at the demonstration site is described in detailin the SAP (Appendix A1-6).

4.1.2 Surface Soil Characterization Activities

Techniques for surface sampling/analysis, air sampling/analysis, and surface geophysical surveys arebriefly described briefly here and in more detail in the SAP.

Surface Soil Sampling/Analysis. Field screening and soil sample collection and analysis will be conductedat the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site, the waste transfer corridor, and the area beyond or downwind of thestudy area boundaries fora limited number of major constituents (target analytes). However, based on earlierradiometric surveys of the area and limited soil sampling and analysis, significant existing contamination isnot expected in the proposed construction area. Field screening will consist of gross gamma or radiometricsurvey of the area and soil sampling for laboratory analysis. Soil samples will be collected and analyzed forchemical and radiological constituents identified as target analytes in Appendix A (see Appendix Al-3.3.2).Detailed discussions of near-surface soil reconnaissance are presented in the SAP (see Appendix Al-3).

4.1.3 Intensive Characterization (Plant Excavation Sites)

In addition to the extensive or whole-area characterization, subareas selected for foundation excavationscould be subjected to a more intensive evaluation. The extensive radiometric and GPR results, as describedin Section 4.1.1, and initial soil results (laboratory spectral gamma) could be used initially to aid in final siteselection for the demonstration plants. Once the final plant locations are selected, a tighter GPR andradiometric survey (e.g., a 5 to 10 m grid [see A 1.3 for design considerations]) could be used. Sagebrush canalso be used to interrogate deeper vadose zone contamination; i.e., tap roots reach to over 10 m deep andaccumulate 137Cs (detectable by field survey instruments) in leaves and branches. As previously indicated,any hot spot areas can be interrogated with CPT boreholes and gamma logging (described in Section 4.2).This phased approach, an extensive survey followed by a more intensive survey of a subarea of the GTF,could contribute to a more efficient use of data and resources than subjecting the entire area to an intensivepreconstruction survey. The project manager and PCs would need to arrange for this specialized adjunct tothe primary baseline plan once final design and plant locations are known.

4.3


4.2 Subsurface Characterization

This task will determine the presence of radiological and chemical contaminants in selected locations inthe shallow (~3 m) and "deep" (15 m) vadose zone (-15 m) at the study areas.

Objective. This task will provide a chemical and radiological assessment of shallow vadose zone sedimentsin the demonstration construction and excavation areas.

Data Needs. This task will assess the likelihood of subsurface radiologic and hazardous chemicalcontamination. The primary data need is subsurface information for characterization to a depth of at least15 m along the northwest and southwest fence line of the study area and to a depth of 3 m in the wastetransfer piping corridor along the proposed trench line (see discussions below). The 15 m depth requirementis related to a design option that includes onsite HLW processing for which radiation shielding would beneeded.

4.2.1 Vadose Zone Characterization Activities

Vadose zone characterization will be accomplished by first screening using gross gamma survey methodsand, if contamination is found, soil samples will be obtained to determine the nature of the contamination.The primary technique will be to construct shallow borings to provide access for gamma logging tools as thescreening technique.

4.2.1.1 Shallow (3 m) Borings

Easement for the waste transfer line will be surveyed by radiometric and GPR. Physical anomalies willbe mapped and radiometric anomalies will be followed up with a subsurface investigation conducted in thefollowing manner.

. Indications of soil contamination from the radiometric screening survey may require soil augering andsampling to assess contaminant depth distribution or, if several "hot spots" are identified, may indicate theneed for a more systematic assessment of depth distribution along the entire length the pipeline easement.The primary concern is worker safety during construction and the potential need to dispose of excavated soilat a future date. For a single hot spot occurrence, samples will be collected by augering to a depth of 3 m.Samples will be collected at 0.3 m intervals and composited every 1.5 m and submitted for laboratory spectralgamma analysis, '"Sr and transuranics (key radionuclides). If several hot spots are identified, a systematicsubsurface investigation of the entire pipeline easement will be conducted using the cone penetrometer andgross gamma logging tool to assess vertical contamination to a depth of 3 m below grade. The method andprocedure described in Section Al-2 the "deep" boreholes will be used. If this approach is deemed necessaryby the project manager, a decision must be made concerning the appropriate spacing along the pipelineeasement. A spacing of 5 m is proposed for the cone penetrometer spacing, if deemed necessary. Thederivation of the grid spacing was provided in the Field Sampling Plan (Section Al-3.2.2).

4.4


4.2.1.2 Deeper (15 m) Borings

Initially 21 boreholes were drilled in the demonstration site. Fifteen were drilled to the water table; sixwere vadose zone boreholes that were abandoned; others also are planned to be abandoned (Williams 1996).The wells are concentrated along the southern and western fence lines. During construction of theseboreholes, field screening indicated that no contamination was encountered in the vadose zone. This suggeststhat the southern border near the 216-A-37 cribs probably has not been contaminated by lateral spreading ofliquid waste.

Five shallow borings will be placed in the vadose zone at the site using a small-diameter (~5 cm) conepenetrometer. This is a quick and inexpensive method and has been successful to depths as great as 25 m ormore at 200 Area soil column characterization sites. The locations of the cone penetrometer hole will beselected using professional judgment (see Appendix A for approximate locations of planned and existingboreholes).

4.2.13 Geophysical Logging

The vadose zone portion of all 15 existing wells and cone penetrometer borings in the site will begeophysically logged (gross gamma). Boreholes planned for abandonment will be geophysically logged aspart of the abandonment process. A sodium iodide (Nal) gamma logging tool will be the screening techniqueused to identify zones with elevated levels of gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides. The presence of these zoneswill be used to indicate areas requiring sediment sampling and analysis to determine the extent of thecontamination.

4.2.2 Sampling and Analysis

In general, if gamma activity is detected during the screening process, samples will need to be collectedand analyzed to determine the nature and extent of contamination. This will require drilling a borehole at thatsite and collecting samples; the sandy nature of the vadose zone in the area will easily permit an auger rig orsimilar technique to acquire samples quickly and inexpensively. The rationale for using gamma activity as anindicator was provided in Section 3.6.3.

4.3 Airborne Particulate Contaminant Baseline Monitoring

As discussed in Section 3.4.2, the existing air particulate monitoring data in the vicinity of the PUREXPlant, and both upwind and immediately downwind of the construction site, are considered adequate forassessing the construction/worker safety question. The air monitoring network in the vicinity of the projectsite area, however, may have to be modified and/or supplemented for the preoperational, operational, andpost-operational monitoring phases. For example, particulate contaminants from operation of thedemonstration plants may be generated and carried downwind of the facilities. In addition, particulatesresuspended from upwind sources may be blown across the demonstration site. Thus, both upwind anddownwind particulate contaminant concentrations are needed to assess the contribution (if any) from thedemonstration project.

4.5

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-OOl.Rev. 0

This task will involve coordinating with existing environmental programs conducted by PNNL forsampling and maintenance of the continuous air monitoring stations. Two downwind stations are currentlysampled by PNNL quarterly and two upwind stations are sampled by the PHMC. For the preoperationalenvironmental baseline, however, monthly samples are desired to obtain a large number of samples over ayear. In addition, reactivation of two stations and installation of new upwind stations will be needed. Theseactivities can be conducted by ongoing PHMC and PNNL monitoring programs with some supplementalfunding to cover the more frequent collections and analytical expense. The target analytes for paniculate airfilters are the same as for soil samples. However, because of the limited sample media available from airfilters, only the most significant target analytes will be analyzed (See Appendix Al-3.3.2 for analyte selectionrationale ). More detailed descriptions are presented in the SAP (Section Al-4).

4.4 Biotic Monitoring

Biological sample media (plant and animal tissue) are difficult to obtain in an arid or desert-likeenvironment. Judgment must be used concerning disturbance to the desert ecosystem and availability ofbiological material. Also, if live trapping and return is used, only spectral gamma analysis can be performed.Biotic sampling is more appropriate for the preoperational phase and is not a subject of this plan.

4.5 Groundwater Monitoring

Existing groundwater monitoring networks and data are judged to be adequate for environmental baselinepurposes. Use of the existing networks for the preoperational, operational, and postoperational monitoringperiods would substantially reduce cost associated with installation of a groundwater monitoring network, ifdetermined to be necessary. In addition, because of the changing groundwater flow direction expected duringthe life of the Phase I Demonstration Project, designing a network before groundwater flow has reachedequilibrium with new waste discharge conditions would not be prudent. Once the exact location and designare specified, more consideration can be given to the need for and design of a groundwater monitoringprogram. Alternatively, if contaminant and engineered barriers are adequate and/or vadose monitoring isused, an exemption from groundwater monitoring should be sought. Considering the uncertainties in thegroundwater flow regime, the latter approach is recommended.

4.6


5.0 REFERENCES

53 FR 12449, "Record of Decision Hanford High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Wastes," April 8,1988,Federal Register Volume 53, p. 12449.

Conover, W. J., 1980, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NewYork, New York, pp. 357-369.

Delaney, C. D., K. A. Lindsey, and S. P. Reidel, 1991, Geology and Hydrology of the Hanford Site:A Standardized Text for Use in Westinghouse Hanford Company Documents and Reports,WHC-SD-ER-TI-0003,Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Dirkes, R. L. andR. W. Hanf, 1996, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1995,PNNL-11139, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

DOE, 1981, Environmental Protection, Safety and Health Protection Information Reporting Requirements,DOE Order 5484.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1987, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, DOE/EIS-0113,U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1988a, General Environmental Protection Program, DOE Order 5400.1,U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1988b, Consultation Draft, Site Characterization Plan, Reference Repository Location, HanfordSite, Washington, DOE/RW-0164, Vols. 1-9, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1990a, Low Level Waste Management Handbook Series: Environmental Monitoring for Low LevelWaste Disposal Sites, DOE-LLW-13Tg, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1990b, Site Characterization Handbook for Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalFacilities, DOE/LLW-67T, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE, 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Final Environmental Impact Statement,DOE/EIS-0189, U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE/RL, 1987, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level. Transuranic and Tank Wastes, FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0113, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland OperationsOffice, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL, 1994, Hanford Site Background: Part], Soil Background for Nonradioactive Analytes,U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Ecology, 1995, Guidance on Sampling and Data Analysis Methods, Washington State Department ofEcology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, Washington.

Ecology, 1992, Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers, Washington State Department of Ecology,Toxics Cleanup program, Olympia, Washington.

5.1


Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Washington StateDepartment of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy,Olympia, Washington.

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1994, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, as amended,Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, andU.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington.

EPA, l9%9a,Methods for Evaluation the Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume I: Soil and SolidMedia, EPA 230/02-89-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 1989b, Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities - Interim FinalGuidance, PB89-151047, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 1992, Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities - Draft Addendumto Interim Final Guidance, EPA/530-R-93-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C.

Fecht, K. R., S. P. Reidel, and A. M. Tallman, 1987, "Paleodrainage of the Columbia River System on theColumbia Plateau of Washington State - A Summary," in Selected Papers on the Geology ofWashington, J. E. Schuster (Ed.), Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 77,Olympia, Washington.

Gee, G. W., 1987, Recharge at the Hanford Site: Status Report, PNL-6403, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Richland, Washington.

Gephart, R. E., R. C. Arnett, R. G. Baca, L. S. Leonhart, and F. A. Spane, Jr., 1979, Hydrologic StudiesWithin the Columbia Plateau, Washington: An Integration of Current Knowledge,RHO-BWI-ST-5, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington.

Gibbons, R. D., 1994, Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NewYork, New York, pp. 19.

Gilbert, R. 0., and J. C. Simpson, 1990, Statistical Sampling Analysis Issues and Needs for TestingAttainment of Background-Based Cleanup Standards at Superfund Sites, PNL-SA-17907, PacificNorthwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Gilbert, R. O.,andJ. C. Simpson, 1992, Statistical Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of CleanupStandards, Volume 3: Reference-Based Standards for Soils and Solid Media, PNL-7409, Vol. 3,Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Gilbert, R. O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand ReinholdCompany, New York, New York, pp. 30-42.

Graham, M. J., M. D. Hall, S. R. Strait, and W. R. Brown, 1981, Hydrology of the Separations Area,RHO-ST-42, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington.

Graham, M. J., G. V. Last, and K. R. Fecht, 1984, An Assessment of Aquifer Intercommunication in theB-Pond - Gable Mountain Area of the Hanford Site Facilities for 1993, DOE-93-88, Rev. 0,U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

5.2


Gumbel, E. 1,1958, Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press, New York, "N. Y., pp. 68.

Hajek, B. F., 1966, "Soil Survey - Hanford Project in Benton County, Washington," US-51, Geology andMineralogy, BNWL-243, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Hartman, M. J. and P. E. Dresel, 1997, Editors, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for FY1996,PNNL-11470, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Kincaid, C. T., J. W. Shade, G. A. Whyatt, M. G. Piepho, K. Rhoads, J. A. Voogd, J. H. Westsik Jr.,M. D. Freshley, K. A. Blanchard, and G. G. Lauzon, 1995, Volume 1: Performance Assessment ofGrouted Double-Shell Tank Waste Disposal at Hanford, WHC-SD-WM-EE-004, WestinghouseHanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Kupfer, M. J., A. L. Boldt, B. A. Higley, S. L. Lambert, R. M. Orme, D. E. Place, L. W. Shelton,R. A. Watrous, 1996, Standard Inventories of Chemicals and Radionuclides in Hanford Site WasteTanks, WHC-SD-WM-TI-740, Rev. D. with Borsheim Associates, Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory, Science Applications International, W2S Corporation-Albuquerque, and MeierAssociates, Richland, Washington.

Lindberg, J. W., J. V. Borghese, B. N. Bjomstad, and M. P. Connelly, 1993, Geology and AquiferCharacteristics of the Grout Treatment Facility, WHC-SD-EN-TI-071, Rev. 0, WestinghouseHanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Lindsey.K. A., 1991, Revised Stratigraphy for the Ringold Formation, Hanford Site, South-CentralWashington, WHC-SD-EN-EE-004, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland,Washington.

Lindsey, K. A., B. N. Bjornstad, J. W. Lindberg, and K. M. Hoffman, 1992, Geologic Setting of the 200 EastArea: An Update, WHC-SD-EN-TI-012, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland,Washington.

Myers, C. W. and S. M. Price (eds.), 1981, Subsurface Geology of the Cold Creek Syncline,"Bedrock Structure of the Cold Creek Syncline Area," RHO-BWI-ST-14, Rockwell HanfordOperations, Richland, Washington.

5.3


Myers, C. W., S. M. Price, J. A. Caggiano, M. P. Cochran, W. H. Czimer, N. J. Davidson,R. C. Edwards, K. R. Fecht, G. E. Holmes, M. G. Jones, J. R. Kunk, R. D. Landon,R. K. Ledgerwood, J. T. Lillie, P. E. Long, T. H. Mitchell, E. H. Price, S. P. Reidel, andA. M. Tallman, 1979, Geologic Studies of the Columbia Plateau: A Status Report,RHO-BWI-ST-4, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington.

Natrella, M. G., 1966, Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, John Wiley andSons, Inc., New York, N. Y., pp. T. 10 - T. 15.

Petersen, C. A., 1996, Technical basis for Classification of Low-Activity Waste Fraction from Hanford SiteTanks, WHC-SD-WM-TI-699, Rev 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Reidel, S. P., K. A. Lindsey, and K. R. Fecht, 1992, Field Trip Guide to the Hanford Site, WHC-MR-0391,Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Reidel, S. P., N. P. Campbell, K. R. Fecht, K. A. Lindsey, 1994, "Late Cenozoic Structure and Stratigraphy ofSouth-Central Washington," Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Bulletin 80,pp. 159-180.

Reiman, R. T. and Dahlstrom, T. S., 1990, An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Hanford Site andSurrounding Area Richland, JFWragroM, EGG-10617-1062, EG&G/EM, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Routson, R. C. and V. G. Johnson, 1990, "Recharge Estimates for the Hanford Site 200 AreasPlateau," Northwest Science, Vol. 74, pp. 150-158.

Schmidt, J. W., J. W. Fassett, V. G. Johnson, R. M. Mitchell, B. M. Markes, S. M. McKinney, K. J. Moss,and C. J. Perkins, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Company Operational Environmental MonitoringAnnual Report, Calendar Year 1995, WHC-EP-0573-4, Westinghouse Hanford Company,Richland, Washington.

Schmittroth, F. A., 1995, Inventories for the Low-Level Waste Interim Performance Assessment,WHC-SD-WM-RPT-164, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Schreckhise, R. G., K. Rhoads, J. S. Davis, B. A. Napier, and J. V. Ramsdell, 1993, RecommendedEnvironmental Dose Calculation Methods and Hanford-Specific Parameters, Pacific NorthwestLaboratory, Richland, Washington.

Shord, A. L., 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Phase I Site Evaluation Report,WHC-SD-WM-SE-023, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Shord, A. L., 1995, Tank Waste Remediation System Complex Site Evaluation Report,WHC-SD-WM-SE-021, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Swanson, L. C , D. C. Weeks, S. P. Luttrell, R. M. Mitchell, D. S. Landeen, A. R. Johnson, and R. C. Roos,1988, Grout Treatment Facility Environmental Baseline and Site Characterization Report,Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Tallman, A. M., K. R. Fecht, M. J. Marratt, and G. V. Last, 1979, Geology of the Separation AreasHanford Site, South Central Washington, RHO-ST-23, Rockwell Hanford Operations,Richland, Washington.

5.4


Tallman, A. M., J. T. Lillie, and K. R. Fecht, 1981, "Suprabasalt Sediment of the Cold CreekSyncline Area," C. W. Myers and S. M. Price (eds.), Subsurface Geology of the Cold CreekSyncline, RHO-BWI-ST-14, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington.

Wagoner, J. D. 1996, Letter to Prospective Offerers (Feb. 20,1996; Letter number 96-RTI-029 for RFPDE-RP06-96RL13308), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland,Washington.

WAC 173-200, "Water Quality Standards for Groundwater of the State of Washington," WashintonAdministrative Code, as amended.

WAC 173-303, "Dangerous Waste Regulations," Washington Administrative Code, as amended.

WAC 173-340,'The Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation," Washington Administrative Code, asamended.

WHC, 1993a, Groundwater Field Characterization Report for the 200 Aggregate Area ManagementStudy, WHC-SD-EN-TI-020, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1993b, Westinghouse Hanford Co. Operational Groundwater Status Report, 1990-1992,WHC-EP-0595, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Williams, B.A., 1996, TWRS Privatization Phase I Monitoring Wells Engineering Study,WHC-SD-WM-ES-398, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

5.5



5.6


Appendix A

Sampling and Analysis Plan

Al Field Sampling Plan

A2 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Al.i


Al.ii

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-OOl,Rev. 0

Appendix A

Al Field Sampling Plan

Al.iii


Al.iv


Al Field Sampling Plan Contents

Al- l Introduction Al . l

Al-2 Deep Vadose Zone Al . l

Al-2.1 Activity Preparation Al . lAl-2.2 Location A1.2

Al-2.2.1 Installation . . , A1.2Al-2.2.2 Planned Depths A1.2

Al-2.3 Drilling Equipment A1.2Al-2.4 Geophysical Logging A1.2

Al-3 Near Surface Soil Reconnaissance A1.4Al-3.1 Sampling Rationale A1.4Al-3.2 Sampling Strategy A1.4

Al-3.2.1 TWRS Phase I Demonstration Area A1.4Al-3.2.3 Area Beyond TWRS Phase I Project Boundary A1.10

Al-3.3 Identification of Target Analytes A1.10Al-3.4 Analytical Methods and Sample Handling A1.14

Al-4 Air Monitoring Al. 15Al-4.1 Monitoring Station Locations A1.17Al-4.2 Frequency A1.18Al-4.3 Sampling and Analysis A1.18

5 Biotic Monitoring A1.18

Al-6 Ground Penetrating Radar A1.20Al-6.1 Objectives A1.20Al-6.2 Methodologies A1.20Al-6.3 Interpretation of Ground Penetrating Radar A1.20Al-6.4 Site Preparation A1.21Al-6.5 Ground Penetrating Radar Method A1.21

Al-7 Thermoluminescent Dosimeters A1.21

Al-8 Sampling Plan References A1.22

Al.v


Al Field Sampling Plan Figures

Al-l Locations of Existing and Planned Deep Boreholes andPlanned Cone Penetrometer Holes at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site Al-3

Al-2a A 100 by 100 m Square Grid for the Demonstration Site Al-6Al-2b A 100 by 100 m Square Grid With 45° Rotation for the TWRS Phase I

Demonstration Site Al-7Al-3 Soil Sampling Locations in Area of Waste Transfer/Feed Line Corridor Easements Al-8Al-4 Air Monitoring Station Locations and Prevailing Wind Directions Al-20

Al Field Sampling Plan Tables

Al- l Required Spacing Between Square Grid Lines to Detect a Hot Spot of Pre-specified Shape . . Al-10Al-2a Envelope D Radioactive Constituents That Account for >90%, >95%,

and >99% of the Relative Hazard Index Total Al-13Al-2b Envelope D Chemical Constituents That account for >80%, >85%, and >90% of the

Relative Hazard Index Total A-14Al-3 Analytical Methods and Sample Size Requirements for Constituents of Interest in Soil Al-17Al-4 Background Levels, Quantitation Levels, and Soil Standards for

Primary Analytes of Interest Al-18

Al.vi


Al-1 Introduction

This appendix provides the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for characterization of the TWRSPhase I Demonstration site. The SAP consists of two parts: a field sampling plan (FSP, Appendix Al) anda quality assurance project plan (QAPP, Appendix A2). These two components of the SAP will be used tocontrol the data collection activities and related sampling as described of the main body of this report. Thedata collection activities described herein are the product of the DQO process described in Section 3.0.

The FSP was developed based on the decisions and decision rules as discussed in Chapter 3 of the report.This field sampling plan provides a description the rationale and procedures for sample selection and theanalyses to be performed on soils, sediment, and air samples associated with surface and subsurfacecharacterization at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration site. A summary of various tasks, media, analytes to bemeasured, extent of the proposed activity, and applicable time periods was provided in Chapter 4 (seeTable 4-1). Procedures for sample collection, chain of custody, sample preservation, shipment and chemicalanalysis are included by reference. Discussions on specific media are provided in separate subsections:vadose sediments, soils, and air. It should be noted that the time period of interest for this phase of theenvironmental planning for the project is restricted to thepreconstruction period. The data acquiredaccording to this plan should be evaluated before developing a preoperational baseline plan once the facilitydesign and exact location are specified.

Al-2 Deep Vadose Zone

As previously discussed, there may be some potential for lateral spreading of contaminants at greaterdepths near the northwest and southwest fencelines of the Grout Treatment Facility (GTF) area. Existingdata based on groundwater monitoring wells and auger samples obtained for the GTF project will besupplemented with cone penetrometer/gross gamma surveys at selected locations where contamination mayhave spread into the proposed construction areas. The rationale for selecting the location of the conepenetrometer holes as well as that for the use of gamma activity as an indicator were provided inSection 3.6.3 (see discussions on subsurface contamination). This section describes cone penetrometerinstallation, sample identification, and collection. The tasks are listed below:

• Activity preparation• Location and designation of cone penetrometers• Installation and geologic material sampling• Sample handling and archival• Analysis of samples• Documentation• Borehole geophysics

Al-2.1 Activity Preparation

Preparation activities necessary before beginning field work for borehole drilling include the following:

• Coordinate with team members.

• Coordinate with support services as addressed in the QAPP (A2 of this appendix).• Obtain support documentation.

Al. l


• Obtain monitoring equipment.

Al-2.2 Location

Up to 5 cone penetrometer holes approximately 15 m deep will be installed for this study in theapproximate locations shown in Figure Al-1. The penetrometer holes are designed to determine the presenceof subsurface contamination resulting from migration of contaminants from nearby cribs and a ditch into theTWRS Phase I Demonstration site. No samples will be collected from these holes; they will be mainly forgeophysical logging (gross gamma and/or moisture). If anomalous zones are detected, followup augerboreholes will be used to collect soil samples for laboratory analysis.

Al-2.2.1 Installation

Boreholes will be installed using a small-diameter (5 cm) cone penetrometer. This approach is preferredover other alternatives (e.g., discrete sampling of every 1.5 to 3 m) because it does not produce any drillcuttings and does not require decommissioning of the borehole, greatly reducing the cost associated withsubsurface characterization. A focused sampling approach based on judgement is proposed. Installationswill be at those locations where lateral migration could have occurred near the proposed demonstration siteand that are not covered by any existing deep boreholes that can be gamma logged. Locations where deepsubsurface data are lacking for this purpose are along the north-west and southwest fenceline of the TWRSPhase I Demonstration Site (Figure Al-1).

Al-2.2.2 Planned Depths

Because one design alternative for the demonstration plants includes deep excavation to accommodate"canyon"-like handling facilities, depths of up to 15 m below grade could be reached during the constructionphase. Consequently, the cone penetrometer boreholes will be driven to a depth of at least 15 m depth.

Al-2.3 Drilling Equipment

Cone penetrometers will be used to provide a location for geophysical logging. All holes will be installedfollowing procedure as prescribed in Environmental Investigation Instructions (EII 3.5, WHC 1995a).

Al-2.4 Geophysical Logging

The five cone penetrometer boreholes will be logged following procedure EII 11.1 (WHC 1995a). Inaddition, the 15 existing groundwater wells and boreholes in the Demonstration area (Figure Al-1) will begeophysically logged to determine the presence of subsurface contamination resulting from migration ofcontaminants from nearby cribs into the site.

A1.2


216-A-29/

I :-• -EJ5 j ?

12-E25-32

| 2-E25-39

Key to Wells_ Active Groundwater• Monitoring Wells

O Well to be Decommissioned

• Already Decommissioned Well

O Cone penetrometer Holes (proposed)

Figure Al-1. Locations of Existing Deep Boreholes and Planned Cone PenetrometerHoles at the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

A1.3


Al-3 Near Surface Soil Reconnaissance

This section describes the sampling plan for a preliminary assessment of soil contaminant conditions forthe surface and near-surface soils. For surface soil sampling, the top 5 cm of the soil will be collected andanalyzed for the constitutents of concern as identified in Section Al-3.3, unless otherwise specified. Thissampling depth is consistent with DOE guidance (DOE 1990, page 6-14). Augering, logging, and soilsampling will be conducted in accordance with WHC-CM-7-7 (WHC 1995a). Shallow soil samples will becollected following EII 5.2, "Soil and Sediment Sampling."

Al-3.1 Sampling Rationale

The proposed site for the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site was surveyed by aerial radiometric methods(Reiman and Dahlstrom 1990) and preliminary surface sampling. These surveys provide an indication of soilcontamination caused by gamma-emitting radionuclides. The subject surveys indicate that most of theDemonstration site lies in an area of minor detectable (or above-background) levels of gamma-emittingradionuclides. However, the existing data are inadequate to map the entire area that includes the TWRSPhase I Demonstration Site, the waste transfer corridor, and feed tanks in the AP Tank Farm area. Resultsfrom a statistically based sampling plan for surface soils are needed to address surface soil contaminationissues (see 3.6.3) as well as provide an estimate of existing contaminant variability for use in plans forsubsequent phases of the project.

Al-3.2 Sampling Strategy

Sampling strategies that address different soil sampling/survey objectives for this environmental baselinesurvey are discussed as follows.

Al-3.2.1 TWRS Phase I Demonstration Area

Surface Soil Sampling. The LLW guidance document (DOE 1990, page 4-7) indicates a spacing of 100 m x100 m should be used for designing a baseline soil-sample collection grid. It can be designed as either asquare grid or a square grid with a 45-in. offset (referred to as a diagonal grid) as shown in Figures Al-2aand Al-2b, respectively. An angle of 45-in. was chosen after considering the prevailing wind direction(NNW and WNW), as well as potential source terms. The diagonal grid provides the same spatial coverage(systematic sampling) as the square grid but requires only 61 samples instead of more than 80 for the squaregrid. Because the diagonal grid provides adequate spatial coverage with fewer samples, this is the most cost-efficient design. Surface soil samples will be collected at the intersections shown in Figure Al-2b. Asdiscussed in Section 3.7.3 of the report, the initial baseline sample results should be evaluated to determine ifan adequate number of samples have been taken. If the sampling was not adequate, the grid can besupplemented (see Section 3.8.1.1). On the other hand, if the date exhibit no spatial variability, it is highlyprobable that the population is homogeneous and the baseline data could be used as a preoperational baseline.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey. Other data needs, such as the GPR for which systematicsampling and uniform spatial coverage across the entire GTF area are needed, can follow the grid designdescribed for the surface soil sampling. Thus the GPR and ground-level radiometric survey will use the tracklines established for the soil sampling grid. In addition, any hot spots identified by the radiometric survey

A1.4


will be noted and sampled to identify the cause of the anomaly. If the hot spot can be attributed to vegetation(e.g., sage brush), plant tissue as well as soil samples will be collected from the "hot spot" area.

Al-3.2.2 Waste Transfer Corridor

The smaller area in which the waste transfer lines will pass from the AP Tank Farm to the demonstrationplant sites requires the same general soil sampling and prescreening radiometric and GPR surveys asdescribed for the Phase I Demonstration Site. However, because of the shallow excavation work and linearnature of the area, a slightly different approach is needed to assess the likelihood of surface and subsurfacecontamination.

Surface Soil Sampling. A modified sampling grid (Figure Al-3) covering the area on each side of the 6 m-wide easements shown in Figure 1.1 will be used to collect soil samples for analysis of target analytes(section Al-3.3). Sample handling and data use will be as described in Section Al-3.2.1. Whether asufficient number of samples have been collected should be determined as described in Section 3.8.1.1.

Ground-Level Radiometric and GPR Survey. A single track line down the center of the 6-m-wideeasement for the waste transfer line will be used for the radiometric and GPR survey. Any physicalanomalies will be mapped and any radiometric anomalies will be followed up with a subsurface investigationdescribed as follows.

Subsurface Conditions Screening. Indications of soil contamination from the radiometric screening surveymay either require soil augering and sampling to assess contaminant depth distribution or, if several "hotspots" are identified, may indicate the need for a more systematic assessment of depth distribution along theentire length the pipeline easement. The primary concern is worker safety and the potential need to dispose ofexcavated soil (at a future date). For a single hot spot occurrence, samples will be collected by augering to adepth of 3 m. Samples will be collected at 0.3 m intervals and composited every 1.5 m and submitted forlaboratory spectral gamma analysis, "Sr and transuranics (key radionuclides). If several hot spots areidentified, a systematic subsurface interrogation of the entire pipeline easement will be conducted using thecone penetrometer and gross gamma logging tool to assess vertical contamination to a depth of 3 m belowgrade, The method and procedure described in Section Al-2 for the "deep" boreholes will be used. If thisapproach is deemed necessary by the project manager, a decision must be made concerning the appropriatespacing along the pipeline easement. An approach to address this issue is as follows.

A1.5


216-A-29 Ditch

465m

900m

840m216-A-37-2 270m

Figure Al-2a. A 100 by 100 m Square Grid for the Demonstration Site.

A1.6



465m

216-A-30

900m

840m 270m

SG96120139.10A

Figure Al-2b. A 100 by 100 m Square Grid with 45° Rotationfor the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site.

A1.7


AP Tank Farm

OO

oooooo

Transfer/Feed LineCorridors/Easements

Figure Al-3. Soil Sampling Locations in AreaofWaste Transfer/Feed Line Corridor Easements.

A1.8


Cone Penetrometer Spacing. The grid spacing required to find a hot spot of an elliptical shape with aprespecified size and confidence can be determined using procedures described in Gilbert (1987,pages 121-131). Required information as well as the steps are provided below:

Step 1. Specify the length of the semimajor axis (L) of the smallest hot spot important to detect.That is, L is one half the length of the long axis of the ellipse. Based on results of previousspill studies in 200 East Area, it is judged that a reasonable length for L would be ~5 m.

Step 2. Specify the expected shape (S) of the elliptical target, where:

length of short axis of the ellipselength of long axis of the ellipse

Note that 0 < S < 1 and that S = 1 for a circle. If S is not known in advance, a conservativeapproach is to assume a rather skinny elliptical shape, perhaps S = 0.5 (see Gilbert, 1987,page 121). This would result in smaller spacing between grid points than would occur witha circular or "fatter" ellipse. Hence, one would sample on a finer grid to compensate for lackof knowledge about the target shape.

Step 3. Specify an acceptable probability (13) of not finding the hot spot. For purpose of this study,B will be 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1 %.

Step 4. Based on nomograph (for a square grid) as provided in Gilbert (1987, Figure 10.3) and theshape of interest, S (i.e., S = 0.5, see Step 2), find the ratio of L/G on the horizontal axis thatcorresponds to the prespecified B, where the G is the spacing between the grid lines and L isdefined in Step 1. The required grid spacings that correspond to various B are provided inTable Al-1.

Table Al-1.

; :ProbabHify:'of NotFinding :

'•,.. iaiHofSpbfB:(%)

20%

10%

5%

1%

Required Spacing Between Lines on a Square Grid to Detect

a Hot Spot of Prespecified Shape.

Ratiob

(L/G)

0.75

0.84

0.91

~1

Half Length0 of the HotSpot L (in m)

5

5

5

5

Required Spacing Between S

Grid Liiiesd (in rii) '

-6.7

~6

-5.5

-5

"The shape of the hot spot was specified as: S = 0.5."Obtained from Gilbert (1987, Figure 10.3).'Half length of the hot spot was specified as: L = 5 m.dCalcuIated by dividing the half length (L) by the ration (L/G).

A1.9


Based on the results shown in Table Al-1, a 5-m spacing between auger holes will allow for a1% probability of not finding the hypothetical "hot spot". Approximately 100 auger holes would be neededto cover the distance indicated for the transfer lines west of the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site boundary(see Figure Al-3). If information concerning the shape and the size of the hypothetical hot spot are differentthan what were used in Table Al-1 , a different grid spacing would result.

Al-3.2.3 Area Beyond TWRS Phase I Project Boundary

Offsite surface soil samples should be collected from areas that are uncontaminated. For this study, eightsamples will be collected initially outside the Demonstration site boundary in the prevailing downwinddirection. Four will be collected at the location downwind of the GTF fenceline (~1 km distance) and theother 4 will be collected at between 3 and 5 km downwind. This will provide an independent baseline forassessing cumulative deposition of any particulate material transported beyond the fenceline. Soil samplingand handling procedures are the same as for the soil survey described earlier (3.2.1).

Al-3.3 Identification of Target Analytes

This section describes the approach used to identify the target analytes from the universe of potential orexpected waste constituents.

First, there are two important time periods and/or applications of the data to consider. For thepreconstruction baseline, the existing contaminant background is of most concern. During this phase,exposure of construction workers by contact with existing contamination in the area and disposal ofcontaminated soils are of major concern. For the preoperational and subsequent phases, the focus is on theconstituents likely to be released caused by demonstration plant operations. However, as discussed inChapter 3, it is necessary to know the variability of the contaminants of interest (expected from the proposeddemonstration plant) that are already present in environmental media that could receive additional amounts ofthe same contaminants from operation of the plants. Because one goal of the DQO process is to ensure costefficiency (i.e, necessary and sufficient sampling and analysis), planning data for the preoperationalbaseline, as well as preconstruction environmental baseline data needs, are addressed to the extent possible.

Al-3.3.1 Source/Exposure Scenarios and Considerations

Constituents potentially present in environmental media from past-practice disposal and chemicalprocessing activities are related to the composition of waste stored in single- and double-shell tanks that willbe immobilized in the demonstration facilities. For example, single-shell tank (SST) {cascade) wastedischarged to near-surface tile fields in the 200 East Area (e.g., BC Cribs), is similar to SST waste to beprocessed. Biodispersion (e.g., burrowing animals bring contaminants to the surface) and winds from thesouthwest result in transport of small amounts of particulate or particle-bound contaminants from theBC Cribs and vicinity toward the GTF. Spills in the tank farm areas upwind of the GTF have also providedparticulate sources of SST waste for dispersal as airborne particulates and as a source of biological uptakeand transport. In addition, open disposal systems received accidental releases of chemical and radioactivewaste (e.g., the 216-A-29 Ditch) associated with PUREX operations. This conveyance ditch received wastecomponents that are similar to those identified in tank wastes to be immobilized (e.g., l3 'Cs, '"Sr, americium,plutonium, and uranium). However, occasional chemical spills included heavy metals (e.g. cadmium nitrate).

A1.10


Thus, particle-bound contaminants from this ditch can vary from average SST/double-shell tank (DST)waste.

Another consideration is that past operations resulted in gaseous emissions that contained radioiodineand other volatiles (ruthenium, technetium, etc.) generated during dissolution of the irradiated nuclear fuel.Transport of these radioactive contaminants in the prevailing downwind directions from processing plantstacks would very likely have resulted in some deposition on the GTD area. This type of chemicalfractionation could alter the average expected composition of tank waste. Nevertheless, previous surveys ofthe GTF area, as discussed in Chapter 2, indicate these potential volatiles were not detected in soil samplescollected in 1985-86.

Thus, while there may be some deviations, upwind source composition and tank waste compositions to beprocessed are assumed to be similar. The following approach makes the assumption that chemicalfractionation of liquid waste (having envelope D composition) did not occur during past-practice handlingand disposal operations and that chemical fractionation of the source term does not occur in theimmobilization plant. If final designs for the demonstration plants indicate that composition will be alteredsignificantly, the target analyte list for the preoperational baseline sampling plan may need to be alteredaccordingly.

Al-3.3.2 Target Analytes

The target analytes are derived using a relative hazard index approach and by consideration of processand waste disposal knowledge.

Relative Hazard Index Approach. In this approach, exposure of humans by inhalation or ingestion ofparticulate contaminants derived from contaminated soil is assumed to be the critical pathway. For thispurpose, the contaminant concentrations (maximum) in tank waste is used for the source term with nochemical fractionation.

The envelope D waste composition (maximum concentrations) for HLW, as defined in the RFP, was usedin combination with health- and risk-based standards to obtain the target analyte lists. The results are shownin Tables Al-2.a and A1-2.b for radioactive and chemical constituents, respectively. More than50 radionuclides and 60 inorganic chemical constituents are present in the defined HLW feed. This largenumber of constituents was reduced using a Relative Hazard Index (RH1) approach (i.e., by dividing themaximum constituent concentrations by their respective health based standards). For the radionuclides, bothwater and air DCGs (derived concentration guides) from DOE Order 5400.5 were used to identify theradionuclides that account for cumulatively greater than >90%, 95%, and 99% of the potential or hypotheticalhazard due to ingestion or inhalation of dispersed waste having the Envelope D composition (seeTable Al-2.a). For the inorganics, the MCLs or drinking water standards were used to identify theinorganics that account for cumulatively greater than 80%, 85%, and 90% of the potential or hypotheticalhazard caused by ingestion or inhalation of dispersed waste having the Envelope D composition (seeTable Al-2.b). The RHI approach was applied separately for radionuclides and inorganics because differentdamage mechanisms and dose models are used for the two constituent groups that may make combining theRHIs inappropriate. It should be noted the maximum cutoff total (90%) used for deriving the target analytelist for inorganics is less than that used for radionuclide (99%). This is because individual inorganicconstituent's RHI contribution to the cumulative total becomes insignificant (i.e., < 1%) after reaching acumulative total of 90%. Detailed derivations of the target analytes are provided in Appendix B.

A M I


For the two target analyte groups (radionuclides and inorganics) shown in Tables Al-2.a and Al-2.b, theconstituents listed accounted for greater than a specified percentage (e.g., >99% for radionuclides) of thecomputed RHI totals. As shown on Table Al-2.a, two or three constituents account for 90 to 95% of thetotal RHI for the radionuclides. If sample size and/or budget constraints exist, the target list could be reducedfurther assuming a smaller cutoff is acceptable. It should also be noted that, for the radionuclides, theinhalation or airborne exposure mode DCGs resulted in the same constituents but in a different order ofimportance. For example,241 Am was the dominant contributor for the inhalation exposure route, while "Srdominated for ingestion. For inorganics, uranium and cadmium account for more than 75% and over 50% ofthe total RHI for the inhalation exposure and water ingestion exposure, respectively. Other individualinorganic constituents' contributions to the total RHI are less significant.

Table Al-2.a. Envelope D Radioactive Constituents that Account for >90%, >95%, and >99%

of the Relative Hazard Index Total.

|;;;;:|;:i||3ibnuc)ide': ::

"Sr2 J 'Am137Cs90y

239pu

Analytical; Method1' <4

2

1,3

3

2

1

RHI" :

52.40

24.23

16.90

5.24

0.54

• ..... ?0^^mgm9lWater/Ing^stiorisExpbsureHMMIfe is:

s;; >90%. ^S^smmf^riWeSB

93.54"

98.78"99.31'

;:•. ;:liaiiion;uclide"

Americium-241

Strontium-90

Plutonium-239

Curium-244

Plutonium-240

Analytical

1,3

2

1

1

1

:RHI«(%) i

82.57

13.23

1.82

0.89

0.50

TbtalRHI::®)/ -< jAir^Inhalation ExpctsureModes ;;

>90% >95%: :; : % 9 % s 3

95.80"97.63"

99.02a

•Obtained from Appendix B, Tables B-l and B-2.bMethod Code:1 = Transuranics (radiochemistry/alpha spectrometry)2 = Sr/Y-90 (radiochemistry/gross beta)3 = Gamma scan (gamma ray spectrometry, HPGc)

A1.12


Table Al-2.b. Envelope D Chemical Constituents That Account for >80%, >85%, and >90%of the Relative Hazard Index Total.

l8liillHliiiips::>;:i

Cadmium

Uranium

Aluminum

Thallium

Cyanide

Antimony

Manganese

Molybdenum

Iron

Bismuth

I ;*&al?x •

Uranium

Cadmium

Neodymium

Silver

Cobalt

Barium

Cerium

Lead

Iron

::;"':'h:iiiefhoi:.:::";g

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

1

2

2

Analytical 'Method

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

i.;.::sRHi<;;-.s

29.59

22.19

9.09

7.40

5.28

4.58

4.23

3.52

3.14

2.60

RHP

(%)

57.42

19.14

3.62

2.32

1.91

1.91

1.71

1.55

1.22

k•••:': WAterilrtieslffliESip'oslrlSdtilir: *80%, •' :: :v:; >MMi.' ^l^'MMiM

82.36'

85.88'

91.61'

Air/InhalititiM:Exp6sure3Vipde|>80% >85%v >;90%i:|

80.19'

86.34'

90.82"

•Obtained from Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-4.^Method Code:1 = ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry).2 = ICP (inductively coupled plasma).3 = AA (atomic absorption).

A1.13


While the constituent list for the HLW feed is long, only a few constituents need to be analyzed for toaccount for the major portion of the relative hazard. This approach greatly reduces the analytical burden.

Process/Waste Disposal Knowledge. In addition to the systematic approach discussed earlier, records ofpast spills, effluent discharges, and process knowledge can be used to supplement the target analyte list.

Cadmium. Large amounts of cadmium as cadmium nitrate and fission products were released into the216-A-29 Ditch near the northwest fenceline of the study site. Accordingly, dried contaminated sedimentscould have been resuspended and blown across the site. This metal also was used as a neutron poison andthus is a likely candidate in tank waste. Interestingly, this metal was also identified as a target analyte fromthe RHI approach (see Table Al-2b).

Organics. Tank waste included some organics (primarily complexants, EDTA, glycolate, acetate,dibutyl phosphate, oxalate, butanol) (Agnew, 1996; Vol.3). However, most of these organics likely werebroken down by radiolytic decomposition. Solvents (methyl isobutylketone or hexone and related compoundsand alcohols) would likewise not have survived in the SSTs and would not be very likely candidates forpaniculate contaminants released to the atmosphere or found in soil. Herbicides are used to controlvegetation over waste sites and therefore may be expected in adjacent soils where they have been applied.Cyanides are potentially present as a metal complex. However this constituent could have also beendecomposed by radiolytic processes. Cyanide was identified in the systematic RHI search but only for theingestion mode (see Table A1-2b).

Previous broad spectrum analyses for organic contaminants in selected soil samples from the study sitewere conducted in 1985-86 for the GTF project and for a background study of Hanford Site soils thatincluded samples from the pit excavation in the west-central area of the study site (DOE/RL 1994). Theanalyses included polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, pesticides, herbicides, semivolatiles, pyrenes, phenols,polycyclic aromatics, phthalates, and others. No organics were detected. Likewise, these compounds werenot detected at other locations around the 200 Area plateau where contamination might be expected(summarized in Shord [1996] and DOE/RL [1994]). In addition, groundwater monitoring data includesresults for the full Appendix IX constituent list in hundreds of wells across the Hanford Site, includingnumerous wells near the GTF site. Except for the volatiles (carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, etc.),Appendix IX organics rarely occur in groundwater at the Hanford Site. These findings are consistent with thetype of chemicals used in the 200 Areas; i.e., primarily inorganic chemical processing (except for use ofcarbon tetrachloride, hexone, and related solvents in the solvent-extraction steps). Thus, it is considered to beunlikely that organic contaminants would be found in the area of interest, and thus, other than cyanide,organics are not considered target analytes in this sampling and analysis plan. However, if the general surveyreveals any field evidence of suspicious occurrences (stained ground, odor, tip-offs, etc.) investigativeanalyses will be conducted to support industrial hygiene concerns.

A 1-3.4 Analytical Methods and Sample Handling

Standard analytical methods for soil and sediment analysis as described in Appendix A2 (QAPP) will beused for the initial spectral gamma screen and any subsequent followup analyses that may be required. Soilsample handling, labeling, chain of custody documentation, etc. will be as previously described for soil andsediment samples (EII5.11,WHC 1995a).

A1.14


Analytical methods and sample size requirements for the target analytes and related constituents ofinterest are summarized in Table A1-3. The methods listed are capable of meeting the quantification limitsshown in Table Al-4. As indicated in Table Al-3, some methods may satisfy analytical requirements formore than one constituent group. For example, ICP-MS methods can be used to quantify uranium as well asmany of the other metals (mercury may require cold vapor AA methods). In addition, high resolution spectralgamma-ray analysis may be capable of quantifying " 'Am, the principal alpha emitter in the target analyte list,as well as 137Cs and other gamma-emitters of interest.

It is assumed for purposes of this SAP that resources are available to accommodate the complete list oftarget analytes in Tables Al-2.a and Al-2.b. If conditions change, then the list can be reduced by selectingonly those constituents that cover a smaller cumulative total percentage (e.g., 90 to 95% for radionuclides) ofthe relative hazard and by utilizing analytical methods that provide more than one target analyte of interest.Some additional laboratory work may be needed to certify that alternative methods can meet the detectionlimit or quantification limits specified in Table Al-4.

It should also be recognized that incremental (environmental) additions of hazardous chemicals in thewaste (envelope D composition) may not be detectable in environmental media. In contrast, small increases(e.g., 1-2 pCi/g in soil samples) for the major radioactive constituents (137Cs, "Sr, or transuranics) would beeasily detected. This is because natural background concentrations of heavy metals and other nonradioactivetarget analytes may mask (i.e., they occur naturally at relatively high concentrations) any incremental additiondue to either past-practice Hanford Site releases or additions due to future operation of the demonstrationplant(s). Also, the source strengths of the major radioactive components (envelope D) relative to theirdetectability at typical environmental levels are much greater than the corresponding hazardous wasteconcentrations in the source relative to their detectability in environmental samples. This is another factorthat could be considered by the project manager in allocating resources to the analytical portion of theenvironmental baseline study.

Al-4 Air Monitoring

Airborne paniculate data are available as a result of on-going monitoring programs in the vicinity of thedemonstration project site. The existing air particulate monitoring data in the vicinity of PUREX, and bothupwind and immediately downwind of the construction site, are considered adequate for assessing theconstruction/worker safety question. As discussed in Chapter 2, airborne particulate contaminants of interestare 2-3 orders of magnitude below the DCG for inhalation exposure and are nearly as low as off-site upwindconcentrations in nearby communities. While judged to be adequate to address the pre-construction workersafety question, existing information is not adequate to provide a baseline for the subsequent phases ofenvironmental monitoring. The following discussion is relevant to preoperational monitoring and is providedhere to assist future monitoring plan design.

A1.15


Table Al-3. Analytical Methods and Sample Size Requirements for Constituents of Interest in Soil.

PhysicalSample

Size

100g

100g

lOOg

100g

lOOg

lkg

20g

20g

20 6

AnalysisCategory

Metals (ICP)

(optional ICP-MS)

Metals (AA)

(option: ICP-MS

methods combinedwith abovemethods)

Water extractablecyanide (total)

Anions(water extractable)

Radionuclides

ReferenceMethod

SW-846 (6010)

DOE/EM-0089T, Rev 2(MM-100)

SW-846 (7421)

'4500-CN (total CN bySIE after distillation)

EPA 300.2

EPA 901. lo rDOE/EM-0089T, Rev 2

(RI010)

DOE/EM-0089T, Rev 2:(MM-100)

(RP 520)

(RP 800, and/or RI010)

Constituents(Target Analytes italicized)

Aluminum, antimony, barium,beryllium, cadmium, calcium,chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,magnesium, manganese, nickel,potassium, silver, sodium, tin,vanadium, zinc, and mercury

Lead

Total cyanide (ferrocyanide),

bromide, chloride, fluoride,phosphate, sulfate, nitrate, and nitrite

Gamma scan (ulCs, "Co, 152-154Eu)

Uranium

'"Sr/Y

Transuranics (e.g., "'Am, ™m0Pu,2"Cm)

AA = atomic absorption.ICP = inductively coupled plasma.ICP-MS = inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry.* Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater

SIE = specific ion electrode

A1.16


Table Al-4. Background Levels, Quantitation Levels, and Soil Standards forPrimary Analytes of Interest.

Constituent8

Name (unit)

Antimony (ug/g)

Silver (ug/g)

Cyanide (ng/g)

Cadmium (ng/g)

Lead (ug/g)

Uranium (ug/g)

239Pu(pCi/g)

137Cs (pCi/g)

90Sr(pCi/g)

241 Am (pCi/e)

Global Falloutor Natural Background0

1

0.1

0.2(0.06d)

10(19")

3

-0.01

~1

<1

-0.01

PracticalQuantitation Limit

<0.1

0.5 (MDL)

<0.1

0.2

10 (PQL)1 (MDL)

0.5

0.02

0.5

1

0.02

MTCASoil Standard11

2

250

NA

NA

NA

NA

(a) Primary analytes of concern based on expected high level waste composition (Envelope D) and relative hazard (contaminantcontribution in feed divided by Derived Concentration Guide values or Maximum Contaminant Levels in DOE 5400.5 and WAC173-200, respectively).

(b) Acid extractable, "Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Cleanup Regulations," Chapter 173-340, Pub. #94-06, Washington StateDepartment of Ecology. Listed standards are based on method A. Method B or C (industrial) standards may beapplicable depending on site-specific conditions.

(c) Total; from Bowen, 1966. Trace Elements in Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York.(d) Values in parentheses from ASTM/DS64, Cleanup Criteria for Contaminated Soil andGroundwater, A. Buonicore, ASTM,

Philadelphia, 1995.MDL - method detection limit.PQL - practical quantitation limit.NA: not available for radioactive constituents; however, unconditional release criteria for offsite shipping of 50 pCi/g of total activityhas been used at the Hanford Site.

Al-4.1 Monitoring Station Locations

Existing upwind and downwind air monitoring stations are at the locations shown in Figure Al-4. Basedon assumed location for the construction sites, the wedge shaped shaded areas in Figure Al-4 cover over 75%of the annual average wind directions. The dashed line shows the most probable wind direction (for a 22.5degree sector or 11.25 degrees on either side of the line). Based on the annual average wind direction for themeteorological monitoring station in the northeast corner of the 200 East Area (Figure Al-4), the locations ofthe existing downwind air paniculate monitoring stations are judged to be adequate to detect annual averageparticulate contaminants from the demonstration plant site locations, assuming the final plant locations arenear the positions shown in Figure Al-4. Upwind monitoring stations (N-158 and N-985) should account forcontributions from the major waste management areas. However, at least two new monitoring stations,

A1.17


installed in the upwind location near adjacent soil contamination sites (e.g., 216-A-29 Ditch) are needed todifferentiate upwind sources from source generated by the demonstration project. Two of the stations (N-992and N-991) must be reactivated (filter housings reset). Equipment is available from the Project HanfordManagement Contractor (PHMC). The exact locations of the air monitoring stations may change dependingon the final plant locations.

Al-4.2 Frequency

Monitoring frequency should be monthly for the first year of the preoperational baseline to determine ifthere are seasonal effects. After data are analyzed from the first year of the preoperational monitoring period,the sampling frequency can be reevaluated. Filters will be changed weekly and combined for monthlyanalysis of constituents of interest. If seasonal effects occur, air monitoring should be extended for anotheryear such that data obtained from the preoperational phase can be deseasonalized before constructing controlcharts (See Section 3.8.2.5).

A 1-4.3 Sampling and Analysis

Procedures for paniculate air filter sampling and analysis would be as described in WHC-CM-7-4(WHC 1996). Analysis for gamma-emitting radionuciides, transuranics and '"Sr and sample handling, chainof custody, are as described in the appropriate Ells (WHC 1995b) and relevant sections of Appendix A2.

Data Evaluation. Air monitoring data could be evaluated using the control chart approach discussed inSection 3.8.2.5. If the data indicate a seasonal effect, raw data will be adjusted to account for the temporalvariation using techniques provided in DOE (1990a, pages 5-12 and 5-13). Seasonality may decrease theeffectiveness of control charts. An analysis of variance could be used to examine whether the data exhibittemporal variation. If there is a temporal or seasonal variation, the best estimate of the preoperationalbaseline variance is the error mean square obtained from the analysis of variance because the variabilitycaused by time has been removed from this estimate.

Al-5 Biotic Monitoring

Biotic sample collection and analysis is more appropriate for the preoperational baseline. However,regardless of the monitoring phase, the following general considerations should apply.

Biological sample media (plant and animal tissue) are difficult to obtain in an arid or desert-likeenvironment. In these cases, professional judgment is relied on to determine what and if biological samplescan be obtained. If appropriate material is obtainable, procedures described in EII 5.3, "Biotic Surveying andSampling" (WHC 1995a), will be followed where possible for sample collection and analysis.

For animal sampling (e.g., rodents), use of live traps and nondestructive methods of analysis(e.g., spectral gamma-ray analysis of the live animal) and tagging and returning of the animal to its trappinglocation should be considered as a more innovative alternative to tissue analysis. This approach is consistentwith the general objective of minimizing environmental impacts of the proposed Demonstration project.

Also, if anomalies or hot spots are identified during the ground-level radiometric surveys, and can berelated to vegetation (e.g., sagebrush), plant tissue samples will be submitted for analysis.

A1.18

Ki.

§" f

OQ

8

Legend_ Boundaries Defining

>75% of Wind Directions

, Single Most Prsvaient WindDirection (-30% of the Time)

A Wind Directionand Velocity

PNL-6«


Al-6 Ground Penetrating Radar

This section describes the use of GPR at the Demonstration site.

Al-6.1 Objectives

The objectives of the GPR methodology are to

• Identify and locate manmade structures (e.g., utilities, buried material or excavations) in three dimensionsup to 3 m depth.

• Identify discontinuous geologic structures.

Al-6.2 Methodologies

Ground-penetrating radar is an electromagnetic sounding method using radio frequencies to probe theground for natural and manmade features. The method provides a continuous record along a line traversedwith its antenna. Interpretation of this record derives both location and depth of buried materials and changesin geologic conditions. The procedures for this are discussed in WHC (1995a).

A source and a receiver are needed for GPR systems. A radar antenna (source) emits an electromagnetic(EM) pulse several times a second. These EM impulses are then directed into the ground in the form ofwaves. As the waves penetrate deeper through the geologic material, contrasts in electrical properties areencountered with changes in strata. These electrical contrasts (anomalies) cause some of the wave to bereflected back toward the surface where it is received by an antenna, while some of the wave continuesdownward. When enough anomalies have been encountered, there is very little remaining of the signal (to bereflected); this condition is termed the effective penetration depth. The time interval between the point whenthe EM signal is emitted to when it is reflected and received depends on the properties of the material and thedepth at which the signal is reflected. Knowledge of site geology can be used to estimate the properties of thematerial and travel time so that the depth of the target can be estimated.

GPR transmits a cone of energy into the subsurface in the form of radio waves. The majority of thereflected energy comes from the first fresnel zone, which can be represented as the radius of the energy coneat various depths. The antenna appropriate for this application is the 100-mhz, emphasizing coverage anddepth penetration. Antenna selection is best made after the acquisition of some representative test profilesacross the project area during the initial phase of the investigation. The interaction and variability of theparameters affecting GPR emphasize the value and need of trained and experienced personnel for both theacquisition and the interpretation of data.

Al-6.3 Interpretation of Ground Penetrating Radar

A GPR profile is a representation of a vertical slice or cross-section of the area traversed. The distanceon the ground is represented by the horizontal while the vertical represents time. Knowing theelectromagnetic properties and radar wavelength allows a conversion of "time" to depth. The quality of theresulting maps and profiles rely completely on the skill and experience of the operators and interpreters; thus,the data shall be collected and interpreted by a professional group who can determine the proper data

A 1.20


acquisition conditions and set the equipment to preform correctly to the varying site conditions; theprofessional group must be able to interpret the data with respect to the site stratigraphy and geologicconditions.

Al-6.4 Site Preparation

Sites lines should be relatively level and cleared of vegetation that would interfere with pulling cables andantennae over the area. The antennae can be maneuvered around vegetation if necessary. An orthogonal gridis established over the area of investigation (Figure Al-2b). This survey is a reconnaissance survey and, thusthe grid will be the same grid that will be used to collect soil samples across the site. The grid will consist oflines, 100 m apart, with the boundaries designated with wooden stakes marked with grid coordinates. Amore dense survey coverage will be used in the two 15-acre construction sites. In these areas the grid will be4 m by 4 m, which greatly aids in interpreting complex areas and can be initiated over the established gridwithout redoing any previous work. This more detailed grid should not be planned until the exact location ofthe facilities has been established.

Al-6.5 Ground Penetrating Radar Method

A radar survey is highly recommended for the TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site and should be themethod used here for the following reasons.

• Multiple profiles of radar can be compared for correlation in hardcopy.

• Long-term data retention is provided with hardcopy and a computer file and will be necessary for theenvironmental baseline.

• Surveys allow precise interpretation of complex areas and recognition of features larger than one videoframe.

• There is good control of depth interpretation.

Al-7 THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) will be used to determine external radiation levels at thedemonstration site. The TLDs will be located at the two existing air sampling sites and near areas thatcontain cribs, ditches, and other possible radioactive facilities around the periphery of the PC demonstrationsite. The TLDs will be positioned 1 m above the ground surface and will be left in place for 1 year. Thechips will be changed and evaluated quarterly in conjunction with the existing operational monitoringguidance [WHC-CM-7-4 (1996)].

Additional TLD stations can be installed based on possible identification of anomalies or "hot spots,"and/or locations associated with monitoring specific PC plant components.

A1.21

HNF-SD-TWR-EV-001, Rev. O

Al-8 Sampling Plan References

Agnew, S. F., Hanford Tank Chemical andRadionuclide Inventories: HDWModel, Rev. 3, LA-UR-96-858,Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

DOE 1990a, Environmental Monitoring for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites, Low-Level Waste ManagementHandbook Series, DOE/LLW-13Tg, Prepared by EG&G Idaho, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy,Idaho Falls, Idaho.

DOE, 1990b, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE Order 5400.5,U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE/RL, 1994, Hanford Site Background: Parti, Soil Backgroundfor Nonradioactive Analyses,DOE/RL-92-24,2 Volumes, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland,Washington.

Gilbert, R. O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand ReinholdCompany, New York, New York, pp. 30-42.

Reiman, R. T., and T. S. Dahlstrom, 1990, An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Hanford Site andSurrounding Area, Richland, Washington, EGG-10617-1062, EG&G/EM, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Shord, A. L., 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Phase I Site Evaluation Report,WHC-SD-WM-SE-023, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1996, Operational Environmental Monitoring, WHC-CM-7-4, Westinghouse Hanford Company,Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1995a, Westinghouse Hanford Environmental Investigations and Site Characterization Manual,WHC-CM-7-7, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1995b, Westinghouse Hanford Environmental Engineering and Technology,VfHC-CM-7-S,

Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1990, Quality Assurance Project Plan for RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Activities,WHC-SD-EN-QAPP-001, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

A1.22


Appendix A2

Quality Assurance Project Plan

A2.i


A2.ii


Contents

A2-1 Introduction A2-1

A2-2 Project Organization and Responsibilities A2-1A2-2.1 Technical Lead Responsibilities A2-1A2-2.2 Analytical Systems Laboratories A2-1

A2-2.3 HealthPhysics A2-1A2-2.4 Transportation Logistics A2-1A2-2.5 External Contractor Laboratories : . . . A2-1A2-2.6 Support Contractors A2-2

A2-3 Objectives for Measurements A2-2A2-3.1 General Precision and Accuracy Objectives A2-2

A2-4 Sampling Procedures A2-2A2-4.1 Procedure Approvals and Control A2-2A2-4.2 Sampling Procedures A2-2A2-4.3 Other Procedures A2-3A2-4.4 Procedure Changes A2-3

A2-5 Sample Custody A2-3

A2-6 Calibration Procedures A2-3

A2-7 Analytical Procedures A2-3

A2-8 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting A2-4

A2-9 Internal Quality Control A2-4

A2-10 Performance and System Audits A2-4

A2-11 Preventive Maintenance A2-5

A2-12 Data Assessment Procedures A2-5

A2-13 Corrective Action A2-5

A2-14 Quality Assurance Reports A2-5

A2-15 QAPP References A2-6


A2.iv


Appendix A2 Quality Assurance Project Plan

A2-1 Introduction

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is intended to be used in conjunction with other asso-ciated project plans (i.e., Field Sampling Plan, and Job Safety Analysis). Implementation of these plans willensure that (1) the site characterization efforts are conducted in a safe and efficient manner; (2) the samplingand analysis activities are carried out to achieve the specified data quality goals; and (3) the quality of datagathered can be monitored and documented.

This QAPP applies specifically to various activities discussed in the plan. The QAPP is an element ofthe SAP prepared specifically for this investigation and is consistent with other environmental work(EPA 1988a). All work performed pursuant to this plan should be done under the direction and supervisionor in consultation with, as necessary, a qualified engineer, hydrologist, geologist, or other expert, with experi-ence and expertise in hazardous waste management, hazardous waste site investigation, and/or monitoring.

A2-2 Project Organization and Responsibilities

A2-2.1 Technical Lead Responsibilities

Numatec Hanford Co. (NHC) will be the responsible technical organization.

A2-2.2 Analytical Systems Laboratories

As required by the SAP, samples will be routed to the appropriate and to (as yet) unspecified lab-ora-tories for chemical analyses. All analyses shall be performed in compliance with PHMC approved laboratoryquality assurance (QA) plans and analytical procedures.

A2-2.3 Health Physics

Because the proposed drill sites are not in or near contaminated areas a Radiation Work Permit andHealth Physics support will not be necessary.

A2-2.4 Transportation Logistics

Transportation Logistics shall provide guidance and instruction for the transport of samples. Thisshall include direction concerning proper shipping paperwork, marking, labeling, and packagingrequirements.

A2-2.5 External Contractor Laboratories

External participant contractors or subcontractors may be required to perform certain portions of taskactivities at the direction of the technical lead. Procedures for quality assurance (QA) and for quality control(QC) shall be prepared by any contractor laboratory that identifies the methods and analytical protocols for

A2.1


the parameters of concern in the media of interest within detection and quantitation limits in accordance withthis plan. All analyses will be subject to standard internal and external quality auditing and surveillancecontrols.

A2-2.6 Support Contractors

Procurement of any other contracted field activities shall be in compliance with applicable procedurerequirements. All work shall be performed in compliance with approved QA plans and/or procedures, subjectto standard internal and external quality auditing and surveillance controls. Applicable quality requirementsshall be invoked as part of the approved procurement documentation or work order.

A2-3 Objectives for Measurements

This project is a characterization activity to obtain the data as identified in the DQO process(Section 3.0). Thus this section summarizes the data quality requirements to meet the intended use and objec-tives discussed in the main body of this plan. The requirements are discussed in the following subsections.

A2-3.1 General Precision and Accuracy Objectives

As an outcome of the DQO process and as further discussed in the Field Sampling Plan, the generalrequirement for precision (RSD of 25%) and accuracy (a margin of error = 10%) is intended for all phases ofthe TWRS Phase I Demonstration Site characterization effort.

A2-4 Sampling Procedures

A2-4.1 Procedure Approvals and Control

In general, throughout all sample collection, preservation, transportation, and analysis activitiesrequired to perform work specified by this plan, applicable approved procedures (including subsequentamendments to such procedures) should be used. Specifics are discussed below.

A2-4.2 Sampling Procedures

All soil sampling shall be performed in accordance with EII 5.2, Soil and Sediment Sampling (WHC1995). Sample size, sample support, types, location, and other site-specific specifications are defined in theField Sampling Plan. (Appendix A-l). Documentation requirements are contained within individual Ells.Sample container selection shall be in accordance with EII 5.2, Soil and Sediment Sampling.

Air sampling is not required for the characterization/preconstruction phase. However, it is deemednecessary for the preoperational and operational phases. Equipment used for air sampling for preoperationaland/or operational purposes must be calibrated and maintained regularly and adjusted as necessary so thesampling flow rates, volumes, and masses are within their prescribed limits and representative samples couldbe obtained.

A2.2


A2-4.3 Other Procedures

Other procedures that will be required that are not already identified in this QAPP will be identified inthe task. Documentation requirements shall be addressed within individual procedures.

A2-4.4 Procedure Changes

Should deviations from established Ells (WHC 1995) be required to accommodate unforseen fieldsituations, they may be authorized by the field team coordinator in accordance with the requirements of EH1.4, Deviation from Environmental Investigations Instructions. Documentation, review, and disposition ofinstruction change authorization forms are defined within EII 1.4. Other types of procedure change requestsshall be documented as required by PHMC procedures governing their preparation.

A2-5 Sample Custody

All samples obtained during the course of this investigation shall be controlled as required byEII 5.1, Chain of Custody, from the point of origin to the analytical laboratory. Laboratory chain-of-custodyprocedures shall be reviewed and approved as required by PHMC procurement control procedures and shallensure the maintenance of sample integrity and identification throughout the analytical process. Chain-of-custody forms shall be initiated for returned residual samples. Results of analyses shall be traceable tooriginal samples through the unique code or identifier specified in the chain-of-custody forms. All results ofanalyses shall be controlled as permanent project quality records as required by standard PHMC procedures.

A2-6 Calibration Procedures

Calibration of all contractor measuring and test equipment, whether in existing inventory or purchasedfor this investigation, shall be controlled as required by applicable contractor procedures. Equipment thatrequires user calibration or field adjustment shall be calibrated as required by standard procedures for usercalibration.

All calibration of PHMC or contractor laboratory measuring and test equipment shall meet the mini-mum requirements of Section II ofLaboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for EvaluatingInorganics Analyses (EPA 1988b) and Section III of Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelinesfor Evaluating Organics Analyses (EPA 1988c, 1986). Such requirements shall be invoked through PHMCprocurement control procedures. Laboratory QA Plans for both PNNL and PHMC shall address laboratoryequipment to be calibrated and the calibration schedules.

A2-7 Analytical Procedures

AH analytical procedures approved for use in this investigation shall be in accordance with approvedEPA methods or equivalents. In addition, standard reporting techniques and units shall be used whereverpossible to facilitate the comparability of data sets in terms of precision and accuracy. All approvedprocedures shall be retained in the project QA records and shall be available for review upon request by thedirection of the PHMC technical lead.

A2.3


A2-8 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting

Analytical data from sampling activities will be used primarily to determine the presence and amountsof analytes of interest in the locations or intervals of the sampled media. Analytical laboratories shall beresponsible for the examination and validation of analytical results to the extent appropriate. The require-ments discussed in this section shall be invoked, as appropriate, in procurement documentation prepared incompliance with standard PHMC procedures. Results from all analyses shall be summarized in a validationreport and supported by recovery percentages, quality control checks, equipment calibration data, chro-matograms, spectrograms, or other validation data.

All validation reports and supporting data shall be subjected to a detailed technical review by a quali-fied reviewer designated by the PHMC technical lead. All validation reports, technical reviews, andsupporting data shall be retained as permanent project QA records in compliance with referenced procedures.

Statistical evaluations of validated data shall be based on appropriate methods identified through theDQO process. Results of the statistical evaluations shall be provided to the technical lead on a timely basisso that subsequent data collection activities, if necessary, can be planned based on another iteration of theDQO process.

A2-9 Internal Quality Control

The quality of analytical samples shall be subject to in-process quality control checks in the field andthe laboratory; minimum requirements are defined as follows.

Unless otherwise specified in the Field Sampling Plan, minimum field quality control checks forsurface soil sampling activities shall include the following.

• Duplicate samples—a minimum of 5% of the total collected samples shall be duplicated.

• Method (equipment) blank samples—the minimum number of blank samples shall beequivalent to 5% of the total number of collected samples. Blank sampling shall be evenlydistributed throughout the entire sampling period.

Internal quality control checks performed by the analytical laboratories shall be in compliance withapproved analytical procedure requirements.

A2-10 Performance and System Audits

Acceptable performance for this project is defined as compliance with the requirements of this QAPP,its implementing procedures and appendices, and associated plans such as the Field Sampling Plan, and otherapplicable contractor QAPPs. All activities addressed by this QAPP are subject to surveillances of projectperformance and systems adequacy. Surveillances shall be conducted in accordance with appropriatecontractor procedures and shall be scheduled at the discretion of the quality coordinator or technical lead.

A2.4


A2-11 Preventive Maintenance

All measurement and testing equipment used in the field and laboratory that directly affects thequality of the analytical data shall be subject to preventive maintenance measures that ensure minimization ofmeasurement system downtime. For this investigation, such measures are confined to laboratory equipmentbecause all field measurements are related either to the measurement of the sample interval or to thedetermination of radiological or other health and safety hazards. Laboratories shall be responsible for per-forming or managing the maintenance of their analytical equipment; maintenance requirements, spare partslists, and instructions shall be included in individual methods or in laboratory QA plans, subject to PHMCreview and approval.

A2-12 Data Assessment Procedures

As discussed in Section A2-8, a data validation report shall be prepared by the analytical laboratorysummarizing the precision, accuracy, and completeness of the analysis. The report shall compare actualanalytical results with the objectives stated in the Laboratory Analysis Plan. If the stated objectives for aparticular parameter are not met, the situation shall be analyzed, and limitations or restrictions on the uses ofsuch data shall be established. The validation report shall be reviewed and approved by the technical lead,who may direct additional sampling activities if data quality objectives have not been met. The approvedreport shall be routed to the project quality records and included within the reports that will be prepared forsubmittal to the regulatory agencies at the completion of activities.

A2-13 Corrective Action

Corrective action requests required as a result of surveillance reports shall be documented and dis-positioned as required by the statement of work or applicable corrective action procedures. Primary responsi-bilities for corrective action resolution are assigned to the technical lead and the QA coordinator.

Other measurement systems, procedures, or plan corrections that may be required as a result ofroutine review processes shall be resolved as required by governing procedures or shall be referred to thetechnical lead for resolution. Copies of all surveillance documentation shall be routed to the projectQA records upon completion or closure.

A2-14 Quality Assurance Reports

As stated in Sections A2-10 and A2-13, project performance shall be assessed by the surveillanceprocess. Surveillance documentation shall be routed to the project records upon completion or closure of theactivity. A report summarizing surveillance activity as well as any associated corrective actions shall beprepared by the QA coordinator at the completion of the project.

A2.5


A2-15 QAPP References

EPA, 1986, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 (3rd. Edition),Office of Solid Waste and Energy Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 1988a, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations andFeasibility Studies Under CERCLA(OSWER directive 9335.3-01, Draft), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 1988b, Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganics Analyses, HazardousSite Evaluation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 1988c, Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analyses, HazardousSite Evaluation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

WHC, 1995, Westinghouse Hanford Environmental Investigations and Site Characterization Manual,WHC-CM-7-7, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

A2.6


Appendix B

Relative Hazard Index Values for Envelope D TankWaste Constituents

B.i


B.ii


RELATIVE HAZARD INDEX VALUES FOR ENVELOPE D TANKWASTE CONSTITUENTS

This appendix provides a listing of the relative hazard index (RHI) values used to generate the targetanalyte list in Appendix A-l. The computed values are listed by constituent (chemical or isotope) forexposure routes due to inhalation or ingestion (water) in four separate corresponding tables.

B-l Source Composition and Exposure Assumptions

It was assumed that the tank waste composition (Envelope D for Phase I Demonstration) representsthe worst case source (single shell tank and related waste), and therefore the controlling or most significantcomposition. It is also assumed that the chemical composition of a hypothetical aerosol generated or releasedhas the same composition as the Envelope D maximum concentrations. This composition can be viewed as acomposite or average of the feed to be processed. While individual tank contents may vary considerably, theEnvelope D composition should be representative of long-term source composition (e.g., cumulativedeposition on downwind soils). The most likely mode of exposure is by inhalation of paniculatecontaminants that become resuspended from spills of tank waste or by emission as aerosols from a stack.

B-2 Computation of Relative Hazard Index

The relative hazard index is computed by dividing the source concentration (Ci/L for radionuclides org/L for chemicals) by the appropriate exposure standard. The standards for radionuclides used were theDerived Concentration Guides or DCG's for air and water (DOE Order 5400.5). For inhalation exposure, themost conservative (lowest) DCG's were used. For the hazardous chemical components, drinking waterstandards and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for chemicals in water and air, respectively, were used.The PELs for the chemical inhalation exposure mode were taken from Sittig (1985). In some cases no valuewas listed, particularly for rare earths. In such cases judgement was used in assigning a value based onchemical similarity to constituents for which a PEL was listed. However several chemical constituents werenot available and could not be included in the ranking. The excluded constituents are not believed tocontribute substantially to the overall total. However, as more toxicological data becomes available, theranking could change for chemical constituents.

The individual RHI values were then divided by the sum of all RHI values in a constituent/exposure groupand the results arranged in descending order (beginning with the constituent having the highest percentagecontribution to the sum). The cumulative percent was then calculated to show the percent coverage of hazardwith addition of each constituent.

Columns in the following tables are arranged in the order discussed above for easy identification of the majorcontributors to the RHI total.

B.I


Table B-l. Envelope D Maximum Radionuclide Feed Composition, Standard, and RelativeHazard Index (RHI) for Water/Ingestion Exposure Route.

Sr90

Am241

Csl37

Y90

Pu239

Cm244

Pu240

Pu241

Csl34

Pu238

Pml47

Cdll3m

Am242m

Eul54

Np237

C06O

Sml51

Sbl25

Am243

Eul55

Tel25m

Tc99

Cm242

RulO6

Cel44

Eul52

Snl26

Ni63

Fe55

Pu242

Zi«3

U234

Csl35

RhlO6

• *Ooneeiittati6tiV:^

3.10E-KX)

4.30E-02

3.00E4O0

3.10E+00

9.50E-04

9.30E-04

2.60E-04

6.90E-03

6.80E-03

1.10E-04

1.60E-01

1.09E-03

3.20E-05

1.60E-02

2.30E-05

3.00E-03

9.30E-02

1.00E-02

5.00E-06

9.00E-03

3.00E-03

4.50E-03

3.70E-05

2.00E-04

1.00E-04

1.50E-04

4.80E-05

1.60E-03

1.00E-03

7.10E-08

1.40E-04

7.70E-07

3.00E-05

2.00E-04

1.00E-06

3.00E-O8

3.00E-06

1.00E-05

3.00E-08

6.00E-08

3.00E-08

2.00E-06

2.00E-06

4.00E-08

1.00E-04

9.00E-07

3.00E-08

2.00E-05

3.00E-08

S.00E-06

4.00E-04

5.00E-05

3.00E-08

1.00E-04

4.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-06

6.00E-06

7.00E-06

2.00E-05

8.00E-06

3.00E-04

2.00E-04

3.00E-08

9.00E-05

S.00E-07

2.00E-05

2.00E-04

3.10E+O6

1.43E+06

1.00E+O6

3.10E4O5

3.17E+O4

1.55E+O4

8.67E+03

3.45E+03

3.40E+O3

2.75E+03

1.60E+03

1.21E+O3

1.07E4O3

8.00E+02

7.67E+02

6.00E+O2

2.33E+O2

2.00E+02

1.67E+02

9.00E+01

7.50E+01

4.50E+O1

3.70E+O1

3.33E+01

1.43E+01

7.5OE+OO

6.00E+O0

5.33E+OO

5.00E4O0

2.37E+O0

1.56E+00

1.54E+00

1.50E-KX)

1.00E+O0

52.40

24.23

16.90

5.24

0.54

0.26

0.15

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ISeiiiiiiltnlllll

52.40

76.63

93.54

98.78

99.31

99.57

99.72

99.78

99.84

99.88

99.91

99.93

99.95

99.96

99.97

99.98

99.99

99.99

99.99

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

B.2


Table B-l. Envelope D Maximum Radionuclide Feed Composition, Standard, and RelativeHazard Index (RHI) for Water/Ingestion Exposure Route.

U238

Sbl26

Am242

Nb93m

1129

U236

Prl44

Snl21m

U235

Snll3

C14

Se79

Ni59

Sbl26m

H3

PdlO7

Inll3m

Agl 10m

Sbl24

Snll9m

Cdll5m

piCS&iiiriaion*:;:

5.80E-07

4.83E-06

3.10E-05

8.70E-05

9.00E-08

8.20E-08

1.00E-04

9.00E-06

3.20E-08

1.88E-06

2.00E-06

4.20E-07

1.40E-05

3.43E-05

2.00E-05

4.00E-06

1.88E-06

1.00E-08

2.61E-09

1.00E-08

6.55E-10

lisiStaiidard' :;

6.00E-07

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

3.00E-04

5.00E-07

5.00E-07

1.00E-03

1.00E-04

6.00E-07

5.00E-05

7.00E-OS

2.00E-05

7.00E-04

2.00E-03

2.00E-03

1.00E-03

1.00E-03

1.00E-05

2.00E-05

1.00E-04

9.00E-06

Total

9.67E-01

4.83E-01

3.10E-01

2.90E-01

1.80E-01

1.64E-01

1.00E-01

9.00E-02

5.33E-02

3.76E-02

2.86E-02

2.10E-02

2.00E-02

1.72E-02

1.00E-02

4.00E-03

1.88E-03

1.00E-03

1.31E-04

1.00E-04

7.28E-05

5.92E+06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

100.00

:Si ••Cumulative:: ;::;>::«

l:S;a;:#P;ill100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

'Based on TWRS Privatization Request for Proposal Table TS-8.3, Maximum RadionuclideComposition of High-Level Waste Feed.''Based on DCGs for water from DOE Order 5400.5.'Ratio = maximum radionuclide concentration/standard.dRHI is obtain by dividing each ratio by the sum of ratios.

B.3


Table B-2. Envelope D Maximum Radionuclide Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative HazardIndex (RHI) for Air/Inhaiation Exposure Route,

liiiillAm241

Sl90

Pu239

Cm244

Pu240

Csl37

Pu241

Pu238

Y90

Am242m

Np237

Pml47

Eul54

Am243

Sml51

Cdll3m

Cm242

C06O

Csl34

Eul55

Sbl25

U234

RulO6

Pu242

Zr93

Cel44

Eul52

Tc99

Tel25m

Snl26

Ni63

U238

Nb93m

Fc55

SijCciiiceiiMtioii;:;;;

> r^smr :i4.30E-02

3.10E+00

9.50E-04

9.30E-O4

2.60E-O4

3.00E+O0

6.90E-03

1.10E-04

3.10E-KJ0

3.20E-05

2.30E-05

1.60E-01

1.60E-02

5.00E-06

9.30E-02

1.09E-03

3.70E-05

3.00E-03

6.80E-03

9.00E-03

1.00E-02

7.70E-07

2.00E-04

7.10E-08

1.40E-04

1.00E-04

1.50E-04

4.50E-03

3.00E-03

4.80E-05

1.60E-03

5.80E-07

8.70E-05

1.00E-03

2.00E-14

9.00E-12

2.00E-14

4.00E-14

2.00E-14

4.00E-10

1.00E-12

3.00E-14

1.00E-09

2.00E-14

2.00E-I4

3.00E-10

5.00E-11

2.00E-14

4.00E-10

8.00E-12

7.00E-13

8.00E-11

2.00E-10

3.00E-10

1.00E-09

9.00E-14

3.00E-U

2.00E-14

4.00E-11

3.00E-11

5.00E-11

2.00E-09

2.00E-09

1.00E-10

4.00E-09

2.00E-12

4.00E-10

5.00E-09

2.15E+12

3.44E+1I

4.75E+10

2.33E+10

1.30E+10

7.50E4O9

6.90E+09

. 3.67E+09

3.10E+09

1.60E+O9

1.15E+09

5.33E-K18

3.20E+08

2.50E+O8

2.33E+O8

1.36E+08

5.29E+07

3.75E+07

3.40E+O7

3.00E+07

1.00E-KJ7

8.56E+06

6.67E+O6

3.55E-K)6

3.50E+06

3.33E+O6

3.00E+06

2.25E+O6

1.50E+O6

4.80E+O5

4.00E+05

2.90E+05

2.18E+O5

2.00E+05

82.57

13.23

1.82

0.89

0.50

0.29

0.26

0.14

0.12

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

82.57

95.80

97.63

98.52

99.02

99.31

99.57

99.71

99.83

99.89

99.94

99.96

99.97

99.98

99.99

99.99

99.99

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

B.4


Table B-2. Envelope D Maximum Radionuclide Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative HazardIndex (RHI) for Air/Inhalation Exposure Route.

g^iiiilsdtbp^:1; !•::•:

Am242

U236

U235

Csl35

Snl21m

Sbl26

PdlO7

RhlO6

Sn!13

Ni59

1129

Se79

Prl44

C14

H3

Sbl26m

AjfllOm

Inll3m

Snll9m

Cdll5m

Sbl24

Concentration?:, .. ';CWi. ' " : . :

3.10E-05

8.20E-08

3.20E-08

3.00E-05

9.00E-06

4.83E-06

4.00E-06

2.00E-04

1.88E-06

1.40E-05

9.00E-08

4.20E-07

1.00E-04

2.00E-06

2.00E-05

3.43E-05

1.00E-08

1.88E-06

1.00E-08

6.55E-10

2.61E-09

.;: ^Standard* '

2.00E-10

2.00E-12

2.00E-12

3.00E-09

1.00E-09

1.00E-09

9.00E-10

6.00E-08

1.00E-09

9.00E-09

7.00E-11

1.00E-09

3.00E-07

6.00E-09

1.00E-07

4.00E-07

2.00E-10

3.00E-07

2.00E-09

2.00E-10

2.00E-09

Total

i Ratio1 .:

1.55E+05

4.10E+04

1.60E+04

1.00E+04

9.00E+03

4.83E+03

4.44E+03

3.33E+O3

1.88E+03

1.56E+03

1.29E+03

4.20E+02

3.33E+02

3.33E+02

2.00E+02

8.58E+O1

5.00E+01

6.27E+00

5.00E+00

3.28E+00

1.31E+00

2.60E+12

; ; ( % ) : : • - . - : : ;

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

100.00

i#©ur(tajatiy^(?^):^

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

"Based on TWRS Privatization Request for Proposal Table TS-8.3, Maximum RadionuclideComposition of High-Level Waste Feed.bBased on DCGs for air from DOE Order 5400.5.'Ratio = maximum radionuclide concentration/standard.dRHI is obtain by dividing each ratio by the sum of ratios.

B.5


Table B-3. Envelope D Maximum Inorganic Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative Hazard Index(RHI) for Water/Ingestion Exposure Route.

'•^^•:^''-iMi%^k

Cd 1.400 0.005= 280.00 29.59 29.59

4.200 0.020d 210.00 22.19 51.78

Al 4.300 0.050° 86.00 9.09 60.87

Tl 0.140 0.002° 70.00 7.40 68.27

CN 0.500 0.010b 50.00 5.28 73.55

Sb 0.260 0.006' 43.33 4.58 78.13

Mn 2.000 0.050' 40.00 4.23 82.36

Mo 0.200 0.006" 33.33 3.52 85.88

Fe

Bi

8.900 0.300' 29.67 3.14 89.02

0.860 0.035b 24.57 2.60 91.61

Pb

Hg

Th

Ni

W

Ti

Be

Se

Cr

Ag

V

As

Ba

B

F

Cu

Zn

Si

0.340 0.015' 22.67 2.40 94.01

0.030 0.002' 15.00 1.59 95.59

0.160 0.020"" 8.00 0.85 96.44

0.730 0.100° 7.30 0.77 97.21

0.074 0.014" 5.29 0.56 97.77

0.400 0.080" 5.00 0.53 98.30

0.020 0.004' 5.00 0.53 98.83

0.160 0.050' 3.20 0.34 99.16

0.210 0.100' 2.10 0.22 99.39

0.170 0.100' 1.70 0.18 99.57

0.010 0.007" 1.43 0.15 99.72

0.050 0.050' 1.00 0.11 99.82

1.400 2.000° 0.70 0.07 99.90

0.400 0.750° 0.53 0.06 99.95

1.100 4.000° 0.28 0.03 99.98

0.150 1.000' 0.15 0.02 100.00

0.130

5.800

5.000° 0.03 0.00 100.00

B.6


Table B-3. Envelope D Maximum Inorganic Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative Hazard Index(RHI) for Water/Ingestion Exposure Route.

Re

Rh

Ru

S

Tc

Ta

Y

Te

Sn

Sm

Zr

Sr

Gd

Eu

K

Li

La

Dy

Ca

Am

Ce

Cs

Co

Pm

Pd

Pr

Rb

Pu

P

^Concentration""

'. -10® i0.030

0.040

0.110

0.200

0.080

0.008

0.050

0.040

0.011

0.053

4.600

0.160

0.003

0.005

0.410

0.043

0.800

0.008

2.200

0.020

0.250

0.180

0.140

0.030

0.040

0.110

0.060

0.016

0.540

••• 'Standard' 1 ' 0 - ' 1 ;;-

. . .

___

___

. . .

.__

' . • R a t i o * ; :.::.";;::RHIt;::-H;: f'Si^uihuiative;!;? s

B.7


Table B-3. Envelope D Maximum Inorganic Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative Hazard Index

(RHI) for Water/Ingestion Exposure Route.

Na 6.000

Mg 0.650

Nb 0.003

Np 0.030

Nd 0.530

Total 946.27 100.00 100.00

•Based on TWRS Privatization Request for Proposal Table TS-8.1, (Maximum) High-Level WasteFeed Composition Limits for Non-Volative Components.bBased on drinking water standard of 10 ug/L, from Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicalsand Carcinogens, M. Sittig, Noyes Pub., Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1985.cBased on Maximum Contaminant Level from EPA drinking water standards.''Based on EPA proposed guidance value of 20 ug/L for total uranium, Proposed Rules forNational Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides, Federal Register 56:138, July 18,1991, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.'Ratio = maximum inorganic concentration/standard.fObtained by dividing each ratio by the sum of ratios.'Judgement-based on chemical similarity.

— = standard not available.

B.8


Table B-4. Envelope D Maximum Inorganic Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative HazardIndex (RHI) for Air/Inhalation Exposure Route.

uCd

Nd

Ag

Co

Ba

Ce

Pb

Fe

Ni

Ca

Pr

Ru

Zr

Se

Cu

Hg

Sm

Sb

As

F

Cr

B

Rh

Pd

jCpnceritrtion*"

4.200

1.400

0.530

0.170

0.140

1.400

0.250

0.340

8.900

0.730

2.200

0.110

0.110

4.600

0.160

0.150

0.030

0.053

0.260

0.050

1.100

0.210

0.400

0.040

0.040

s ;:Standard>c .;

0.05c

0.05b

0.10b"

0.05°

0.05b

0.50b

0.10b"

0.15b

5.00"

0.50'

2.00b

0.10"'

0.10"'

5.00b

0.20b

0.20"

0.05°

0.10"

0.50"

0.W

2.50"

0.50b

1.00b-

0.10"

0.10b"

m ::

84.000

28.000

5.300

3.400

2.800

2.800

2.500

2.267

1.780

1.460

1.100

1.100

1.100

0.920

0.800

0.750

0.600

0.530

0.520

0.500

0.440

0.420

0.400

0.400

0.400

: mm57.424

19.141

3.623

2.324

1.914

1.914

1.709

1.550

1.217

0.998

0.752

0.752

0.752

0.629

0.547

0.513

0.410

0.362

0.355

0.342

0.301

0.287

0.273

0.273

0.273

mmm57.42

76.57

80.19

82.51

84.43

86.34

88.05

89.60

90.82

91.81

92.57

93.32

94.07

94.70

95.25

95.76

96.17

96.53

96.89

97.23

97.53

97.82

98.09

98.36

98.64


Table B-4. Envelope D Maximum Inorganic Feed Composition, Standard, and Relative Hazard

Index (RHI) for Air/Inhalation Exposure Route.

uCd

Nd

Ag

Co

Ba

Ce

Pb

Fe

Ni

Ca

Pr

Ru

Zr

Se

Cu

Hg

Sm

Sb

As

F

Cr

B

Rh

Pd

Pm

Re

Al

K

Mn

CN

V

Cs

4.200

1.400

0.530

0.170

0.140

1.400

0.250

0.340

8.900

0.730

2.200

0.110

0.110

4.600

0.160

0.150

0.030

0.053

0.260

0.050

1.100

0.210

0.400

0.040

0.040

0.030

0.030

4.300

0.410

2.000

0.500

0.010

0.180

0.05'

0.05"

0.10*"

0.05"

0.05*

0.50'

0.10'"

0.15*

5.00'

0.50"

2.00'

0.10'"

0.10*"

5.00'

0.20'

0.20'

0.05'

0.10*

0.50' .

0.10°

2.50'

0.50*

1.00'"

0.10'

0.10'"

0.10'"

0.10'"

20.00'

2.00*

10.00*

5.00'"

0 10""

2.00'

84.000

28.000

5.300

3.400

2.800

2.800

2.500

2.267

1.780

1.460

1.100

1.100

1.100

0.920

0.800

0.750

0.600

0.530

0.520

0.500

0.440

0.420

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.300

0.300

0.215

0.205

0.200

0.100

0.100

0.090

;7;iRHli|ilii

57.424

19.141

3.623

2.324

1.914

1.914

1.709

1.550

1.217

0.998

0.752

0.752

0.752

0.629

0.547

0.513

0.410

0.362

0.355

0.342

0.301

0.287

0.273

0.273

0.273

0.205

0.205

0.147

0.140

0.137

0.068

0.068

0.062

::s:SlimiiiatiSS^)isi

57.42

76.57

80.19

82.51

84.43

86.34

88.05

89.60

90.82

91.81

92.S7

93.32

94.07

94.70

95.25

95.76

96.17

96.53

96.89

97.23

97.53

97.82

98.09

98.36

98.64

98.84

99.05

99.19

99.33

99.47

99.54

99.61

99.67

B.9



Index (RHI) for Air/Inhalation Exposure Route.. • : • : : • • : : • y . : • . • • • ; • . • : • • • " • • • • . • .

O<::*:Metal*; • ::

Dy

Eu

Y

Te

S

Rb

Gd

Zn

Mo

W

Be

Sn

Ta

Th

Na

Ti

Np

Tl

Nb

Li

Mg

La

Pu

Am

Sr

Tc

> GpncenttStiqn'i

0.008

0.005

0.050

0.040

0.200

0.060

0.003

0.130

0.200

0.074

0.020

0.011

0.008

0.160

6.000

0.400

0.030

0.140

0.003

0.043

0.650

0.800

0.016

0.020

0.160

0.080

'Standard^ ;

0.10''

0.10'"

1.00*

1.00'

5.00'

2.00'"

O.W

5.00'

10.00'

5.00'

2.00'-

2.00'

5.00'

__

._

._

„

. . .

_ .

i&rtio*

0.080

0.050

0.050

0.040

0.040

0.030

0.030

0.026

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.006

0.002

0.055

0.034

0.034

0.027

0.027

0.021

0.021

0.018

0.014

0.010

0.007

0.004

0.001

:ssi3urnulatit«^;;|

99.78

99.82

99.85

99.88

99.91

99.93

99.95

99.96

99.98

99.99

100.00

100.00

100.00

B.10



Index (RHI) for Air/Inhalation Exposure Route.

IlllliflffigSi

p

:::^SbnpehtrStitin*: ;^

5.800

0.540

:*;::#tmSjarab;t;:3i

Total 146.281 100.000

ippiaipgil!

100.00

"Based on TWRS Privatization Request for Proposal Table TS-8.1,(Maximum) High-LevelWaste Feed Composition Limits forNon-Volative Components.bBased on American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) or EPAstandard, from Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, M.Sittig, Noyes Pub., Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1985.'Assigned value which equals the median of EPA and ACGIH standards.dRatio = maximum inorganic concentration/standard.'Obtained by dividing each ratio by the sum of ratios.'Judgement-based on chemical similarity per ACGIH standard.

— = standard not available.

B.ll



B.12

DISTRIBUTION SHEETTo

Distribution

From

J . W. Shade

Project Title/Work Order

TWRS Phase I Privatization Environmental Baseline andCharacterization Plan

Name MSINText

With AllAttach.

Page 1 of 1

Date September 22,1997

EDT No. 622827

ECN No. N/A

Text Only Attach./Appendix

Only

EDT/ECNOnly

U.S. Department of EnergyRichland Operations OfficeT.R. Hoertkorn (2)N.R. Brown (2)W.A. RutherfordR.A. Gilbert (2)

DvnCorp Tri-Cities Services IncorporatedE.F. Yancey G3-07

Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryS.P. Reidel (3)B.A ReynoldsH.E. LerchenA.K. Yonk

Fluor Daniel HanfordF.A. Ruck III

Fluor Daniel NorthwestW.E. ToebeD.L. Fort (2)

Numatec Hanford CompanyA.F. ChohoJ.N. AlibertR.J. Parazin (2)J.W. Shade (10)

Lockheed Martin Hanford CorporationW.T. ThompsonP.C. MillerR.W. PowellB. Root

Waste Hqmt. Federal Services, NW OpsR.M. MitchellJ.J. Dorian

Central Files (Original + 1)

B4-55K6-51A2-45K6-51

XXXX

K6-81P7-19K6-51K7-98

XXXX

H6-23

H6-22G3-12

H6-35S2-48H5-49H5-27

G3-21Rl-51H5-03H6-12

Hl-13Hl-13

A3-88

A-6000-135 (01/93) UEF067

ENGINEERING DATA TRANSMITTAL 622827

Documents

Transcript of ENGINEERING DATA TRANSMITTAL 622827