Proceedings Of The Fifth DOE Environmental Protection ... · session2: risk assessment and...
363
CONP-841187—Vol. 2 DE85 018026 Proceedings Of The Fifth DOE Environmental Protection Information Meeting Held At Albuquerque, New Mexico November 6-8, 1984 Published: April 1985 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United Statts Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary For Policy, Safety, and Environment Office of Operational Safety Washington, D.C. 20545 under Contract No: DE-AC06-76RLO-1830 S acaroi :r in;;
Transcript of Proceedings Of The Fifth DOE Environmental Protection ... · session2: risk assessment and...
CONP-841187—Vol. 2
DE85 018026
Proceedings Of TheFifth DOE Environmental Protection
Information Meeting
Held AtAlbuquerque, New Mexico
November 6-8, 1984
Published: April 1985
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United StatesGovernment. Neither the United Statts Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of theiremployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, orprocess disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The viewsand opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of theUnited States Government or any agency thereof.
Prepared for:U.S. Department of Energy
Assistant Secretary For Policy, Safety, and EnvironmentOffice of Operational Safety
Washington, D.C. 20545
under Contract No: DE-AC06-76RLO-1830
S acaroi:r in;;
Volume 2
5th DOE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONINFORMATION MEETING
November 6-8,1984Clarion Four SeasonsAlbuquerque, NM
GENERAL CHAIRMAN
D. E. Patterson
CO-CHAIRMAN
T. G. Frangos
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
C. G. Wehy, Jr.D. R. ElleCLSodenS.S.StWS. R. Wright
CFrey
ARRANGEMENTS
J. P. Coriey
W. E. Kennedy, Jr.
M. P. Richards
K. R* Hanson
Director, Office of Operational Safety
Director, Environmental Protection Division
Chairman, Environmental Protection DivisionRichland Operations OffkeAlbuquerque Operations OfficeOak Ridge Operations OfficeSavannah River Operations OfficeWestern Area Power Administration
Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Meeting Coordinator
Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Assistant Coordinator
Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Registration
Pacific Northwest LaboratoryPublications
i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
FOREWORD v
SESSION 1: OPENINC(D. E. Patterson, Chairman)1A: OPENING ADDRESS 1
R. E. Tiller
IB: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES . . . . 9A. Hirsch
1C: DOE LEGAL OBLIGATION'S AND CONSTRAINTS IN REGULATORY COMPLIANCEH. K. Garson
(Transcript not available)
ID: OOS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MISSIONS AND OBJECTIVES(T. G. Frangos)
(Transcript not available)
SESSION2: RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(C. G. Welty, Chairman)
2A: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT 23W. D. Rowe
2B: A RANKING SYSTEM FOR MIXED RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUSWASTE SITES 33
K. A. Hawley and B. A. Napier
2C: DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR PRIORITIZINGHAZARDOUS AND RADIOACTIVE-MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL SITES . . . 45
G. Whelan and B. L. Steelman
2D: SOME PROBLEMS OF RISK BALANCING FOR REGULATING ENVIRONMENTALHAZARDS 59
T. L. Gilbert
SESSION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PROGRAMS(T. G. Frangos, Chairman}
3A: AN EPA PERSPECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING . . . . 77L. Fieckenstein
3B: ANL ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PROGRAM 87T. Surles
(Abstract only)
Note:Except where indicated by underline, the paper was presented by thefirst author named.
3C: ALLIED CORPORATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 89R. L. Rhodes
3D; EFFECTIVF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING ON A 200,000 ACRE PLANT SITE . 101R. W. Heckrotte
DISCUSSION: ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
SESSION 4; REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS(T. Needels, Office"!)? Operational Safety and A. J. Whitman,Office of Terminal Waste Disposal and Remedial Action, Co-Chaifmen)
4A: RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR THE FORMERLY UTILIZEDSITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM AND REMOTE SURPLUS FACILITIESMANAGEMENT PROGRAM . 109
T. L. Gilbert
4B: REVIEW OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES PERTINENT TO DOE'S REMEDIALACTION PROGRAMS 119
J. K. Soldat and D. H. Derham
4C: ALLOWABLE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION LEVELS FOR DECOMMISSIONING . 143B. A. Nap.er and W. E. Kennedy, Jr.
4D: SITE CLEANUP LESSONS LEARNED: FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIALACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) MIDDLESEX SITE 163
P. E. Neal
4Ei ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES FOR LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF URANIUMORE RESIDUES AND CONTAMINATED SOILS LOCATED AT DOE'S NIAGARAFALLS STORAGE SITE 197
P. Merry-Libby
4F: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE UMTRA PROJECT . . . . 207H. R. Meyer, D. Skinner, J. Coffman, and W. J. Arthur
4G: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS AT FOURFORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) SITES . 221
A. J. Kuhaida, Jr., J. M. Leidle, S. D. Leidle, andP. R. Cotten
4H: OUTDOOR RADON MONITORING AT DOE REMEDIAL ACTION SITES . . . 231C. R. Rudy
41: DECLINE OF AIRBORNE PLUTONIUM FOLLOWING DECOMMISSIONING OF ALIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL DITCH IN THE HANFORD SITE 200 AREA . . 247
R. E. Elder
4J: DECOMMISSIONING OF THE CMP PITS 255R. G. Beckwith
4K: PREVENTION OF BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THEHANFORD 200 AREAS 289
Ae W. Conklin, R. E. Wheeler, R. E. Elder, and W. L. Osborne
vi
4L: REMOVAL OF PCB FROM OILS AND SOILS 299C. W. Hancher, J. M. Napier, and F. E. Kosinski
SESSION 5: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING(S. P. Mathur, Office of Operational Safety, Chairman)
5A: EVALUATION OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS ON DOE QUALITY ASSESSMENTPROGRAM SAMPLES . 3 0 7
R. E. Jaquish, R. R. Kinnison, S. P. Mathur, and R. Sastry
5B: APPLICATION OF 5700.6B, "QUALITY ASSURANCE," TO ES4H PROGRAMS:MOUND APPROACH AND RESULTS 321
D. A. Edling
5C: DOE'S ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR REMEDIAL ACTION (APRA) . . . 335D. H. Denham, R. D. Stenner, C. G. Weity, Jr., and T. S. Needels
5D: USE OF A SIMPLIFIED PATHWAYS MODEL TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTALSURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AT THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLEXOF THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (INEL) . . . 341
M. J. Case end S. K. Rope
5E: ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT CALCULATIONS VERSUS MEASURED TRITIUMCONCENTRATIONS 353
R. P. Miltenberger, J. L. Tichler, L. E. Day, and J. P. Steimers
5F: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE GREAT PLAINS COALGASIFICATION FACILITY 389
T. Joseph
VOLUME II
SESSION 6: WASTE MANAGEMENT(V. J. DeCarlo, Office of Operational Safety, Chairman)6A: STRATEGY TO COMPLIANCE: THE Y-12 PLANT EXPERIENCE . . . 405
D. J. Elliott
6B: (No presentation)
6C: SALTSTONE: CEMENT-BASED WASTE FORM FOR DISPOSAL OF SAVANNAH RIVERPLANT LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE SALT WASTE 419
C. A. Langton
60: IN-SITU DENITRIFICATION OF PONDS 437J. M. Napier and I. W. Jeter
6E: GREATER CONFINEMENT DISPOSAL PROGRAM AT THESAVANNAH RIVER PLANT 441
0. A. Towler, J. R. Cook, D. L. Peterson, and J. A. Reddick
LUNCHEON ADDRESS 455Jan W. Mares
SESSION 7: GROUND MATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT(M. Almeter, Office of Security and Quality Assessment andR. P. Whitfield, Savannah River Operations Office, Co-Chairmen)
7A: ORGANICS CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER - AN OP£N LITERATUREREVIEW 467
B. L. Steelman and R. M. Ecker
7B: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE GROUND MATERPROTECTION PROGRAM AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . . . . 481
D. E. Gordon
7C: GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CONTROL 505J. L. Steele
7D: GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND STUDIES AT OAK RIDGE . . . . 529N. H. Cutshall, T. W. Oakes, P. M. Pritz, and J. Stone(Abstract only)
7E: (No presentation)
7F: INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL AT SANDIANATIONAL LABORATORIES ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO . . . . 531
B. M. Thomson and G. J. Smith
7G: INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENT AT THE IDAHONATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENTCOMPLEX 541
B, F. Russell, S. A. Mizell, L. C. Hull, T. H. Smith,B. D. Lewis, J. T, Barraclough, and T. G. Humphrey
7H: A STATISTICAL/MODELING APPROACH TO GROUND WATER MONITORING ATBRQOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY 555
M. G. Hauptmann, A. F. Meinhoid, N. Oden E. Kaplan, andJ. R. Naidu
DISCUSSION: PRIORITIZING REMEDIAL ACTION AT DOE HAZARDOUS ANDMIXED WASTE SITES(V. J. DeCarlo)
SESSION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT(L. Whitaker, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Uranium Enrichmentand Assessment, and B. J. Davis, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Co-Chairmen)
8A: COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED, REMOTE SENSING AT DOE SITES . . 573G. G. Lackey and Z. G. Burson
8B: AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SURVEY SAVANNAH RIVER PLANTOPERATIONS 581
0. E. Jobst and P. K. Boyns
8C: MULTISPECTRAL REMOTE SENSING AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . . 597D. L. Hawley, J. E. Shines, and L. R. Tinney
vm
8D: REMOTE SENSING OF WETLANDS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . . 607E. J. Christensen, J. R. Jensen, and R. R. Shartiz
8E: STATUS OF THE GRAPHIC OVERVIEW SYSTEM IN RELATION TODEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FACILITIES 621
H. A. Berry
8F: A MOBILE LABORATORY FOR NEAR REAL-TIME MEASUREMENTS OF VERYLOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVITY 629
R. A. Sigg
8G: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY'S ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ANDRADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND THE COBALT-60 INCIDENT . . 637
D. M. Van Etten, A. J. Ahiquist, and W. R. Hansen
8H: CONTINUOUS VENT SAMPLER FOR MONITORING RADIONUCLIDEEMISSIONS 643
M. J. Orlett
81: AMBIENT KRYPTON-85 AIR SAMPLING AT HANFORD 655M. S. Trevathan and K. R. Price
8J: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM INTERACTION BETWEENTHE WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND NEW YORKSTATE AGENCIES 663
E. D. Picazo, J. P. Englert, T. G. Adams, and D. P. Wilcox
8K: (No presentation)
8L: FERMILAB SOIL ACTIVATION EXPERIENCE 673S. I. Baker
8M: PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN LOCAL SOIL AT AGS FASTNEUTRINO BEAM 685
P. Go!Ion, M. G. Hauptmann, K. Mclntyre,R. Miltenberger, and J. Naidu
SESSION 9; STANDARDS» REGULATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE I(T. D. Pflaum, Office of Director of Military Application, andA. R. Morrell, Bonneville Power Administration, Co-Chairmen)
9A: CURRENT PRACTICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCEAT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR FACILITIES 701
K. A. Hawley, D. K. Washburn and R. E. Jaquish
9B: REVIEW OF THE ICRP DOCUMENT "PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING FOR THERADIATION PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION" 715
C. B. Meinhold and R. P. Miltenberger(Abstract only)
PANEL DISCUSSION: NEW DOE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION CRITERIAC. G. Welty, Moderator, J. P. Corley, J. W. Healy, and C. B. Meinhold
9C: THE NPDES PROGRAM AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . . . . 717M. W. Lewis
9D: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER
R. R. Fleming
9E: AGENCY INTERACTION AT SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT UNDER THE ENDANGEREDSPECIES ACT 737
H. E. Mackey, Jr.9F: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY COMPLIANCE WITH CULTURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION 747C. E. Olinger and K. H. Rea
9G: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEFENSEWASTE PROCESSING FACILITY AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT . . . 753
F. W. Boone
9H: A GUIDE TO RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITING ANDDESIGN OF DOE NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES 771
J. C. Elder and J. M. Graf
SESSION 10: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE II(T. G. Frangos, Chairman)
SPECIAL PRESENTATION: NEGOTIATING WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES . . 783(J. A. S. McGlennon)
LIST OF ATTENDEES 787
SESSION 6:
WASTE MANAGEMENT(V. J. DeCarlo, Office of Operational Safety, Chairman)
6A: STRATEGY TO COMPLIANCE THE Y-12 PLANT EXPERIENCE
Darren J. ElliottMartin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Y-12 PlantOak Ridge, Tennessee
ABSTRACTThe purpose of this presentation is to provide to other DOE
facility environmental managers a perspective and reconmendationsfor conducting the crucial initial phases of investigation,discovery, and negotiation in the regulatory process.
Very few aspects of the Y-12 Plant operations were unaffectedby the February 23, 1983, ccnpliance inspection by theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tennessee Departmentof Health and Environment (TDHE). So significant were thedeficiencies that they resulted in three binding documentsbetween the DOB, EPA, and TDHE requiring investigations andjnitigative actions necessary to protect the waters of the State ofTennessee. An immediate first step was a program to eliminatedirect discharge of environmentally unacceptable aqueous wastes tothe receiving surface streams in the Y-12 Plant area. Impacted bythis program were the following facilities?
Two Oil Seep Collection Ponds
One Sanitary Landfill Leachate/Surface Runoff CollectionPond
Over 240 Outfall Pipes to Receiving Streams
Over 150 Major Process Waste Discharges
Seven Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Thirty-three Non-contact Cooling Towers
Hazardous (Reactive) Haste Disposal Quarry
Steam Plant Fly Ash Disposal Quarry
Essentially all aqueous wastes disposed of from the Y-12Plant were not in compliance with the provisions of the CleanWater Act, as amended, requiring application of Best AvailableTechnology (BAT) treatment. In addition, these untreateddischarges were the cause of continuous violations of TennesseeStream Water Quality Criteria. Major categories of pollutants indischarges at unacceptable levels include suspended and dissolvedsolids, nitrates, toxic metals, oils, halogenated solvents, and pHlevel.
Several hundred man-years of planning, design, andconstruction activities have been devoted to the strategy toachieve compliance. An integrated network of wastewatercollection, storage, transportation, treatment, and monitoringfacilities is being superimposed on a 40-year-old plant. Onecomprehensive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit will regulate all discharges and treatmentfacilities.
This saga is likely to be reenacted at many other DOEfacilities across the country. We believe an understanding andawareness of the y-12 Plant experience offers these facilities'managers the chance to identify opportunities and pitfalls intheir own actions and regulatory relations.
405
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of this paper is to enable other DOEfacilities1 environmental managers to share the benefits from the Y-12 Plantexperience in the environmental regulatory process.
The paper will be organized in two parts. Part I will describe theregulatory process and cover what we believe to be the keys to success inthis interaction. Part II will retrace by individual media (water, solid,air) those actions which we have learned are particularly critical tospecific phases of the regulatory process.
PART I: THE REGULATORY PROCESS (Y-12 PLANT SITE)
Overview
The Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant has five primary responsibilities:
1. production of nuclear weapons components;
2. fabrication in support of the Department of Energy's (DOE) weapondesign agencies;
3. support for other Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,installations (several major Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)programs are physically located at the Y-12 site);
4. support and assistance to other governmental agencies; and
5. processing of source and Special Nuclear Materials.
Major activities at Y-12 include chemical processing of lithium anduranium compounds; precision fabrication of components from lithium,uranium, and many other materials; the assembly of these components intomajor subassemblies for nuclear weapons; and the disassembly of componentsreturned from the stockpile. As a result, the plant has numerous, complexwaste and effluent streams.
The Y-12 Plant site consists of an inner industrial complex coveringabout 600 acres surrounded by a buffer area of approximately 4,260 acres.The plant facilties comprise 233 principal buildings, including largemachine shops, chemical processng buildings, laboratories, maintenancebuildings, changehouses, and numerous plant support facilities. Themajority of these facilities date from the late 1940s and early 1950s. Overthe years, most of them have been remodeled and reworked numerous times inresponse to changing plant programs and requirements.
406
On February 23.- 1983, the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment(TDHE) conducted an inspection of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to evaluate compliance with State of Tennesseeregulations on water quality and solid waste disposal. This inspection notedvaried and significant acts of noncompliance throughout the Y-12 Plantoperations. Eventually, following many meetings between legal and managementpersonnel from all parties, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed byDOE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and TDHE. This MOU could becompared to the Kickoff of the Regulatory Game.
Before going into the details of the phases of the Y-12 Plantregulatory history, please refer to Figure 1, Roads to Compliance. Thisdiagram illustrates two routes to developing the plans and projects whichrequired to bring the plant into compliance with several sets ofregulations involving environment, radiation safety, and security. Thefirst route begins with confrontation and ends in cooperation. The secondbegins and ends in cooperation.
Hindsight is alivays perfect, and we must recognize that several majorforces drove the Y-12 Plant to take the former course. This paper will try toidentify the tools necessary to enable other facilities' management to make aninfcHrsed choice over which route they will take. I believe and intend topersuade those with a choice that the second course offers, on balance, bothintangible and cost-effective advantages.
DOE Orders Self Regulated
The process began with a series of DOE Orders, which direct the conductof its facilities. Especially relevant to the environmental regulatoryprocess are those DOE Orders on environmental protection, radioactive wastemanagement and the security aspects of public disclosure of environmentaldata. At the Y-12 Plant, this led to interpretations of exemption fromregulation by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) andregulation by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) onlyat the plant boundaries. Somewhat at the same time of the regulatoryagencies' compliance inspection, a newspaper reporter filed a Freedom ofInformation Act Request for a classified DOE report detailing unaccountedlosses of 2.4 million pounds of mercury from the Y-12 Plant. The simultaneousdeclassification and disclosure of the mercury information and the publicresponse to the results of the compliance inspection at the plant boundaryprovided more than sufficient reason for TDHE and EPA to become deeplyinvolved in the details of the heretofore self-regulated environmentalmanagement activities inside the plant fence.
407
ROADS TO COMPLIANCE
DOE ORDERSSELF-REGULATED
COOPERATION
I
DIALOG WITHREGULATORS
INVESTIGATION - * DISCOVERY LEGAL[ACTION
CONFRONTATION
IOVERREACT
TO THECONSERVATIVE
REASSESSMENfl-aJREEVALUATION
JNEGOTIATEBACK TO THEMIDDLE
COOPERATION
1SELF-REGULATED
PROPOSALS
REGULATORYCOMPLIANCE
Figure 1. Roads To Compliance
408
Positioning
This phase is so named because all three parties, EPA, TDHE, and DOE (andits contractor), expended great efforts in self inspection and appraisal.Each party reviewing exactly what authorities did with various Federal andState laws and regulations empowered them to act. In the Y-12 Plantsituation, each party discovered its position had strengths and weaknesses.No party stood faultless in the public's perception of how well it hadprotected the health of the environment.
Action
The initial product of the positioning phase was the creation of themutually agreed upon MOO by May 26, 1983. However, this agreement was quicklycharacterized as a "Gentlemens' Handshake," without the power of law. TheState of Tennessee believed it owed its citizens more than that. TOHE neededa vehicle containing not only the commitments of DOE, but the power ofenforcement as well to take action in the event of significant nonperformance.This vehicle was two TDHE Commissioner's Complaint and Orders (C&O) on theEast Fork Poplar Creek Watershed on September 15, 1983, and Bear CreekWatershed on December i, 1983.
Neither the MDU or C&Os resolved the issue of DOE's contention that theY-12 Plant was exempt from regulation under RCRA. On Septembe 20, 1983, theNational Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), Legal EnvironmentalAssistance Foundation, Inc. (LEAF), and the State of Tennessee brought suitagainst DOE in Federal Court. The findings of the case were that DOE is underthe regulatory jurisdiction of RCRA, including the RCRA exemption of source,special nuclear, and byproduct materials covered by of the Atomic Energy Act.The courts, however, found DOE with regard to the Clean Water Act to be incompliance with NPDES requirements. It was EPA who must pursue additionallyregulatory authority under the auspices of the new NPDES Permit.
Reassessment and Rg—evaluation
Following resolution of the legal issues, the next phase was reassessmenton nearly all environmental issues and an intense re-evaluation of liquid,solid, and gaseous effluents and their controls (or lack thereof). Many ofthese activities were fulfilling requirements of the C&Os, however, now theywere being conducted with thoroughness and technical quality far beyond theminimum requirements of the Order. In many cases the Y-12 Plant facilities orprocedures met the substantive requirements of RCRA. In others, the factsverified what the TDHE considered to be seriously objectionable practices.
409
Negotiations and Self-Regulated roposals
•Hie initial philosophy in many of our submittals to and discussions withthe TDHE and EPA reflected an over-reaction to be so accurate in our that anyerrors in judgment would be made to the conservative. Specific examples ofthis type of reaction were the inclusion of nearly all waste collection andtreatment facilities as RCRA Treatment Storage or Disposal (TSD) facilitieswithout complete knowledge of influent wastes. Another example wascommitments to eliminate certain relatively innocuous industrial processwastes from discharging into East Fork Poplar Creek. Both examples wentconsiderably beyond the regulatory requirements and were subsequentlycorrected.
Subsequent to many of these official submittals, environmental managementpersonnel discovered that, in the zeal to be right, we had penalized the Y-12Plant by not using available regulatory options intended for such situations.This more reasonable "middle of the road" approach to environmental managementis that taken by large corporate industrial installations whose conduct isrespected by local, State, and Federal regulatory personnel. To achieve thismore reasonable position, it was often necessary to negotiate back to themiddle because of commitments or misleading information given in our earlierultra conservative submittals.
Self Regulate^
The process has now evolved from a spirit of confrontation to acooperative phase, where issues are discussed and resolved in advance ofsubmittals. In many instances where radiation or security protection measuresconflict with standard environmental practice, the regulators are receptive toour proposals to integrate their concerns for surveillance and maintenance ofenvironmental quality with our needs and concerns in these other areas.
Ironically, this is where the process began with DOE Orders that wereintended to create self regulation in concert with environmental, radiation,and security protection objectives.
KEYS TO
In retrospect, what are the essential elements to conduct the processtotally in cooperation? What are the keys to success in navigating the moredirect route to compliance? The following elements are vital to a facility inconducting the environmental regulatory process.
Top Management Support
Commitment to Action
Internal Support
DOE Support
Security and Classification Support
Availability of Data
410
Top Management Support
Top management support comes fran the plant manager and his first linemanagers (Division Managers at Y-12 Plant)* This level of management oftenlooks first toward actions emphasizing production, quality, and cost control.Environmental management must provide top management the tools which willeducate and guide them in their planning and implementation of environmentalimprovement actions. Only with this knowledge can they be an effective memberof the team.
They must explicitly acknowledge the various environmental programs. Thissupport must be highly visible through their actions and directives withintheir organizations. They must instill a commitment to getting the job doneright. This right in the sense of cooperating with data collection effortsand in conducting waste management activities in their areas. Top managementneeds tools which will educate and guide them in their planning andimplementation of environmental improvement actions. Only with thisknowledge, can they be an effective member of the team.
Commitment to Action
The public and regulatory personnel must believe and be able to seeyour demonstrated carmitment to action. It can be conveyed in several ways.
1. Direct involvement of top contractor and DOE managers tocommunicate their interest and concerns to top managerswithin state and regional EPA environmental regulatoryorganizations.
2. While new facilities are being designed or situations studied,propose and quickly implement effective and meaningfulinterim control mitigating actions.
3. Nothing is as convincing as construction of new environmental controlmeasures, such as wastewater treatment plants, air pollution controldevices, new solid waste treatment, and disposal facilities. In lieuof new construction, catalog and detail all existing waste treatmentpractices to demonstrate what environmental control measures that arecurrently in place.
4. For every point of contention, propose an alternateinterpretation, method of resolution, and schedule foraccomplishment.
5. All proposals must include aggressive implementationschedules and clearly specify deliverables.
6. Only request for delays in compliance schedules based onverifyable facts and propose actions to recoup some of thelost time.
Internal •?rE|POrt
Internal support is in addition to that specified as Top ManagementSupport. It is brought about through education and must result in aplant-wide respect for and commitment to the goals of environmentalcompliance. Everyone needs to have "religion" when it comes to compliancewith difficult standards.
411
One last key interned resource is the selection of technical consultants(subcontractors). Find out who has the respect of your State environmentaland regional EPA officials for their technical capabilities in the particulararea of concern. Properly selected, these consultants can provideobjectivity, knowledge of other related developments in your region, andindependent credibility to your environmental management proposals.
DOE Support
All the studies, designs, and construction programs are only possible tothe extent your DOE operations office can secure funding. Many people fromDOE, the sponsor organizations, congress, and the Government Accounting Office;(GAO), must be provided with answers to the questions resulting from fundingrequests. The environmental management personnel must know and understand thesubtitles of the laws and regulations which mandate changes in operations oradditional facilities. Be prepared to know what will satisfy the absoluteminimum regulatory requirements, as well as the project requirements for thetechnically "right" solutions. All DOE requests for information should bepromptly answered. Fulfilling their information demands helps them supportyour program's technical and fiscal needs.
Security and
The goal of environmental regulatory personnel is total open disclosureof all data related to environmental compliance. Unfortunately, this is indirect conflict of security and classification objectives. Looking backover the Y-12 Plant experiences in this area, the following actions can helpserve to objectives of environmental and security protection.
1. A classification guidance document must be prepared that dealsexclusively with assigning levels of classification sensitivity ofvarious environmental data.
2. Security Clearances for appropriate state and EPA regulatorypersonnel with a "need to know."
3. Develop a procedure for classified/unclassified environmentaldata submittals. The unclassified subraittal transmits alldata except that which is classified as "restricted data."The classified version of the document contains all data andis available for inspection at the plant or DOE office byenvironmental regulatory personnel with the appropriate levelsecurity clearance.
4. Develop capabilities with outside contractors and securityplan to permit secure laboratories and management andanalytical technicians with appropriate level of securityclearance perform independent analyses of environmentalsamples, such as including gaseous liquid and solids.
412
Avai ~]ability of Data
This element may seem to be self-evident, however, in most instances youwill find that the best of data bases are inadequate or are flawed byanalytical deficiencies when measured by compliance data requirements. Manyrequests for waste analyses or inventories of waste disposals cannot beanswered because the environmental permits or DOE Orders in effect at thautime did not require the data to be taken or frchived. Whatever records afacility has should be duplicated and maintained. It would also be wise toconsider organizing that information into useful data bases while there is noregulatory fire burning which demands that data in order to extinguish it.
L PROGRAMS* PirFAIJ^v AtP
Water Pollution Control
The Y-12 Plant NEVES Permit will regulate the following discharges:
160 Non-process Outfalls to EPPC
84 Process Haste-Contaminated Outfalls
16 Permitted Direct Discharge Industrial Process Waste
33 Non-contact Cooling Towers
7 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
2 Burial Ground Oil Seep Collection Ponds
1 Sanitary Landfill Leachate/Surface Runoff Collection Pond
1 Fly Ash Disposal Quarry
1 Hazardous (Reactive) Waste Disposal Quarry
The main receiving body of water is the east fork of Poplar Creek (EFFC).Because the Y-12 Plant is the headwater area of EFPC, all our dischargeparameters were water quality limited. These numerical water quality limitsare often orders of magnitude below both treatment technology and analyticaldetection limits. The initial NPDES draft permit contained limits which wouldhave assured continuous non-compliance for the duration of the permitregardless of treatment technology. In order to avoid this unacceptableoutcome, DOE, EPA, and TDHE developed an alternative which will protect andmaintain the classified (designated) stream uses of EFPC and has effluentlimits which are achievable. These uses are (1) fish and aquatic life, (2)livestock and wildlife watering, (3) irrigation, and (4) recreation. Thisalternate approach was made possible through the commitment to the followingadditional requirements.
Biological Monitoring
Toxic Control and Monitoring
Radiological and PCB Monitoring
Best Management Practices
413
Three months after the effective date of the permit, a BiologicalMonitoring Plan and Abatement Program (BIOMP) must be developed. Uponapproval by the EPA, this program will be implemented to monitor biologicalcommunities1 diversity and population in EFPC. Die permit may be modified,revoked, or reissued depending on the outcome of this monitoring. Includedare classical stream assaying techniques, instream acute and chronic toxicitytests and environmental system analyses which look for changes in majorbiological processes such as photosynthesis or reproduction.
A second special condition addressed in the NPDES permit is thedevelopment of a Toxicity Control and Monitoring Program (TCMP). This programwill evaluate the toxicity of specific wastewater stream discharges on aquaticlife. The TCMP is a multi-staged program that requires flexibility in ourimplementation because each successive stage is based on evaluation ofprevious results.
The third special condition addressed in the permit is a requirement forradiological and PCB monitoring proposals. The Y-12 Plant must proposemonitoring techniques and frequencies within three months of the effectivedate of the permit.
Best Management Practices (BMP) include, but are not limited to, theoperation and maintenance of all facilities in accordance with good standardpractices and engineering judgment. The BMP plan and its implementation areauditable under the NPDES permit. The NPDES permit requires that Y-12develop a BMP for cooling water, condensate, precipitation runoff, anduntreated waste streams. An integral part of the BMP implementation is theconstruction of NPDES monitoring stations throughout the Y-12 storm sewernetwork.
In retrospect, several activities which have been recently completelyor are now in process would have been extremely useful at the start of ourinvolvement in the regulatory process.
1. Identification and location of "discharges" regulated by NPDESregulations including characterization of flow and contaminantconcentrations. Beware of EPA or State protocols for samplecollection, preservation, chain of custody and analyticalprotocols.
2. Identification and characterization of all process wastestreams being discharged to treatment facilities or receivingwaters. Included are flow and concentration of pollutants.Again, pay attention to protocols.
3. Bioassay of any waste stream believed to be "innocuous."
4. Verification and location of storm, process, and sanitary sewersystems. "As built" drawings are usually years out of date.
414
5. Determination of which process waste streams are "listed" hazardouswastes or characteristically hazardous wastes.
Solid Waste Disposal
Following an extensive self-appraisal of all solid waste disposalactivities, the Y-12 Plant submitted a RCRA "Part A" application that included31 Teatment/Storage/Disposal (TSD) facilities. Hie submittal of allfacilities in the "Part B" application must be made by September 31, 1985. Inorder to get in compliance with RCRA, the Y-12 Plant is constructing 5projects for RCRA waste management and 15 projects for radioactivelycontaminated RCRA waste management. In addition, a plant-wide review ofgroundwater monitoring at all facilities is being conducted and will includethe installation and design of all new wells necessary for RCRA compliancemonitoring.
Again in retrospect, the following activities would have been extremelyuseful if completed before the detailed regulatory review process begins.
1. Detailed inventories by disposal site of all waste disposalsincluding quantities and characteristics. Pay particular attentionto any materials which are considered toxic or RCRA listedhazardous or characteristically hazardous wastes.
2. Develop understanding of sampling and analytical protocolsused in solid waste analysis when testing for characteristicsof a hazardous waste or listed hazardous waste if theanalytical results will ever be used in a "delisting petition."
3. Review sources of generation of sanitary waste low-levelradioactive waste (LLRW), hazardous and hazardous-radioactivelycontaminated to identify possible cross contamination locations.
Rie higher disposal costs of LLRW and even greater disposalcosts of hazardous or mixed-hazardous offer an incentive forsegregation and material substitution.
Air Pollution Control
Recently the Y-12 Plant transmitted to DOE for submitted to TDHE airpollution control emissions permit applications on over 350 existing sources.This is in addition to the nearly 100 previously permitted sources. Knowyour state or federal definition of an air pollution emission source, andwhat type of modification or new construction requires air pollution controlpermit application. For example, in Tennessee, only the emission of watervapor, nitrogen^carbon dioxide, ambient air, and inert gases are notregulated. Any new construction or modification which results in anemission or increase in a previously permitted emission of any thing butthose listed gases above..
Things to which you must pay particular attention in air pollutioncontrol include the following topics:
1. Be familiar with Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) regulations.
2. Be familiar with emissions offset policy (EOP) regulationsthat are applicable to your situation.
3. For existing installations pre-dating either the dean AirAct 1972 or Executive Order 12088 October 13, 1978, develop anemissions ledger that records emissions reductions, sourceshutdown, future new sources to enable avoidance of PSDdesignation for any project. If the ledger shows futureproject emissions, it can trigger actions to developemissions reductions or planning for other necessary sourceshutdowns again to avoid a PSD review of your entire facility.
As the Y-12 Plant responded to various requests or demands of legalorders, we often over reacted to the individual law in question such asClean Water Act and failed to take into full account our actions orcommitments or other regulations such as FCRA. It would be a fair requirementthat all environmental management submittals be reviewed from theperspective of all regulations including that for which the response wassubmitted. There are many interactions between the following regulationsand laws when they are applied to a major industrial complex.
dean Air Act
dean Water Act (NPDES)
Resource Conservation and Recovery (RGRA)
Comprehensive Environmental Response andCompensation Liability Act (CERCLA)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At the Y-12 Plant site, the knowledge of these laws and regulations isconcentrated in too few people. This can lead to the words of advice andguidance of the few people being applied to the problems by many people who dp.not understand or comprehend all the applicable regulations and their subtleinteractions. If this is the case at your facility, there is only onesolution. Qualified personnel trained in environmental regulations must bebrought and indoctrinated to your facility. You must allow these personneltime to become oriented to the complexities of your facility. At many of theDOE facilities, this could take as long as a year. Do not wait for a crisisto develop to hire or train environmental management personnel. When theprocess starts is when you will need them, not a year later.
416
CONCLUSION
The objective of this paper is to provide DOE Facilities'managers the benefit of a hindsight view of the environmentalregulatory process at the DOE Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.With this perspective, we have tried to identify those keys tosuccess which can make the process work more smoothly. We havealso pointed out some opportunities and pitfalls, that onlyplanning and foresight will allow you to take advantage of oravoid.
The strategy to compliance there is well in place,but nowhere near complete. There are signs of new construct!on,newoperating procedures, and a new philosophy all over the Y-12Plant, evidence of commitments to environmental compliance.We believe DOE and its contractors must share with their stateand Federal environmental regulators, their problems and plansto achieve compliance. Compliance with DOE Orders written toprotect the environment, radiation safety and national security,as well as compliance with state and Federal laws and regulations.
The effective road to compliance only requires you to dotwo things before you begin a dialog with the regulators. First,you must learn to understand and apply your state and Federal \regulations as well as the regulators, or hire people who can. yThis will prepare you for the second task, which is an honestappraisal of the compliance status of all phases of your facil-ities' operations with applicable regulations. With these prepar-ations you and your counterparts in the regulatory agencies canwork together to find the mutually acceptable,-shortest, most cost-effective route to compliance with the orders, regulations andlaws which you both must obey.
417
6C: SALTSTONE: CEMENT-BASED WASTE FORM FORDISPOSAL OF SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE SALT WASTE
Christine A. LangtonE. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, South Carolina 29808
ABSTRACT
Defense waste processinq at the Savannah River Plant will in-clude decontamination and disposal of approximately 400 millionliters of waste containing NaN03, NaOH, Na2S04, and NaN02« After de-cortamination, the salt solution is classified as low-level waste.
A cement-based waste form, "saltstone," has been designed fordisposal of Savannah River Plant low-level radioactive salt waste.Bulk properties of this material have been tailored with respect tosalt leach rate, permeability, and compressive strength. Microstruc-ture and mineralogy of leached and unleached specimens were charac-terized by SEM and x-ray diffraction analyses.
The disposal system for the DWPF salt waste includes reconstitu-tion of the crystallized salt as a solution containinq 32 wt %
lids. This solution will be decontaminated to remove *37QS a mjSr and then stabilized in a cement-based waste form. Laboratory
and field tests indicate that this stabilization process greatlyreduces the mobility of all of the waste constitutents in the surfaceand near-surface environment.
Engineered trenches for subsurface burial of the saltstone havebeen designed to ensure compatibility between the waste form and theenvironment. The total disposal system, saltstone-trench- surround-ing soil, has been designed to contain radionuclides, Cr, and Hg byboth physical encapsulation and chemical fixation mechanisms. Physi-cal encapsulation of the salts is the mechanism employed for control-ling N and OH releases. In this way, final disposal of the SRP low-level waste can be achieved and the quality of the groundwater at theperimeter of the disposal site meets EPA drinking, water standards.
419
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) at the Savannah River Plant(SRP) is scheduled to begin operation in 1989. Two types of waste will be pro-cessed: high-level defense waste (primarily Fe, Mn, and Al hydroxides) andlow-level waste (primarily sodium salts generated as spent industrial process-ing chemicals). A schematic of both operations is shown in Figure 1. Thehigh-level sludge waste will be vitrified at SRP prior to shipment to a federalgeologic repository. The processed salt waste will be buried in engineeredtrenches at SRP.
The disposal process for low-level waste, primarily NaN03, 2,NaAl(0H)4, Na2S04, and NaOH, involves reconstitution of the salts into aconcentrated solution (about 32 wt % solids), decontamination, solidificationin a cement-based waste form, and burial at SRP. The average bulk compositionof decontaminated, aged salt solution is shown in Table 1. The decontaminationprocess consists of cesium removal by precipitation of cesium tetraphenylborateand strontium removal by adsorption onto sodium titanate particles.Radionuclide concentrations in the average decontaminated solution are listedin Table 2. The total projected amount of reconstituted liquid waste whichwill be disposed of in this manner is about 400 million liters.
Pertinent Regulations
SRP is operated under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Energy.Therefore, all applicable DOE regulations must be met. These include DOE Order5820 (DOE, March 25, 1983) which establishes policies and guidelines for dis-posal of low-level radioactive waste and DOE Order 5480 (DOE, Dec 1982) whichpertains to hazardous and radioactive mixed waste. The latter order stipulatesthat DOE facilities will follow, to the extent practicable, regulations issuedby the EPA. Therefore, it is required that SRP preserve the quality of thegroundwater so that it will meet drinking water limits at the landfill boundary(EPA 40 CFR 141) (SCDHEC, March 31, 1980; and EPA, 1975). Likewise, althoughNRC 10 CFR 61 (NRC, Dec 30, 1982) does not apply to the defense waste generatedat SRP, the goal is to equal or exceed these requirements.
Waste Description
An estimate of the volume and of the amount of contaminants in SRP saltwaste is summarized in Table 3. The reconstituted, decontaminated salt solu-tion is a low-level radioactive waste containing about 190 nCi/g. The mostenvironmentally significant radionuclides account for about 61 nCi/g and arelisted in Table 3. Hazardous chemicals in this solution include: Cr (VI),present as chromate; a small amount of Hg, present as Hq (0 and II); and ben-zene which is formed by the decomposition of NaB(CgH5)4 (used to removeCs from the solution). Non-hazardous chemicals which must be controlled tomeet drinking water standards include: N present as NaN03 and NaNOg, andOH" present as NaOH. (The solution pH is 14.)
420
HIGH-LEVEL WASTE
GLASS MELTERBUILDING
REPOSITORY
LOW-LEVEL SALTWASTE
SALT
V137 Cs
SALT DECONTAMINATION J~|IN TANK FARM V
32 WT %SALT SOLUTION
CEMENT MIXING ANDGROUT TRANSFER
SALTSTONEMONOLITHS
ONSITE BURIAL
Figure 1« Schematic Diagram Illustrating SRP Defense WasteProcessing Facilities
421
TABLE 1. Average Chemical Composition ofDecontaminated, Aged Salt Solution8
DecontaminatedComponent Salt Solution wt %
H2O 68
NaN03 15.6
NaN02 3,9
NaOH 4.2
NaC03 1.7
NaAl(0H)4 3.6
Na2S04 1.9
NaF 0.06
NaCl 0.12
0.04
0.05
Na2C204 0,31
Na3P04 0.13
NaB(C6H5)4 0.06
Other Salts 0.20
a Adjusted to account for precip i tat ion andfiltration.
422
TABLE 2. Average RadionuclideDecontaminated, Aged
Radionuclide (half-life, yrs)
14C (5730)g0Co (5.27)59Ni (80,000)63Ni(100)79Se(approx. 8.5 x 104)90Sr (29)9 0Y (3.1 hr)3
99Tc (2.1 x 105)106Ru (1.0)106Rh (2.18 hr)a
125Sb (2.73)126Sn (approx. 105
125mTe (58 da)a126Sb (12.5 da)a
125mSb (19 min)
129i (i.7 x 107)137Cs (30.2)137mBa (2.5 min)a
147Pm (2.62)151Sm (93)154Eu (8.2)155Eu (4.76)
238Pu (87.7)239Pu (24,000)
All TRU elements
Composition ofSalt Solution
Supernate(aged 15 yrs)(nCi/g)
0.009
0.2
0.0002
0.02
0.3
0.7
0.7
7.4 x 101
4 x 101
4 x 101
9
0.2
0.2
0.02
0.2
0.14
2 x 101
2 x 101
4
2
1
0.3
0.05
0.0005
0.2
a Daughter of preceding isotope.423
Waste Disposal Systems
Selection of a disposal system for the decontaminated salt solution wasbased on an assessment of the waste inventory and a review of several disposaloptions which could potentially meet all state and federal requirements. Areview of these disposal alternatives has been presented elsewhere (Benjaminand McDonnel, 1983).
Methods considered for containment of the salt waste involved stabiliza-tion via a treatment process to reduce contaminant mobility. This can beaccomplished by one or a combination of techniques includinq; solidification toeliminate spills and airborne contamination, microencapsulation to reduceleaching, and chemical fixation. The two disposal options considered for theresulting waste form were emplacement in secured landfills (clay-lined - clay-capped trenches with leachate collection systems) and burial in engineeredtrenches without leachate collection.
The secured landfill option was rejected as a final means of salt dis-posal. Since sodium salts do not chemically degrade or decay, continual moni-toring for leachate would be necessary to ensure groundwater quality. Leachategenerated by this landfill scenario would also require disposal and would ulti-mately lead to repetitive treatment and burial of the salt waste.
Final disposal of stabilized waste in engineered trenches without leachatecollection systems was adopted after initial laboratory testing indicated thatthe various potential contaminants could be adequately contained in cement-based waste forms. This total system provides a mechanism for slow, controlledrelease of the salts which constitute most of the waste. In addition, migra-tion of the radionuclides and hazardous chemicals, Cr and Hg, into the ground-water is negligible due to retention in the waste form and immediately adjacentsoils.
Saltstone: SRP Cement-Based Waste Form
A cement-based waste form, saltstone, was chosen because both slurry pro-perties and final bulk properties of this material can be tailored to meet mix-ing, emplacement, contaminant stabilization, and durability requirements. In-addition, existing technology and commercially available equipment are suitablefor high-volume grout processing.
The current reference formulation is shown in Table 4. The preblendedcement and fly ash is mixed with decontaminated salt solution to form a grout.A discussion of the development of this formulation and physical properties ofthe slurry and cured product was presented by Langton in 1983 (Langton et al.,1983).
424
TABLE 3. Salt Waste Description
DWPF Salt Solution
Volume
Radioactive Isotopes1 3 7Cs, 99Tc, 90Sr
EPA Hazardous ChemicalsCrHgBenzene*
Non-Hazardous ChemicalsNaN03 - NaNO2
NaOH
Total Quantity
4 x 108 liters
3 x 104 Ci
36 metric tons3.2 kilograms127 metric tons
9 x 10 metric tons
1.8 x 10 metric tons
Concentration
32 wt %salts61 nCi/q
130 ppm0.011 ppm526 ppm
157,000 ppm
pH 14
* Assuming decomposition of sodium tetraphenylborate
TABLE 4. Saltstone Reference Formulation
Ingredient
Portland Cement(Class H)
Fly Ash (Class C)
Salt
Water
Wt %
12
48
13
27
60 wt %Cement
40 wt %Solution
425
Saltstone Microencapsulation Mechanism
Microencapsulation of the waste in saltstone is achieved as the result ofhydration reactions between the cement and water component of the solution. Asa result of these reactions, the waste is trapped in pore spaces and/or chemi-cally fixed as metal hydroxides. Cations such as Sr?+ substitute forCa 2 + in the hydration products.
Upon mixing the blended cement and solution, hydrated calcium silicategel, CSH, begins to form. Reaction products also include Ca(0H)2 and smallamounts of other cyrstalline and noncrystalline phases. As water is consumedby the hydration process, the pore solution becomes supersaturated with respectto the various constituent salts. At this point, remaining pore space isfilled with CSH gel and salt crystals. In the final cured product, crystals ofthe sodium salts are disseminated throughout the cement gel matrix. In salt-stone, as in construction concrete, pore solution in excess of that requiredfor complete hydration is retained in the microstructure as interstitial capil-lary pore fluid. A schematic illustration of this microencapsulation processis shown in Figure 2. An SEM image of saltstone illustrating the resultinqmicro structure is shown in Figure 3.
Disposal Site Selection
Compatibility between the waste form and the disposal environment is anintegral part of the containment system. The following criteria were used toselect the saltstone disposal site: good drainage, downward hydraulic gradi-ent, adequate area to accommodate 8 x 1(P cubic meters of qrout emplaced intrenches at least 5 meters below qradea and 1.5 meters above the historichigh water table,'3 and proximity to H Area where the waste will be decontami-nated. A suitable site has been identified at SRP and is referred to asZ Area.
Relatively constant moisture content and hydraulic conductivities of thesoils making up the host sediments in Z Area result in an unsaturated steadystate environment. These conditions are desirable for long-term curing of thesaltstone monoliths. Also this environment minimizes the potential for cyclicalwetting and drying which could be detrimental to saltstone durability. Like-wise, location of the monoliths in the unsaturated zone above the water tablealso minimizes the potential for accelerated leaching under saturatedconditions.
a At SRP, root penetration and burrowinq animal habitats are limited tothe upper 5 m of soil.
b The groundwater underlying the disposal site is 15.5-19.5 m below grade.
426
CEMENT SALTSTONE SLURRY
+ SALT SOLUTION
CURED SALTSTONE
INITIALCEMENT
HYDRATION
CEMENTGRAIN
CSH NEEDLES
Figure 2. Saitstone MicroencapsuTation Schematic, IllustratingCrystalline Salts Trapped 1n Pore Spaces of HydratedCement* Modified from (Lee, 1971; and Christensenand Wakamiga, 1982).
427
FIGURE 3. SEM Secondary Electron Image of the ReferenceSaitstone Formulation after Curing for 28 Days.Round spheres are unreacted or partially reactedfly ash. CSH gel after 28 days appears massive.Salt crystals are small bright crystalsdisseminated throughout the gel
428
Trench Design and Landfill Concept
Emplacing saltstone in engineered trenches and backfilling to grade ensureswaste form integrity and precludes contaminant release directly into surfacerunoff. A variety of trench geometries, dimensions, and layouts have beengenerated by computer modeling of the disposal system. Variables considered inthese studies include soil and saltstone properties and projecteo rainfall. Manyof these designs meet the criteria for maintaining drinking water standards inthe groundwater at the site boundary. The current reference trench and landfilllayout are shown in Figure 4. In this design, the monoliths are covered withbentonite clay caps which have permeabilities of less than 10~& cm/sec. Thecaps ensure that water does not accumulate on top of the monoliths and furtherreduce the possibility of root and burrowing animal penetration of the salt-stone. The capped trench will than be backfilled with about 5 m of local soil.
The major consideration in designing the saltstone disposal system is toprotect the quality of the groundwater at the disposal site boundary. Thecurrent disposal concept is summarized in Figure 5. Rainfall on the disposalsite will percolate through the soil and be diverted around the monoliths by theseimpermeable clay caps. At a depth of about 5 to 12 m below the surface themonoliths will be in contact with unsaturated soil (40 to 50% saturation)through which a downward flux of water is moving at the rate of about 35 to40 cm/year. Soluble salts diffusing from the monoliths will mix with thepercolating water and will be transported to the groundwater which is about1.5 m below the bottom of the monoliths. Lateral movement of water in theaquifer will further dilute the percolating water so that it will meet drinkingwater standards at the landfill boundary.
Field Tests
Two field tests, the Tank 24 lysimeter test and the environmental lysi-meter test, are under way to demonstrate saltstone performance. Additionallarge-scale demonstrations are planned for 1985.
The Tank 24 test consists of three lysimeters each containing a 30-tonmonolith of saltstone. Decontaminated salt solution and blended cement wereused in the reference formulation. One monolith was capped with clay, one withgravel and one was uncapped before they were covered with soil. Constructiondetails of these lysimeters are shown in Figure 6. The lysimeters werecompleted between 12/83 and 1/84 and collection and analysis of percolatingwater was recently begun.
Thirty-two small lysimeters were also constructed to test the effects ofsaltstone on the environment under a variety of scenarios. An example of anenvironmental lysimeter is shown in Figure 7. They are 1.8 m in diameter, 3 mdeep, and contain blocks of saltstone containing decontaminated solution. Theseblocks have been placed at various depths in the lysimeters and crop, grass, ortree covers have been established. In addition the effects of intrusion by antswill be studied. Several lysimeters will contain broken blocks to simulate theeffects of contaminant migration in the event of monolith disintegration.Migration of contaminants will be monitored over time.
429
SIDE VIEW END VIEW
GRADE
BACKFILL
25 FT.
I 1:1UNDISTURBED SOIL SLOPE
- WATER TABLE•
5 FT.
GRADE
19.5 FT.
2 FT.OVERHANG
(TYP)
• 15.5 FT. 4
Figure 4. Saltstone Trench Design
430
RAIN
11 ) Mi l l 1 I U i l l
Salts Releasedfrom Saltstone
15 FT
25 FT
5 FT
Percolating Ground Water
HISTORIC HIGH WATERTABLE
13 FT
• TYPICAL WATER TABLE
Figure 5. Saltstone Landfill Concept
431
"HYPALON" LINER
SAND AND GRAVEL BASE
Figure 6. Tank 24 Saitstone Lysimeter Tests
432
SALTSTONEBRICKS
SOIL
GRAVELSUMP
OEIONIZINGCOLUMN
D
STEEL ORUM
SUBMERSIBLEPUMP
Figure 7. Vegetative Uptake Lysimeter Design
433
Present Status
The SRP Saitstone Plant is scheduled to start up in 1987. Process engi-neering studies are expected to be completed this year. Large-scale mixing andpumping tests are in progress. Ongoing technical studies include: continuedgroundwater monitoring at the proposed disposal site, saltstone performance(lysimeter) monitoring, and extended waste form durability evaluation.
CONCLUSION
The disposal system for the DWPF salt waste includes reconstitution of thecrystallized salt as a solution containing 32 wt % solids. This solution willbe decontaminated to remove 137Cs ancj 90$r an(j then stabilized in a ce ment-based waste form, saltstone. Laboratory and field tests indicate that thisstabilization process greatly reduces the mobility of all of the waste constit-utents in the surface and near surface environment (Langton et al., 1983 andDukes, et. al., 1983). Engineered trenches for subsurface burial of the salt-stone have been designed to assure compatibility between the waste form andenvironment. The total disposal system, saltstone trench-surrounding soil, hasbeen designed to contain radionuclides, Cr, and Hg while allowing for veryslow, controlled release of OH" and soluble nitrate and nitrate salts. Inthis way, final disposal of the SRP low-level was£e can be achieved and thequality of the groundwater at the perimeter of the disposal site will notexceed EPA drinking water standards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The information contained in this article was developed during the course ofwork under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with the U. S. Department of Energy.
434
REFERENCES
"Radioactive Waste Management (DRAFT)." U. S. Department of Energy, DOEOrder 5820.
"Hazardous Waste Management." December 1982. U. S. Department of Energy, 00EOrder 5480.
"Hazardous Waste Management Regulations." March 31, 1980, amended January 29,1981. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
"National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations," 1975. U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 570/9-76-003.
"Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste." December 30f1982. U. S. Nuclear Regulation Commission, NRC 10 CFR 61.
Benjamin, G. R. W., W. R. McDonell, and J. E. Hoisington . February 27 - March3, 1983. "Alternatives for Defense Waste Salt Disposal," Proceedings of theSymposium on Waste Management, Vol. I. Tuscon, AR.
Langton, C. A., M. D. Dukes, and R. V. Simmons. November 14-17, 1983. "Cement-Based Waste forms for Disposal of Savannah River Plant Low-Level RadioactiveSalt Waste," Proceedings of the Materials Research Society 1983 AnnualMeeting, Boston, MA.
Lee, F. M. 1971. The Chemistry of Cement in Concrete, Chemical Publishing Co.,New York, NY.
Christensen, D. C.and W. Wakamiya. 1982. "A Solid Future for Solidification/Fixation Processes," Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal V. 4 New and PromisingUltimate Disposal Options, ElT R. B. Pojasek, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,"Mi; p. 75-89.
Dukes, M. D., H. C. Wolf, and C. A. Langton. October 1983. "Disposal ofDecontaminated Salts at the Savannah River Plant by Solidification and Burial,"Am. Nuclear Society 1983 Winter Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
435
6D: IN-SITU DENITRIFICATION OF PONDS
J. M. NapierNuclear Materials Processing and
Waste Management Technology DepartmentDevelopment DivisionOak Ridge Y-12 Plant*
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
ABSTRACT
An in situ biological denitrification process successfullyreduced nitrate ion concentrations in four 2.5 million gallonopen-air holding ponds from nearly 40,000 mg/L to less than50 mg/L. Concurrently, heavy metal concentrations were reduced tolevels acceptable for discharge.
IN SITU DENITRIFICATION OF PONDS
The Y-12 Plant recycles enriched uranium and produces nitrate wasteswhich contain a wide variety of metallic impurities. The uranium recyclefacility uses aluminum nitrate as a salting agent in the solvent extractionprocess; consequ itly, aluminum is one of the major constituents of the wastestream. In 1976, a recycle facility for nitric acid and aluminum nitratewastes plus a biological denitrification process were installed. Part of thewaste nitrates are now recycled as nitric acid and part as aluminum nitrate.The wastes from the recycle facilities are biologically decomposed.
The recycle and denitrification facility has operated satisfactorilysince 1976. Since then, more than 2 million pounds of wastes have beenrecycled as nitric acid or aluminum nitrate and more than 2 million poundshave been biologically decomposed.
The denitrification process is believed to be represented by thechemical equations shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that bacteriadecomposes an organic carbon, and that we use calcium acetate. The bacteriarequires an oxygen source to produce the end products of the reaction whichare carbon dioxide and water. If air or oxygen is available, no nitrates aredecomposed. If the process is deficient in air or oxygen, the bacteria willstrip the oxygen from the nitrate ions producing nitrogen, carbon dioxide,and water. Since we have calcium ions present, the carbon dioxide reacts
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Martin MariettaEnergy Systems, Inc., under Contract Number DE-AC05-840R21400,
437
with calcium ions to form calcium carbonate. Some of this is then used toneutralize nitrate wastes going to the bioreactor.
Start.-Up Phase (Typical)
0.55 Ca (C2 H3 0 2 ) 2 + 0.8 Ca
0.4 CgH7O2N + 0.65 C02 + 0.796 N2 +
1.35 Ca C03 + 1.45 HgO + 0.12 OH
Stabilized Phase (Typical)
0.5 Ca (C2 H3 0 2 ) 2 + 0.8 Ca(N03)2
0.7 C02 + 0.8 N2 + 1.3 Ca C03 + 1.5 H
Figure 1. Biodenitrification Process
Figure 2 shows some biological parameters which must be controlled for adenitrification process to operate. An example is the pH which must be above7.0 (but can be as high as 10.0). The pH control is maintained by occasionaladditions of either calcium or sodium hydroxides.
Reactor Operating Parameters
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.
Figure 2.
pHCarbon to nitrogen ratioLong residence timeAgitationPhosphateSoluble ionsDenitrification
Reactor Operating Parai
Prior to 1976, the plant used four unlined holding ponds to dischargeacid wastes. Since 1976, the ponds have been used to discharge acid wastesfrom sources such as plating and pickling baths. Each of the four pondscontained 2 to 2 1/2 million gallons of liquids and had pH values rangingfrom 0.5 to 2.0. The plant was required to cease the use^of the ponds and toeliminate the ponds as soon as practical. A program was started in 1983 todefine an in situ treatment process for the ponds.
438
The pond waters contained a variety of metallic impurities, and thenitrate concentration ranged from 8,000 to 40,000 mg/L. Laboratory testswere performed, and the denitrification process was shown to be operable incontainers open to air. The top surface of the liquid in the test containershad dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5 or less mg/L, but the bottom layerof the liquid was less than 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen. The denitrificationrates in the open containers were slower than the closed productionbioreactors, but were fast enough to be acceptable. For the laboratorytests, the wastewater was first neutralized; acetate carbon and bacteria wereadded. The wastewater was gently stirred to prevent settling of thebacteria. After denitrification was complete, the excess carbon wasbiologically oxidized by injecting air into the water. The solids were thensettled, the liquid decanted and analyzed.
A pond was chosen to serve as a pilot plant test for the developedprocess. Pipes and pumps were installed plus a chemical mixing station About150 tons of calcium carbonate was then added to the pond to raise thepH to 5.0. A total of 13,000 gal of acetic acid was added to serve as theorganic carbon. Sodium and calcium hydroxides were added to raise the pHto 7.0. Bacteria from the production reactors were added (several5,000 gal batches).
The mixing pumps were operated throughout the test to gently stir thewater in the ponds. Denitrification results obtained in the pond test wereequal to about 300 mg/L decrease in nitrate ions each day. It should benoted that a 300 mg/L nitrate ion decrease is equal to about 3 tons ofnitrate ions per day. The pond originally contained about 80 tons ofnitrates.
Other data collected during this test revealed a temperature increase,low dissolved oxygen, and pH variations. All are indicative of operatingbiological systems.
Since September 1983, the remaining three ponds have been similarlytreated. During winter months (December-February), very little biologicalactivity occurred. Since February, the rate has increased and all nitratesin the three ponds were destroyed before September 15, 1984. Rates as highas 1000 mg/L/d of nitrates were observed.
The air oxidation phase of the pond usually requires 1 to 3 weeks. Thetotal organic carbon is rapidly dropped from a nominal 300 to 100 mg/L TOC,and all of the acetate carbon is biologically destroyed. The remainingorganic is believed to be high molecular weight organics, probablydegradation products from bacteria.
Figure 3 presents some chemical data on the pond water. Many samples(27 or more) were chemically analyzed for a wide range of inorganics andorganics. These data are averaged data and only a few of the analyzedparameters are shown for informational purposes. As noted, the treated waterquality contain only trace quantities of impurities and should bedischargeable.
439
Typical Analysis
pH
AlAsBeCdCrFeNiPbZn
N03
Before2.7
(mg/L)
5830.140.060.234.8
26.231.32.04.25
8,000-40,000
Figure 3. Typical Analysi
After7.7
(mg/L)
0.90.00050.00010.0010.0041.11.00.020.03
50
s
The present plans include filtration of the treated water prior todischarge to the environment. The water is expected to be discharged duringthe spring quarter of 1985. The precipitated solids will be analyzed and adecision will be made as to the final treatment requirements. The completeclosure of the ponds and solids is expected to be in or about March 1987.
A facility has been installed, called the West End Treatment Facility,for processing future wastes. The facility will include 500,000 gal tankswhich will treat batches of waste liquids using the same process as used forthe ponds. This facility is now in the initial start-up phases.
440
6E: GREATER CONFINEMENT DISPOSAL PROGRAM AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
Oscar A. TowlerJames R. Cook
• Deborah L. PetersonJulie A. Reddicka)
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanySavannah River Laboratory
Aiken, South Carolina 29808
ABSTRACT
A facility to demonstrate Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) oflow-level solid radioactive waste in a humid environment has beenbuilt and is operating at the Savannah River Plant (SRP). GCD prac-tices of waste segregation into high and low activity concentrations,emplacement of waste below the root zone, waste stabilization, andcapping are being used in the demonstration. Activity concentrationsto select wastes for GCD are based on the volume/activity distribu-tion of low-level solid wastes as obtained from SRP burial records,and are equal to or less than those for Class B waste in 10 CFR 61.
The first disposal units constructed are twenty 9-foot-diameter,30-foot-deep boreholes. These holes will be used to dispose ofwastes from the production reactors, tritiated wastes, and selectedwastes from offsite. In 1984, construction will begin on an engi-neered GCD trench for disposal of boxed waste and large bulky itemsthat meet the activity concentration criteria.
INTRODUCTION
The Savannah River Plant (SRP) is demonstrating a greatly improved methodof disposal of low-level radioactive waste called Greater Confinement Disposal(GCD) (Towler 1983 and Cook 1984). A GCD facility has been constructed withinthe present burial ground at the SRP to dispose of the higher activity frac-tion of SRP low-level waste.
a) On loan from Rockwell Hanford Operations.
441
GREATER CONFINEMENT DISPOSAL - DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
At the Savannah River Plant, Greater Confinement Disposal is defined asan integrated system of waste management which provides a greater degree ofisolation of radionuclides from the environment than is provided by shallowland burial. With this definition, it is emphasized that disposal is only thefinal step of waste management. Efforts to reduce waste volume, by combus-tion, compaction, or process changes, and standardization of waste containersfor more efficient packing in disposal units are part of the same overallsystem.
The overall goal of GCD is to construct and operate a system which willprovide for "near-zero release" of radionuclides from waste material and willrequire no maintenance after closure. The system meets the criteria for ClassC disposal as defined by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rule 10 CFR 61, andshould last at least 500 years in the environment of the SRP. This time willallow tritium and the thirty-year half-life isotopes of cesium and strontiumto decay to innocuous levels.
Pathway analyses done at the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) (King 1982and Stone 1983) have shown that material transport occurs at the site by twomechanisms: transport by groundwater and uptake by plant roots. In order forGCD to succeed, these two vectors must be eliminated or greatly reduced. Tothis end, GCD must provide for:
o Classification and segregation of the waste into GCD and non-GCDcategories.
o Protection from root intrusion into the waste forms by plantsindigenous to the area.
o Reduction of the flow of percolate water to the waste to a minimum.
In the following sections„ the work done to design the GCD system will bedescribed. This work is the basis for the design of the demonstration GCDfacility at the SRP.
Classification and Segregation of the Waste
The critical step in the Implementation of GCD is to identify and segre-gate those specific waste types with activity levels high enough to warrantthe degree of isolation from the environment provided by GCD. At SRP, a largepercentage of the waste generated is classified as "suspect" which means thatit has no measurable radioactivity but that it was generated 1n areas wherethe potential for contamination exists. Disposal of these wastes by GCDcannot be justified either technically or economically. In order to take thiscritical step, the answers to two basic questions were needed. The questionsare: 1) what level of activity would trigger waste into GCD? and 2) what arethe specific waste types which meet the activity criteria?
442
Each waste shipment sent to the SRP burial ground is accompanied by aburial slip on which information about the shipment is entered. Each month,these data are keypunched and entered into the central computer facility atSRP. Examination of the computerized records led to the answers to the twoquestions.
A statistical study was performed on the volume and activity distributionof wastes sent to the burial ground in the years 1979-1981. The data showedthat 95% of the activity made up only 5% of the waste volume in a given year.The distribution of each radionuclide was then examined and was found to besimilar. These 95%-5% criteria were used to determine trigger values for 6CDemplacement. When compared to trigger values for Class B waste in 10 CFR 61,the SRP GCD trigger values are equal to or lower than those for the NRC. Thiscomparison is shown in Table 1.
The trigger values were then applied to the burial records for 1982 todetermine what specific waste types would have been sent to GCD if such afacility had been available at that time. In 1982, SRP disposed of 694,000cubic feet of beta-gamma waste containing 64,000 curies. Of this, 97% of theactivity (62,330 curies) in 5% of the volume would have been routed to GCD.The actual waste types identified as candidates for GCD were limited innumber. The majority of GCD-level waste consists of irradiated scrap metal,certain tritiated wastes, and laboratory waste from the separations areas.
Protection from Root Intrusion
Three methods of achieving this purpose were investigated: burialbeneath the root zone, physical intrusion barriers, and chemical intrusionbarriers. In the humid climate of the South Carolina Coastal Plain, there isso much precipitation that plants have no need to develop deep root systems toobtain enough moisture. Physical barriers such as gravel or cobble layerswere considered, but the long-term integrity of these barriers could not bedemonstrated in a humid environment. Chemical barriers would be diluted in arelatively short time and might result in more of an environmental hazard thanthe waste itself. Burial beneath the root zone utilizes locally occurringmaterials with proven long-term stability and is therefore sensitive only tolong-term climatic changes. These benefits make deeper burial the method ofchoice for prevention of root intrusion at SRP.
Inquiries were made of onsite and local agronomists, soil scientists, andbotanists, and a literature search was conducted to determine the maximumdepth of root penetration in the vicinity of the Savannah River Plant. Whileno source gave an absolute answer, there was a consensus opinion that fifteenfeet is a reasonable value. Examination of vertical side walls of clay pitsin Aiken County where pine tree roots were exposed showed penetration only todepths of about ten feet.
Based on the above work, the decision was made that for GCD, the top ofthe waste form would be at lest sixteen feet below the final grade surface.
443
TABLE 1. Radioactivity Concentration Threshold Values for GCD
Column
Radionuclide
SLB/GCD Classification
uCi/cc
1*
Part I SRP Radionuclide Classification
3H
eoco
*<>Sr
Fission Prod
Induced Act
Enr Uranium
Nat Uranium
2.0
100
0.04
1.0
0.04
1.0
0.005
0.005
Part II Other Radionuciides Listed by NRC (10
" C (in metal)
59Ni (in metal)
63N1
"Ni (1n metal)
^N1 (in metal)
99TC
1291
TBD*
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
10 CFR
2b
40
700
0.04
1.0
CFR 61)
0.8f
8
22f
3.5
35
0.02f
0.3f
0.008f
61 Classification
vCi/cc
3C 4<<
All Class B
All Class B
150 7000
44 4600
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
8
80
220
70 700
700 7000
0.2
3
0.08
a If radionuclide concentration is greater than Column 1. waste goes to GCD.b If less than Column 2, NRC Class A.
If greater than Column 2, but less than Column 3, NRC Class B.c If greater than Column 3, but less than Column 4, NRC Class C.d If greater than Column 4, not suitable for burial by NRC 10 CFR 61 regulations.e To be determined.f If concentration is greater than Column 2, waste is NRC Class C.
444
Stabilization
Trench subsidence has been a significant problem associated with disposalfacilities, particularly those located In humid climates. Subsidence hasseveral causes. Degradation of waste packages creates void spaces into whichthe overlying material falls, ultimately resulting in a direct path for waterto move to the waste. Settlement of backfill material into spaces betweenwaste packages can also channel vgater into the disposal trench. Backfillmaterial can be markedly disturbed by either freeze-thaw or wet-dry cycleswhich can result in subsidence. The mild, wet climate of the SRP eliminatesthe effects of freeze-thaw action and wet-dry cycles.
For a waste disposal facility, the most serious subsidence problems arecreated by the first two causes; waste form failure and backfill settlement.For the GCD demonstration facility, all waste forms will, to the extentpractical, be in a stable form; i.e., placed within carbon-steel drums, metalboxes, or other rigid containers. An ideal backfill material would flowfreely into all void spaces, and yet provide structural support when buried.Self-leveling grout is such a material and is what will be used as backfillmaterial in the GCD demonstration.
Reduction of Percolate Water
Any water which comes in contact with radioactive waste has a highprobability of becoming radioactive itself. This is particularly true if thewaste contains tritium, which has a high exchange rate with the hydrogen inwater molecules. Since tritium production is one of the major activities atSRP, a large amount of SRP waste is contaminated with tritium.
At SRP, low-level radioactive waste is placed at least ten feet above theseasonal-high water table. This assures the waste will not become saturatedfrom below except by a very infrequent, and thus short-duration event. Byreducing the amount of water infiltrating from the surface, two benefits aregained. The water can only accept a certain amount of a species before thereis no longer a gradient driving the reaction, so limited amounts of activityleave the vicinity of the disposal unit. The much larger volume of waterdiverted around the disposal unit then mixes with the water that has been incontact with the waste and produces a much diluted final solution.
The grout used in the GCD disposal unit will decrease the velocity ofradionuclide migration within the disposal unit. This decrease will allow agreat deal of radioactive decay to occur at the disposal location. The unitsare expected to last at least 500 years — long enough for tritium, cesium,and strontium, the major species in the waste, to decay to innocuous levels.
Capping of disposal units has been used at several sites to reducepercolate water reaching waste forms. The success of this procedure has beenvaried; failure of the capping systems by collapse or cracking has not beenuncommon. In the GCD demonstration system at SRP, the capping material will
445
be at a greater depth than at other humid sites, and will cover waste formsthat have been stabilized. The relatively constant temperature, humidity, andthe elimination of subsidence potential will guarantee cap integrity for manyyears.
A series of lysimeters has been constructed at SRP that will test theeffectiveness of capping materials. These lysimeters consist of saltstonemonoliths capped by either clay, gravel, or native soil. Saltstone 1s acement-based waste form developed at the SRL to solidify site-generated liquidwastes that contain low levels of radioactivity and high salt concentrations.Saltstone provides for very slow, controlled, release of inorganic species, sothat water quality standards will be met at the water table directly beneaththe monoliths. The saltstone monoliths in the lysimeters closely resemble theGCD waste form, and thus provide a basis for selecting the best cappingmethod.
The lysimeters are instrumented to measure the amount of precipitation,the amount of water moving around the cap, and the volume of water movingthrough the waste form. Thus, the effectiveness of each capping method can bequantitatively determined. The oldest of these lysimeters has a 6-inch-thickcap constructed of 4 wt % sodium bentonite mixed with native soil. Data fromJanuary through April 1984 show that this cap diverts about 99% of the rain-water infiltrating the soil (Table 2).
TABLE 2. Diversion of Rainwater by Clay Cap
Date
Nov 83a
Jan 84
Feb 84
Mar 84
Apr 84
May 84
Jun 84
Jul 84
Infiltration,gal
16,100
2,600
1,300
1,600
1,700
1,700
600
1,900
Collected,gal
924
30
30
25
25
24
21
18
VolumeDiverted. %
94
99
98
98
99
99
97
99
a Beginning August 1982.
446
Present Status
Construction of the first twenty 6CD units began in November 1983 and wascompleted in April 1984. Turnover from Construction to Operations occurred inJuly, and the first waste forms were emplaced in September 1984. These dis-posal units are boreholes ~ fiberglass cylinders 20 feat high and 7 feet indiameter, which are buried 30 feet in the ground and surrounded by about onefoot of grout (Figure 1). Each of the boreholes has a monitoring well, andfour of the boreholes have porous cup samplers that will enable sampling ofwater in the unsaturated zone near the boreholes.
Drummed waste and other cylindrical waste forms can be emplaced in theboreholes as shown in Figure 2. Grout will be poured around the emplacedwaste forms to make a concrete monolithic cylinder. After the twenty bore-holes are filled with waste and grouted, the area enclosing the two rows often boreholes will be closed as shown in Figure 3. Design of the clay capshown in Figure 3 will be based on results of the lysimeter capping testsdescribed above. Native clay will be added on top of the cap to make thetotal depth from the soil surface to the top of the waste 26 feet — a depththat will not allow root penetration to the waste forms.
Bulkier waste forms with activity concentrations exceeding the GCDtrigger values listed in Table 1 will be placed in GCD trenches. Trenchdesign is shown in Figures 4 and 5. Waste forms will be stacked in thetrenches and stabilized in place with grout, similar to what is being done inthe GCD boreholes. Final design of the GCD trench has been completed and theconstruction work is out for bids. Construction is expected to begin late in1984 or early 1985.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the work described, a demonstration facility for GCD hasbeen designed and built. This facility will emplace waste at least ten feetabove the water table, and at least sixteen feet below the final grade eleva-tion. Wastes will be selected for emplacement in GCD on the basis of theactivity concentrations. Only containerized waste forms will be accepted, andthese will be grouted in place to assure long-term protection from subsidence.Capping materials will be selected which provide the optimum protection frompercolate water.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information contained in this article was developed during the courseof work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with the U.S. Department ofEnergy.
447
Grout Port-Typical(4 Equally Spaced)
Steel Cover w/3 Lifting Lugs131 II |o| ' « L - *
a
^-Fiberglass Stiffener
Pipe Rail Safety Fence
Monitoring Well
Pumped Grout
Screen
.8-0" Dig. Bored Hole Reamedto 9'-0"Dia, Minimum
FIGURE 1. Borehole Elevation
448
CRANE CABLE
FIBtlHGLAS LINLR —
5!> GALLON DRUMS17 P£K l.AYFR)
VACUUM PAD
COLLAR
GROUT
FIGURE 2. Vacuum lifter Lowering Druns Into Borehole
449
ing
2' Thick CompactedClay Cap
Seeded Surface
Original GroundSurface
Gravel
FIGURE 3. GCD Borehole Closure
450
125'
STEEL1:1 SLOPE STRUTS
BOTTOM OF WORKING TRENCH
RUN-OFFTRENCH
SLOPED TORUNOFF TRENCH 20'
20'
J.
25'
ENCH | -25' H / *
ELEVATIONS
0'
-10'
a SHEET PILING
BOTTOM OF DISPOSAL TRENCH
-30'
-50'
FIGURE 4. Section View of GCD Engineered Trench
451
SLOPE
15'SLOPE
SHEET PILING
r50'
100' -*-
DISPOSALTRENCH
STEEL"STRUTS
WORKINGTRENCH
26'
25'50'
ELEVATIONS -30' -10'
FIGURE 5. Plan View of GCD Engineered Trench
452
REFERENCES
Cook, J. R., 0. A. Towler, D. L. Peterson, G. M. Johnson, and B. D. Helton.1984. "Greater Confinement Disposal Program at the SRP." Proceedings ofWaste Management '84. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
King, C. M., and R. W. Root, Jr. 1982. "Radionuclide Migration Model forBuried Waste at the Savannah River Plant." Proceedings of Waste Management'82. Tucson, Arizona, March 8-11.
Stone, J. A., S. 8. Obiath, R. H. Hawkins, R. H. Emslie, J. P. Ryan, Jr., andC. M. King. December 1983. "Migration Studies at the Savannah River PlantShallow Land Burial Site." CONF-8308106. Proceedings of 5th Annual Parti-cipants' Information Meeting, DOE Low-Level Waste Management Program.
Towler, 0. A., J. R. Cook, and D. L. Peterson. December 1983. "GreaterConfinement Disposal Program at the Savannah River Plant." CONF-8308106.Proceedings of 5th Annual Participants' Information Meeting, DOE Low-LevelWaste Management Program.
453
LUNCHEON ADDRESS
Jan W. MaresAssistant Secretary for Policy,
Safety, and Environment
Opening Comments .
First, on behalf of the president, the secretary, and myself, I want tothank those who voted for the president yesterday and to commit to everyonethat we will use our best efforts in the next four years to merit the trustthe country has placed in this administration.
I also offer my congratulations to Jack Corley of the Pacific NorthwestLaboratory for successfully arranging for this meeting.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to those responsible forcarrying out the environmental protection policy and programs of DOE. Ours isa very important function, which, if properly accomplished, will support theDOE mission, protect the environment, and avoid enforcement actions and theattendant negative publicity. Recent experiences confirm the critical natureof our responsibilities.
I emphasize again the importance of our efforts and that we must workmore diligently to accomplish our objectives and, at the same time, minimizehindrances to DOE programs. DOE has an outstanding safety record, a recordthat stands as a challenge to our environmental protection program.
I want to assure you that is is the objective of Secretary Hodel and ofmy office that the mission of the Department be carried out in a manner thatwill protect the environment and the public health. The attainment of thisobjective will require each of us to effectively carry out our respectiveresponsibilities in formulating and implementing the DOE environmentalprotection programs.
I regret that I cannot be with you all three days of this importantmeeting. However, I am pleased that you have this opportunity to get togetherto discuss environmental protection issues and share mutual problems andpotential solutions.
The National Scene
Let me first comment on what is happening on the national scene withregard to environmental protection.
We will enter 1985 with mostly unfinished business. Most of the majorenvironmental laws up for reauthorization over the last few years have notreceived final action. Considering the laws administered by EPA, thatincludes the clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, toxic substances andsuperfund acts, all important to DOE operations. The single exception is RCRAwhich was successfully amended shortly before the close of this year'ssession.
455
The failure of Congress to agree on amendments to these laws reflectsdeep division among public groups and among regions over the level of needsand the methods of environmental protection. The general goals are not indispute. The people, the Congress, and the administration all desire a safeand clean environment. The problem is specifying practical, near-termobjectives in pursuit of these goals that also allow consideration of ourother national goals.
Two points of view are exemplified by carrying out the present requirementsof the hazardous air pollutant section of the Clean Air Act:
On one hand, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires the limitation ofhazardous air pollutants so as to "protect the public health with anample margin of safety." Taken literally, this prescription means zerorisk, an ideal attainable only by the outright ban on any emissions fornumerous substances.
Because this perspective is generally considered impractical, theregulators devise lesser goals. For example, EPA, when devising theproposed regulations for the arsenic NESHAP associated with coppersmelters, set a standard for the Tacoma, Washington Smelter (ASARCO) thatwould reduce the maximum lifetime cancer risk from 9 in 100 to 2 in 100.
The proposed regulation pointed out tha-t • go further with today'scontrol technologies would require stoppi nis smelter's operations.The EPA proposed that residents in the Tact area should comment on themerits of this action. In November of last year, several public meetingswere held to collect the comments of the interest groups in Tacoma.During this period, polarization between the various local factionsdiminished, resulting in a consensus that the community interests did notwish the plant to close, but expected that best efforts would be appliedto reduce risks.
Generalizing on this second point of view, Executive Order 12291 requiresthat federal regulations attain benefits that are at least equal to the costsof achieving those benefits. Since control costs rise rapidly as the lastvestiges of risk are reduced, costs usually overtake benefits before zero riskis attained.
The implication is that available practices and controls should (and can)substantially reduce risks to the environment, but zero risk works best as anideal or an ultimate goal, providing direction to research and programevolution rather than being an objective to be attained rapidly, regardless ofthe costs. However, the Congressional Committee actions during the last fewyears indicate that Congress is uncomfortable with the revision ofenvironmental laws which appear to be relaxations.
Some interests would read this concept as a relaxation. There areseveral reasons for this; I will mention two. First, most environmental lawswere written in the early 1970's in highly idealistic language, such as thepassage from the Clean Air Act I quoted earlier. Amendments of suchunworkable language to allow for practical regulations, regardless of how
456
slight or sensible, are portrayed by opponents as at least "going in the wrongdirection," and more often, as "gutting the act." The power of such rhetoricis substantial.
Second, regulatory and legislative reforms have sometimes beencharacterized as "reducing regulatory burdens on private industry." Time hasrevealed that Congress and the public do not accept this objective in theenvironmental field. It is too easy for detractors to add "at the expense ofthe environment." It has become clear that legislative actions must benefitthe environment if they are to be received favorably.
One principle which contains both positive environmental benefits andregulatory practicality is regulatory consistency. Simply stated, the conceptis that the greatest benefit is obtained from a set of regulations when thegains from the regulations have the same cost-effectiveness for eachregulation.
Secretary Hodel believes that regulatory consistency may be the singlemost important concept to be included in the 1985 debates leading tolegislative amendments to environmental laws.
EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus has emphasized two related principles:1) risk management in which costs as well as benefits are considered in makingregulations; and 2) the prevention of unreasonable risk, a statement whichrecognizes that zero risk is an impractical ideal in this risky world.
The success in including these principles in the legislative actions of1985 will depend on our ability to convince the public and Congress that suchprinciples will advance the cause of environmental protection through morerapid regulatory action, through greater acceptance of regulations by theregulated, and most important, through greater environmental benefits perdollar spent. It won't be easy. Skepticism as to the .administration motivesmust be overcome against distortion by opposition. It would be unrealistic tobelieve that principles will win complete acceptance in 1985. Nevertheless,we intend to vigorously pursue those principles in the coming year and beyond.
In the meantime, DOE facilities must pay attention to their own effortsto protect the environment. I now turn to that subject.
Problems and Issues We Face
• Public perception - There is no other area in which DOE experiences imageproblems greater than in the environmental area. During my tenure withDOE, I have seen a significant increase in public attention to ourenvironmental problems and activities. I believe there are two generalcauses for this:
- First, the public has an extraordinary concern for, and anxiety,over actual or perceived problems with toxic and hazardousmaterials, particularly if they are nuclear in nature.
- Second, there actually are problems at many DOE facilities that werenot addressed in the past and whether justifiably or not, havefueled public concerns!
457
How do we address public perception problems? Can we persuade concernedcitizens to change their minds? Can we give them the silent treatment inhope that they simply will go away? Neither of these responses willsucceed. I believe that we must make every effort to correct existingdeficiencies so that there will be no grounds for mistrust or concern.We must credibly demonstrate by actions (not words) to the public, stateagencies, environmental groups, and EPA regional offices that our intentis to protect the environment and to operate our facilities so that theydo not pose a threat to public health and the environment.
At headquarters, we have a similar task. The Washington, D.C.public—the executive branch, congressional committees, interestedagencies and environmental organizations—needs to know how we areperforming and that we have a commitment to correct problems. Thisrequires that my office provide the Secretary with an objective andaccurate accounting of DOE environmental activities and, mostimportantly, that you establish not just a good record but an outstandingrecord in carrying out your environmental protection programs like DOEhas done *n safety. The Secretary's receipt of complete, accurate, andtimely information and his ability to use that information to then reporton DOE environmental performance is vital to our gaining credibility inthe eyes of the other branches of government as well as the public.
I am convinced that public perception of and confidence in DOEenvironmental policies and actions at headquarters and in the field areimportant to DOE accomplishing its programmatic mission.
State and EPA regulatory powers - We are seeing increasing state and EPAregulatory control over DOE operations, and it is clear that members o."Congress intended for this to happen. Congress has incorporated specificwording in the clean air, clean water, solid waste, safe drinking water,toxic substances control, and RCRA laws requiring federal agencies tofully comply with provisions of the laws in the same manner as privatecorporations or citizens.
As recently as ten years ago, EPA and the states generally did not claimregulatory authority within the boundaries of DOE sites. Since the lastDOE environmental protection information meeting in Denver, two yearsago, a number of regulatory developments changed the philosophy regardingthe sanctity of DOE boundaries. For example, we have seen a number ofstates assert ownership and authority over all surface and ground waters,including those on DOE sites. The results of this new state involvementhave been characterization of problems and, where necessary, implementa-tion of remedial actions. The states have required, either throughmemoranda of understanding or enforcement actions, that DOE restoreand/or maintain the quality of the environment in accordance with theirlaws and regulations. Such actions are currently underway at theSavannah River Plant, Oak Ridge facilities, and Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory. It is indeed exciting to witness the cooperationbetween the federal and state governments in defining and implementingsolutions to these often complex problems. These actions set a positive
458
example for DOE at other locations. I would here like to note thatWayne Hibbitts of the Oak Ridge Operations Office has received theSecretary's meritorious service award for his work with the State ofTennessee and the public on environmental matters.Another significant event was the Federal Court decision 1n Knoxville,Tennessee, on April 13, 1984, which determined that hazardous chemicalwastes generated by DOE's nuclear facilities are subject to RCRA. As aresult, the management of such wastes at DOE facilities is subject to EPAand state regulations. Certain nuclear wastes (byproduct material) willnot be subject to RCRA regulation and are presently being identified anddefined by DOE and EPA. You may already be aware that the RCRAreauthorization bill on the president's desk for signature provides forannual inspections of federal hazardous waste facilities by EPA andstates.
However, there are events that have favored DOE self regulation. Oneevent of note was the EPA's finding of October 23, 1984, of no need toregulate DOE radioactivity emissions under Section 112 of the Clean AirAct.
What can we conclude from these events? I believe that we have toabandon many of our past practices of waste disposal and work closelywith states, other federal agencies and the general public so that we cansolve the problems together in a manner that will improve the environmentand protect public health. We should not consider the involvement ofstates and federal agencies in our affairs as an intrusion; theseregulatory agencies are fulfilling their respective constitutional andlegislated responsibilities.
Historical practices and problems - Although the environmental lawsenacted in the past ten years have some imperfections, their framers hadconsiderable insights into the environmental ailments of this country andthe shortcomings of many of the waste management practices of previousdecades. In fact, the implementation of our clean air, water, andhazardous waste laws has revealed many past environmental abuses andundesirable practices. Our department and its contractors are notatypical in this regard. Although not all of the criticisms of DOE'swaste management practices of the past and present are justified, we mustacknowledge that DOE and its predecessor agencies did use wastemanagement practices that have resulted in environmental contamination.This occurred in spite of the fact that, at the time, these practiceswere generally regarded as acceptable within the engineering andregulatory communities. Some of these practices continue today and mustbe phased out as soon as ft is feasible to do so.
Budgeting for compliance - I don't have to tell you that budgeting forpollution abatement is a major challenge to DOE. In fact, I believe thatmost of us are still unaware of the magnitude of the task before us. Wewill have difficult choices ahead of us in setting priorities. Manymission oriented projects will have to give way to pollution abatement
459
projects. In fact, there will be competition for dollars even amongenvironmental safety and health projects (ES&H). Just this past summer,Ed Patterson's Office of Operational Safety (00S) completed a study ofES&H projects proposed for funding in FY-1986 and assigned priorities tothem. The 39 projects submitted by field offices have a total estimatedcost of $500 million. Funding requested by field offices for theseprojects in FY-1986 totals about $203 million of which, 75% is includedin the secretary's budget submission to OMB. Of the 39 projects, 17 aredistinctly environmental and all but two of these were proposed toreceive full or substantial funding for FY-1986.
Last month, at my request, the Office of Operational Safety contactedsome of you in the operations offices to obtain information on theanticipated costs of complying with environmental laws at the nuclearsites in the foreseeable future. The survey indicated that currentlyidentified environmental projects could cost over one billion dollars.Nearly half of this amount is required for environmental compliance atfacilities under the jurisdiction of Oak Ridge Operations Office. Otherfield offices with significant fractions are Richland and Savannah River.Projects related to RCRA requirements represent 46% of the totalidentified costs. Water and air pollution and abatement projects accountfor 28 and 13% respectively. Although currently identified CERCLAactivities comprise only a small percentage of the total costs, it mustbe noted that most of these projects are for identification andcharacterization of DOE's inactive hazardous waste sites. In general,these sites have not been sufficiently evaluated to determine what, ifany, remedial actions need to be taken. Despite the large uncertainties,it appears likely that DOE will incur major costs in this area in thefuture.
As you can see, the environment budget needs are far in excess of what wehave historically been spending. We will all have to be diligent indeveloping controls and disposal methods that will be cost effective andwill provide long term and environmentally acceptable solutions. We mayhave to recommend process modifications for eliminating wastes at thesource, for those types of wastes that require expensive disposalmethods. A critical evaluation of proposed expenditures will have to bemade so that we can use limited funds effectively.
DOE Policy
The problems and issues that I have just discussed present challengesthat are somewhat intimidating or should I say awesome. However, we shouldnot let this discourage us or cloud the good overall performances of DOE inprotecting the public and the environment.
I will repeat, Secretary Hodel is fully committed to environmentalprotection and believes that all of the Department's operations must beconducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. The secretary's underlyingphilosophy is that DOE should do the best job possible in protecting thepublic and the environment.
460
It is my intent to carry out the policy of Secretary Hodel and I intendto use the resources of my office in the most effective way.
PE Missions and Goal
As I mentioned earlier, the problems presented by public perception,state regulation, past practices, and budgeting for compliance presentsignificant challenges for all of us. To meet these challenges and to carryout the policy of Secretary Hodel, my office has in effect a four-fold missionthat is designed to:
- establish effective environmental policies for the department;
- provide effective support and assistance to all departmental programs;
- carry out necessary technical studies in support of our environmentalprotection program; and
- provide an objective overview and assessment of the department'senvironmental program.
It is my goal to assure that each element of the mission is accomplishedin the most effective and responsible manner possible, and to improve andstrengthen our environmental protection program.
PE Initiatives
Although we in PE work closely with the headquarters program staff, fieldorganizations, and contractor organizations, with which most of you in theaudience are affiliated, and these relationships are working and have workedvery effectively, we have launched several new initiatives to furtherstrengthen these relationships and the DOE overall ES&H program. Theseinitiatives should ultimately result in improved environmental protectionperformance in departmental operations.
• First, the secretary reorganized the ES&H program to assure a bettermanaged, more effective program. All programmatic functions of the oldOffice of Assistant Secretary fpr Environmental Protection, Safety, andEmergency Preparedness (i.e., NPOSR, SPRO, and energy emergencies; weremoved to other assistant secretaries so that my office (PE) now focuseson ES&H overview assistance to line organizations, development of ES&Hpolicies, and improved coordination and communication with headquartersprogram offices and ES&H field organizations.
• We are requesting more people and more funds to improve our capabilities.
• We convened a task force (headed by Dr. Billy Shipp of the ChicagoOperations Office) to rewrite and strengthen the ES&H orders and toprovide more authority to ASPE in all ES&H areas.
The task force has made considerable progress. Revisions of the basicES&H Order 5480.1A, the Quality Assurance Order 5700.6B, the Appraisal
461
Order 5482.1A, and the Safety Analysis Order 5481 were circulated bymanagement and administration for field and headquarters review andcomment in October. Comments were due yesterday.
• We are studying the current headquarters approach to conductingcomprehensive ES&H appraisals and will soon make recommendations toimprove and strengthen this overview program.
• We have established a safety/environment council to assist my office instrengthening the department's ES&H programs. The council held its firstmeeting on September 13 and will initially meet quarterly to review anddiscuss ES&H programs and issues.
I chair the council. Its membership consists of headquarters programassistant secretaries and three field office managers. The three fieldoffice managers are from SR, ID, and CH. The terms of field officemanagers will be staggered so that each major program will be representedon the council.
• We will also make a number of improvements relating to availability ofexperienced consultants, communications and information flow, interagencycoordination, and HQ/field office personnel exchanges.
• In the Environmental Protection Division, we are undertaking a majorreview of reporting requirements systemwide with the objective tostreamline them and make them more efficient and effective. I solicityour participation and counsel in this effort.
• Together with headquarters program offices we will, in this fiscal year,issue policy guidance on specific orders and begin to implement them inCERCLA and RCRA areas. We plan to sponsor several workshops to help allof us through what will be a difficult transition period.
• Finally, today we announced a reorganization within the Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health(Bob Tiller's office). We will create an Office of EnvironmentalProtection and Emergency Preparedness with Ed Patterson as Director, andDario Monti, as Deputy Director. Tom Frangos, Director, EnvironmentalProtection Division, will report to Ed Patterson. An Office ofAssessments will also be created to carry out functions such as safetyanalysis report reviews and appraisal of field activities.
Closing Comments
In closing, I hardly need to remind you of the major environmentalchallenges and problems that confront us. Although DOE has a good record inprotecting the public and the environment, engineering practices of the pastand recent regulatory changes have created situations in which conditions andoperations at many DOE sites do not comply with accepted practice andregulatory requirements. We must redouble our efforts to assure that DOEoperations are brought into conformance with regulatory requirements and with
462
accepted engineering practices. I look forward to working with all of you inour efforts to accomplish this objective and to strengthen implementation ofSecretary Hodel's environmental protection policy.
I solicit your help in working toward a confirmation to the public that,indeed, DOE is a good citizen. Thanks in advance for your help.
463
SESSION 7:
GROUND WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT(M. Almeter, Office of Security and Quality Assessment and
R. P. Whitfield, Savannah River Operations Office, Co-Chairmen)
7A: ORGANICS CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER — AN OPEN LITERATURE REVIEW
B. L. SteelmanR. M. Ecker
Pacific Northwest LaboratoryRich!and* Washington
ABSTRACT
Because of public pressure and federal and state regulatoryactivity, groundwater contamination has recently received increasedscientific investigation and engineering assessment. The disposal ofhazardous wastes is one of the major sources of groundwater contami-nation. A nationwide survey conducted for the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) indicated that organic compounds are the mostcommon environmental contaminants, being found at 358 of the 395hazardous waste sites included in the survey. A study by the Councilon Environmental Quality (CEQ) showed that major groundwatercontamination problems, in many states, were caused by syntheticorganic chemicals resulting from industrial and manufacturing opera-tions. This study also concluded that contamination of groundwaterby synthetic organic compounds was a major problem in at least 34 andpossibly as many as 40 states.
For several decades, the Department of Energy (DOE) and itspredecessor agencies have engaged in a wide range of operations thatgenerate organic chemical wastes. Past disposal practices, in somecases, have led and may lead to migration of organics from the dis-posal sites via the groundwater pathway. DOE is currently implement-ing a program in response to the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) of1980. However, to date, non-DOE investigations of organics con-tamination of groundwater have been more extensive and thorough thanthose at DOE facilities. Therefore, in anticipation of future DOEactivities in this area, Pacific Northwest Laboratory has conductedan open literature review of organics contamination of groundwater*The purpose of this review is to provide the DOE community with abrief summary of available field data on 1) the most commonly foundorganics of concern in groundwater, 2) the behavior of organics ingroundwater (e.g., transport and transformation mechanisms), and 3)the extent of documented organics migration from the source ofcontamination.
467
BACKGROUND
This open literature review was prepared at the request of the DOE Officeof Operational Safety (00S) to provide the DOE community with a generaloverview of the problem of organics contamination of groundwater. Because thistopic is so broad in scope, this review is not meant to be all inclusive but isintended to provide a basic overview of the problem in qualitative terms. Thispaper is a condensation of a draft paper prepared for 00S. The more thoroughdraft paper was based on a review of more than 70 references.
INTRODUCTION
More than 40% of the nation's population depends on groundwater as adrinking water supply. As a valuable resource, groundwater has gained muchattention because of the increasing number of incidents of groundwatercontamination problems discovered throughout the nation. Unlike streams andrivers, groundwater moves very slowly; its rate and direction of flow isinfluenced by many factors, such as subsurface composition, recharge rates, andgravity. Contaminants can remain in concentrated areas of the groundwater forlong periods of time, rather than being diluted and dispersed as happens inmore rapidly moving surface waters. Table 1 illustrates the fact that organicsare found at much higher concentrations in groundwaters than in surface waters(CEQ 1981). Once aquifers are contaminated, it can be very difficult andcostly to restore them to their original quality.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) has recently completed a surveyon the nature and scope of groundwater contamination in the United States(USGAO 1984). In this survey, they reported a number of studies documentingorganics contamination of groundwater. A study by the Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ 1981) showed that major groundwater contamination problems in manystates were caused by synthetic organic chemicals resulting from industrial andmanufacturing processes. They found that synthetic organic contamination ofgroundwater was a major problem in at least 34 states and possibly in as manyas 40 states. The problems exist in all states east of the Mississippi Riverand in many non-industralized states such as Arizona and Idaho. Publishedresults of a survey of groundwater contamination from synthetic organicchemicals by EPA's Office of Drinking Water (EPA 1982) showed that 52 of 466randomly sampled water systems had detectable levels of synthetic organicchemicals. Of 479 systems suspected of being contaminated, 132 wells werefound to have detectable levels of synthetic organic chemicals.
Organic chemicals make their way onto the land surface and subsequentlyinto the soil and groundwater through the use of pesticides, use of land forsewage disposal, use of sanitary landfills or refuse dumps for disposal oforganic chemicals, burial of containers containing organic chemicals, leakagefrom liquid waste storage tanks and ponds, and accidental spills. Uncontrolledhazardous waste sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 are a major source of groundwatercontamination. Statistics as of September 1984 indicate that of the 539 sitesthen listed for priority attention, 410 appear to have caused groundwatercontamination (EPA 1984).
468
TABLE 1. Organic Compounds Most Commonly Found in Drinking Water Wells
•
Chemical
TrichloroethyleneToluene1,1,1 TrichloroethaneAcetoneMethylene ChlorideDioxaneEthyl benzeneTet rachloroethy1eneCyclohexaneChloroformDi-n-butyl-phthalateCarbon tetrachlorideBenzene1,2-Di chloroethy1eneEthylene dibromideXyleneIsopropyl benzene1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2-DichloroethaneBis(2-ethy!hexyl)phthalateDibromochloropropaneTrifluorotrichloroethaneDi bromochlorometnaneVinyl chlorideChloromethaneButyl benzyl-ohthalategamma-BHC (Lindane)1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBronsoform1,1-Oichloroetnanealpha-BHCParathiondelta-BHC
HighestConcentration
Chemical Class
Halogenated AliphaticAromaticHalogenated AliphaticAliphaticHalogenated AliphaticEtherAromaticHalogenated AliphaticAliphaticHalogenated AliphaticPhthalateHalogenated AliphaticAromaticHalogenated AliphaticHalogenated AliphaticAromaticAromaticHalogenated AliphaticHalogenated AliphaticPhthalatePesticideHalogenated AliphaticHalogenated AliphaticKa'ogenated AliphaticHalogenatad AliphaticPhthalatePesticideHalogenated AliphaticHalogenated AliphaticHalogenated AliphaticPesticidePesticidePesticide
CA - Confirmed animal carcinogenH - Confirmed human carcinogen
NA - Negative evidence ofNI - Not investigated
NTA - Not tested in animal
carcinogenicity from animal
bioassaySA - Suggested animal carcinogen
Blank - No information foundSource: CEQ 1981
ORGANICS OF CONCERN
(ppb)
27,3006,4005,4403,0003,0002,1002,0001,50054049047040033032330030029028025017013713555504438222020764.63.8
bioassay
HighestSurface MaterConcentration
(ppb)
1606.15.1
NI13NINI21NI700NI304.49.8
NI24NI0.54.8
NININI317
9-.812NININI2800.2
NI0.2
NI
CarcinogenStatus
CANTANA
NTACA
CANTACANTACAHNTACANTANTANTACANTACANTANTAH.CANTANTACACANTASACASA
The principal concern about organics contamination of groundwater iswhether or not the water is safe to drink. It is estimated that about 1% ofthe nation's groundwater supply is currently contaminated to some degree(Josephson 1983a). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, EPA was directedto establish national drinking water standards to protect public health.Inorganic and organic chemicals were to be included in the water quality
469
standards. However, standards and testing requirements for most organicchemicals contaminating groundwater have not yet been established. Drinkingwater standards and testing have been established for only six pesticides andtrihalomethanes. The EPA plans to issue standards for an additional nineorganic chemicals by September 1985 (USGAO 1984).
Commonly found organic chemica1 contaminants include pesticides andherbicides, fuels and oils, solvents, PCBs, and methane gas (JRB and Associates1984 and EPA 1984). Pesticides and herbicides generally make their way intothe environment through their use (i.e., spraying over the land surface) and bydisposal of "empty" containers and off-specification product. Fuels and oilsgenerally enter the environment as a result of leaking storage tanks (bothabove and underground) or accidental spills. Polychloromated biphenyls findtheir way into the environment in many ways; among them are wastewater dis-charges from the manufacture of PCBs and products containing PCBs, inadvertentspraying of PCB-contaminated oils on road surfaces, and failure/disposal ofPCB-containing products. The primary route for methane to enter the environ-ment is through its anaerobic formation in landfills. Solvents are, by far,the most common organic contaminant found in groundwater; they also enter theenvironment in many ways—including wastewater discharges, accidental spills,leakage from storage tanks (both above and underground), disposal of "empty"containers, disposal of laboratory wastes, and disposal of off-specificationmaterials.
Recent analysis of groundwater samples has revealed organic solyentcontamination of groundwater in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, NewJersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, andCalifornia. Atlantic City, New Jersey, had to shut down some of its drinkingwater supply wells because of organics contamination by leachate from a nearbylandfill (Brower and Ramkrishnadas 1982). Hydrocarbon waste compounds, such asfuel and lubricating oil, and creosote, were found at nearly 15% of the sitesinvestigated by JRB and Associates, and PCBs were found at about 13% of thesites. Pesticide and herbicide chemicals, including DDT and dioxin, have beendocumented at 11% of the 395 sites reviewed by JRB and Associates (1984).
A nationwide survey by JRB and Associates (1984) found that solvents arethe most common source of organics contamination. Table 1 lists some of themost commonly found organic compounds in drinking water (CEQ 1981). Of the33 compounds listed in this table, 25 or 75% can be loosely classified assolvents. The most commonly detected solvents are halogenated aliphatics;these compounds account for 17 of the 25 solvents (68%) listed in Table 1.Halogenated aliphatics account for about 52% of the most commonly foundorganics in drinking water listed in Table 1. Additionally, we reviewed theorganics contamination in groundwater at 16 sites around the country (seesection on Extent of Organics Contamination of Groundwater) and found thathalogenated aliphatics were detected at 13 of the 16 sites. Of the totalnumber of organics compounds of all classifications detected/reported for thesesites, 56% were halogenated aliphatics. The most commonly found halogenatedaliphatics contaminating groundwater are tri- and tetrachloroethylene (EPA1984). Other widely encountered organic contaminants include carbontetrachloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; 1,1- and 1,2- dichloroethane;
470
dichloroethylene (DCE) isomers; methylene chloride; phthalate esters; benzeneand chlorobenzene; pentachlorophenol; dichlorophenol isomers; poiynucleararomatic hydrocarbons; and pesticides (CEQ 1981; EPA 1984).
Organic compounds that constitute the greatest threat to groundwater arethose that 1) are highly toxic or carcinogenic, 2) are used widely and disposedof in such a way as to allow entrance into the soil and groundwater, 3) aretransported rapidly in groundwater without significant retardation ordegradation, and 4) resist removal by treatment. Widely used solvents such ashalogenated aliphatics meet three of these conditions. Of the 17 halogenatedaliphatic compounds listed in Table 1, 9 are confirmed or suspected animal orhuman carcinogenic, 1 has a negative indication of animal carcinogenicity, and7 have not been tested for carcinogenicity. In general, these compoundsreadily enter groundwater and are moderately hydrophobic, so that theirsubsurface movement is only slightly retarded. They also appear to degradeonly slightly, if at all, once in the groundwater. Fortunately, these solventscan be removed from groundwater by activated carbon treatment and possibly byair stripping (Roberts et al. 1982); however, treatment with these processescan be extremely expensive.
BEHAVIOR OF ORGANICS IN GROUNDWATER
Several mechanisms influence or control the migration and fate of organiccompounds in groundwater. These include sorption capacity, volatility,solubility, viscosity, density, dilution, and biological and abiotic degrada-tion. The unique characteristics of each organic compound in a particularenvironmental setting dictate which of these mechanisms control its movement.For instance, a low density hydrocarbon will likely be concentrated in theupper portion of an aquifer because these types of organics tend to float onwater. On the other hand, a high density hydrocarbon will tend to be in thelower portion of an aquifer. Source characteristics of the contaminants andhydrogeologic factors also influence the migration and. fate of organic com-pounds in groundwater.
Source-Related Factors
The movement of organic contaminants in groundwater depends on sourcerelated factors. Some of these factors include 1) the manner in which thecontaminant is introduced, 2) the rate and duration of input, 3) the quantityof the contaminant, and 4) the depth at which the contaminant is introduced.Materials leaking from drums will enter the groundwater system much more slowlythan those poured into a pit. Materials entering the groundwater from a wastesite located well above the water table will enter more gradually and besubject to more attenuation than those entering from facilities immediatelyadjacent to the groundwater.
Hydrogeologic Factors
Hydrogeologic factors that affect the migration of organic contaminants ingroundwater include stratigraphy, structure, soil types, permeability, andgeologic heterogeneity. The stratigraphy of a site Includes those factors that
471
determine the materials through which the contaminant must pass before andafter entering the groundwater. The geologic structure at a site can controlflow direction and rate by affecting the preferred flow path, fracturepatterns, faults, and similar features. Soil types directly influence theattenuation mechanisms which may come into play. The permeability of thegeologic units underlying a site is the major factor controlling the movementof any fluid through the subsurface.
Groundwater parameters affecting the movement and detection of organiccompounds include depth to the water table, fluctuations of the water table,flow direction, flow velocity, and background water quality. The depth togroundwater determines the length of unsaturated soil column available forattenuation mechanisms to operate within. Fluctuations in the water table havebeen shown to mobilize contaminants as the groundwater rises into a soil zoneholding contaminants. In the case of fracture flow systems, changing waterlevels may actually bring contaminants into zones where transport is possiblebecause of increased fracture densities. Knowledge of flow direction andvelocity is essential to the determination of contaminant migration and theearly detection of that movement. Background water quality can influence thetransformation of contaminants; knowledge of this parameter is essential to thedetection of contaminant migration.
Sorption
Sorption is the retention of a solute on the solid phase by means ofpartitioning between the aqueous phase and solid. Solutes that sorb stronglyonto solids are retarded in their movement through an aquifer (Roberts andValocchi 1981). An advancing front of sorbing solute moves at a velocity thatis smaller than that of groundwater. Sorption takes place because the solutehas either a low affinity for water (hydrophobic) or has a high affinity forthe solid. The attraction of a dissolved organic chemical in groundwater to asolid may result from charged surfaces, physical adsorption, or formation of achemical bond. The principal subsurface solids responsible for adsorption oforganic chemicals are solid organic matter, clay minerals, and amorphoushydroxides (Pettyjohn and Hounslow 1983).
The sorption process is a major control in the migration of some organiccompounds in groundwater. The pesticide DDT, for example, is readily sorbed bythe soil, which retards its movement in soils and groundwater. Chlorobenzeneis sorbed to some extent in a sandy soil with low organic content, whereasdichlorobenzene is retarded about twice as much, and trichlorobenzene is sorbedeven more. The predominant sorbent in soil for hydrophobic organic compoundsis solid organic matter. Low molecular weight hydrocarbons, such as chloroformand trichloroethylene, are generally not adsorbed appreciably by soilscontaining little organic matter. Highly water soluble organic substances,such as acetone and methanol, are only slightly retarded by sorption, butfortunately are very degradable.
472
Volatility
Many organic compounds are volatile; these are readily converted into avapor state while in the soil zone and lost by diffusion to the atmosphere.However, volatility is not an important retardation mechanism after the organiccompounds have migrated through the unsaturated zone and mixed with thegroundwater (Freeze and Cherry 1979).
Solubility
The concentration of many organic compounds in groundwater is oftenlimited by their very low solubilities. Many of these organic compounds,however, are toxic at very low concentrations so that solubility constraintsmay not be capable of preventing migration of significant concentrations oforganic compounds in groundwater (Freeze and Cherry 1979). The presence oflarge quantities of high density, low solubility contaminants can provide a"hidden" source for long-term contamination of the groundwater.
Viscosity
The viscosity of an organic compound also affects its fate and migrationin groundwater. Under identical geologic conditions, for example, the volumeof a hydrocarbon retained in the soil column will be about four times greaterfor a light fuel oil of high viscosity than for gasoline, which has a lowviscosity (Noel et al. 1983). Viscosity of the organic compound will alsoaffect the lateral spread of the contaminant plume. One would expect gasolineto spread over a wider area of the aquifer than a more viscous light fuel oil.
Density
The density of an organic compound determines where in the aquifer thecontaminant will most likely be concentrated. Low density hydrocarbons arelikely to be found in the upper portions of an aquifer because they have atendency to float on water. High density hydrocarbons, on the other hand, tendto sink to the lower portions of the aquifer because they are heavier thanwater.
Dilution
Organic chemicals reaching the water table have an opportunity to beattenuated by dilution. The magnitude of dilution of organic contaminants 1ngroundwater, however, is not nearly as great as in surface water becausegroundwater flow and velocity are generally low. Organic contaminants, there-fore, tend to maintain much of their integrety as they move through an aquifer.
Degradation
Biological and chemical degradation are viewed by some investigators asthe principal mechanisms for attenuation of many organic contaminants in theunsaturated and saturated zones. While this view may be the case for someorganic compounds, one should keep in mind that intermediate and/or end
473
products of the degradation process can be more toxic and/or mobile than theoriginal compound. Therefore, when evaluating the fate of organic compounds ingroundwater, we must also consider these intermediate and end products ofbiological and chemical degradation. During one site investigation of TCEcontamination, the presence of cis- and trans-DCE was not supported by wastedisposal records at the site. An investigation of TCE degradation/transformation products indicated that the end products were cis-DCE and vinylchloride. These findings had an impact on the sampling and analysis programsbecause different protocols needed to be used. The risk associated with thegroundwater contamination became much more acute because vinyl chloride is aknown carcinogen and so is considered more dangerous than TCE, which is only asuspected carcinogen (Wood 1980).
Biological
Many organic compounds go through some form of biodegradation by bacteriawhile in the unsaturated zone (Freeze and Cherry 1979). In general, syntheticorganic compounds are not easily broken down by microbial action. Organiccompounds that are not readily degraded by bacteria are known as refractorycompounds. Organic compounds that pose the greatest threat to the quality ofgroundwater are those that are relatively soluble, nonvolatile, andrefractory. The biologically produced organic compounds, such as sugars andami no acids, are the most biologically degradable. During biodegradation,certain anaerobic bacteria commonly produce short-chain organic acids that canbe further broken down to methane, carbon dioxide, and inorganic substances byother bacterial forms. Aerobic bacteria decompose organic compounds intocarbon dioxide and other inorganic compounds. Organic compounds may not bereadily degraded in groundwater when the microbial population is low or becauseof contaminant overloading (Pettyjohn and Hounslow 1983).
Chemical
A reducing anaerobic environment is conducive to the chemical transforma-tion of many organic compounds. DDT, which occurs in a highly oxized state, israpidly reduced in an anaerobic groundwater environment. The chemical trans-formation can result in an entirely different form, which in some cases can bemore toxic than the original compound. Organic compounds occurring in a highlyreduced state, such as hydrocarbons, are degraded only slowly in an anaerobicenvironment (Pettyjohn and Hounslow 1983).
EXTENT OF ORGANICS CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER
Review of the open literature has indicated that hazardous waste disposalis a major source of groundwater contamination, and a wide range of organiccompounds are found in groundwater as a result of these activities. As pre-viously discussed, solvents are the most common groundwater organic contaminantfrom hazardous waste disposal activities, and halogenated aliphatics are themost common solvent. Although evidence shows that contaminated groundwaterplumes are emanating from suspected sources, few investigations documented inthe open literature indicate widespread migration of contaminant plumes.Table 2 presents the results of our review of the migration of organics in
474
TABLE 2 . Measured Concentrations of Organic Compounds inGroundwater
Number of M K I U M I Cancantratlon Datactad/Haportad
Slta Identity
Fort Mi I lar. Fort Ed«ards,
Ha* York
OTT/Srory, Muskagan, Michigan
Sylvastar Slt«, N*x Haapshlr*
Havarford, Pann*ylv*nl*
Rocky Mountain Arsanal,
Colorado
Chamlcal Racovary Systans,
Romulus, Michigan
Class of Organic*
Datactad/RaportadIn Sroundwtar
PCS*
Haloganatad Allphatics
Aroaatlci
Haloganatad Aroaetlcs
Ph.noU
Haloganatad Phanols
PAHs
Haloganatad Allphatics
Haloganatad nreaatlcs
Phanols
Haloganatad Phanols
PAHS
Phtalatas
Haloganatad Phanols
Pastlcldas
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Phanol*
Compounds
Dataetad/
Raportad
N/A
7
3
3
2
1
10
3
3
2
1
1
I
3
1
1
Uig/L) at SpaclHad Olstanca
fron Contaminant Sourca (taat)
Untaaclflad
32,900
7,370
177
33
20
66
9
200,00018,000
0-500
46
47,900
2,700
2,700
<IO
45
no
2,400
500-1000 >1000
3.7
122,900
1,100
6,464
NO
NO
NO
Bafaranca
BlaSltnd et »1. 1981
Schvckreo at a l . tM2
Cuhva at a l . 1981
Schuckro* at a l . IM2
SchuckreM at a I . 1M2
JRB A**oclata* I9S4
Unnaaad Manufacturing Plant,
Southaast Pannsylvanla
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Weitarn Procasslnj), KingCounty, Washington
Blocraft Laboratortai,
Naldvick, Na» Jar*ay
Miami Drum Slta, Florida
Franch Llmltad Dlipo»«l Pit,
Crotby, Taxa*
Plalnnvlll* Hatar Caananv.
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Aromatic*
Phanols
Aliphatic*
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Aminas
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Aromatic*
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Aromatic*
Phanols
PAH*
Halooanatatf Allohatlcs
613
!21
4t1
62|1
2
230,000
720,000
22,000
3,200,000
131,000
9(9,000
354,000
136
5.2
5.8
910
teo32
ISO
430 3,000 Scltullar at a l . 1H2
Hu*saln at a l . IMS
Vldyut ana Maztacca 19*3
Hyar* 1N3
Traablay a«* Llaaa IM3
1,000 •oraaag an* Fulton 1412Connactlcut
Paasa Air Forca Basa,Portsmouth, Ne» Hampshire
Brldgaport Ouaray, MontgomaryCounty, Pannsylvan I a
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
153 «r«ol«y 1*Haraaiay 1H2
16
LaBounty Dimf> Slta,
Charlas City, I O M
Haloganatad Aliphatic*
Aromatic*
Haloganatad Aromatic*
Phanols
Aminat
e3121
8702307
17,000
190
South BrwuxIcK, N»» Jartay Haloganatad Aliphatic* 932
Schuekrot at al. I9«2
Schyckrow at al. 1tt2
Schvckra at al. 1982
475
groundwater at 16 sites in the United States. For the most part, the reportedextent of organics contamination was either unspecified or reported as beingwithin 1000 feet of the source. In most cases, site investigations areconfined to the property where the suspected source of contamination wasdiscovered, or to a small area outside the site property in line with thesuspected migration route of the contaminant plume. Additionally, most siteshaving extensive contamination problems are still in litigation and not yetdocumented in the open literature. These limitations on site investigationsand open literature documentation thereof, limit the reported extent oforganics migration in Table 2. Wide-scale analysis of water supply wells byCEQ (1981), however, does indicate that the migration of organics in ground-water is more widespread than indicated in Table 2.
One example of more widespread organics migration is seen in Nashua, NewHampshire, where the contaminant plume, as defined by total volatile organicsmeasurements, is about 1500 feet in length, 110 feet deep, and covers an areaof about 1.29 x 10b feet2 (Josephson 1983b). The estimated movement of theplume was about 1.7 feet per day.
SUMMARY
In recent years, organics contamination of groundwater has surfaced as ahigh priority national problem. To respond to this problem in a coordinatedfashion, EPA has recently created the Office of Ground-Water Protection.Improper waste disposal accounts for a substantial amount of groundwatercontamination (EPA 1984). Solvents are the most common groundwater contaminantresulting from improper waste disposal practices, and halogenated aliphaticsare the most common solvent found to be contaminating groundwater. Halogenatedaliphatics are contaminants of concern because they generally 1) exhibitcarcinogenic properties, 2) have been widely disposed of in a manner thatallows them to enter the groundwater, and 3) are transported readily ingroundwater without significant retardation or degradation.
Several mechanisms influence or control the migration and fate or organiccompounds in groundwater; these include sorption, volatility, solubility,viscosity, density, dilution, and biological and abiotic degradation. Althoughevidence shows that contaminated groundwater plumes are emanating fromsuspected sources, few investigations documented in the open literatureindicate widespread migration of contaminant plumes. In most cases, siteinvestigations are confined to the property where the suspected contaminantsource is located, or to a small area outside the site property. Additionally,most sites having extensive contamination problems are still in litigation andnot yet documented in the open literature. A study by the CEQ does indicatethat the extent of organics migration is larger than that indicated by ourreview of 16 case studies {CEQ 1981).
476
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. V. J. DeCarlo for his comments. Thiswork was supported by the Office of Operational Safety, U.S. Department ofEnergy, under contract DE-AC06-76RL0 1830.
REFERENCES
Blasland, W. V., W. H. Bouck, E. R. Lynch and R. K. Goldman. 1981. "The FortMiller Site: Remedial Program for the Securement of an Inactive DisposalSite Containing PCBs." In Proceedings of National Conference on Managementof Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, pp. 215-222, Hazardous MaterialsControl Research Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Bordeau, L. E., and G. P. Fulton. 1982. "Purge Aquifer to Remove VolatileOrganic Contamination." Public Works 113(7):72-73.
Bradley, E. 1980. "Trichlorethylene in the Ground-Water Supply of Pease AirForce Base, Portsmouth, New Hampshire." U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations. 80(557).
Bradley, E. 1982. "Contamination of a Glacial Aquifer at Pease Air ForceBase, Portsmouth, New Hampshire." Journal of the New England Water WorksAssociation 96(2):109-126.
Brower, G. R., and R. Ramkrishnadas. 1982. "Solid Wastes and WaterQuality". Water Pollution Control Fed. 54(6):749-754.
CEQ. 1981. Contamination of Groundwater by Toxic Organic Chemicals. Councilon Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.
EPA—see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Gushe, J. J., J. E. Ayres and A. J. Snyder. 1981. "Hazardous Waste SiteInvestigation Sylvester Site, Nashua, New Hampshire." In Proceedings ofNational Conference on Management of Uncontrolled HazardouT~Waste Sites,pp. 359-370, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,Maryland.
Hussein, A., J. Osborn, and F. Wolf. 1983. "Investigation of Soil and WaterContamination at Western Processing, King County, Washington." InProceedings of National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled HazardousWaste Sites, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver SpHng,Maryland.
Josephson, J. 1983a. "Restoration of Aquifers". Environmental Science andTechnology 17(8):347A-350A.
477
Josephson, J. 1983b. "Subsurface Organic Contaminants". EnvironmentalScience and Technology 17(11):518A-521A.
JRB and Associates. 1984. "Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste Sites".EPA-540/2-84-002Aa and b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,Ohio.
Myers, V. B. 1983. "Remedial Activities at the Miami Drum Site, Florida." InProceedings of National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled HazardousWaste SiteiT Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,Maryland.
Noel, M. R., R. C. Benson, and P. M. Beam. 1983. "Advances in Mapping OrganicContamination: Alternative Solutions to a Complex Problem". In Proceedingsof National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,pp. 71-75, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,Maryland.
Pettyjohn, W. A., and A. W. Hounslow. 1983. "Organic Compounds and Ground-Water Pollution". Ground Water Monitoring Review Fall 1983, pp. 41-47.
Roberts, P. V., M. Reinhard, and A. J. Valocchi. 1982. "Movement of OrganicContaminants in Groundwater: Implications for Water Supply". Journal ofthe American Water Works Association 74(8):408-413.
Roberts, P. V. and A. J. Valocchi. 1981. "Principles of Organic ContaminantBehavior in Groundwater". Sci. Total Envir. 21:161.
Schuckrow, A. J., A. P. Pajak, C. J. Touhill. 1982. Hazardous Waste LeachateManagement Manual. Pollution Technology Review No. "971 Noyes DataCorporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Schuller, R. M., W. W. Beck and D. R. Price. 1982. "Case Study of ContaminantReversal and Groundwater Restoration in a Fractured Bedrock." In Proceedingsof National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Tremblay, J. W., and J. C. Lippe. 1983, "State of Texas Superfund Program andReview of Two Specific Sites." In Proceedings of National Conference onManagement of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials ControlResearch Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. "National Statistical Assessmentof Rural Water Conditions." Office of Drinking Water, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Ground-Water ProtectionStrategy. Office of Ground-Water Protection, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgencyTWashington, D.C.
478
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1984. Federal and State Efforts to ProtectGround Water. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Transporta-tion and Tourism, Committee on Energy and Commerce. House of Represen-tatives, GAO/RCED-84-80, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Vidyut, J., and A. J. Mazzacca. 1983. "Bio-Reclamation of Ground andGroundwater Case History." In Proceedings of National Conference onManagement of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials ControlResearch Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Wood, P. R. 1980. Introductory Study of the Biodegradation of the ChlorinatedMethane, Ethene Compounds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,WOT.
479
7B: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVEGROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
D. E. GordonSavannah River Laboratory
Aiken, South Carolina
ABSTRACT
A comprehensive program for protecting the quality of ground-water underlying the Savannah River Plant has been developed and isbeing implemented. The major goals of the groundwater protectionprogram are to evaluate the impact on groundwater quality as a resultof Savannah River Plant operations, to take corrective measures asrequired to restore or protect groundwater quality, and to ensurethat future operations do not adversely affect the quality or availa-bility of the groundwater resources at the site. The specific ele-ments of this program include 1) continuation of an extensive ground-water monitoring program, 2) assessment of waste disposal sites forimpacts on groundwater quality, 3) implementation of mitigativeactions, as required, to restore or protect groundwater quality,4) incorporation of groundwater protection concepts in the design ofnew production and waste management facilities, and 5) review of siteutilization of groundwater resources to ensure compatibility withregional needs.
The major focal points of the groundwater protection program arethe assessment of waste disposal sites for impacts on groundwaterquality and the implementation of remedial action projects. Manylocations at SRP have been used as waste disposal sites for a varietyof liquid and solid wastes. Field investigations are ongoing todetermine the nature and extent of any contamination in the sedimentsand groundwater at these waste sites on a priority basis. Remedialaction has been initiated, in one instance, for the removal andtreatment of contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the fuelfabrication facilities.
Certain aspects of the groundwater protection program have beenidentified as key to the success in achieving the desired objectives.Key elements of the program have included early identification of allthe potential sources (waste sites) for groundwater contamination,development of an overall strategy for waste site assessment and mit-igation, use of a flexible computerized system for data base manage-ment, and establishing good relationships with regulatory agencies.
481
INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is a major source of water for drinking, irrigation, and in-dustrial purposes. Contamination of groundwater imposes severe limitations onfuture potential use and costly options for restoration of quality. Disposalof solid and liquid wastes from industrial processes is the largest potentialsource of groundwater contamination.
Production operations at the Savannah River Plant (SRP) have generated avariety of solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste materials. These waste by-products from nuclear materials production at the SRP have always been dis-carded in accordance with accepted practices at the time. As substances wereidentified as toxic in nature or classified as hazardous, the procedures fordisposal of these materials were changed. The use of many chemicals was dis-continued after such ^classification. Several locations at SRP have been usedas waste disposal sites for a variety of solid and liquid wastes. The use ofmany of these facilities was discontinued as changes were made in the accept-able methods of disposal. Some groundwater contamination has occurred beneatha limited number of waste disposal sites and there is the potential for contam-ination of groundwater in the vicinity of other waste sites.
A comprehensive program for protecting the quality of groundwater under-lying the Savannah River Plant has been developed and is being implemented.The major goals of the groundwater protection program are to evaluate theimpact on groundwater quality as a result of SRP operations, to take correctivemeasures as- required to restore or protect groundwater quality, and to ensurethat future operations do not adversely affect the quality or availability ofthe groundwater resources at the site. The specific elements of the ground-water protection program for accomplishing these goals include 1) continuationof an extensive groundwater monitoring program, 2) assessment of waste disposalsites for impacts on groundwatar quality, 3) implementation of mitigative ac-tions, as required, to restore or protect groundwater quality, 4} incorporationof groundwater protection concepts in the design of new production and wastemanagement facilities, and 5) review of site utilization of groundwater re-sources to ensure compatibility with regional needs.
This paper describes the groundwater protection program in effect at SRPand discusses some of the lessons learned in the development and implementationof such a program.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF SRQUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
There are basically three ways in which the chemical composition ofgroundwater may be changed (Pye and Kelley, 1984). First, natural processes canaffect groundwater quality through such t?ie*;hg isms> as mineralization due toleaching, concentration of salts from evapotraiispirat, ion, and localized deposi-tion of ions and metals such as chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, fluoride, iron,arsenic, and uranium. The second category vi contamination sources is that dueto the practices used for disposal of industrial process wastes. The third
482
category is related to production operations but includes indirect activitiessuch as accidental spills and leaks, agricultural residues, atmospheric contam-inants and acid rain, surface water, and improper well construction andmaintenance.
The potential sources of groundwater contamination at SRP fall in allthree of these categories. The natural pH of the groundwater in the aquifersunderlying the plant site ranges from 4.2 from aquifers composed predominantlyof quartz sand to 7.6 from aquifers composed of limestone (Siple, 1967). Thelow pH probably originates from the humic acids in the forest litter. Thequartz sand does little to change the initial pH. However, the limestoneaquifer reacts with the mildly acidic water to produce a near neutral pH.
Waste management practices since plant startup have included seepaqebasins, land disposal pits, low level radioactive waste burial ground, ashbasins, sanitary landfill, and rubble piles. Some 153 waste sites have beenidentified within the boundaries of SRP (Christensen and Gordon, 1983). Thesewaste sites are located in over 100 separate areas and are categorized into 39groupings as given in Table 1. Of the 153 separate waste sites, some 118 con-tain only nonradioactive waste materials, and 20 have been used as disposalsites for only low level radioactive wastes. The nonradioactive wastes may becomprised of materials classified as solid, hazardous (as defined by state andfederal regulatory agencies), or a combination of both. Fifteen sites havebeen used as disposal locations for both nonradioactive and radioactive wastes,referred to as mixed wastes when the nonradioactive component contains hazard-ous substances. Groundwater contamination at only six of these waste sitelocations has been verified. Groundwater contamination at seven site locationsis considered possible but additional monitoring data are required.
Accidental spills and leaks of liquid and solid wastes with the potentialfor environmental impact have been documented. The vast majority of thesespill sites have minimum potential for groundwater contamination.
PROGRAM STRATEGY
As part of the policy of the Department of Energy to protect the environ-ment and the health and safety of the public and operating personnel, thedevelopment and implementation of a comprehensive groundwater protec*'onprogram has been a top priority item since 1981. the strategy for protectingthe quality of groundwater has involved the development of a groundwater pro-tection plan, establishment of an organizational structure for plan management,and implementation of planned actions.
A groundwater protection plan (DOE, 1984) has been developed to identifythe specific program elements required for continuing an expanded groundwatermonitoring program and to determine and mitigate any significant adverseeffects of onsite and offsite groundwater. the plan was submitted to Congressin May 1984 in accordance with Public Law 98-181 enacted in November 1983.
483
TABLE 1. Groupings of Waste Sites at SRP
M-Area Settling Basin
CMP Pits
TNX Seepage Basins
Separations Area Seepage Basins
Savannah River LaboratorySeepage Basins
Silverton Road Waste Site
Radioactive Waste BurialGrounds
L-Area Oil and Chemical Basin
Coal Pile Runoff ContainmentBasins
Metallurgical Laboratory Basin
Ford Building Seepage Basin
Road A Chemical Basin
Waste Oil Basins
Hydrofluoric Acid Spill Area
Burning/Rubble Pits
Acid/Caustic Basins
Metals Burning Pit/MiscellaneousChemical Basin
Asbestos Pits
Ash Basins/Piles
Sanitary Landfill
Reactor Seepage Basins
Separations Area RetentionBasins
Rubble Pits
A-Area Rubble Pile
Forestry Rubble Pile
Gas Cylinder DisposalFacility
Ford Building Waste Site
SRL Oil Test Site
Former Military Sites
Experimental Sewage SludgeApplication Sites
Bingham Pump Outage Pits
Scrap Lumber Piles
Erosion Control Sites
TNX Storage Area
D-Area Waste Oil Facility
Sanitary Sewage SludgeDisposal Pit
Hazardous Waste StorageFacility
TNX Burying Ground
Central Shops Oil Storage Pad
484
Organizational changes were made within E. I. du Pont de Nemours andCompany (Du Pont), operating contractor for the Savannah River Plant, to pro-vide the necessary technical support and supervisory personnel for managing thegroundwater protection program. A separate group was established in theSavannah River Laboratory (SRL) to provide technical support on a variety ofgroundwater protection and hazardous waste management issues. New groups inthe operating departments of SRP were formed and assigned responsibilities forenvironmental activities. Environmental consultants have been retained toprovide a broader spectrum of experience on environmental issues.
Implementation of groundwater protection action has already begun. A re- .medial action project for cleanup of groundwater contaminated with chlorinatedhydrocarbons (metal degreasers) in the vicinity of the fuel fabrication area isunderway. Several other actions are being developed for implementation.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLAN
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Maintaining the quality of the SRP environment and protecting the vicinityfrom the impact of production operations were recognized as important objec-tives prior to site startup. Monitoring programs were initiated in theSavannah River and on the SRP site to establish baseline conditions in 1952.Monitoring analyses have been collected over the years for airborne emissionsand surface and subsurface waters.
The groundwater monitoring program at SRP was significantly expanded in1981 after the discovery of groundwater contamination beneath the settlingbasin for the fuel fabrication facilities. To date, monitoring wells have beeninstalled around 100 waste sites to gather groundwater quality data. Initiallyonly three wells are installed to determine groundwater flow direction. One ormore additional wells are added to achieve a pattern of one upgradient andthree downgradient of groundwater flow.
Most monitoring wells are drilled using the mudrotary method. The top ofthe screen zone is set above the seasonal high water table with the casingextending approximately two feet above ground surface. The length of thescreen zone is nominally 20 feet. The well annulus is backfilled with anappropriate gravel pack to a level above the screen, a sand layer is placed ontop of the gravel, and the remaining annular space is filled with concretegrout to the ground surface. For these water table wells, the screen andcasing are four-inch, screw joint PVC (schedule 80 piping preferred). A sketchof a typical monitoring well installation is shown in Figure 1. After instal-lation, each well is developed using a surge block and purging with air andwater. After development, permanent sampling pumps are installed in each well.The pumps are of a turbine design with 1/2 hp motors.
The analytical parameters for groundwater quality comply with thoserequired by RCRA (EPA, 1982a) and the South Carolina Hazardous Waste ManagementRegulations (DHEC, 1984a). A listing of these parameters is given in Table 2.
485
Guard Posts (3) at 120°(4" C/S Pipe in Concrete)
3'
4 " PVCCasing (Threaded)
Gravel Pack
Slotted PVC Screen(Threaded)
PVC Plug
Pipe Cap
Protective MetalSurface Casing^
10" Borehole
Cement Grout
Centering Guide
Bentonite Pci'ets orFine Sand (Min. of 2')
Sand Pack (Min. of 3')
Sump
NOTES: d ) All dimensions are nominal(2) For water table wells, the
screened zone is 2/3 belowwater table and 1 /3 above.
Figure 1. Sketch of Typical Monitoring Well at SRP
486
TABLE 2. Groundwater Monitoring Parameters
Quarterly Parameters
Water Table Depth
Specific Conductivity
Temperature
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Annual Parameters
Beryllium
Cyanide
Nickel
Phenolic Compounds
Organics by G. C.
Sodium
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromi urn
Fluoride
Lead
Radium
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Copper
Foaming Agents
Color
Corrosivity
PH
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Two Principal Metals
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP Si 1 vex
Turbidity
Coliform Bacteria
Hydrogen Sulfide
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
Zinc
Odor
NOTE: During the first year of monitoring all of the above parametersare analyzed each quarter.
487
Sampling of monitoring wells prior to 1983 was done using a bailer methodwithout evacuating any well volumes. During 1983, turbine pumps were installedin each well to evacuate four well volumes prior to sampling to ensure thatsamples representative of the aquifer were obtained.
The groundwater monitoring data are analyzed to determine any impact ongroundwater quality. The data from each downgradient well at a waste site arecompared to the upgradient well data using a modification of the statisticalprocedure outlined in 40 CFR 264 Appendix IV (EPA, 1982b). The procedure ismodified to allow generation of data to be in accordance with the SouthCarolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. The South Carolina regula-tions do not require quarterly duplicate samples whereas RCRA does for particu-lar parameters. Therefore the statistical procedure which is designated forduplicate samples was modified to accept data taken over several sampling peri-ods. The statistical test indicates which downgradient parameters are statis-tically different from the upgradient values. The parameters which are statis-tically different are potential groundwater contaminants. Real positives areconfirmed by comparison with known chemical contents of waste materials dis-posed to the given site.
Waste Site Assessment and Mitigation
The assessment of waste disposal sites at SRP for impacts on groundwaterquality and the implementation of required mitigative actions are currently themajor focal points of the groundwater protection program. The strategy forwaste site assessment and mitigation involves site identification, prioritiza-tion, preliminary evaluation, characterization, assessment, remedial actionplans, regulatory approval, and project implementation as illustrated inFigure 2. These aspects of waste site assessment and mitigation are discussedin this section.
The waste sites at SRP have been identified in a technical summary reporton groundwater quality protection (Christensen and Gordon, 1983). These wastesites have been given building numbers for convenient indexing and locationpurposes. As mentioned earlier, these 153 waste site are located in over 100separate areas and are categorized into 39 groups as given in Table 1.
Those waste sites which contain nonradioactive materials have been rankedin order of required attention. Priority lists were prepared based upon infor-mation available for each of the waste sites. The available information madeit necessary to divide the sites into two lists for prioritization. Thosesites where monitoring wells have been installed to collect groundwater qualitydata make up one list. The second list is made up of those sites which havevery little or no capability to establish groundwater quality. A rankingprocess was used whereby each site was separately evaluated and ranked. Appro-priate weighted attributes for evaluating the various waste sites were selectedand criteria within each attribute were rated from 1 to 4. The attributes con-sidered were facility size, nearness to plant boundary and streams, type offacility, type of waste in the facility, and the present state of the facility.Once a ranking sum was established, a priority ranking was made such that thesite with the highest sum was assigned the greatest priority. The prioritylisting for those sites with groundwater monitoring data for which there arescheduled closure actions is given in Table 3.
488
RANKINGINOEX
JSITE IDENTIFICATION!
I ,
—H PRIORITIZATION |
| PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION |
CHARACTERIZATION
M NO ACTION
GROUNOWATERINVESTIGATION
SEDIMENTANALYSES
CRITERIA MSITE ASSESSMENT
4.
GROUNDWATERREMEDIAL ACTION
PLAN
WASTE SITECLOSURE PLAN
REGULATORY APPROVAL
±REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT
Figure 2. Waste Site Assessment and Mitigation Strategy
489
TABLE 3. Priority Listing of Waste Sites With GroundwaterMonitoring Which Are Scheduled for Closure
Waste Site Priority
M-Area Settling Basin 1
TNX Seepage Basin (Old) 2
CMP Pits 3
D-Area CPRCB 4
F-Area Seepage Basins 5
H-Area Seepage Basins 6
TNX Seepage Basin (New) 7
Silverton Road Waste Site 8
Savannah River Laboratory Seepage Basins 9
P-Area CPRCB 10
K-Area CPRCB 11
A-Area CPRCB 12
F-Area CPRCB 13
L-Area Oil and Chemical Basin 14
C-Area CPRCB 15
H-Area CPRCB 16
CPRCB = Coal Pile Runoff Containment Basin
490
The radioactive waste sites have not been prioritized because no plans forthese facilities have been developed.
A preliminary evaluation is made on each waste site based on availableinformation to establish the need for more extensive field investigations.Documents such as shipping, receiving, inventory., and invoice records areexamined to determine the types and amounts of potential contaminants that maybe present. Detailed and dated plans of production facilities can tell whereand when activities that may have produced contamination took place. Availablegroundwater monitoring data are closely evaluated to assess the extent of anycontamination present. Multiple photographs of the SRP site taken at intervalsof several years have been used to identify and date specific activities andfeatures for clues to the existence of contamination. Based on this prelimi-nary evaluation, a judgement is made whether or not to proceed with efforts tofully characterize the waste site.
Waste sites are characterized to define the nature and extent of chemicaland/or radioactive contamination in the sediments and groundwater underlyingthe waste disposal locations. Also, data sufficient to develop mitigativeactions, if needed, are also gathered as part of the characterization effort.
Sediment samples beneath the waste sites are collected and analyzed forphysical and chemical characteristics, concentrations of specific chemicals,and the rate and direction of potential contaminant movement in the subsurfaceenvironment. The sediment samples are collected on a grid pattern and at pre-determined depths selected to provide sufficient data for spatial contouring ofany contamination. Sediment collection techniques have included shelby tubeand split spoon coring, hand auger ing, and hollow-stem auger ing. Seepagebasins require sample collection from a floating barge. Mudrotary drilling hasbeen used for collecting sediment samples deeper than about 5 feet, particular-ly when operating from a barge.
The sediment samples are analyzed for those constituents either known orsuspected to be present. A few samples are analyzed for the full list of pri-ority pollutants and hazardous substances as determined by EPA SW-846 methodol-ogy (EPA, 1980).
Groundwater investigations are outlined to gather information about sur-face water drainage patterns, groundwater flow direction, concentrations ofchemicals in the saturated zones, and water table levels. Clusters ofexploratory/monitoring wells are installed in the areas of suspected contamina-tion. The typical well design is shown in Figure 1. The screen zones are nom-inally 10 feet in length. Geophysical techniques such as terrain conductivitysurveys and soil gas analyses have been used successfully in defining probableareas of groundwater contamination. Geophysical logs are collected in thedeepest boring of the cluster. Screen zone settings, for the wells in eachcluster are based on the geophysical log data. Zones of higher transmissivityare screened so that the hydraulic gradient and direction across the confiningbeds can be determined. Groundwater samples are analyzed for the parametersrequired by RCRA and South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations(Table 2) plus any other known or suspected contaminants. Certain groundwatersamples are analyzed for the priority pollutants and hazardous substances asdetermined by EPA SW-846 methodology (EPA, 1980).
491
Interpretation of the characterization data is carried out in the siteassessment phase. The nature and extent of any contamination of the subsurfacesediments and groundwater are evaluated. Regulatory guidelines, when availableand where applicable, are used in establishing the specific pollutants whichare contaminating or may possibly contaminate the groundwater. In many cases,pollution standards have not been set by the state and federal regulators.Pathway analyses are used to establish the threat to the human environment fromthe presence of toxicants in the sediments or groundwater. Toxicity studieshave been conducted to determine the impact of discharging treated groundwaterto surface streams on the organisms in the food chain from sunfish to algae.The geohydrologic conditions at and in the vicinity of the waste site areexamined using geologic and hydrologic parameters measured in the characteriza-tion phase. The groundwater flow rate and direction are established for theunderlying aquifer(s). The site assessment results in a recommendation on theneed for remedial action and a definition of the extent of corrective measuresrequired to restore or protect groundwater quality.
As required, waste site closure and groundwater remedial action plans aredeveloped. Several technologies are available for removal, stabilization,and/or treatment of contaminated earth and for extraction, treatment, and/ordisposal of contaminated water. Excavation of sediments is proposed when thesoils are highly contaminated. Backfill of a waste site after source removaland clay capping are proposed if the level of contamination remaining can beshown to pose only a minimum threat to the human environment. The favoredoption for groundwater cleanup, which has been proposed and accepted in oneinstance, is extraction with vertical recovery wells and treatment for removalof contaminant. Air stripping is the preferred process for removal of volatileorganics from groundwater. The preparation of a closure plan for a waste sitefollows the format given in the EPA (EPA, 1981) and South Carolina (DHEC,1984b) regulations. Th<? specific sections to be included in a waste siteclosure plan are outlined in Table 4.
The approval of mitigative action plans requires acceptance by state andfederal regulatory agencies plus completion of the environmental review processunder the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In South Carolina, theDepartment of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has been given pr?.-»acy bythe EPA over groundwater protection regulations. Approval of environmentalaction plans by DHEC is required and may take as long as six months as speci-fied by South Carolina law. The NEPA process can be as simple as a memo-to-file action or as complicated as an environmental impact statement.
A remedial action project for closure of a waste site or cleanup of con-taminated groundwater is defined and engineering specifications are prepared.
Groundwater Protection Design Concepts
A policy decision has been made by the Savannah River Operations Office ofDOE that future designs of all new facilities shall incorporate groundwaterprotection concepts. In concert with this policy, a conscious decision hasbeen made to discontinue the use of seepage basins as a method for wastewater
492
TABLE 4. General Format of a Waste Site Closure Plan
Outline of sections to be included in the plan:
o Custodian
o General Description of the Facility
o Specific Data on Facility
o Planned Operation of Facility From Present Time to Closure
o Closure Plan
- Procedure for Removing and Decontaminating Wastes at Facility
- Covering Facility
- Schedule for Closure
o Post-Closure Program
493
disposal. Alternatives to those seepage basins still in operation are beingevaluated. Effluent treatment facilities are being designed for removal ofhazardous substances in the process wastewaters discharged from operations inthe fuel fabrication, separations and waste management, and equipment and test-ing areas. The waste treatment technologies under investigation are ultrafil-tration, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, ion exchange, and biodenitrifica-tion. Decontamination factors for the effluent treatment facilities are beingset to allow discharge of treated wastewater to NPDES outfalls.
Spill containment designs and procedures have long since been implementedat the existing production facilities. All future facility designs shallinclude this concept.
Groundwater Resource Utilization
Large quantities of groundwater are withdrawn from the Tuscaloosa Forma-tion underlying the Savannah River Plant for production and utility operations.In 1983 an average of slightly over eleven million gallons of water per daywere pumped from the Tuscaloosa (Christensen and Gordon, 1983). This pumpagerate is up by 50% over the rate recorded in 1980.
The hydraulic heads in the Tuscaloosa have generally declined since 1974by a nominal 10 ft. Irrigation in surrounding counties has been increasingsince about that time. Some of these irrigation systems are in the Tuscaloosa,but some are in the limestone equivalent of the Congaree Formation which over-lies the Tuscaloosa.
To ensure compatibility with regional needs, a review of site utilizationof groundwater resources has been initiated. A major part of this effort isthe collection of hydrologic and geologic data on the groundwater systems atSRP for the development of a regional flow model. Mul.tiple well clustersscreened at the aquifer zones between the basement bedrock and the water tableare being drilled around the site. A schematic of a typical well cluster isshown in Figure 3. Development of a numerical flow model of the groundwatersystem is about to begin. The model will be used to answer questions aboutregional effects due to SRP pumpage.
In addition, water consumption data for local municipal and industrialusers are being updated. Arrangements have been made with\the South CarolinaWater Resources Commission for obtaining such information.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the groundwater protection plan at SRP has beenaccomplished through an integrated, multidepartmental, and priority budgetedeffort. Specific responsibilities for the various plan elements have beenassigned among the departments in the SRP and divisions in the SRL organiza-tions within Du Pont. Du Pont provides the operating personnel and technicalsupport. Overall program oversight and responsibility resides with the DOEOperations Office at Savannah River (DOE-SR). DOE-SR provides the fundingrequirements and manages the contractual arrangements for getting the workaccomplished.
494
Land Surface
E9H• » • •iL0W 3M -IAN
4M -uR
f i l l-E
1N
e
WATER ifLCrr
n
Li
McBEM
(MCEN CLAr —J
CONQMEE
euAff iwfd iMMioM:: .^ ' : : .::';• ' ' : .:"'._.
UTKR TUCALOOM
IOWEB IiaCAlOOM
Figure 3. Schematic of Typical Well Cluster
The installation of groundwater monitoring wells and collection of period-ic water quality data are done by the Health Protection Department of SRP.Monitoring wells are located in all of the production areas and are continuingto be installed at the waste sites accordinq to a priority schedule. Analysisof groundwater quality data is performed by the Environment and Enerqy Depart-ment using statistical procedures to establish the presence of groundwatercontamination.
The assessment of waste sites is mainly the responsibility of the environ-mental divisions in SRL, in close cooperation with the operatinq departments ofSRP who have been assigned as custodians of the waste sites. Specificationsfor characterization of the sediments and qroundwater at a waste site areprepared and contracted to outside companies through the competitive biddingprocess. Environmental consultants are retained to provide technical assist-ance on data evaluation and interpretation, closure plan preparation, andinteraction with regulatory agencies.
A Waste Site Closure Task Force was formed to provide coordination ofsitewide environmental cleanup activities and achieve consistency in approachto groundwater protection actions. The task force consists of representativesfrom a variety of site groups which provide technical support to the waste site
495
custodians. The custodians of the waste sites (operating departments/divisions), in turn, form a site closure liaison team which coordinates thespecific actions required for final site closure. The organizational structureand responsibilities of the task force and liaison teams are shown in Figures 4and 5, respectively.
Some of the waste sites at the top of the priority listing have been eval-uated, assessed, and determined to require closure action. Schedules for thesewaste sites are published in the groundwater protection plan. An example of awaste site closure schedule is shown in Figure 6. Scheduled completion of thewaste site closure actions depend on timely approval by regulatory agencies andavailability of funds in the 00E budget.
The collection of hydrogeologic data from around the SRP site suitable fordevelopment of a numerical model of the groundwater system is being managed bythe Environmental Sciences Division of SRL. Phase I of the hydrogeologic base-line drilling program has been completed with the installation of 20 wells in 3clusters. Phases II and III specify the installation of 59 wells {8 clusters)and 56 wells (7 clusters), respectively. Update of groundwater consumptionboth by SRP and regional users is part of this overall modeling effort.
DATA BASE MANAGEMENT
Environmental monitoring and investigation programs generate tremendousvolumes of analytical results. Prudent categorization and storage of thesedata are essential for timely retrieval, statistical analysis, and visual dis-play. A computerized data, base has been developed to manage the informationgenerated by the groundwater protection program. Data files are establishedfor groundwater quality analyses, water level measurements, geologic loggingdata, and monitoring/exploratory well parameters. The computer is an IBM 3081and the data are stored on SAS data files. Well parameters, geologic data, andwater level measurements are keypunched onsite. Water quality analyses arereceived from analytical laboratory subcontractors on magnetic tapes for directread in to computer mainframe.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Field sampling of sediments and groundwater is a very important part ofdetermining the extent of any contamination. A series of procedures has beendeveloped for collecting these samples in accordance with regulatory guidelinesand to satisfy quality assurance requirements such as chain of custody, etc.
Requirements for quality assurance of analytical results from the labora-tory subcontractor are written into specifications of the bid package. Detec-tion limits, repl>;ate and duplicate sampling, spiked samples, and calibrationprocedures are ell examined. Visits are made to the analytical laboratory toaudit sample raceipt procedures, computer data entry, analytical techniques,etc.
496
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESDIVISION
Waste Site Characterization
Geohydrologic Conditions
Watte Site Assessment
Groundwater Modeling
Remedial Action Technoiogy
Pathway Analysis
Risk/Benefit AMiy$it
Data Base Management
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGYDEPARTMENT
Preliminary Waste SiteEvaluation
Regulatory Interface
Budget Management
Corporate Interface
Legal Interpretation
Audit Function
WASTE SITE CLOSURETASK FORCE
HEALTH PROTECTIONDEPARTMENT
- Groundwater Monitoring
- Sample Analysis
- Radionuclide Inventory
- Personnel Monitoring
LABORATORIESDEPARTMENT J
PROCUREMENT & GENERALSERVICES DEPARTMENT
L Contract Implementation
t Sample Analysis
Quality Assurance
WASTE MANAGEMENTTECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT Jt Hazardous Watte Disposal
Low-Level RadioactiveWatte Disposal
Figure 4. Waste Site Closure Task Force Matrix
497
WASTE SITE CLOSURETASK FORCE
I- IMiOH—lOl
WASTE SITECUSTODIAN
ENGINEERINGGROUP
SMa
SITE CLOSURELIAISON TEAM
I
SAVANNAH RIVERLABORATORY
L
ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTANTS SUBCONTRACTORS
i L M ^ thiM^m
Figure 5. Waste Site Closure Organizational Structure
498
(AID
WASTE SITECHARACTERIZATION
WASTE SITEASSESSMENT
CLOSURE PLANDEVELOPMENT
REGULATORYAPPROVAL
NEPA REVIEW
PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION
SITE CLOSURE
N M l A M N M M
1984 1965
CALENDAR YEAR
1986
Figure 6. Closure Schedule for Metallurgical Laboratory Basin
KEY ISSUES
Several lessons have been learned in the development and implementation ofthis groundwater protection program. There were a few false starts as theprogram was taking shape and some changes were made later when better methodswere identified. Experience to date, however, indicates that the overallapproach has been successful. Those aspects considered key in the success ofthe program along with those items which were changed or remain as concerns arediscussed in this section.
Identification and documentation of the waste sites early in the programproved to be a major task but one that was well worth the effort. All 153waste sites were described and the nonradioactive and mixed waste sites wereprioritized in a technical summary report. This report provides referenceinformation on waste site locations, materials disposed, monitoring data, andinitial thoughts on planned actions.
A parallel approach for addressing the waste sites to determine additionalactions was taken. This strategy has been helpful because the significantaspects of the various waste site categories were considered sooner than theywould have been if addressed sequentially.
The Waste Site Closure Task Force has provided leadership and direction tothe groundwater protection program and has exerted a positive, coordinatinginfluence. This sitewide organization has been a y&ry important factor inachieving and maintaining consistency in the program.
Development of an overall strategy for waste site assessment and mitiga-tion should occur early in the program to allow for proper project planning andbudget funding of remedial actions for groundwater quality protection.
A flexible computerized data base system is essential for proper manage-ment of environmental data. Without a computer system, data management wouldbe nearly impossible. Good data file software makes the routine tasks of dataretrieval, display, and statistical analysis very simple- and efficient.
Developing good relationships with the regulatory agencies is a key factorin arriving at acceptable solutions to environmental problems.
Recommendations from field experience are based on well drilling and sam-pling activities. Because of the squeezing clays in the stratigraphic unitsunderlying SRP, stainless steel casing was used in the deeper wells (depthgreater than 300 ft) and PVC casing was satisfactory for the shallower wells.Threaded schedule 80 pipe was more satisfactory than schedule 40. The pre-ferred monitoring well arrangement is one piezometer per well. Multiple piezom-eters are not recommended because of difficulty with packer operation. Ground-water pumped from the deep aquifer (300 to 800 ft below grade) effervesced atthe surface because the gases held in solution from hydrostatic head at depthwere released when the pressure reached atmospheric. This phenomenon requiresspecial sampling techniques if analyzing for volatile compounds because theywould probably be lost in the vapor phase and not be detected in the water.
500
The timing of the NEPA process remains a concern. Closure of those wastesites requiring an environmental impact statement could be significantlydelayed. Approval by state regulators is expected in less than six months;NEPA review could take 1-3 years.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information contained in this article was developed during the courseof work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with the U.S. Department ofEnergy.
REFERENCES
Christensen, E. J. and 0. E. Gordon. 1983. Technical Summary of GroundwaterQuality Protection Program at Savannah River Plant. DPST-83-829, Volume I.E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC.
DHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 1984a.South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. R.61-79.264Subpart F.
DHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 1984b.South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. R.61-79.264Subpart G.
DOE (U. S. Department of Energy). 1984. Groundwater Protection Plan for theSavannah River Plant. Prepared in Accordance with Public Law 98-181.Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Regulations forIdentifying Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR 261 Appendix ITT 45 FR 33119.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Interim Status Standardsfor Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities. 40 CFR 265Subpart G. 46 FR 2847.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982a. Regulations for Ownersand Operators of Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities. 40 CFR 264 Subpart F.47 FR 32349.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982b. Regulations for Ownersand Operators of Permitted Hazardous Waste FacilitieTI 40 CFR 264Appendix IV. 47 FR 32349.
Pye, V. I. and J. Kelley. 1984. "The Extent of Groundwater Contamination inthe United States." Studies in Geophysics: Groundwater Contamination.National Academy Press, Washington, Dfc.
Siple, G. E. 1967. Geology and Groundwater of the Savannah River Plant andVicinity, South Carolina. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1841.
501
THE SRP COMPREHENSIVE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM THESAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE'S MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Stephen R. WrightDOE-Savannah River Operations Office
ABSTRACT
A brief description will be given of the Savannah RiverOperations Office's approach to establishing and implementing acomprehensive groundwater protection program for the SavannahRiver Plant.
The Savannah River Plant could be described as a huge industrial chemicalcomplex that rests on several water bearing geologic formations. Theseformations range from a simple, small isolated perched water table located at40 feet below the surface to a massive pristine 600 foot deep aquifer that isutilized by offsite communities. In between are several discrete waterbearing zones that may or may not have direct connections to the deeper zone.
Since the beginning of the SRP operations in the early 1950's, both theAEC and Du Pont management recognized the need to protect the groundwatersunder the SRP site. A groundwater protection program has always been inplace, but as the National knowledge of the need to further protectgroundwater changed, so did the policies and strategies of the SRP change.Consequently, prior to RCRA, a great deal of research and development ongroundwater protection had been conducted. When RCRA was passed, the need wasseen to greatly increase the SRP efforts to protect groundwaters. As a resultof this need, the following strategy was developed:
(1) Increase the assessment and evaluation efforts;
(2) Develop a comprehensive plan to protect the groundwater;
(3) Establish a task force to evaluate the current status and needs of thegroundwater protection program. The task force had technical, legal, HQ,State, operations, and budget representation;
(4) Take the necessary actions to obtain funding for the increased programactivities;
(5) Increase the working relationship with the State of South Carolina suchthat all groundwater protection decisions are discussed with them;
(6) Pursue the program objectives in a parallel mode rather than a tandemone.
502
While undertaking these activities, there were several key areas thatcaused serious problems. These are:
(1) The Identification of areas of concern or potential areas of concern 1saccomplished much faster than you are able to establish what correctiveactions are needed. If any;
(2) A good, comprehensive plan for a large complex site takes many months toprepare and people do not want to wait;
(3) The justification for funding must be done over and over and over andover and over and over. Each time, you are asked to improve thejustification;
(4) Interactions with the State should be at three levels (top management,mid-level formal meetings, and technical working sessions by scientistsand engineers);
(5) Quality control checks of the data are absolutely critical and cannot beover emphasized;
(6) The geohydrology community of scientists disagrees within itself just thesame as any other scientific group; and
(7) The status of the development of sound groundwater cleanup standards 1sconstantly changing. Management decisions must be made using informationthat 1s not completely developed; and
(8) The States can use the Clean Water Act to control groundwater pollution.At this time, the SRP has gone through what we believe is the majority of
the growth pains of a formal comprehensive groundwater protection program. Weire currently working on full implementation of this program which wassubmitted to Congress. Various aspects of this program are demonstrated byseveral of the other papers presented at this meeting. The next presentationis a summary of the actions our contractor, Du Pont, undertook to implementthe program. The full paper will be in the proceeding and could be consideredas a comprehensive treatise on the development and Implementation of agroundwater protection program for a major Federal facility.
503
7C: GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CONTROL
JOHN L. STEELEE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Savannah River PlantAiken, South Carolina 29808
ABSTRACT
Chlorinated organic compounds (trfchloroethylene, tetrachloro-ethylene, and 1,1,1 Trichloroethane) were discovered in thegroundwater beneath the reactor and fuel target fabrication area atthe.Savannah River Plant in June, 1981 during routine RCRA monitoring.A three phase program was implemented to systematically address theproblem. Principal sources and contaminant location were ident i f ied.Air stripping was selected as the best suited remedial actiontechnology. A p i lo t air stripping column with one recovery wellinstalled to evaluate a i r stripping and a 50 gpm production an>stripper was installed with two recovery wells to expedite conta... ,antrecovery. A 400 gpm air stripper has been designed and is beingbu i l t . I t w i l l be an automated unit operating with eleven strategi-cally located recovery wells and w i l l be operational by March, 1985.
To date, the two air strippers have removed over 20,000 poundsof solvents and extensive geohydrological data continues to becollected. 138 monitor wells are sampled quarterly with 64 additionalwells to be installed by December, 1984. Current estimates indicatethe plume contains 300,000-500,000 pounds of solvents.
A three-dimensional, multi-layered finite-difference aquifiersimulation model is being developed as a tool to assist withassessment of the program's effectiveness.
SRP and the Savannah River Laboratory have coordinated theprogram with consultation and assistance from Du Pont EngineeringDepartment and an outside groundwater consultant, Geraghty & Mi l ler,Inc.
Since June, 1981, over $3,000,000 has been spent on theinvestigation and the fu l l scale project w i l l cost an additional$5,000,000. I t is a very large, expensive, involved ef for t .
505
DISCUSSION
Slide 1
The Savannah River Plant is located in western South Carolina near theGeorgia-South Carolina border.
Slide 2
The area at the Savannah River Plant which will be referred to isthe reactor fuel and target fabrication (M Area) area located inthe northwest quadrant of the plant site. It is basically a metal finishingoperation which manufactures fuel and target assemblies for the site'sreactors.
Slide 3
The next slide is an aerial photo of the 300-M Area and the nearbytown of Jackson, SC.
Slide 4
The next slide provides additional detail including the area's RCRAhazardous waste fac i l i t y which is called the M-Area sett l ing basin. Duringthe past years chlorinated degreasing solvents used in the 300-M areaprocess were discharged to an outfal l and a sett l ing basin (after 1958) byway of underground sewer l ines. Some spillage also occurred.
Slide 5 (Full text)
In June, 1981 during routine RCRA groundwater monitoring associatedwith the M-Area Settling Basin, the chlorinated degreasing solvents werediscovered in the basin's monitor wells. The solvents were identified astrichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
Slide 6 (Full text)
A thorough background investigation was conducted including: pastusage of solvents, sp i l l s , releases, and identif ication of potential sourceareas.
Slide 7
The next slide again shows the area but with the spacial extent ofthe plume outlined. The contours are in parts per billion (micrograms perliter). The red dots are recovery well locations..
506
Slide 8
More simply i l lust rated, the next slide presents a vertical perspec-tive of the plume and i ts relationship to M-Area, the plant boundary, andJackson, SC. The plume is large. The plume encompases over 700 acres.Current estimates indicate i t contains 300,000 - 500,000 pounds of solvents(primarily trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene).
Slide 9
The next slide is an illustration noting monitor and recovery welllocations along with the plume contours and area facilities. With the plumein perspective, the next step was selection of an appropriate means ofremedial action. Recovery wells and air stripping were selected.
Slide 10
An illustration of a typical recovery well is shown here. They are8" diameter wells. Three are currently installed and operating.
Slide 11
Shows a recovery well being drilled.
Slide 12
Shows a recovery well casing.
Slide 13
Shows a recovery well screen.
Slide 14
Shows a completed recovery well.
Slide 15
Air stripping is similar to distillation and involves the use of apacked column. Groundwater is fed to the top and air to the bottom. Thetwo flow countercurrently with the clean water discharged out the bottomand the organics out the top as gases.
507
SIida 16
To evaluate the air stripping technology, a 20 gpm pilot air stripperwas installed with one recovery well in February, 1983. It has removed over12,000 pounds of contaminants to date and continues to perform very well.
Slide 17
Packing used in the air strippers is 1" PVC Flexirings.
Slide 18
A 50 gpm air stripper was installed in December, 1983 and is currentlyoperating with two recovery wells. I t has been an important unit. With i t ,we were able to demonstrate effluent at <1 ppb. I t has removed over8,000 pounds of contaminant to date.
A large scale project is currently in the design stages. I t w i l laccelerate the current cleanup effort and w i l l involve a 400 gpm airstripper unit and eleven recovery wells (3 new ones plus 3 existing ones).
Slide 19
Is a comparison of physical characteristics of the three air strippers.
Slide 20
Is a comparison of the operating characteristics of the three units.
Slide 20A (Full text)
To further assist with the investigation, a modeling program wasinitiated to:
- Evaluate hydro!ogical/flow patterns of groundwater- Evaluate effectiveness of remedial action system
and- Identify and develop additional cleanup alternatives
The modeling program involved the development of a flow/hydrologymodel followed by a transport model for contaminants. The transport modelwill be superimposed on the flow/hydrology model. The modeling codeselected was the Trescott-Larson finite difference model (3 layer, 2 stack).Geraghty & Miller, Inc. is assisting with the effort.
508
Slide 21 (Full text)
The M-Area problem is a very large involved effort. In addition to theprogram just described, a new effluent treatment plant 1s being Installed,sewers are being relined, and the settling basin will be decommissionedand closed out.
Primary support for the program has come from Du Pont's EngineeringDepartment and the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL). SRL's NonradioactiveHazardous Waste Group headed by Don Gordon has been especially helpful andhas contributed greatly to the success of the program. An outside ground-water consultant, Geraghty & Miller* Inc., has also assisted.
Slide 22
Is a photo of a typical relined sewer.
Slide 23
In summary, i t is very expensive to address a situation l i ke ours.Since June, 1981, we have spent over $3,000,000 on the groundwater problem.The f u l l scale project w i l l cost another $5,000,000. Additional costs willalso be involved with the basin closure, the effluent treatment plant, andthe operation of the fac i l i t i es .
Slide 24
Therefore, I would like to encourage everyone ta be careful and avoidreleases to the environment. They can be very time consuming and expensive.It is much more simple to prevent a situation initially than to correct 1t.
509
uEORGIA-SOUTH CAROLINA f-
FIGURE 1 . Location of SRP
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT MAP
FIGURE 2. Savannah River Plant Map
eni—»
A/M AREA AND JACKSON, SC
FIGURE 3. Aerial Photo of A/M Area and Jackson, South Carolina
fV-";W'i:: '•%
AERIAL PHOIO
FIGURE 4. Aerial Photo of M-Area Settling Basin
AERIAL PHOTO OF A/M AREASWITH CONTOURS AND RECOVERY
WELLS-11-
FIGURE 7. Aerial Photo of A/M Areas with Contoursand Recovery Wells
514
SLIDE 7
en• — •en
JACKSONDRINKING
WATER
. : • • • • . . ' . . • - • • . « -.TUSCALOOSA' " . : • •1 • . ° * ' <J . " . * • • • • • • • . • 'T • - t " • - • • • . . ^ ^ ^ " . • •
FIGURE 8. Vertical Perspective of the Plum and its Relationship to M-Area
9t t »
\I
« \ \ ?<w ° ^ - • •"• M •'O.OOO^.I \ x v
oso
OH I
PLANT NORTH
O MONITOR WCLL LOCATION ANOMSt OE&iGNATlON
£ WATCH SUPPLY WCLL
EXISTINGRECOVERY WEIL—
» WELL NUMIER
J«J AVERAGE VOCCONCENTRATION
t.oooriiT
SCALE
Contour Map of Average Concentrations of VolatileOrganics in the Tertiary Sediments.
FIGURE 9. Contour Map of Average Concentrations ofVolatile Organics in the Tertiary Sediments
516
Genghty A Miller. Inc.
LOW MCTCft
- - ^ v - snne W»TM m«.c
STCELWtU. KKCNSMI(•"OMMTCNI
TOP Or SCNCCN t«OjO.»th
WOT TO « C * L t
FIGURE 10. Recovery Well
517
PHOTO OF RECOVERY WELL BEING DRILLED
SLIDE 11
FIGURE 11. Recovery Well Being Drilled
518
01
RECOVERY WELL CASING
FIGURE 12. Recovery Well Casing
aw
RECOVERY WELL SCREEN
FIGURE 13. Recovery Welt Screen
ro
COMPLETED RECOVERY
FIGURE 14. Completed Recovery Well
Groundwater Feed
en
Air + Chloro-Organics
Stripped Water
FIGURE 15. Air Stripping
PILOT AIR STRIPPER
FIGURE 16. Pilot A1r Stripper
I
I
AIR STRIPPER PACKING -21-
FIGURE 17. Air Stripper Packing
SLIDE 17
524
50 GPM AIR STRIPPER
FIGURE 18. 50 GPM Air Stripper
5
SIZE- DIAMETER- HEIGHT (FT)- MATERIAL
PACKING- 2 BEDS- MATERIAL- TYPE
PILOTSTRIPPER
mu
3^PVC
9 ' EACHPVC
FLEXIRING
M-AREAPRODUCTION
STRIPPER
20"
30*1 S/S
W EACHPVC
FLEXIRING
FIGURE 19. Physical Characteristics of the Three
PROJECTSTRIPPER
H.5'70
304 S/S
1 7 ' EACHPVC
FLEXIRING
Air Strippers
en
5 3 LIQUID FEED (6PM)
AIR FLOW (CFM)
FEED CONCENTRATION(TOC), (PPB)
EFFLUENT (PPB) TOTAL
AIR EMISSIONS (LB/HR)
FIGURE 20. Operating
PILOTSTRIPPER
20
210
160M
<20
1
Characteristics
M-AREAPRODUCTION
STRIPPER
50
310
100M
< 1
3.5
of the Three
PROJECTSTRIPPER
330
2000
48M
<1
7.9
Air Strippers
enoo
SEWER RELINING
FIGURE 22. Typical Relined Sewer
7L): GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND STUDIES AT OAK RIDGE
N. H. CutshallT. W. OakesP. M. Pritz
J. StoneMartin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Groundwater monitoring and related studies at Oak Ridge dealwith activities ranging from highly applied tasks that support DOEenvironmental management programs on the Oak Ridge Reservationand at other sites to fundamental research in geohydrology. Inaddition to site-specific groundwater programs at each of thethree major plants in Oak Ridge, studies are carried out on theReservation at large. The latter include multiplant cooperativeprojects as well as research and development in groundwatergeology and hydrology. Participants in Oak Ridge groundwaterprojects include Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. personnel;subcontractors; and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Groundwater-related projects at Oak Ridge can be classified ascharacterization, monitoring, or basic groundwater research.Groundwater characterization studies are conducted to 1) determinesuitability of sites for planned uses, 2) design monitoring systems,and 3) obtain parameters for modeling descriptions. Monitoringactivities are designed to 1) satisfy regulatory requirements,2) provide early warning of contamination problems, 3) signal needfor remedial actions, and 4) establish effectiveness of siteenvironmental programs including remedial measures. Basicresearch projects are underway that deal with 1) flow inhomogeneous, anisotropic media including fractures and soilmacropores, 2) geochemistry of solute transport in groundwater,and 3) hydrologic and geochemical modeling.
There is a significant exchange of information and sharing offield data among investigators for applied projects, such asmonitoring and site characterization, and for basic researchpurposes. This exchange is mutually advantageous to all parties inits providing state-of-the-art technical support to site operations onthe one hand and opportunities for practical applications of basicresearch efforts on the other.
529
7F: INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIALAT SANOIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, ALBUQUERQUE* NM
Bruce M. ThomsonDepartment of Civil Engineering* University of New Mexico
Albuquerque* NM
Gordon SmithSandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM
ABSTRACT
Sandia National Laboratories - Albuquerque has operated a smallchemical waste landfill disposal facility for over 20 years. The facilityconsists of unlined pits for disposal of segregated lab wastes and a linedpit for disposal of waste chromic acid, although prior to 1978 this wasdumped In an unlined pit. Field Investigations have found evidence ofchromium migration to a depth of about 15 m below the unlined pit, at aconcentration of about 10 ug/g. Other contaminants have not been found Inthe soil column. The chromium appears to be In an oxidized, and thereforemobil state, however unsaturated groundwater velocities at the site arevery small. A monitoring program 1s described to Insure protection ofgroundwater resources at the site.
INTRODUCTION
Sandia National Laboratories - Albuquerque (SNLA) has operated a smallTreatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) for disposal of laboratorywastes for over 20 years. The facility has accepted a broad spectrum ofwastes Including acids, bases, Inorganic and organic chemical wastes.Recently, soil contamination by chromium from waste chromic acid has beendiscovered. This paper describes Investigations which have Identified themagnitude of the problem and discusses the potential for groundwatercontamination resulting from this facility. A proposed groundwatermonitoring program Is also presented.
DESCRIPTION
SNLA occupies an area of about 1140 ha located 1n the eastern portionof Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB) (Figure 1). Monzano Base, a Departmentof Defense facility, lies to the east of SNLA, also within KAFB. Theentire base. Including SNLA, occupies an area of 21,100 ha. SNLA 1s di-vided Into five geographic zones, designated Tech Areas I through V. TheTreatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) addressed 1n this paper 1slocated 1n the southeast portion of Tech Area III.
The TSDF (Figure 2) consists of six open, unlined landfill trenches, alined evaporation surface Impoundment, an unused open pit, a containerstorage area and a number of covered trenches whose boundaries are not wellestablished. The landfill has been In use since 1962, and closure of thesite 1s foreseen 1n the near future. Not shown In Figure 2 1s a closedunlined chromic add disposal trench which 1s the subject of this Investi-gation. This trench Is located about ten feet to the north of trenchnumber one 1n Figure 2. Records of materials landfUled at the site prior
531
Si
SAN DlA
FISURE I
SITE LOCATION MAP,ALtUQUCftQUE ANO KIRTLAND
AIH POMCE IASE CAST
WWWMUDWW
SANOIA NATIONAL LAtORATOKICSALIUOUEftOUE, NEW MEXICO
Figure 1. Location of Sandia National Laboratories - Albuquerqueand Tech Area III.
532
f iifiilli
©
i1
I
.
its
V •
©I*
0
©
b So
8 « - 1 J
- IS I*
Mi;!!i l\ ii
Figure 2. Map of landfill, surface impoundment and container storagearea at SNLA, Tech Area III.
533
to 1980 were poorly kept and no accurate estimate of the amount of chromicacid deposited within the closed trench 1s available. Accurate dates ofutilization of the trench ar» also not known.
There are only two wells located near Tech Area III. A1r Force WellNo. 10, located 2.8 km north of the TSDF near the entrance gate to TechArea III (Figure 3)» 1s approximately 140 m deep. It is a standby well tobe used as a contingency water supply for Tech Area III If there 1s arupture 1n the existing water suply line. Another well located near TechArea III* designated as A1r Force Nell No. 9* 1s over 4.0 km northeast ofthe TSDF and 1s approximately 180 m deep. It Is abandoned and there are noplans for future use. The nearest surface water 1s the R1o Grande locatedapproximately seven miles to the west of the TSDF.
The TSDF site lies near the middle of the upper Rio Grande Basin whichoriginates In southern Colorado and directs flow southward toward the Gulfof Mexico. The Sandla, Manzano and Manzanita Mountains form the easternboundary of the basin. The groundwater basin 1n the Albuquerque areagenerally consists of the Santa Fe group sands. This group consists ofbeds of unconsolidated* to loosely consolidated sediments. It ranges Inthickness from 15 to 3,000 m. A thin alluvial layer generally overlies theSanta Fe group sands In the vicinity of the TSDF. At the TSDF* the depthto groundwater was estimated at 140 m based on the observations 1n A1rForce Well No. 10.
The climate may be described as Arid Continental* with an averagerainfall of 20 cm/yr. Almost half of the annual moisture occurs during themonths from July to September* with most of the rain falling In the form ofbrief and* at times* heavy thunderstorms. Evapotranspiration 1n the areahas been estimated at 95 percent of .the annual rainfall (U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers* 1979)* with a conservative rate of 90 percent used In thisstudy.
INVESTIGATION
The first Investigation which looked Into the possibility of subsur-face contamination as a result of the SNLA waste disposal facility was In1971. Five holes were drilled and the cores sampled for beryllium* chro-mium* lead* cadmium* mercury* cyanide and phsnols. Four of the five holeswere outside of the fenced In facility* and the f i f th was near the center*though 1t was st i l l approxiately 130 feet from the chromic add pit. Noneof the cores collected during this program contained measurable levels ofthese contaminants (SNLA* 1971).
In 1978* an Investigation was begun of potential Interactions betweencontaminants and soil at the waste disposal facility* and how contaminanttransport might be affected (Persaud and Wierenga* 1982). Specifically*the physical and chemical characteristics of soils representative of thesite were measured and a one dimensional finite difference computer modelwas developed to simulate contaminant migration through soil below thedisposal facility. Soil parameters which were measured Included soil typeand classification* particle size distribution* moisture content* hydrauliccharacteristics and adsorptive capacities of various soil fractions forInorganic contaminants. These adsorptive capacities were fitted to aFreundiich Isotherm model.
534
!i
iS 2
i i
QL
If *I! £HI
\\ \
I V S
Figure 3. Location of existing water wells, approximate groundwaterlevels and proposed groundwater monitoring wells.
535
A second coring program was conducted 1n 1981 at the edge of chemicaldump pit 2A. This time significant contamination of the soil column bychromium was found to a depth of 14 m. Although no other contaminants werefound* sufficient concern was generated by these results to develop a moreextensive sampling program. This was conducted during the summer of 1983and consisted of four holes, drilled to a depth of 23 m. Three undisturbedcores were collected with a split spoon sampler at five foot Intervals. Inaddition to chromium* this program measured moisture content and looked fororganic solvents 1n each of the samples. No other contaminants were found*however. The results of the sampling program for chromium are summarized1n Figure 4.
DISCUSSION
Chemistry
Chromium can occur In aqueous systems In two oxidation states* thetHvalent (Cr(IID) and hexavalent (Cr(VD). The standard for chromium Indrinking water 1s established at 0.05 mg/L under the Safe Drinking WaterAct* and 1s set for total chromium* although Cr(III) 1s not toxic except atrelatively high concentrations (USEPA* 1980).
The principal concern at the SNLA hazardous waste disposal site Isthat chromium will contaminate groundwater below the site* which 1s thesame aquifer utilized by the city of Albuquerque for Its water supply.However* due to large depth to groundwater and the remoteness of the sitethe contamination does not constitute an Immediate hazard.
The oxidation-reduction and acid-base chemistry of chromium can beconveniently summarized on a pe-pH diagram (where pe = -Kog{e"}) (Figure5). In this diagram the dashed lines show the stability limits for water;the upper Hne representing water 1n equilibrium with 02(g) (oxidizingconditions)* and the lower line representing the equilibrium between waterand H2(g) (strongly reducing conditions). It can be seen that under oxi-dizing conditions* the thermodynamically stable species of chromium arepredicted to be soluble* anionic chromates ( HCrO4~* and CrO4
2")# andCr(IIX) species which above pH 4.5 are thermodynamically stable as Insolu-ble oxides (shown In figure 5 as eskoiaite - )
The redox chemistry suggests that only Cr(VI) Is mob 11 near neutralpH; that Cr(III) will be removed from solution by precipitation onto parti-culates 1n the soil column. Therefore* two types of extractions wereutilized In analyzing cores collected during the latest sampling program;an add extraction using HNOg which 1s assumed to all chromium present* anda less rigorous extraction using only deionized water which should extractonly water soluble chromium. It was found that below the bottom of thepit* nearly all of the chromium present was extractable with delon1zedwater* and thereby Inferred to be In the Cr(VI) form.
Hydrology
Using an annual rainfall of 20 cm/yr together with 90 percent evapora-tive losses* and using an average soil moisture content of 0.0675 cirVcir*the average downward velocity component of the Interstitial water 1*29.6 ,cm/yr. At this moisture content and a bulk density of 1.8 g soil/cm3, and
536
DISTANCE (ft)
CORE SAMPLING HOLESFigure 4. Chromium concentrations in soil below TSDF (units of ppm),
Results of July 1983 core sampling program.
537
CHROMIUM SYSTEMCrT - tO~*M
6PH
8 /O t2 14
Figure 5. Summary of oxidation-reduction and acid-base chemistry of
of chromium. Total chromium concentration of 10 M.
538
assuming that all of the chromium present 1s soluble, a soil concentrationof 100 ppm (100 ug Cr/g soil) corresponds to an aqueous chromium concentra-tion of 2,670 mg Cr/L. This Is 1n comparison to the drinking water stan-dard of 0.05 mg/L.
Wierenga (1982) has developed a one-dimensional model of contaminanttransport In unsaturated soils. Using the conditions found at the SNLAsite he has estimated that 445 years will be required for the peak concen-tration of a conservative (I.e. non-reactive) contaminant to reach ground-water. In 360 years, the peak concentration of the contaminant plume ispredicted to decrease by slightly less than 10 percent due to dispersionthroughout the soil column.
In a groundwater system, solute Interaction with the soil particleswill frequently result In significant retardation of the contaminant front(Freeze and Cherry, 1982). The principal mechanism of Interaction consistsof Ion exchange reactions for 1on1c constituents. However, soils nearneutral pH are usually negatively charged, consequently virtually no Inter-action with anionic species such as chromates Is expected (Bolt, 1978).This was confirmed by Persaud and Wterersga (1982) In which adsorptioncapacities were reported for cadmium, cesium, lead, mercury, nickel andstrontium but no adsorption of chromium was found. Therefore, 1t Is likelythat chromium can be considered a conservative species and that the modeldeveloped by Wierenga 1s representative of one dimensional transport ofchromium 1n the soil column at the TSDF,
Groundwater Monitoring Program
The nature of this contamination problem 1s somewhat unique In that,although there are high levels of a toxic contaminant associated with thesoil beneath the disposal site, It Is difficult to monitor the movement ofthe contaminant. This 1s due principally to the unsaturated conditionswithin the soil which make sample collection difficult. A further compli-cating factor 1s the extremely long time before the contaminant 1s pre-dicted to enter the groundwater. Therefore, SNLA requested a groundwatermonitoring waiver and proposed Instead a continuing soil monitoringprogram.
After reviewing the groundwater monitoring waiver request, the StateEnvironmental Improvement Division (EID) found the Information Insufficientto justify a waiver. The EI0 recommended that groundwater monitoring beImplemented for three reasons:
1. SNLA would have to demonstrate no potential for contaminant migra-tion, as opposed to low potential, during the post-closure period atthe TSDF.
2. As unlikely as pollution of the groundwater from the TSDF mayappear, groundwater monitoring would provide Immediate detection ofcontamination from any unforeseen event.
3. Soil core sampling, which was offered as an alternative to ground-water monitoring, would not provide complete assurance that contami-nants have not migrated to the water table. Migration could occuralong a route not Intercepted by a soil core.
539
As a result of this denial, a groundwater monitoring plan Is beingdeveldoped for this site. The objectives of the plan are to determine Ifaquifer contamination has occurred* provide early detection of groundwatermonitoring, determine background aquifer quality, and'determine hydraulicproperties of the aquifer. The preliminary plan* Illustrated In Figure 3,calls for Installation of four wells; three downgradient wells near theperl water of the TSDF and one upgradient well which will allow monitoringof background water quality. Each of the wells will be drilled using theair rotary method to prevent possible formation contamination. Stainlesssteil slotted well screens will be used to minimize contamination of watersamples. The well system will be monitored quarterly for the first year,and semi-annually thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS
An Investigation of contamination of the soil beneath the SNLA TSDFhas found significant levels of chromium to a depth of approximately 15 m.Fig?d studies, laboratory and numerical modeling, and theoretical consid-erations suggest that the contaminant plume will continue to migrate down-ward so long as water infiltration from the surface continues. This migra-tion rate Is estimated at 30 cm/yr.
Due to this slow migration velocity and the great depth to groundwaterat the site (estimated at 140 m) a waiver of groundwater monitoring wasrequested and a soil monitoring program proposed Instead. While the vari-ous Investigations described 1n this paper have Increased the level ofunderstanding of the problem, they have not conclusively shown absence ofaquifer contamination. To address this problem SNLA 1s In the process ofimplementing a groundwater monitoring plan.
REFERENCES
Bolt* G.H. 1978. "Adsorption of Anicns By S o i l " , Chapt. 5 In Soi lChemistry, At Basj£ Eleaents. G.K. Bolt and M.G.M. Bruggenwert* eds.»Elsevier Sc1. Pub. Co., Amsterdam, pp. 91-95.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. (iroundwater. Prentice-Hall , Inc.,Englewood C l i f f s , NJ.
Persaud, N., and P.J. Wierenga. 1982. £olil±ft Interactions and TransportI n Soils frpm Waste Disposal Sites a± Sandia Laboratories* f ina lreport under USDOE Contracts No. 07-3196 and 46-3243, 237 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Kfl£o£ QualityCr i ter ia fox Chroniun. EPA 440/5-80-035, Office of Water Regulationsand Standards, Washington, D.C
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Albuquerque Greater Urban A n t Klt tCStudy, Albuquerque Dist r ic t Corps of Engineers, pg. 2-20.
Wierenga, P. 1982. Downward Movement of Chromium From A. Waste CheaicalDisposal S i t t I n Tech Area I I I Sandia Laboratories. Albuquerque* NM»report to SNLA* 6 p.
540
7G: INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENT. AT THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLEX
B. F. Russell1, S. A. Mizell2, L. C. Hull1, T. H. Smith*,B. D. Lewis3, J. T. Barraclough4, T. G. Humphrey1
Idaho National Engineering LaboratoryIdaho Falls, Idaho
ABSTRACT
A comprehensive, 10-year plan to investigate radionuclidemigration in the subsurface at the Radioactive Waste ManagementComplex (RWMC) has been prepared and initiated (in FY-84) byEG&G Idaho, Inc., a prime contractor to the Department of Energy(DOE), and the U. S. Geological Survey INEL Project Office. TheRWMC Subsurface Investigation is designed to address two objectivesset forth by the DOE Idaho Operations Office: 1) Determine theextent of radionuclide migration, if any, from the buried waste,and 2) Develop and calibrate a computer model to simulate long-termradionuclide migration.
At the RWMC, the Snake River Plain Aquifer underliesapproximately 177 m (580 feet) of partially saturated, fracturedbasalts and thin sedimentary units. Three sedimentary units,accounting for no more than 20 m (65 feet) of the partially saturatedthickness, appear to be continuous throughout the area. Thinnersedimentary units are discontinuous. Low level waste and (priorto 1970) transuranic waste have been buried in the surficialsediments at the RWMC. The first burials took place in 1952.
Due to the complicated disposal system, a comprehensivereview of state-of-the-art vadose zone monitoring instrumentationand techniques, an analysis of conceptual migration pathways,and an evaluation of potential hazard from buried radionuclideswere conducted to guide preparation of the investigation plan.The plan includes an overview of the RWMC facility, subsurfacework conducted to date at the RWMC and other DOE laboratory facilities,an evaluation and selection of the methods and studies to beused, a radionuclide hazard evaluation, a cost analysis, andexternal peer review results. In addition, an Appendix containsthe details for each method/study to be employed.
The selected strategy includes 11 methods/studies. Shallowand deep drilling through basalt to the two sedimentary interbeds
1 EG&G Idaho, Inc.2 Former EG&G Idaho, presently University of Wyoming3 USGS INEL Project Office4 Retired USGS INEL Project Office
541
with full core recovery, will provide samples for radionuclideand geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical analyses. DownholeInstrumentation will be emplaced for monitoring moisture movementthrough the vadose zone. A test trench and weighing lysimeterfacility will provide detailed Information about the processesof moisture entry to and movement through the surficial sediments.Information obtained from the samples and moisture monitoringwill be utilized to define system parameters for the computersimulation model.
INTRODUCTION
A large Inventory (> 180,000 m 3) of radioactive wasteIs burled at the INEL's RWMC. Some radionuclides in the wasteare long-lived, so there Is a potential of their long-term migration.Radionuclides in the waste could conceivably migrate either upwardtoward the ground surface or downward toward the Snake RiverPlain Aquifer. Protecting the quality and Integrity of thisaquifer is of great Importance since Its waters are extensivelyused 1n southern Idaho for agricultural purposes and for commeMcalfish production. The questions of subsurface migration of radionuclfdesIs of particular Interest for an eventual DOE decision regardingpossible retrieval of burled transuranic waste from the RWMC.Evidence of gross migration could support a decision scheduledin 1995, to retrieve approximately 57,000 m 3 (2,000,000 ft3)of this waste.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The term "RWMC subsurface", as used in this document,refers to the unsaturated zone underlying the RWMC. This unsaturatedzone encompasses all geologic materials between the ground surfaceand the water table of the underlying Snake River Plain Aquifer.Included are the relatively thin (5-10 m) sedimentary units atthe surface and at depths of about 34 m (110 ft) and 73 m (240ft). Also Included In the unsaturated zone are the basalt flowswhich comprise most of the geologic sequence. The Aquifer, whichlies at a depth of about 177 m (580 ft), Is excluded from activitiesconducted under the planned Investigation.
The Investigation Includes studies proposed by the UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS) INEL Project Office, and ES46Idaho, Inc., prime contractor to the United States Departmentof Energy (DOE) at the INEL. The planned activities were jointlyprepared under the guidance of the DOE, Idaho Operations Office.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Two primary objectives were formulated by the D0€-IdahoOperations Office:
542
1. Measure the actual migration of radionuclides to date,in order to determine whether there 1s a problem froma public health and safety standpoint. The 34 m (110ft) sedimentary interbed 1s of greatest Interest. However,the near-surface sedimentary layers and other sedimentaryand basalt layers are also of Interest.
2. Field-calibrate a model to predict the long-term migrationof radionuclides In the unsaturated zone. Achievingthis objective will require measuring hydrologic transportproperties, accounting for radionuclide behavior andradioactive decay, obtaining or developing a computerprogram for the model, and field calibrating the model.
Both of these objectives carry equal weight.
BACKGROUND
Geographic Setting
The INEL occupies approximately 2,305 km2 (890 mi2)of the northwestern portion of the Eastern Snake River Plain(ESRP) in southeast Idaho (Figure 1). The surface of the INELIs relatively flat-lying, semi-arid, sagebrush desert, with predominantrelief being manifested either as volcanic buttes or as basaltflows and/or flow vents and fissures. The RWMC is located inthe southwestern portion of the INEL in a topographic depression(Figure 1). The facility encompasses approximately 58.3 hectares(144 acres).
Geology of the RWMC
Geophysical logs from five monitoring wells around theRWMC indicate basalt intercalated with sedimentary interbedsto a depth of at least 200 m (680 ft) below the surface (Figure2). Two major sedimentary Interbeds occur at depths of 34 m(110 ft) and 73 m (240 ft); although other discontinuous Interbedsexist.
The RWMC is situated in a small drainage basin whichcontains from 0 to about 7.5 m (25 ft) of wind- and/or water-depositedsilt, sand,, clay, and gravel as surfidal sediments. Basaltis below the soil and crops out around the periphery of the basin.Within the basin, basalt 1s characterized by relatively horizontallava flows. The basalt has high secondary permeability due tofractures and joints. RadiometHc age dating estimated the youngestbasalt flow sequence at the RWMC to be between 45,000 and 145,000years old (Kuntz et. al. 1980).
The surficial and interbedded sedimentary deposits arecomposed primarily of silt-sized particles, with clay-sized particlesranging from 5 percent to, in some locations, greater than 50 percent.Fine to medium sand-sized particles are common, and locally,
543
may comprise greater than 50 percent of the sediments. Smallto medium gravel-sized particles are a common minor constituentof the sediment beds (Barraclough et. al. 1976).
Hydro!ogle Setting
The climate at the RWMC Is that of a semi-arid highdesert. The average annual precipitation Is about 20 cm (8 in)with about 50 percent falling as snow. As expected for a semi-aridenvironment, the potential evaporative losses exceed the precipitation.
The RWMC lies 1n the central and lowest portion of ashallow valley enclosed on three sides by low hills. The valleybottom slopes downward less than 0.5 percent to the east. Surfacewaters as snowmeit and runoff, exist around the RNMC for a shorttime in the spring. In 1962, 1969 and 1982. unusually rapidsnowmeits coupled with spring rains caused local flooding ofthe RWMC (DOE 1982 and Barraclough et. al. 1976). In 1962 and1969, flood waters came Into contact with the waste in partiallyfilled pits and trenches. In 1982, floodwaters ponded on severalareas in and around the SOA.
The principal ground water feature near the RWMC isthe Snake River Plain Aquifer, which is a continuous body ofground water underlying most of the ESRP. The Aquifer consistsof basalt flows with sedimentary interbeds. Most permeable zonesappear to occur along the upper and lower edges of the basaltflows, which have Irregular fractures fissures and voids (Barracloughet. al. 1976). The depth to the Aquifer is about 177 m (580ft) at the RWMC. Regional ground water gradients and flow linesof the Snake River Plain Aquifer (Figure 3) indicate a generalsouthwesterly direction of ground water flow beneath the INEL.
Waste Inventory
Radioactive waste has been burled or stored at the RWMCfor about 30 years. Sources of wastes are INEL activities, theRocky Flats Fabrication facility and other AEC licensees. Thetotal volume of waste disposed at the SOA through 1981 Is about180,000 m5 (6,300,000 ft?). Prior to 1964, TRU waste at theRWMC was generally burled in the same locations at LLW. Thisresulted In about 33,400 m 3 (1,180,000 ft3) of LLW being Intermixedwith an estimated 62,000 m 3 (2,200,000 ft3) of TRU waste. Theestimated radioactivity inventory for TRU waste burled at theRWMC Is 253,000 curies. The activity for LLW mixed with TRUwaste is estimated to be 580,000 curies, and the approximateInventory for LLW burled separately from TRU waste Is 8,200,000curies.
Review of Past Studies
Studies of possible subsurface migration of radionuclidesat the RWMC began In 1960. The most recent study was conducted
544
in 1979. Six studies have involved drilling and subsurface sedimentsampling. In the earliest study, holes were augered to the firstbasalt encountered, a depth of 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft). In subsequentstudies, most wells were completed after penetrating one or bothof the sedimentary interbeds. The 1970-1974 study included fourwells drilled to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. In addition,three studies have analyzed surficial sediments immediately belowwaste pits.
The data compiled from six previous drilling campaignshas not provided conclusive results regarding subsurface migrationthrough basalts. Radionuclides have been formed in concentrationsthat are greater than concentrations in control wells at the95% confidence level. However, cross contamination of samplescould not be ruled out as the source of radionuclides.
The subpit sampling investigations provided data tosuggest that most migration has occurred over a range of 0.33m to 1.0 m (1 to 3 ft) from below the buried waste. The resultsconsistently indicated that concentrations are generally thehighest near the buried waste and are rapidly attenuated withincreasing distance from the waste.
SELECTION QF RECOMMENDED STUDIES
A four-step process was employed to select the recommendedset of methods and studies to be conducted in the RWMC SubsurfaceInvestigation. The process used to compile the recommended studygroups is illustrated in Figure 4.
The first step in the selection process (Figure 4) wasto identify approaches for reaching the program objectives.Then specific studies were listed which relate to the data requirements.A wide range of specific studies were defined to fulfill thedata needs of each objective. After delineating the specificstudies, methods of obtaining data for each were identified.A set of criteria to evaluate specific studies and methods werealso generated. These criteria helped to ensure that combinationsof specific studies and methods in study groups were logical,feasible, and acceptable.
Approach
The first step was to select an approach for each objective.The approaches selected were:
0 For Objective 1, collect samples from geologic materialsbeneath the RWMC and install permanent water samplingdevices. Water samples can be collected under routinemonitoring programs to detect changes 1n radionucHdepresence. Drilling and coring havt b«tn Identified asthe most appropriate means of collecting samples indestablishing sampling points.
545
0 For Objective 2, use a numerical model to simulate radionuclidemigration through the tin saturated sediments and basaltsbeneath the RWMC. The model will be based on the advection/dispersion equation. Two reasons exist for modeling;It Is useful as an Investigative tool for data evaluationand Interpretation and as a predictive tool to simulatelong-term radionuclide migration from the waste. Initialmodeling efforts will utilize water-balance equationsand simple analytical models of moisture movement. Modelsophistication, especially with regard to migration throughbasalts, will increase as data and understanding of thehydrogeologlc system are gained. Alternatives [includingequivalent porous media representation and vertical pipeflow) to modeling migration 1n the basalts will be evaluatedas appropriate data become available.
Criteria for Judging the Acceptability of Specific Studies andMethods of Obtaining Pita
Criteria were required to judge the acceptability ofcandidate specific studies and methods. The criteria formeda basis to reject unsuitable methods of studies. This screeningprocess was used to save time in evaluating large numbers ofproposed methods or studies. The criteria also provided constraints(i.e., schedule, cost) on the entire set of investigations.
The criteria used are presented below. Not all criteriawere quantifiable, however each provided a qualitative measureby which the ability of a specific study or method could be evaluated.
1. Each method or specific study must contribute to meetingat least one of the two objectives for RWMC subsurfaceInvestigations. The group of proposed methods or studiesmust meet both of the objectives.
2. The schedule for meeting the objectives must be acceptableto DOE.
3. The cost of the methods or specific studies must notexceed $800K/year.
4. The methods or specific studies must be acceptable toDOE, based on considerations of policy and of stateand public acceptance.
5. The methods or specific studies must utilize existingtechnology.
6. The methods or specific studies must not compromisethe existing confinement Integrity of the RWMC.
7. The methods or specific studies must be amenable tostatistical analyses.
Specific Studies
Each specific study was required to meet at least oneof the two program objectives. An example of tht process employedto Identify tht specific studies which contribute to Objective2 follows below.
546
The logic diagram presented in Figure 5 shows the inter-relationship of information required to meet Objective 2. Asshown in the figure, to simulate radionuclide migration, therelease rate of radionuclides from the waste and the amount ofmoisture moving through the waste must be known. This informationcomprises the source term in migration modeling. The follow-oncomponents to address this objective include: Advection, Dispersion,Retardation, Reversible Sorption, Water Chemistry, and ChemicalMass Transfer, Model Development and, Model Ca
ry, aTbratration.
Figure.5 is divided by a dashed line showing the minimumlevel of model sophistication needed to meet Objective 2. Theset of data and processes above the line will adequately projectradionuclide migration to the extent required by the objective.The sophistication associated with the minimum level of effortassumes an advection/dispersion model with retardation, but itremains below the level of currently available technology.
A second dashed line on Figure 5 indicates the practicallimits of available technology in the modeling of radionuclidemigration.
Description of Specific Studies
Twenty-five individual candidate studies were identifiedin support of meeting one or both of the objectives. Four primarygroups were formulated in which these studies could be classified:hydrogeologic data, geochemical, migration data, and model developmentand calibration.
The hydrogeologic data provides the basis for modelingmoisture movement in the subsurface. These data define the directionand rate of moisture movement and the amount of moisture present.The titles of the specific studies evaluated 1n this group are:Net Downward Water Flux, Hydrogeologic Properties of Sediments,Hydrogeologic Properties of Basalt, Interface Phenomena, Hydrogeologyof Waste Pits, Correlation of Basalt Flows, and Temperature Profile.
The geochemical mechanisms can be effective in retardingradionuclide migration. The ability to incorporate chemicalmechanisms (such as radionuclide solubility, sorption, and wasteleaching) accurately in the model Is important to the characterizationof radionuclide migration rates. The studies evaluated in thisgroup are: Waste Reachability, Chemical Form of Radionuclides,Dispersivity, Sorption Coefficients, Characterization of GeologicMaterials, Kinetics, Solution Chemistry, and Chemical Mass Transfer.
The concept for Investigating radionuclide migrationin the subsurface Involves defining the extent of contaminationpresent, If any, In the sedimentary interbeds or basalt beneaththe RWMC. Knowledge of radionuslides present and hydrogeologic .characteristics will assist 1n the understanding of migrationprocesses. The specific studies In this group are: RadionuclideConcentrations In Sedimentary Units, Radionuclide In Basalt Series,
547
Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Radionuclides, and Migrationof Tritium.
The fourth study group is associated with model developmentand calibration. A field-calibrated model to predict the long-termmigration of radionuclides in the RWMC subsurface will satisfyObjective 2. The model will help evaluate the hazards of wasteburial at the RWMC and project the effects of proposed modificationsto disposal practices. During the period of data collection,the model can also be useful as an investigative tool aidinginterpretation of data and identification of additional requirements.The supporting work includes the development of input data andmodel parameters, development of the simulation model and modelcalibration.
Candidate Methods of Obtaining Data
Twelve candidate methods that could be used to obtaindata for the specific studies were evaluated. The ability ofeach method to meet the established criteria and the relationshipof each method to the individual objectives provide the basisfor the overall evaluation process. The methods that were consideredare: Use of Existing Data or Samples, Deep Drilling, ShallowDrilling, Downhole Instrumentation, Spectral Logging, Test Trench,Weighing Lysimeter, Tracer Studies, Surface Geophysics, Off-SiteAquifer Sampling at Thousand Springs, Off-RWMC Drilling, andDisposal Pit Instrumentation.
Three of the twelve methods were judged unacceptableunder the screening criteria and scope of the program. Thesethree were Off-Site Aquifer Sampling, Off-RWMC Drilling, andDisposal Pit Instrumentation.
All of the remaining methods satisfy the criteria andwould contribute to Objective 2 by providing data for input toand/or calibration of a simulation model. Of these remainingmethods, those involving drilling, downhole instrumentation andspectral logging would also provide data for meeting Objective 1.
Study Sets
Five study sets were formulated ranging from whollyinadequate to extremely comprehensive, depending on how manyspecific studies and methods were included. These study setsare illustrated in Table 1. An "x" Indicates that a method isincorporated in the study group. The letters "P" and MA" indicatethe quality of data expected from specific studies of the studygroup. Asterisks indicate that data-collection methods willnot affect the quality of data because the studies involve computerand statistical analysis.
For some studies, multiple methods are required to obtaindata by preferred techniques. In such cases, when one of therequired methods is eliminated in the study group the resultingdata set is still of acceptable quality. These situations arerepresented in Table 1 by a "P/A".
548
The five study sets (Table I) represent a decreasingtrend in satisfying both objectives, ranging from the "Full Program"to the "Drilling and Analysis Only-Minimum Program". In additionto these five programs, the "No Action" alternative has beenconsidered, but is not shown on Table 1.
Study Set Selection
Of the study sets identified, the Recommended Programwas selected for further development. It provides the best assurancefor achieving both objectives at a cost expected to be withinthe available funding. The Drilling and Analysis Only studysets will not lead to achieving Objective 1. The Minimum Programwould be expected to reach Objectives 1 and 2 in a marginal manner.The Full Program would be expected to exceed the available funding.
The Recommended Program includes Deep Drilling withpartial coring and excludes Spectral Logging, Surface Geophysics,and Gas Phase studies. Specific studies excluded are Correlationof Basalt Flows, Temperature Profile, and Migration of Tritium.Only those specific studies that require basalt samples mustbe accomplished by less-than-preferred methods.
The Deep Drilling portion of the Recommended Programprovides for sampling all stratigraphic units to and includingthe 73 m (240 ft) interbed and the upper few feet of Basalt SeriesC. However, analysis of basalt series will be incomplete becauseof the partial coring. Use will be made of basalt series fromprevious cores.
Detailed Study Plans, Cost, and Schedule
Study plans, including an estimated cost and schedule,were prepared for each of the individual methods and specificstudies that constitute the Recommended Program. Detailed Studyplans were written for those methods/studies that were to beinitiated in FY-84 or FY-85. Summary Study Plans were preparedfor those methods/studies to be initiated 1n FY-86 or later.
Cost and schedule information is also contained in boththe Detailed and Summary Study Plans. These data were used torevise the estimated program budget and overall schedule.
Peer Review
The RWMC Subsurface Investigation Plan was subjectedto a peer review by professionals from other DOE National La to ra tones(Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Pacific Northwest Laboratories) andscientists from the U. S. Geological Survey (Denver and Restonoffices). The peer review was held 1n order to review the approachand specific studies in relation to achieving the stated objectives.Comments were obtained and Incorporated into the final document.
549
PROBLEM AREAS
The primary problem area that needs to be addressedin more detail is that associated with contamination control.The drilling activities must be strictly controlled and performedaccording to strict procedures in order to prevent contaminantsfrom inadvertently entering the sample. Unlike conventionalhazardous waste investigations, the problem is not associatedwith bringing a "hot" sample out of the hole* but instead isone of preventing a "hot" particle from entering the well bore.
A detailed set of drilling, instrumentation, and samplehandling procedures are now being prepared. These procedureswill provide specific step-by-step guidance to the well drillers,support crew, and laboratory personnel. These procedures willbe peer reviewed and approved by all program participants priorto the initiation of any drilling activities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was performed in conjunction with scientistsfrom the U. S. Geological Survey INEL Project Office. This workwas conducted by EG&G Idaho, Inc. for the U. S. Department ofEnergy under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570
REFERENCES
Barraclough, J. T. et. al. 1976. Hydrology of the Solid WasteBurial Ground, as Related to the Potential Migration ofRadionuclides. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,IDO-22056, USGS, Water Resources Division, Idaho Falls, ID.
DOE, 1982. Environmental and Other Evaluations of Alternativesfor Management of Defense Transuranic Waste at the IdahoNational Engineering Laboratory, IPO-10103, Idaho Falls, ID.
Kuntz, M. A. et. al., 1980. An Evaluation of Potential VolcanicHazards at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, IdahoNational Engineering Laboratory, Open File Report 80-388,USGS, Idaho Falls, ID.
Mundorff, M. J. et. al., 1964. Ground Water for Irrigation inThe Snake River Basin in Idaho, Water-supply Paper 1954,USGS, Washington, D.C.
550
fij
VIIIICJI •i*gg«'*non n toui iimts iOalum it mian M I ttvii
Hgurt 2 Gtoloqic i
* Cantrai Facility Araa* loino Cnamicai •>'oe«»i«p "am
: » Radtoactivt ftaitaManaoamam Comatwi
* T « I I Araa Norin• Tail Rtacior Araa
Flfor* 1 LK»IM tf tM IMCl U4 Ik* MC.
'!—I
I \\.
Staia of M M O
>!•«• KUomatan
ExaianaWn
5 \ y^ -Apwoimia i t baundafy o* tnt aaaiarn'/ Snaka Mvar Ham
r *V^« QantraiiiM own«-waW (lowlint llrom MunOtfir t l H. 1M4)
Fitura 3 Locition _ . __tar th« Smka RWar * U t1H4).
M MI yHMl2t4((fur Nwttftrfr ma HMri,
551
Program Objectives
Select Approach
Identify Data Needs andSpecific Studies
List Methods of Obtaining Data
Compile Study Groups
Figure 4. Logic structure for compiling study groups for RWMCSubsurface investigations.
SOURCE TERMMODEL DEVELOPMENT
ADVECTIONMODEL CALIBRATION
ADVECTION AND DISPERSIONMinimum Level of Model
..is. — -•- ..j-SopbisticatioD-tQ-Beacb-ADVECTlON AND DISPERSION WITH RETARDATIoFf [ Objective 2
ADVECTION AND DISPERSION WITH REVERSIBLE SORPTION
H ADVECTION AND DISPERSION WITH SORPTION [= f(water chemistry)]
_,, ADVECTION AND DISPERSION WITH CHEMICAL MASS TRANSFER
*Limit of Available Technology
Figure 5. Logic diagram illustrating how specific studies contributeto Objective 2.
552
TABLE l . METHODS AND SPECIFIC STUDIES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDY GROUPS
Methods Existing Data or SamplesDrilling with Total CoringDrilling with Partial CoringDrilling with Sediment Sampling
Shallow DrillingDoanhole InstrumentationSpectral LoggingTest TrenchWeighing LysimeterTracer StudiesSurface GeophysicsSas Phase Studies
Specific Hydrogeology Net Downward Water FluxStudies Properties of Sediments
Properties of BasaltInterface PhenomenaWaste PitsCorrelation of Basalt FlowsTemperature Profile
Geochemical Waste teachabilityChemical Form of Radio-miclides
DispersivitySorption CoefficientsCharacterization of GeologicMaterials
KineticsSolution ChemistryChemical Mass Transfer
Migration Radionuclfde ConcentrationsSurficial Sediments34-m (11O-ft) Interbed73-* (240-ft) InterbedBasalt Series A8asalt Series BBasalt Series C
Distribution ofRadionuciidesHorizontalVertical
Migration of Tritium
Umlai lku>lua«i» mil P»l !K«.«f l>n
FullProgram
XX«
aXXXXXXX
i
*•
p
**
Study Grouos
RecommendedProgram
X--X-•
XX-.XXX«—•
ppAPA..- • -
AP
PP/AP/A
P/AP*
PPPAAA
**--*•
MinimumProgram
X----xb
XX..• •
X.-—
APAP....--
..
..
PP/AP/A
..
--
PP........
*b*b--
••
Orilllng andAnalysis Only
Full
XX-.—
XX
-.—
-.—
A---.-..-..--
..
..
-.
..
--
PPPPPP
**--
Minimum
X....x"
XX
..-.....--
A• -«-•....—
• -
..
..-•
PP.-......
*b•b--
a. The key Is: P • Preferred; A • Acceptable; x • included; — • excluded; • • study conducted bycomputer or statistical analyses; ** » Study conducted by computer based on results of al l other studies.
b. Two sediment layers only, surflclal and 34-m (110-ft) Interbed.
553
7H: A STATISTICAL/MODELING APPROACH TO GROUND WATER MONITORING ATBROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
M.G. Hauptmanna, A.F. Meinholdb, N. OdenJ5 E. Kaplanb, and J.R. Naldua
Brookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, New York 11973
ABSTRACT
A new approach is described which uses a statistical technique (kriging)in combination with a solute transport model to provide guidance to groundwater monitoring activities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory site.
Kriging was used to generate a continuous water level surface usingsynoptic June 1983 water level data. The water level surface in thelandfill/waste management area has implications for the interpretation ofground water monitoring data.
The Prickett/Lonnquist Random Walk Model was used to simulate themovement of tritium from the landfill over a ten year period. The simulationaccounted for decay and for the periodic addition of tritium to thelandfill. The source term was based on records documenting the amount oftritiated mouse litter added to the landfill from 1972 to 1976. The krigedwater level surface was used as input to the model, and the flow field used inmodel calculations was based on this data.
Tritium levels based on monitoring data from 1983 were kriged and thissurface compared to model predictions. The model concentration predictionclosely matches the monitoring data, and the pattern apparent in the twosurfaces is similar. Prior to this work a southeasterly direction of groundwater flow had been assumed in this area. The kriged water level surface andthe model prediction both indicate that the movement of ground water is aorecomplex.
a. Safety and Environmental Protection Divisionb. Department of Applied Science
* Research carried out under the auspices of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, IAG. No. AD89F2A170
555
Introduction
This paper Illustrates the use of krlglng, a spatial estimation technique(Krige, 1970, 1976; Journel and Huijbregts, 1978; Ripley, 1981; Oden, 1984) inconjunction with a numerical aquifer simulation model (Prickett and Lonnquist,1981) in an application to ground water monitoring at Brookhaven NationalLaboratory. The techniques were used to investigate possible relationshipsbetween tritium deposited at a landfill and Increased levels of tritium In amonitoring well. Kriging was used to generate detailed aquifer headrelationships at a relatively small study site, that contained the landfilland the monitoring well. These head relationships were used to define theflow field of the numerical model. For the given flow field the model wasused to simulate transport of tritium from the landfill to the vicinity of themonitoring well. Finally, a kriged pattern of tritium concentration at thestudy site was compared to the pattern predicted by the simulation model. Theresults indicate that the landfill is a possible source of the tritium in themonitoring well, and that the methods used in this paper would be valuable infuture monitoring activities.
Background
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a DOE facility located on LongIsland, New York approximately 50 miles east of New York City (Fig. 1). TheLaboratory is underlain by an unconsolldated aquifer of glacial origin whichconsists of sands and gravels with interspersed clay and silt lenses. Thegravel portions of the aquifer transmit water rapidly, while portions withclay lenses impede the transmission of water and may cause strong localdeviations from the general ground water flow pattern.
The regional direction of flow at the laboratory is from upper left tolower right (Fig. 2). A system of monitoring wells exists to monitor impactsof laboratory activities on ground water. Many of these wells are located inthe vicinity of the landfill/waste management area. Several of the wells inthe waste management area of the Laboratory have recently shown elevatedlevels of tritium. Well WK has the highest concentration although the levelsof tritium have never exceeded the drinking water standard.
A possible source of tritium is the landfill, 1800 ft N.W. of the wastemanagement area (Fig. 3). Cage litter from laboratory animals that had beentreated with tritiated compounds was deposited there for a period of fiveyears, and it was postulated that leachate from the cage litter was beingtransported to well WK in the ground water. This possibility was tested bytaking advantage of the method of kriging to estimate a detailed water tablesurface for the landfill/waste management area and using the resulting headrelationships to calculate a flow field for a numerical solute transportmodel.
Kriging
Kriging is a method of estimating a continuous surface from irregularlyspaced data points. It is a statistical technique in which the data pointsare assumed to represent discrete observations of the underlying continuoussurface of interest. The surface has an expected value ("drift"), much likeordinary least squares regression, and a covarlance function. The drift and
556
FIGURE 1. Map of the Long Island Area Showing the Location of BNL
FIGURE 2. Laboratory-Wide Water Table Study Area
557
enen00
WASTE MANAGEMENTAREA
0 soSCALE (IN METERS!
FIGURE 3. Landfill/Waste Management Area with Study Site
covariance function are fitted to the data. Following the fitting procedure,the surface can be estimated at unobserved locations. Far from the datapoints the estimates are almost identical to the "drift" at that location.Nearer the data points, the surface is less determined by the "drift" and moreby the data in a manner depending on the covariance function. The surfacepasses through the data points. An estimate of the preciseness of the krigingestimate is reported as the mean squared predictive error, i.e., the expectedvalue of the squared difference between the estimate and the actual surface.The result of this technique is an estimated surface that can have quitecomplex and detailed local perturbations in areas with an abundance of data.
In this monitoring application, the technique was used twice: toestimate the water table surface in the landfill waste management area, and toestimate the pattern of tritium distribution in the area. In both cases the"drift" is assumed to be a polynomial of order k in latitude and longitudei.e., if there are n data points Y^:
E(YL) - 2 1 BJJ lat£ longj, L - 1,2 ..., n
i,J>0
The covariance function is assumed to be:-d.,
Cov
where dj* is the distance between ith and jth points. More detail on theother parameters of the "drift" and covariance can be found in Oden (1984).Fig. 4 is an example of drift (sltewide) and Fig. 5 the estimated surface,which is the drift modified by the influence of the data points. Thepertubations in the surface (Fig. 5) represent identified areas of rechargesuch as the sewage treatment plant, sand filter beds and the landfill.
There are three important assumptions behind the kriged surfaces thatmust be kept in mind for their correct Interpretation:
1) There is no measurement error in the data points2) The underlying surface being estimated is really continuous3) The data used to generate the surface is synoptic
Deviation from these assumptions can lead to misinterpretations of the resultsof kriging.
Water Table
The landfill/waste management area kriged water table surface (Fig. 6)represents the water table elevations in feet, In an area approximately 1600ft by 1200 ft. Given the type of aquifer beneath the Laboratory, it can beassumed to represent a real continuous surface. Laboratory-wide data from 51monitoring wells sampled over 3 days In June, 1983 were used to generate thesurface (Fig. 5) from which Fig. 6 is extracted. This time period is assumedsynoptic for the purposes of this application. The surface identifies anexpected high water table in the upper left corner caused by recharge moundingbeneath the landfill and reflects the overall gentle slope of the water tableto the southeast. In addition, an area of complicated fine structure isidentified in the lower right corner of the surface. This may be caused byclay deposits in the area since standing water can be seen there after heavy
559
FIGURE_4. Laboratory-Wide Water Table Drift
FIGURE 5. Laboratory-Wide Kriged Water Table
560
561
rainfall. Water table maps generated previously at the Laboratory by othermanual methods have not identified this structure (Warren, et al., 1968).
The head relationships of Fig. 6 were used to calculate the flow field ofthe simulation model based on the further assumption that the 1983 surfaceelevation relationships are relatively constant over time. One would expectseasonal vaiation in the water elevations but this application assumes thehighs remain highs and the lows remain lows. An attempt was made to justifythis assumption by kriging non-synoptic water table elevations from 1975. The1975 surface was simlar enough to the 1983 surface so that there wasconfidence in using the 1983 surface to represent the period 1972-1984 ratherthan the ideal of a synoptic measurement for each year of the simulation.
Tritium Data
Kriging was used to estimate the spatial distribution of tritiumconcentration in the landfill/waste management area (Fig. 7). The surfaceidentifies high tritium concentration in the landfill at upper left and alsoshows elevated concentrations near well WK at lower right. However, there isno a priori reason to believe the surface represents a continuous surface asin the case of the water table. The two areas of high concentration may haveresulted from two separate incidents. This possibility is ignored since themethod assumes a continuous surface. Other sources of tritium may exist inthe waste management area, but for the purposes of this exercise we haveassumed a source only at the landfill. Confidence in the assumption of acontinuous tritium surface is increased because the landfill area isrelatively small. Another problem with the surface involves the number ofdata points used in the kriged estimate. Fourteen wells were sampled over 3months. Since the surface is based on relatively few non-synoptic points itshould be interpreted in a qualitative manner. Therefore, this applicationrelies more on the pattern of distribution rather than actual concentrationswhen comparing the tritium surface with simulation model output (see below).
Simulation Model
The simulation of solute transport in this application was done with the"Random Walk" model of Prickett and Lonnquist (1981). This is a numericalmodel based on an approximation of the partial differential equation governingtwo dimensional transport of solute in ground water in a porous medium. Theirapproach involves first replacing the continuous aquifer system parameterswith an equivalent set of discrete elements. A grid is superposed over a mapof an aquifer and the aquifer is thus subdivided into volumes havingdimensions of x y z (where z is the saturated thickness). Theinterstitial velocity vectors between grid nodes are derived from aquifercharacteristics and the head relationships at the nodes either by consideringhead data directly or by some other mechanisms (Prickett and Lonnquist, 1981).Once the flow field is established in this manner, particles representing manyunits of mass are moved from node to node according to the appropriatevelocity vectors and according to a dispersion component that is assumed tofollow a normal distribution. As the number of particles gets extremely largeand approaches the molecular level, an exact solution to the model problem isobtained. Radioactive decay is accounted for by decreasing particle mass.
562
Concentrations can then be calculated at different grids from the known volumeof each element and from the amount of mass represented by a particle.
The use of the model in this application involves several simplificationsof the aquifer system:
1) Two-dimensional transport is considered. No vertical component toparticle motion is allowed and solute is assumed to mix completelyand instantly over the entire saturated thickness of the aquifer.This is obviously an over-simplification of the process of landfillleaching.
2) Saturated flow is considered. The mechanisms that transport solutethrough the soil and the rest of the unsaturated zone are unknown forthis model. In this application a two-year lag rate was assumed fortravel of solute to the saturated zone of the aquifer*
3} Only the shallow flow regime is considered. Although BNL isunderlain by several aquifers and aquitards only the surface glacialdeposits are considered by the model.
4) Semi-infinite aquifer conditions are modeled by increasing the sizeof the study area beyond the portion of interest so that there isminimal affect from the constant head boundary conditions.
5) Steady state. - unconfined flow is assumed. As noted above, thekriged 1983 water table was input to the model. Since no tine-dependent modification occured, this represents steady state flow.
The Prickett-Lonquist "Random Walk" model was used to simulate themovement of tritium from 1972 to 1984. The approximate contaminant loadingand source locations were available in BNL reports. The principal addition oftritium to the landfill was mouse litter contaminated with tritiated water.The loadings are listed in Table I. Since the true loading schedule was un-known, additions were made annually in the model* Each addition was assumedto leach from the landfill over a period of 9000 days* This leaching ratewas applied continuously, but the model was run for only about 4800 days(12 yr). A two-year lag was assumed before the tritiated water froa the mouselitter of each of the five annual additions reached the saturated zone.
The model parameters, extracted from various sources, are listed alongwith associated references in Table II* Parameters associated with thecontaminant (tritium) are listed in Table III*
The loadings listed in Table I were transformed from activity to mas*.Each particle In the system was assumed to represent many molecule*, so thatradioactive decay could be Incorporated into the model as suggested byPrickett and Lonqulst (1981) by reducing the particle mats. Since particlemass was reduced each year, the number of particles per Curie of tritium addedto the landfill was increased accordingly, so that loadings would be.accurate. The loadings input to the model represent grams of tritium x 10 inorder to simplify the calculation. Resulting concentrations are accordinglyreported in units of 10 mCi/1.
The model was run from 1972 to 1983 and the resulting concentrations(X10~7 mCi/1) were calculated for each year. Tritium levels predicted by themodel for 1983 are plotted in Figure 8. This year was chosen for presentationbecause enough monitoring data were available for 1963.
563
FIGURE 7. Kriged Landfill/Waste Management Area Tritium Surface,with 1/2 Drinking Water Standard Indicated
FIGURE 8. Simulated Tritium Pattern
564
Table I
Contaminant Loading Parameters ( H)
Year Curies Grams Model Input(PL)*
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1.0179
0.0388
0.1954
0.0465
0.0420
1.056x10 "•
4.025xl0"6
2.027xl0"5
4.824x10"6
4.357xlO~6
10.56
0.4025
2.027
0.4824
0.4357
* Model Input (pollution load) - grams x 10 .
565
Parameter
Aquifer
Description
Table
Parameters for
Value
II
"Random Walk" Model
Source
RH elevation of landsurface (HAMSL)
CH elevation of top ofaquifer (HAMSL)
BOT elevation of Bottom ofaquifer (HAMSL)
RD lower limit of evapo-transpiration
KD distribution 0.0coefficient (3H)
H kriged water tableelevations (HAMSL)
40 ft
40 ft
-110 ft
40 ft
PermlPerm2
TT
APOREPOR
DISPL
DISPT
SF1
SF2
RR
RHO
RD1
hydraulic conductivity
aquifer transmissivity
actual and effectiveporosity
longitudinal dispersivity
transverse dispersivity
artesian storage
water table storage
withdrawal rates
recharge rates 0.0 gal/d
bulk mass density
vector retardationfactor (3H)
1400 gal/d/
194,000 ga]
0.33 Warret
69.9 ft
14.0 ft
0.0 gal
0.24 gal/ft
0.0 gal/d
1.75 g/cc
1.0
BNL calculations
de Laguna (1963)
Warren et al. (1968)
BNL calculations
Warren et al. (1968)
Warren et al. (1968)
68)
Pinder (1973)
Pinder (1973)
Warren et a]. (1968)
calculated
variable BNL monitoring data
566
Table III
Contaminant Input and Model Iteration Parameters
Parameter Description Value
TPD
NPITS
DELP
years)
X
Y
Z
time period over whichleaching of contaminant occurs
number of particle iterations
time increment over whichparticles are allowed to move
grid size x direction
grid size y direction
grid size z direction
9000 days
12
30,0 days (during addition)60.0 days (after first 5
41 ft
31 ft
150 ft
567
Monitoring tritium data were compared to the model predictions for1983. The 1983 tritium surface is plotted in Figure 7 along with the drinkingwater standard (20 nCi/1).
The pattern apparent in the surfaces produced by the model, and thekriged tritium data are similar. Tritium seems to have moved in the directionof wells WK and Wl via a possible transport mechanism as demonstrated by themodel. There may be a source of tritium in the waste management area whichcontributes to the levels observed. This study suggests, however, that theobserved tritium pattern can be explained on the basis of a known tritiumaddition to the landfill. We have assumed that the clay in the area hasmodified the flow pattern in the manner identified by kriging. However, thegeologic structure may be more complex and borings are planned to furthercharacterize the area. Given the available information the usefulness of thecombination of the kriging and modeling techniques in a monitoring situationis demonstrated because they result in a more complete understanding of thecontaminant movement pattern.
568
References
Day, L.E., and J.R. Naidu, 1984. 1983 Environmental Monitoring Report, BNLReport 51827, Upton, New York.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Journel, A.G. and Ch.J. Huijbregts, 1978. Mining Geostatistics, AcademicPress, New York.
Krige, D.G., 1970. "The role of mathematical statistics in improved orevaluation techniques in South African gold mines", in Topics inMathematical Geology, Consultants Bureau, New York and London.
Krige, D.G., 1976. "Some Basic Considerations in the application ofgeostatistics to gold ore valuation", Journal of The South AfricanInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy, May.
Oden, N.L., 1984. "Kriging and it's relation to least squares." (M.S.submitted to Technometrics).
Prickett, T.A., T.G. Naymik and C.G. Lonnquist, 1981. A "Random Walk" SoluteTransport Model for Selected Groundwater Quality Evaluations, Bulletin 65,Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois.
Ripley, B.D., 1981. Spatial Statistics, Wiley and Sons, New York.
Warren, M.A., W. deLaguna, and N.J. Lusczynski, 1968. "Hydrology ofBrookhaven National Laboratory and Vicinity", Geo. Survey Bull. 1156-L,U.S.G.S., Syosset, New York.
569
SESSION 8:
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT(L. Whitaker, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Uranium Enrichment and Assessment, andB. J. Davis, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Co-Chairmen)
8A: COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED, REMOTE SENSING AT DOE SITES
Jerry G. LackeyZolin G. Burson
Aerial Measurements OperationsEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89125
ABSTRACT
The Department of Energy has established a program calledComprehensive, Integrated Remote Sensing (CIRS). The overall objective of theprogram is to provide a state-of-the-art data base of remotely sensed data forall users of such information at large DOE sites.
The primary types of remote sensing provided, at present, consist of thefollowing:
1. Large format aerial photography2. Video from aerial platforms3. Multispectral scanning, and4. Airborne nuclear radiometric surveys
Implementation of the CIRS Program by EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. beganwith field operations at the Savannah River Plant in 1982 and is continuing atthat DOE site at a level of effort of about $1.5 m per year. Integratedremote sensing studies were subsequently extended to the West Valley Demonstra-tion Project in the summer and fall of 1984. It is expected that the Programwill eventually be extended to cover all large DOE sites on a continuing basis.
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Nuclear Safety of the Department of Energy (DOE) establishedin FY82 a program called Comprehensive, Integrated, Remote Sensing (CIRS)*This program is implemented out of DOE's Remote Sensing Laboratory atLas Vegas, Nevada, operated by EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. The overallobjective of the program is to provide a s tate-of - the-ar t data base ofremotely-sensed data for al l users of such information at large DOE sites.Uses of CIRS include the following:
1. Site development planning,
573
2. Emergency response and disaster control planning,3. Environmental protection studies, and4. Waste disposal planning and monitoring.
A feature of CIRS at a given site includes the participation of personnelinvolved in the above itemized activities in planning for the data acquisitionand data processing related to their particular site.
Some features of CIRS would be as follows:
1. Multisensor,2. Integrated planning,3. Repetitive, and4. An accessible data base.
The program is multisensor in the sense that all pertinent sensor systemsavailable to the Remote Sensing Laboratory are applied to a given site asnecessary to generate a comprehensive, interrelated data set to serve alllegitimate users at a given site. Integrated planning is necessary in orderto assure that the resulting data set will be usable and will meet the needsof all users at a given site. For this reason, integrated and continuingjoint planning between technical personnel from the Remote Sensing Laboratoryas well as the site under investigation is necessary. The remote sensingfield activities at a given site in most cases are repetitive because many ofthe analysis techniques involved depend on measuring changes in theinteresting phenomena with respect to time. Examples of this include the timebehavior of stressed vegetation or the time behavior of the transport ofradionuclides across a given site by natural phenomena. It is necessary thatthe data bank resulting from integrated remote sensing be accessible to alllegitimate users of the information. The accessibility is through reports,maps, charts, and visual materials, as well as computer-compatible materialsexchanged between the Remote Sensing Laboratory and various user groups at agiven site or with contractors associated with a given site.
The primary types of remote sensing provided, at present, consist of thefollowing:
1. Large format aerial photography2. Video from aerial platforms3. Multispectral scanning, and4. Airborne nuclear radiometric surveys
The above itemized types of remote sensing are the types currently withinthe technological capability of the Remote Sensing Laboratory and, by experi-ence, have been determined to be useful to most of the uses of remote sensingat the large, DOE, weapons-related sites.
For working purposes, in terms of joint planning activities with personnelat the large DOE sites, and for programmatic planning purposes, the followingdefinition of comprehensive and integrated has been adopted.
574
Comprehensive - Several sensor systems will be applied in such a way as toallow the analysis of the aerial and temporal aspects ofmultiple phenomena.
Integrated - Data acquisition, processing, and cataloging will bedeveloped in cooperation with known, current users, andwith consideration for anticipated, future, multiple users.
It is anticipated that many benefits will accrue because of the comprehensive,integrated approach to the application of remote sensing techniques to largeDOE sites. Among the benefits to occur would be the following:
1.2.3.4.5.6.
Activities
EconomySynergismTemporal extentConvenienceSoftware baseEffectiveness
at the Savannah River Plant
The first CIRS field operations were carried out by EG4G EnergyMeasurements, Inc. at the Savannah River Plant (SRP) site In late 1982.Congress had authorized and appropriated funds to restart the L-Reactor at theSRP to produce special nuclear materials. Initial studies by DOE Indicatedthat the resumption of L-Reactor operations would not significantly affect thequality of the human environment. However, DOE Is committed to gatheringcomprehensive environmental baseline Information before the restart ofL-Reactor and to continue these studies after operations are begun to providefull assurance of public and environmental safety. The CIRS surveys at theSRP served as part of these studies as well as to support other ongoingprograms.
Detailed, airborne, gamma radiation surveys were conducted in 1982, 1983and 1984 over the following:
* All contaminated areas on-site including all drainage streams, deltasand swamps.
* The entire Savannah River floodplain from SRP boundaries to theAtlantic Ocean.
* Water treatment plants along the Savannah River, as well as sludgeareas and canals leading to these plants.
Future gamma surveys after the restart of L-Reactor operations willinclude a periodic resurvey of the water treatment plants, the floodplain andthe L-Reactor cooling water drainage areas. A detailed resurvey of the entireSRP is planned every five years.
Multispectral scanner surveys are conducted quarterly. These are primari-ly directed to two areas of baseline Information:
575
1. Thermal infrared documentation of the river, swamps and reactorcooling water drainage areas.
2. Vegetation and land-use classification and to detect vegetationchanges in the deltas and swamps due to plant operations.
To date (October 1984) 10 separate multispectral scanner surveys have beenmade over the SRP as part of the CIRS program. Quarterly surveys arescheduled indefinitely.
Large-format aerial photography is provided for seasonal coverage of selectedareas of the SRP including swamp areas, the floodplain and test areas, both innatural color and false color infrared photography. A periodically updatedcatalog of large-format aeria'i photography of the SRP and the surroundingcommunity, extending to a distance of 50 miles in each direction, ismaintained and updated as required.
Oblique photographs from aerial platforms have been taken of all majorfacilities and engineering works at the SRP. These are updated as needed. Avery large quantity of prints (thousands), visual aids and overlays have beenmade available to various users at the SRP. Helicopter borne video coverageof the major facilities, cooling water corridors, swamp deltas and manyoff-site locations have been carried out.
The CIRS program also includes the implementation and operation of a database to make available to all legitimate users the vast quantities of remotelysensed data. The data base management system will consist of the hardware,softwaret personnel, and facilities to allow the comprehensive cataloging,annotating, conditioning, and distribution of the many forms of data producedby the CIRS Program. The forms of data available will include photographic,magnetic and other computer-compatible data, video disk, reports, and graphicmaterials.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE USE OF THE DATA
Several subsets of remotely-sensed data have been used in studies of therevegetation of the Steel Creek Delta. The Steel Creek Delta is an area thathas been environmentally modified by the flow of thermally-heated water usedIn the cooling process of the special materials production reactors. Large-format aerial photography of the false color and mormal color variety, as wellas multispectral scanning imagery, has been extensively used in interpretingthe changes in the Steel Creek Delta area as normal revegetation of thedenuded areas takes place.
Studies of the distribution and redistribution of the man-made radio-nuclides on the SRP Reservation and in the Savannah River floodplain extendingall the way to the ocean have been carried out with the aid of the airbornenuclear radiometric survey data. This data has proved particularly valuablein allowing an overview of the distribution of radio Cesium in the environmentas well as providing the documentation necessary for studying the redistribu-tion of this radionuclide in the environment.
576
To date, the data have been used to show that no detectable man-made radio-activity was located at the water treatment plants. Low level concentrationsof Cs-137 from plant operations were detectable in the Savannah Riverfloodplain.
Thermal and multispectral scanning data has been processed to provide amap showing the distribution of several classes of plant cover in the SavannahRiver floodplain extending all the way from Clark Hi IT Dam to the AtlanticOcean. This map is considered to be a key set of information to be used inongoing studies of ecological changes in the plant cover of the Savannah Riverfloodplain.
Of particular note is the use of the thermal infrared data. The data hasbeen used extensively by the SRP community in a large-scale scientific andengineering program called the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study. This studyis designed to provide the basic scientific and engineering data to allow forproper action to manage the disposal of the large quantities of heat that mustbe rejected to the environment as the result of the operation of large weaponsmaterials reactors at the SRP site. Some of the component activities of theComprehensive Cooling Water Study which have utilized the thermal data fromthe CIRS include studies to show that the current cooling water dischargesinto the Savannah River meet the environmental regulations of the State ofSouth Carolina. In addition, the data have been utilized to study the thermalcirculation of the water in Par Pond for the purpose of validating acomputer-based mathematical model. This model was subsequently utilized tooptimize the engineering design of L Pond, the pond that acts as the coolingwater heat rejection system for the reactivated L- production reactor.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
CIRS activities at the Savannah River Reservation have provided animportant learning process for evaluating and improving the techniques ofapplying CIRS techniques to large DOE facilities. Important lessons have beenlearned relative to how to cooperatively plan these activities. In addition,valuable information has been gained with respect to how much and what type ofremote sensing data can be effectively utilized by Savannah River personnel.It is expected that the lessons learned at the Savannah River Plant will serveas a guideline to the application of CIRS techniques at other large DOEfacilities.
The basic motivation for instituting the CIRS Program was to obtain forevery legitimate user, the basic economic and efficiency benefits which canresult in many environmental and safety-related programs from the proper useof data obtained by remote sensing techniques. In order to achieve thesebenefits of economy and efficiency, the activities which make up the CIRSProgram should have certain characteristics. These essential characteristicsare itemized below.
577
Future Characteristics of the CIRS Program
1. All large DOE sites will participate in the continuing program.
2. A comprehensive and accessible data base will be developed andmaintained to provide data for the use of all legitimate users.
3. The use of common technology (computers, communication links, etc.)by all participants will be promoted so as to facilitate the easyand effective exchange and use of the data available in the database.
4. Additional remote sensing technology will be introduced into theprogram when and where appropriate. (At present, new technologiesbeing introduced include an airborne gas and particulate samplingcapability, as well as an advanced, laser-driven, active scannersystem.
578
Legend for Photo Showing Several Aircraft
AIRCRAFT
ONVAlf ^&u
Figure 1. The Remote Sensing Laboratory of EG4G Energy Measurements, Inc.maintains a small fleet of especially-equipped aircraft andconcomitant equipment and personnel to provide a state-of-the-art,airborne, remote sensing capability to support the needs of DOE.These resources are utilized to support several programs includingthe Comprehensive, Integrated, Remote Sensing Program (CIRS).
579
Legend for.Photo Showing Interior of Aircraft
Figure 2. The a i rc ra f t which are maintained and operated by EG&G EnergyMeasurements, Inc. as part of the EGSG Energy Measurements,Inc./DOE Remote Sensing Laboratory are especially modified andequipped to do selected types of remote sensing. The types ofremote sensing provided include airborne nuclear radiometricsurvey, large-format aerial mapping photography, and multispectralscanning. The photograph shows a dual large-format, aerial mappingcamera installation.
580
8B; AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SURVEYSAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
Joel E. JobstPhilip K. Boyns
Aerial Measurements OperationsEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.
P.O. Box 1912Las Vegas, NV 89125
ABSTRACT
An aerial radiological survey of the Savannah River Plant wasconducted by EG46 for the U.S. Department of Energy. The survey dateswere August 2 to August 31, 1982. A survey was also conducted fromJuly through October 1983 to determine the level of man-made isotopesdeposited in the Savannah River Floodplain. The survey covered over8000 line-miles between Augusta and Savannah, Georgia. Airbornemeasurements were obtained for both natural and man-made gamma radi-ation over the Plant and surrounding areas. These data were used todetermine surface terrestrial spatial distributions of isotopes forcobalt-60 and cesium-137. Selected distribution maps for theseisotopes are superimposed on site photographs and maps. Detailedcesium-137 contours are presented for Steel Creek.
INTRODUCTION
EG4G Energy Measurements, Inc operates the Department of Energy RemoteSensing Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the direction of the DOE, theLaboratory conducts remote sensing missions throughout the United Statesfor federal and state agencies. Measurement systems include a variety ofaerial cameras, a multichannel scanner system which responds to ultra-violet, visible and infrared radiation, and systems sensitive to gammaradiation. These systems are mounted on fixed-wing aircraft or hell-copters.
In the past few years the Remote Sensing Laboratory has conductedseveral gamma radiation surveys at the Savannah River Plant in Aiken, SouthCarolina. For this presentation the results of two recent projects will besummarized. In August 1982 the Laboratory surveyed the floodplains andadjacent areas of Steel Creek, Lower Three Runs Creek, and a portion of theSavannah River. From late July through early October 1983 the Laboratoryconducted a more extensive survey: the entire Savannah River floodplainfrom Augusta to Savannah, Georgia. A report of the 1982 survey will beavailable in a few weeks; the final draft of the 1983 survey is now beingreviewed at the Savannah River Plant.
581
SURVEY PROCEDURE
Figure 1 shows the equipment required for a typical gamma radiationsurvey, The twin-turbine helicopter carries two detector pods, eachcontaining 10 sodium iodide detectors 12.7 cm (5 in.) in diameter by 5.1 cm(2 in.) thick. The gamma counts from all 20 crystals are processed byREDAR IV, the Radiation and Environmental Data Acquisition and Recorder
system. The aircraft position is established by a master transponderaboard the helicopter which interrogates two slave units positioned outsidethe survey boundary. REDAR calculates the distance to each by measuringthe round-trip propagation time between master and slave. A radioaltimeter similarly measures aircraft altitude above ground. These dataare recorded simultaneously with the radiation input.
The MRS (microwave ranging system) transponders also provide the pilotwith steering information. A cockpit indicator has a vertical bar forleft-right guidance and a horizontal bar, linked to the radio altimeter,which helps the pilot maintain a fixed survey altitude. Surveys aregenerally conducted at an altitude of 46 meters (150 feet) with a linespacing of 76 meters (250 feet).
DATA ANALYSIS
All data are recorded on magnetic tape and immediately processed in amobile data van at the survey site. In a typical survey the data vanprepares a complete gross count radiation isopleth map of the survey areabefore the equipment is moved to the next survey area. In subsequentprocessing at the Las Vegas laboratory, maps for separate isotopes ofinterest, such as cesium-137 or cobalt-60, are prepared. Gamma spectra arealso extracted from segments of flight lines over facilities or areas ofspecial interest. Data records are one second long.
Gamma spectra are extracted from the survey data for isotope study. Asshown in Figure 2, any portion of the survey area can be examined forcontamination by man-made isotopes. A flight line directly over thefacility of interest is selected. A background spectrum is subtracted,channel-by-channel. In this case, the twin photopeaks of cobalt-60 and thephotopeak of cesium-137 show that these two isotopes predominate in theterrain below the helicopter.
In order to characterize the entire survey area we select gammaspectral windows from this spectrum. Weighted combinations of such windowscan be summed or subtracted and the results plotted as a function ofposition over the survey area. One can extract photopeak count rates forradioisotopes naturally present in soil. These photopeak count rates canbe converted to isotope concentrations or exposure rates. The results arenormally plotted as isopleth contour maps to the same scale as a base mapor photograph of the site.
Figure 3 shows a sodium iodide spectrum typical of the Savannah RiverPlant. We determine the number of counts in each of four spectral windowsand we define the ratios a,/3, y, and 5. It can be demonstrated that thecobalt-60 photopeak count rate 1s:
582
FIGURE 1. Survey Layout and Equipment
583
MAN-MADE NUCLEAR RADIATION -EVELSAERIAL RADIOLOGiCAL SURVEY SYSTEM
FI6URE 2. Gamma Ray Spectrum Extracted from aSurvey Flight Line
584
FIGURE 3. Typical Gamma Ray Spectrum from theSavannah River Plant Survey
585
CR (60Co) = [counts in 3] - y[counts In 4]137
and the Cs photopeak count rate is:
CR (137Cs) = [counts in 1] - a[counts in 4]- 8[(counts in 2) - 0(counts in 4)]
Using these techniques we concentrate on the following objectives:
DATA RESULTS
1. Gross count - exposure rates2. Man-made levels :3. Isotopic levels4. Inventories
1982 SURVEY
Because of the large size of both the 1982 and 1983 surveys of theSavannah River Plant, only a few samples of the accumulated data can beshownJiere. Figure 4 shows a section of Steel Creek which was surveyed in1982. The computer algorithm shown above was used to determine thedistribution pattern for cesium-137. Photopeak count rates have beenconverted to annual dose in millirem. Levels in the Steel Creek floodplainrange from B{4-7 mrem/year) to F(70-150 mrem/year)> A considerable amountof the cesium-137 shown here obviously comes from sources above L-Reactor;but the liquid effluent outfall from the Reactor shows that it makes anadditional contribution to Steel Creek. A waste pit northeast of thereactor also shows cesium contamination.
Figure 5 shows the same survey area. Cobalt levels within the reactorperimeter range as high as D (20-40 mrem/year). Nearby waste dumps and theSteel Creek show C level contamination (10-20 mrem/year). It is apparentfrom these contours the L Reactor made a significant contribution to thecobalt inventory in Steel Creek.
1983 SURVEY
Figure 6 shows an outline of the survey area flown from late July toearly October 1983. It covers the floodplain of the Savannah River from afew miles below Augusta to its confluence with the Atlantic Ocean atSavannah, Georgia. The survey was begun 15 kilometers (9 miles) above theSavannah River Plant to obtain gamma ray background in the area. Becausethe survey required more than 12,900 line kilometers (8000 line miles) offlying, the survey altitude was 61 m (200 feet) and the line spacing was122 m (400 feet). For the 1982 survey these values were our nominal surveyparameters, 46 m (150 feet) and 76 m (250 feet), respectively.
Figure 7 shows the cobalt-60 dose in Area C. Activity attributable toSteel Creek effluent ranged as high as level C (10-20 mrem/year). However,cobalt activity below this region is extremely infrequent and never exceedslevel B (15-10 mrem/year).
586
FIGURE 4. Cesium-137 Annual Dose Isopleth Mapfor the Steel Creek Area (1982)
587
FIGURE 5. Cobalt-60 Annual Dose Isopleth Mapfor the Steel Creek Area (1982)
588
FIGURE 6. Savannah River Fioodpiain Survey Plan (1983)
589
FIGURE 7. Cobalt-60 Annual Dose Isopleth Map for Area Cof the Savannah River Floodplain (1983).
590
Figure 8 shows cesium-137 contamination in Area D, immediately belowArea C. B-level contours (4-7 mrem/year) are readily apparent. A verysmall number of B-level contours were found as low as Area E, but nothingat all below Area E.
Figure 9 is a matched pair of cesium-137 contours obtained over thedelta of Steel Creek. Since identically the same region was flown in 1982and 1983 one can superimpose the contour plots. The distribution of thecesium contamination has not changed appreciably. The contours andintensities match quite well.
One can compute an inventory of the total cesium-137 activity in thedelta area. The minimum cesium-137 activity for the 1982 survey was 2.3curies for a relaxation depth a = 1.0 cm or 6.2 curies with a = 10.0 cm.This assumes no additional shielding between tne source and detector (i.e.water covering).
If one calculates the inventory from 1983 data, exponentiallydistributed with a = l.o cm, the total activity is 2.1 curies; with a * 10cm, the total activity is 5.7 curies. The total activity calculation wouldprobably be within a factor of two, if the actual distribution of thecesium-137 activity were known. It should also be noted that, for eitherof the above calculations, only a few centimeters of additional water depthwould decrease the total activity by a factor of 2.
The totai activity for any of these cesium-137 distributions can becalculated using the following table of conversion factors.
REFERENCES
Jobst, J. E. 1982. REDAR: The Radiation and Environmental DataAcquisition and Recorder System. Proceedings of the 1982 MeasurementScience Conference, San Diego, California, January 21-22, 1982, p.p.83-90.
Oobst, J. E. 1985* An Aerial Radiological Survey of the SavannahRiver Plant Drainage Basins. Report No. D0E/0NS-8312, E64G EnergyMeasurements, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. To be published.
Boyns, P. K. 1984. An Aerial Radiological Survey of the SavannahRiver Floodplain. Report No. EGG-10282-1049, EG&G EnergyMeasurements, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. To be published.
591
FIGURE 8. Cesium-137 Annual Dose Isopleth Map for Area Dof the Savannah River Floodplain (1983)
592
FIGURE 9A. Cesium-137 Annual Dose Isopieth Map forthe Steel Creek Floodplain and Delta (1982)
593
FIGURE 9B. Cesium-137 Annual Dose Isopleth Map forthe Steel Creek Floodplain and Delta (1983)
594
TABLE 1. Cesium-137 Conversion Factorsthe 61-meter Survey Altitude
(a) at
RelaxationDtpth
a (cm-1) y/cm*-s«c ItCl/m* pCI/g
Infinite
10.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.33
0.20
0.14
0.10
0
0.0040
0.0041
0.0043
0.0045
0.0049
0.0065
0.0081
0.0096
0.0119
-
0.0013
0.0013
0.0014
0.0014
0.0016
0.0021
0.0026
0.0031
0.0038
-
-
0.875
0.278
0.190
0.104
0.046
0.034
0.029
0.025
0.016
'Per count per second in the detector system at analtitude of 61 meters (200 feet).
595
8C: MULTISPECTRAL REMOTE SENSING AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
Janet E. ShinesLarry R. TinneyDavid L. Hawley
EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Las Vegas, Nevada 89125
ABSTRACT
Aerial Measurements Operations (AMO) is the remote sensing arm ofthe Department of Energy (DOE). The purpose of AMO is to provide timely,accurate, and cost-effective remote sensing data on a non-interferencebasis over DOE facilities located around the country.
One of the programs administered by AMO is the ComprehensiveIntegrated Remote Sensing\(CIRS) program, which involves the use of a widerange of data aquisition systems - aerial cameras, multispectral andinfrared scanners, and nuclear detectors - to acquire data at DOE sites.The data are processed, analysed, and interpreted to provide usefulinformation, which is catalogued into a data base for future use. Thisreport describes some of the data acquisition and analysis capabilities ofthe Multispectral Remote Sensing Department (MRSD) of AMO as they relateto the CIRS program.
Two examples of projects undertaken in support of the CIRS program atthe Savannah River Plant site are discussed in detail. The first involvesthermal plume analyses and the second the multispectral classification ofvegetation along the Savannah River floodplain.
MULTISPECTRAL REMOTE SENSING DEPARTMENT
The MRSD was initiated in 1977 with the acquisition of a DaedalusEnterprises multispectral scanner (MSS) as a principal data collectioninstrument. The Department is now the primary location for electro-opticaldata acquisition and analysis capabilities within AMO. More recently thermalinfrared imagers and various 'ground truth1 equipment has been obtained. Alaboratory has been set-up within the MRSD to maintain and test the instrumentsthat are used on a routine basis for airborne remote sensing tasks. TheDepartment also maintains facilities for both manual and computer-assistedimage analysis as well as automated geographic information processing.
MRSD CIRS PROGRAM
A CIRS effort is now being conducted at the DOE's Savannah River Plant(SRP) located near Aiken, South Carolina. The SRP is a major producer ofnuclear materials and presently has three on-site nuclear reactors in
597
operation. Bounded on the west by the Savannah River, the 300 square mile siteis drained by numerous waterways that ultimately enter the river system.Cooling-water diverted from the Savannah River is used to remove the heatresulting from the operation of the nuclear reactors. The heated cooling-wateris returned to the river via a man-made lake (Par Pond) and many square milesof swampland.
Monitoring the temperature distribution of water throughout the plant'scooling-water discharge system flow and into the Savannah River and Par Pond isimportant in determining the thermal impact on the natural water channels,vegetation, and wildlife. In addition to periodic radiation monitoring, photo,and video coverage, specific areas are regularly covered by a multispectralscanner. The scanner is used to acquire thermal and spectral data for theanalysis of warm-water plumes and vegetation at the site.
MULTISPECTRAL SCANNER
A Daedalus Enterprises model DS-1260 multispectral scanner is used toacquire imagery in the visible, near-infrared, and thermal infrared regions ofthe electromagnetic spectrum. The MSS provides:
1. digital format,
2. two internal blackbody references,
3. excellent spatial resolution, and
4. excellent radiometric resolution.
The digital format lends itself well to computer processing. It is alsovaluable in removing detector drift, which is accomplished by using blackbodyreferences on a scan line-by-scan line basis.
In contrast to a camera that records all the points in a scenesimultaneously, a scanner scans and records the scene a small area at a time.The Daedalus DS-1260 is a line scanner; meaning, the scanning is done along aline across the path of the aircraft and the whole scene is recorded as asuccession of contiguous or overlapping lines. The instantaneous field-of-view(IFOV), or the area of coverage for each picture element (pixel), is determinedby the size of each detector and the optical properties of the system.
Scanning is accomplished by a rotating mirror whose axis is parallel tothe aircraft flight direction. The scene is built continuously, line by line,by the forward motion of the aircraft. A multispectral scanner is constructedsuch that each spectral band is sensed only by an individual detector (or asmall group of detectors); and all the detectors view a specific area of thescene at the same time, allowing the multispectral data to be recordedsimultaneously but independently.
The Daedalus DS-1260 is capable of simultaneously obtaining imagery fromeleven spectral bands, which are recorded in twelve channels; the same thermalinfrared spectral band is recorded in two channels having independent gains.The scanner data is recorded on high-density digital tape (HDDT) during flight.
598
Each scan line is divided along its length into 716 pixels and recorded on HDDTwith identification of the spectral channel, scan line, and location of thescan line. The HDOT is later converted to computer-compatible tape (CCT).Tables 1 and 2 list some of the more significant scanner specifications.
Table 1. Daedalus DS-126O Multispectral Scanner Specifications
Number of channels
Operating wavelengths
Scan rate
Instantaneous field-of-view
Total field-of-view
Temperature resolution
Roll correction
Reference sources
Video words/scan line
Digitizer gains
12
0.3 - 13.5 microns
12.5, 25, 50, 100 scans/second(selectable)
2.5 milliradians
85.92 degrees
0.1 degrees C
+/- 15 degrees
infrared: two controllablethermal blackbodies
716
0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 (selectable)
Table 2. Daedalus DS-1260 Wavelength Bands
CHANNEL WAVELENGTH BAND (microns) COLOR/SPECTRUM
123456789101112
0.38 - 0.420.42 - 0.450.45 - 0.500.50 - 0.550.55 - 0.600.60 - 0.650.65 - 0.700.70 - 0.790.80 - 0.890.92 - 1.108.50 - 13.508.50 - 13.50
near ultravioletbluebluegreengreenredrednear infrarednear infrarednear infraredthermal infraredthermal infrared
1112
(Alternate dual thermal channel configuration)8.50 - 13.50 thermal infrared3.50 - 5.50 thermal infrared
599
SURVEY PROCEDURE
The MSS surveys are normally conducted in an integrated manner with theAMO Photography Department, which provides cameras to be operatedsimultaneously with the scanner (Hawley, 1982). The aircraft most often usedis a Convair 580-T, large enough to provide comfortable operating space for thescanner, two aerial cameras, and supplementary navigation equipment, yetmanuverable enough for the slow, low altitude flights occasionally required.Navigation along the flight line is provided by a ground-based microwaveranging system (MRS) programed to direct and aid the pilot in maintaining theflight line - commonly deviating no more than 100 feet from the desired line.This is especially important when flying parallel lines for large arealcoverage or when flying predawn missions.
Aircraft within AMO are supported by the Flight and Technical ServicesDepartment. This department maintains five aircraft for remote sensingmissions. Three of those aircraft are frequently used by the MRSO: twofixed-wing, the Convair and the Citation; and one helicopter, the BO-105. Thefollowing table shows the type of aircraft and parameters available.
Table 3. Aircraft Parameters
AIRCRAFT
Convair 580T
Citation II
MBB 30-105
CEILING
27,000
41,000
10,000
CRUISE RANGE SPECIAL FEATURES
2,000 miles navigation sightGlobal Navigation System
2,000 miles high speed and highaltitude capabilities
200 miles slow ground speed
Two camera systems are available for the MSS surveys; a 70-mm Hasselbladarray system of four cameras, and dual 9-inch Wild RC-10 aerial mappingcameras. Two camera ports in the aircraft, in addition to the scanner port,allow both color and color-infrared photos to be obtained simultaneously withthe large format cameras, or a combination of camera system, film type, andlens sizes.
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
It is important to monitor the distribution and temperature of waterthroughout the plant's cooling-water discharge system to determine thermalimpacts on natural water channels, vegetation, and wildlife. Airborne remotesensing methods and data reduction routines, supported by field-verified data,offer a unique technique for mapping surface thermal plumes as they movedownstream.
The use of the MSS at SRP began in the spring of 1981 when data from theswamp and Par Pond areas of the site were acquired. Since then, muItispectraldata have been acquired during nine survey periods. The goal has been toprovide a program in which seasonal thermal data are acquired four times a
600
year. Scanner data specific to vegetation are also acquired during the samesurveys, often in conjuction with the thermal data, but usually on separateflight lines under conditions more appropriate for visual data acquisition.
The data are processed to provide imagery, line graphs, and mensurationtables describing the warm-water plumes during the various seasons. Visibleand near-infrared data are used in the vegetation analysis and land cover/landuse projects aimed at a better understanding of the environmental impact of thewarm effluents. Formal reports are periodically produced that describe thecomputer-aided analysis procedures used. Digital data tapes are also madeavailable on request, formatted to be compatible with the users computersystem.
DATA PROCESSING
On acquisition, the signal level of each pixel is digitally recorded toeight bits (i.e., 256 quantized levels). Data in this form is easily processedand prepared for analysis, interpreted, then graphically enhanced and recordedas film images reproducible by standard photographic techniques.
After conversion of the scanner data from HDDT to CCT tape format, thedata is entered into a computer. Several preliminary processing steps areusually carried out. The data are geometrically corrected for two types ofscanner distortions: (1) variations in the instantaneous field-of-view across ascan line (S-bend or panoramic distortion), and (2) overlap of consecutive scanlines (velocity/height or aspect distortion). These two transformationscorrect the relative linear dimensions in tne imagery to an accuracy of +/-1O56.
The temperature calibration procedure uses data from two internalreferences in the scanner. A line-by-line calibration algorithm converts therecorded signal levels to temperature values. The output temperature levelsare typically quantized into 0.1 C or 0.2 C increments, covering a ranie of25.5 C or 51.0 C, respectively. Additional processing steps applied to the SRPdata include color-coding of the images to show the distribution of apparentsurface temperature, generation of temperature contour lines (isotherms) in theimages, and plots of transects across the Savannah River.
The output temperature values must be interpreted as apparent surfacetemperature, since radiation at thermal infrared wavelengths does notsignificantly penetrate the surface of water and the radiation received by thescanner is affected by several factors that are difficult to accuratelyevaluate. Factors that affect the signal include the emissivity of the surfacematerial, atmospheric effects, and most significantly, absorption of radiationby any vegetation canopy over the swamp. These factors are minimized whenconsidering relative temperature differences rather than absolute temperatures.
THERMAL PLUME ANAUSIS AND PRODUCTS
The major objectives for the periodic thermal surveys are (Shines andTinney, 1983):
1. To obtain, for archival purposes, predawn and daytime thermalinfrared data from selected areas of the site.
601
2. To provide information (in the form of processed digitalimagery) about the thermal plumes entering the river.
3. To provide similar information about the thermal plume inPar Pond.
4. To provide similar information about the flow of warm waterthrough the swamp.
A primary reason for these studies is the need for documentation ofcompliance with thermal outfall permits. The permit regulations set limits onthe allowable width of the plume, as a percentage of the width of the SavannahRiver. The plume is defined as the portion of surface water that exceeds 2.8 Cor 5.0 F above the river's ambient temperature. The 2.8 C threshold and therelative width limits were motivated by concern that fish in the Savannah Riverwould be able to migrate past the plumes for spawning.
The images generated use color to emphasize two features:
1. The land-water separation, important for determining the widthof the Savannah River.
2. The 2.8 C above ambient temperature level.
While a thermal plume in water cannot be seen in the visible spectrum, itis easily discernible in the thermal infrared region. Only the surfacetemperature is detected although the plume is, of course, three-dimensional. Aflying altitude of 4,000 feet has been chosen as the resulting IFOV of thescanner provides a spatial resolution of about ten feet or 3 meters. Thisresolution of ten feet per pixel provides sufficient detail in the thermalplumes while minimizing the amount of data processing.
The thermal images prepared for SRP emphasize the regions with apparentsurface temperatures exceeding 2.8 C above the ambient river temperature.Although no compliance parameters have yet been established for Par Pond, thesame isotherm codings have been applied to images of Par Pond.
The images use color-coding to display temperature variations in the waterand to separate the regions of water from generally cooler land. The lowertemperature values usually associated with the land are shown in grey tones,with black corresponding to the coolest temperatures. The higher temperaturesof the water are shown in colors. A temperature calibration bar, included atthe top of each image, shows the correspondence of color with water surfacetemperatures relative to the river ambient.
To aid visual analysis, thermal contour lines, or isotherms defining thewarm water plume, are displayed in the images with larger scales. Thethreshold values for these isotherms were selected to correspond to surfacetemperatures of 1.0, 2.8, 5.0, and 10.0 C above ambient.
602
Water Temperature Sampling Program
Water temperature sampling in conduction with the overflights wereinitiated last year and have been conducted during most of the later surveys.Two transects are made across the river plume immediately following theoverflight. At the time of the overflight one transect at 200 meters below thecreek mouth is initiated; another at 100 meters is undertaken after the firstis completed. Temperatures are recorded at approximately ten foot intervals bytwo devices: mercury thermometers and hand-held radiometric thermometers.These values are later compared to the recorded values of the scanner anddisplayed in graph form. The 200 meter point can be located with fair accuracyin the MSS data because of the signal provided by the survey boat. The boatreadings are acquired over a one-hour period, whereas the aerial data areacquired virtually instantly.
Conclusions Regarding Thermal Surveys
The imagery obtained from the processing of MSS thermal data has proven tobe helpful in determining the state of compliance for SRP regarding the FourMile Creek affluent into the Savannah River. There has also been considerableinterest in the more qualitative imagery showing the distribution and flow ofwarm water through the swamp and the Par Pond plume. Other areas of interesthave been generated as a result of the earlier studies and both acquisitiontasks and analysis requirements have increased.
FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION
The objectives in acquiring MSS data along the entire length of theSavannah River were to:
1. Delineate the floodplain extent at a time of high water.
2. Classify vegetation types within the floodplain.
3. Provide areal acreage estimates for each vegetationtype.
Prior to multispectral classification, the various standard preprocessingtechniques were applied to the data, which included geometric corrections anddimensionality reduction steps.
Four of the ten channels were selected so as to limit the amount of datato be processed while still maintaining the ability to discriminate betweenvegetation classes of interest. To make the selection, a subsection of thedata was classified using standard image classification techniques. Allchannels were input to a classifier and coefficients were then analyzed todetermine the best subset of four channels that still conveyed the maximumclassification information. This process, often termed feature selection,established that MSS channels 3, 5, 7, and 9 were the optimum subset forclassification for the vegetation classes of interest.
For this pi jject the floodplain was defined as that area impacted by the
603
high water level present at the time of the survey. From the six flight linesof MSS data ten contiguous scenes were defined covering the area fromInterstate 95 to the Clark Hill Reservoir.
The high water was most distinct on MSS channel 9. This channel wastherefore used as the primary basis for mapping the floodplain boundary.Photographic enlargements of the Channel 9 data were made of the ten scenes andthe location of the floodplain boundary annotated. Color infrared (CIR) aerialphotographs and color composites of MSS Channels 5, 7, and 9 were also used toaid in the delineation of the floodplain boundary.
The resulting floodplain information was entered into an InteractiveDigital Image Manipulation System (IOIMS) using the Geographic Entry System(6ES). The location of the floodplain boundary as well as the state boundarycoordinates were digitized and registered to the corresponding MSS data. Fromthis digitized information, it was possible to generate a mask of floodplainand non-floodplain areas for each scene.
A new classification procedure was used to classify the floodplain. Thistechnique, termed SPICE (Scatterplot Partitioning for Image Classification andEvaluation), has several advantages over conventional image classificationtechniques (Tinney and Brewster, 1984). These include speed and the ability tomodify results in an iterative manner. The SPICE classifier was used toclassify the floodplain into the following classes:
1. Water2. Persistent Emergent Marsh3. Swamp Forest4. Deciduous Forest5. Evergreen Forest6. Agriculture7. Barren Land8. Non-Persistent Emergent Marsh9. Scrub/Shrub10. Unclassified (outside floodplain)
The SPICE process is very iterative and extremely fast with respect toother image classification techniques. This allows for the refinement of theclassification, as necessary, to remove errors.
The ten final images have the nine classes of interest color-coded and theareas outside the floodplain in shades of grey. The majority of each image iseither swamp or deciduous forest, which is as expected. The high water leveland late winter date of the imagery, however, significantly impact theclassification results. Some regions have been classified as water that undermore average conditions would have been classified as non-water classes.Flooded areas with very little or no canopy often had spectral responsessimilar to open water and were classified as such.
The late winter date of the scanner mission resulted in very little leafspectral response; pines were the only tree species with leaves present. Inmost vegetation classes the multispectral response was due to both bare canopyand understory components. Marsh classes were very difficult to discriminate
604
from the swamp forest and deciduous forest classes.
Accuracy Assessment
An area-weighted accuracy accessment was performed on four of the tenimages. These images contained all of the vegetation types that were presenton the floodplain and include the SRP floodplain. Points were randomlyselected using a stratified, systematic unaligned sample design. These pointswere photo verified using multispectral color composites and color infraredaerial photography as the reference for the accuracy assessment.
The results demonstrate an overall area accuracy of 83% with the poorestclass accuracies being for scrub-shrub and barren land, which were not wellrepresented. The greatest confusion occured in discriminating between theswamp forest and the deciduous forest categories. This is due to the lack ofcanopy and the effect of the understory on the multispectral signature.
Conclusions of Floodplain Program
The specific objectives of this survey were met. The floodplain wasdelineated, the vegetation types within the floodplain were identified, andareal statistics for each vegetation type provided. A new classificationprocedure, SPICE, was used and evaluated. This very interactive procedureproved faster than conventional procedures and should lead to greaterrepeatability in vegetation classifications.
The high water level and the late winter date of the data acquisition madesome discriminations, such as marsh classes, difficult. An earlier springsurvey date would probably provide higher classification accuracies, as might amultidate approach. Further work is necessary to better understand thespecific vegetation phenologies present and to develop accurate aircraftscanner data registration techniques required for multidate classification.
SUMMARY
Both the ongoing thermal surveys and floodplain classification work at SRPhave demonstrated the value of the CIRS program. The thermal plume work iscarried out as a quarterly effort while the floodplain project will provideuseful baseline data for evaluating long-term vegetation impacts in thefloodplain.
Recent attention has been placed upon better methods for more effectivelyintegrating the diverse data types collected at SRP (such as radiation,thermal, and visible/reflective infrared data). The synergisms possiblethrough such comprehensive yet integrated data sets could prove substantial andare a basic reason for the CIRS program.
605
REFERENCES
Hawley, D.L. 1982. A Field Guide for Scanner and Photographic Missions.EGG-1183-1818, EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada.
Shines, J.E. and L.R. Tinney. 1983. A Thermal Infrared Survey of theSavannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. EG&G/EM Letter Report,EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Tinney, L.R. and S.B. Brewster, Jr. 1984. "SPICE - Scatterplot Partitioningfor Image Classification and Evaluation." Machine Processing ofRemotely Sensed Data, 10th International Symposium^ ppT~ 445-449.
606
8D: REMOTE SENSING OF WETLANDS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
Eric J. ChristensenUniversity of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
J . R. JensenUniversity of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
R. R. SharitzSavannah River Ecology Laboratory
Aiken, SC 29808
ABSTRACT
The Savannah River Plant (SRP) occupies about 300 sq mi along a10-mile stretch of the Savannah River. Large areas of wetlands coverthe site, especially along tributary stream floodplains and theSavannah River. Some of these areas have been altered by coolingwater discharges from nuclear production reactors onsite. To assessthe effects of current and future plant operations on SRP and re-gional wetlands, an accurate quantitative survey was needed. Severalstudies were initiated to provide wetland acreage and distributioninformation:
• Regional wetland inventories were provided from an analysis ofLANDSAT multispectral scanner (MSS) satellite data. Wetlands weremapped throughout the entire Savannah River watershed and in theSavannah River floodplain.
• SRP wetlands were identified using a combination of LANDSAT MSSand Thematic Mapper satellite data and aerial photography.
• Wetlands in the SRP Savannah River swamp and thermally affectedareas were mapped using high resolution MSS data collected from alow-flying aircraft. Vegetation communities in areas receivingcooling water discharges were then compared to surface tempera-tures measured from the airborne scanner at the same time toevaluate plant temperature tolerance.
• Historic changes to SRP wetlands from cooling water dischargeswere tabulated using aerial photography.
607
INTRODUCTION
Multispectral scanner (MSS) measurements made from low-flying aircraftand LANDSAT satellites record both visible and infrared (nonvisible) reflectedenergy from the earth's surface. The range of spectral data permits discrimi-nation between different types of land cover such as vegetation, soils, andwater. Computer-generated MSS imagery can reveal environmental informationnot normally apparent from visual observationsj this, in turn, can aid theidentification of wetland areas, highly intermixed wetland communities, andsubtle changes resulting from industrial operations.
REGIONAL WETLANDS STUDIES
Most of the freshwater wetlands in the southeastern United States arefound along extended river floodplains, such as the Savannah River* With awatershed area greater than 10,000 sq mi in North Carolina, South Carolina,and Georgia, the Savannah River basin is one of the major river systems in thesoutheast. However, little is known about regional wetland distributionthroughout the basin and in the individual states.
To compare SRP wetlands information to regional wetlands inventories inthe Savannah River watershed, LANDSAT MSS imagery was obtained from February22, 1977. The LANDSAT MSS acquired data had a resolution of approximately1.147 acres per pixel (picture element). This spatial resolution was idealfor mapping the entire Savannah River watershed, for discriminating wetlandsfrom other land cover classes, and for providing a more detailed wetlands mapof the Savannah River floodpiain in the coastal plain of South Carolina andGeorgia, below Augusta, Georgia.
Classification
Five categories of land cover were identified including: upland mixedhardwood and pine, wetland/floodplain, agriculture, urban/bare soil, andwater. A supervised classification procedure was performed for each coverclass. Training sites which contained a relatively homogenous land cover typewere selected for each cover class. The reflectance statistics from eachtraining site were then extracted for each of four multispectral bands (green,red, and two infrared). About 5% of the area was used to "train" theclassifier. A minimum distance discriminant analysis was then applied toclassify the remaining 95% of the data.
Results
The Savannah River watershed covers 10,582 sq mi. Wetlands compriseabout 6% of the region watershed or 406,000 acres.
608
However, because a majority of the wetlands of the Savannah River basin liebelow Augusta, GA, a more detailed examination of wetlands near SRP was made.A 150-mile stretch of the Savannah River floodplain from Augusta, GA (RiverMile 195) to Ebenezer Landing, GA (River Mile 45) was classified separately.Land cover types for the 100-year floodplain are listed in Table 1. Approx-imately 7056 or 124,600 acres of this 179,400 acre floodplain segment isprimarily swamp and bottomland hardwood forest wetlands.
TABLE 1. Cover Types (Classes) and Wetlands Acreage 1n the Savannah RiverWatershed Below Augusta, Georgia
Classification Acres Percent
Wetland/Floodplain
Upland Mixed Hardwoodand Pine
Agriculture
River/Lakes (water)
Urban/Bare Soil
Miscellaneous
Total
SRP WETLANDS MAP
124,600
25,500
18,313
7,528
1,543
1,904
179,388
70
14
10
4
1
1
100
In addition to the wetlands along the Savannah River floodplain, fivemajor tributary streams drain the SRP and are bordered by bottomland hardwoodforests. These forests are flooded in late winter and spring or are associ-ated with saturated soil conditions, e.g., near groundwater discharge zones.The remainder of SRP wetlands consists of more open areas such as CarolinaBays and the margins of cooling lakes and old farm ponds. To inventory theSRP wetlands, a 1:48,000 scale map was constructed from aerial photography andhigher resolution LANDSAT thematic mapper satellite imagery.
Classification
LANDSAT thematic mapper imagery (TM) from August 23, 1982, was usedin the analysis. The TM sensor data have a resolution of 30 m x 30 m(0.23 acre), sufficient to distinguish most major landforms and wetland areas.However, discrimination of the different wetland types was difficult because
609
the TM imagery was acquired at the end of the growing season, when wetlandvegetation is spectrally similar to nonwetland vegetation cover. Therefore,the TM data were used to differentiate uplands, water, production areas, *ndcleared ^reas, while higher resolution color and col or-infrared aerialphotography (1:19,000 scele) was used to categorize the wetland classes.
Wetland and other land cover types at SRP were divided into nine classes.Wetland classes were selected according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceclassification guidelines (Cowardin et al., 1979).
Results
A color-coded, 30 in. x 40 in. map of SRP wetlands geometricallyrectified to the SRP site map was produced (Figure 1). The smallest discretearea plotted on the map is 2 mm, which represents an area of 100 m x 100 m(2.47 acres) at full scale. Smaller areas were evaluated and stored in acomputerized data base (Geographic Information System) which has acreage andcover class information for more than 1,400 landform divisions on SRP. Asummary of land cover and wetland types is listed in Table 2.
SRP RIVER SWAMP MAPPING
The Savannah River swamp currently cools thermal effluent from twoproduction reactors (C and K) and a powerplant (D Area). In addition to thethermal effluents, sediment is also transported. The dense swamp vegetationincreases effluent residence time and dispersion, thereby facilitating evap-orative cooling. In the summer months, the swamp canopy shades the thermaleffluents from further heating by solar radiation. Consequently, the swampacts as both a cooling reservoir and sediment trap. However, little is knownconcerning the long-term impacts on the assimilative capacity of the swampfrom present and future SRP operations.
To monitor future changes in the swamp, low-altitude, high-resolutionmultispectral scanner (MSS) data were selected to:
• Identify and map the spatial distribution of the wetland vegetation types,both in the entire SRP Savannah River swamp and on individual thermalareas of the swamp.
• Tabulate the acreage of each wetland class of the swamp*
• Simultaneously map the water temperature for temperature toleranceinformation for each wetland class.
610
UPPER THREE RUNS
BEAVER DAM CREEK
FOUR MILE CREEK
PEN BRANCH
STEEL CREEK
FIGURE 1. SRP Wetlands Map
611
TABLE 2. Wetland and Land Cover Types of SRP
Land Cover Types (Classes)
Roads
Production Areas
Clear Areas/Powerlines
Upland Pine/Hardwood
Wetlands
Bottomland Hardwoods
Cypress-Tupelo
Scrub-Shrub
Emergent Marsh
Water(a)
Total
Acres
4,100
3,125
11,179
135,073
25,931
5,505
1,852
1,552
4,411
192,728
Percent
2.1
1.6
5.8
70.0
13.5
2.9
1.0
0.8
2.3
100.0
(a) Includes the Savannah River.
Data Collection and Preprocessing
The EG&G Energy Measurements Group, Las Vegas, NV, obtained high-resolution multispectral scanner imagery from altitudes of 4,000 ft (1,220 m)and 8,000 ft (2,440 m) above ground level (AGL) on March 31, 1981 (Figure, 2)and May 25, 1983. The spectral resolutions of the sensor system are identi-fied in Table 3. The data taken from 4,000 and 8,000 ft have an effectivespatial resolution of approximately 2.8 m x 2.8 m and 5.61 m x 5.61 m, respec-tively, after geometric correction. Thus, each picture element (pixel) in theimagery represents an integration of the radiant energy emitted from an areaof 2.8 m x 2.8 m or 5.61 m x 5.61 m on the surface of the earth. The upwell-ing energy from each pixel was measured in eleven regions of the spectrum.However, based on previous research using 4,000 ft AGL data, only four of thespectral channels (5, 7, 8, and 10) were used in the analyses since theymeasured most of the variance in the data (Jensen et el., 1984).
612
Savannah River Swamp Map Study AreaData obtained 31 March 1981
FIGURE 2. EG«G Aerial MSS Survey Coverage
Digital Image Processing Data Analysis
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification guidelines(Cowardin et al., 1979), several pattern recognition algorithms were appliedto the data to create vegetation thematic maps of the Savannah River swampwetlands. Relatively homogeneous "training" areas for each vegetation classwere selected by evaluating color infrared composites and identifying knownvegetation clusters.
613
TABLE 3. Spectral Resolution of DS-1260 Hultispectral Scanner
Channel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11, 12
Wavelength inMicrometers
0.38 -
0.42 -
0.45 -
0.50 -
0.55 -
0.60 -
0.65 -
0.70 -
0.80 -
0.92 -
8.00 -
• 0.42
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.79
0.89
1.10
14.00
Color/Spectrum
Near-ultraviolet
Blue
Blue
Green
Green
Red
Red
Near-infrared
Near-infrared
Near-infrared
Thermal infrared
The digital number (DN) brightness values within each "training" polygon wererecorded for each of the four spectral bands usad in the analysis. A minimumdistance discriminant analysis algorithm was applied to a sampled version ofthe multispectral scanner data (i.e., ewery other line and pixel wereevaluated). Each pixel in each scene was placed in the vegetation trainingclass in which it had the highest probability of being a member (Jensen etal., 1979). Colors were assigned to each class and maps were prepared.
Savannah River Swamp Map
Using the March 31, 1981, 8,000 ft MSS data, a 27 x 40 in. color map wasprepared. Six vegetation classes were color-coded on the map. Classifica-tions are shown in Table 4. The SRP swamp is primarily covered by cypress-tupelo forest (47%) and drier bottomland-hardwood islands (40%). Some pinegrow on the islands (2.2%). The remainder of the SRP swamp is composed ofscrub/marsh vegetation communites which are found near thermal and post-thermal discharge points of onsite SRP streams into the swamp.
614
Acres
135
376
382
4432
3776
206
66
20
9393
Percentof Swamp
1.4
4
4
47
40
2.2
0.7
0.2
99.5
TABLE 4, Vegetation Classification of the SRP Swamp
Class
Persistent Emergent Marsh (PE)
Nonpersistent Emergent Marsh (NPE)
Scrub-Shrub {SS)
Mixed Deciduous Swamp Forest (MDSF)
Mixed Deciduous Bottomland Forest (MDBF)
Needle-Leaved Evergreen Forest (NEF)
Open Water ir Swamp (W)
Unclassified (U)
Total
Thermal and Post-Thermal Deltas of the Savannah River Swamp
SRP cooling water effluents are primarily discharged to onsite streamsthat flow into the swamp and then into the river. The cypress-tupelo canopyhas been altered, sediment deposited, and a delta has formed where each streamenters the swamp. Two of these swamp deltas, Pen Branch and Four Mile Creek,are currently expanding. Steel Creek delta no longer receives thermal dis-charges and is revegetating. Dense cypress-tupelo forest has been replaced bythe mixture of scrub-shrub and persistent and nonpersistent marsh vegetationat Steel Creek. Because the three delta areas comprise about 15% of the SRPswamp, have more heterogeniety of vegetation types, and are consistentlychanging, a higher spatial resolution was needed for accurate mapping of plantcommunity types than was used for the entire swamp. The lower altitude(4,000 ft), higher resolution (2.8 m x 2.8 m ) , multispectral scanner data wereused to prepare individual wetland maps of delta areas. The same classifica-tion scheme was used to map the Steel Creek, Pen Branch, and Four Mile Creekdeltas. In addition, Four Mile Creek delta had an "algal" class not found inthe Steel Creek delta. The algal mat class could not be identified using thehigher altitude (8,000 ft) data.
The accuracy of the Steel Creek delta vegetation map was evaluated bycomparing the computer map with ground survey data collected each meter alongselected transects in the delta. The overall absolute classification accuracywas 83.5 along two transects (Table 5).
615
TABLE 5. Remote Sensing Classification Performance Along Two Steel CreekDelta Transectsla)
GroundTruth Multispectral ClassificationClass PE NPE SS MDSF MDSF W
PE
NPE
SS
MDSF
MDBF
W
U
Total
343 20 49
30 137 10
20 20 254 20
- - - 127
- 20
- 10 - -
10
117
- 10
- 128 -
Total
412
177
314
147
137
138
%
83
77
81
86
85
93
OmissionTotal
69
40
60
20
20
10
1 %
17
23
19
14
15
7
CommissionTotal
50
50
59
40
10
_
%
12
28
19
27
7
- 10
393 187 313 167 127 10 1325 84
(a) Transect A was 1,021 meters and transect B was 304 meters.
At 8,000 ft, the lower spatial resolution decreases the spectral contrastbetween the wetland vegetation types found in the swamp. The SRP swamp maphad approximately the same accuracy (80%) as the delta maps when the sametransect data from Steel Creek delta were used. The levels of accuracy arecomparable to other studies which have mapped tree islands and saw grass inthe Florida Everglades (80-90%, Thomson, 1970) and Michigan wetlands (94%using aircraft MSS data; Sellman et al., 1974).
WETLANDS CHANGE DETECTION IN DELTA AREAS
SRP stream deltas have had varied expansion rates, as well as differentflow and temperature histories. Examination of past delta wetlands changescan provide important information on environmental impacts to wetlands exposedto increased temperature and flow conditions. To assess the current statusand predict future expansion of SRP thermal deltas, historic aerial photo-graphs were analyzed using both basic photointerpretation and computertechniques to provide the following information:
• past and current expansion rates,
• location and changes of impacted areas, and
• total acreage presently affected.
616.
Delta wetlands changes were compared to historic discharge temperature andflow data to see if expansion rates could be related to SRP operations.
Aerial photographs of Steel Creek, Pen Branch, Four Mile Creek, andBeaver Dam Creek deltas were taken at intervals between 1951 and 1984. Photosfrom eleven different years - 1951, 1955, 1956, 1961, 1966, 1973, 1975, 1978,1979, 1982, and 1984 - were examined. These years covered the period beforeand during discharges to each stream. Areas where the swamp and floodplainforest canopy had changed were interpreted from the photographs using stereopairs and optical photogrammetric techniques. Boundaries were drawn on thephotographs outlining the following vegetation classification zones:
• no apparent change• partial change (5 - 95% canopy reduction)
• complete loss (95 - 100% canopy reduction)
Wetland boundaries and other landmarks were digitized and placed in a raster-based Geographic Information System (GIS). A computer extracted informationfrom the GIS to produce color-coded images showing changes in swamp canopy.Figure 3 shows the change which occurred at one of the SRP stream deltas (PenBranch) from 1961 to 1982. The delta expanded to a size of about 380 acres by1984 and is continuing to change at about 25 to 30 acres per year.
THERMAL VEGETATION CORRELATION
For the SRP deltas, changes in delta growth could be related in generalto variations in cooling water flow and temperature. Therefore, aerialmultispectral scanner (MSS) data were again used to evaluate potential effectsof temperature on SRP wetland types. For this evaluation, aerial MSS datacollected at altitudes of 8,000 and 4,000 ft were analyzed. Both vegetationand thermal signatures were integrated over the 0.01 and 0.0025 acre/pixelsurface. The thermal sensor in the MSS has an accuracy of 0.2°C. Averagetemperatures observed in five of the wetlands vegetation classes for spring-time data were 31.4°C for algal mats, 26.2°C in scrub-shrub, 25.7°C in non-persistent emergent, 24.0°C in persistent emergent, and 21.4°C in cypress-tupelo wetland plant community types.
Other factors, such as sedimentation and changes in hydrological flowpatterns, in addition to temperature, affect the wetland community types ofthe SRP Savannah River swamp. Remote sensing techniques coupled with groundtruth programs will be used to assess and predict future changes and supportselection of cooling water alternatives for SRP operations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The information contained in this art ic le was developed during the courseof work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with the U.S. Department ofEnergy.
617
* ^ — @ i t £ - L _ Upland
SRPSwamp
VSavannah River
1961
CANOPY LOSS
Partial
I Complete
Swomp
S. River
Swamp
S. River
198i>
Upland
Swamp Swamp
S. River S. River
FIGURE 3. Pen Branch Delta Expansion
618
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classificationof Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 p.
Jensen, J. R. (1979), "Computer Graphic Feature Analysis and Selection."Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 45:1507-1512.
Jensen, J. R., E. J. Christensen, and R. Sharitz. 1984. "Nontidal WetlandMapping in South Carolina Using Airborne Multispectral Scanner Data." RemoteSensing of Environment 16:1-12.
Sellman, A. N., Sattinger, I. J., Istvan, L. B., Ens!in, W. R. Meyers, W. L.,and Sullivan, M. C. (1974). Remote Sensing in Michigan for Land ResourceManagement, Waterfront Habitat Management at Pointe Mouiilee, Report 193400-1-T, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 43 pp.
Thomson, N. S. (1970). "Bioresources of Shallow Water Environments."Proceedings, Symposium on Hydrobiology, American Water Resources Association,pp. 329-349.
619
8E: STATUS OF THE GRAPHIC OVERVIEW SYSTEMIN RELATION TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FACILITIES
Hollis A. BerryEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Aerial Measurements Operations
Las Vegas, Nevada 89125
ABSTRACT
The Graphic Overview System (GOS) is a compilation of maps,photos, and summary information of environmental programs and relateddata for Department of Energy (DOE) sites. The information, in theform of colored overlays, consists of environmental monitoringlocations, effluent release points, onsite storage locations, NPDESpermit locations, aerial survey results, demographic and meteorologicaldata, and other general information. The results provide a workingtool for DOE management and contractors to review and visualize therelationship among environmental programs. In addition, the user canplace in proper perspective key aspects of all environmental programsand related information to evaluate the resulting public andenvironmental impact of the site. Since its inception, the GOS hasbeen expanded to include nonradiological monitoring and site planningand development information. To date, packages for 14 DOE sites havebeen completed. The package most recently completed, on the NevadaTest Site, contains a considerable amount of historical information. Acomprehensive revision and update of the package for the Savannah RiverPlant is currently in progress. GOS packages serve many functionsbesides being a tool for reviewing a facility's programs. The packageshave been used in court litigation, program planning, public hearings,and both technical and nontechnical briefings and reports. GOSpackages also serve as an excellent tool for emergency planningpurposes by providing a set of maps and site information a..d programson a common scale.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operates a variety of plants andfacilities, many involving the use of radioactive materials. During thepast few years increased efforts have been made to assess radiation levelsin the vicinity of these sites. This effort has resulted in the collectionof large amounts of data for review and assessment.
621
The need for a system that could provide an overview of the environ-mental programs and related data at each site was identified. It wasnecessary that the system provide an overview of the effectiveness of thecontainment and the effluent control, and the consequent environmentalimpact of the specific DOE operation. To be an effective tool, theoverview system needed to be comprehensive, easily transportable, visuallyeffective, technically correct, and up-to-date. Properly implemented, thesystem would place in perspective for management review the key componentsand related data of all environmental programs.
Additionally, this information would allow DOE management to:
* ensure that properly scoped and effective effluent andenvironmental monitoring programs are being pursued; that is, thatmeasurements of the appropriate nuclides in the effluents arebeing obtained at the right environmental locations at the righttime, and that the overall results accurately depict the impact onthe environment;
* ensure that efforts to control or limit onsite discharges andoffsite releases are balanced to minimize present and future risksto both the general public and DOE and contractor employees; and
* have sufficient information on hand to respond'appropriately tp anincident or accident or to assess the validity of allegationsconcerning the effluents released from DOE operations. >
In 1977, EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. (EG&G/EM) implemented theGraphic Overview System as a formal program to assist DOE Headquarters inachieving these goals. The GOS program is funded by the Office of NuclearSafety, DOE Headquarters. To date 14 GOS packages have been completed andtwo are in progress. The status of all the packages is given in Table 1.
DATA AVAILABLE
The data used in the GOS packages is developed from existing sources.No new information is developed specifically for the system; existinginformation is assembled, digested, and summarized. Key data are thendisplayed for review.
Initially the GOS packages included primarily radiologicalenvironmental monitoring program, effluent release, onsite discharge, andaerial survey data, and some general demographic and meteorologicalinformation. Over the past few years, the data and infonnation gatheringprocess has changed considerably; the approach now is to design a packageto meet the specific needs of the particular facility based on itsoperations and environment.
622
TABLE 1. Status of Graphic Overview System Packages
Number ofSite Bases
Rocky Flats
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Savannah River Plant
Hound Laboratory
Baca Gee the ratal Project
Livermore National Laboratory
Hanford Site
Portsmouth GaseousDiffusion Plant
Feeds Material ProductionCenter
Paducah Gaseous OiffusionPlant
Argonne National Laboratory
Fermi Laboratory
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Nevada Test Site
Savannah River Plant - Update
West Valley DemonstrationProject
4
7
11
3
3
5
17
3
S
3
9
5
4
4
52
14
Number ofOverlays
29
48
28
18
29
57
118
28
25
36
50
66
32
275
491
—
Status
Completed 6/77
Completed 4/79
Completed 12/79
Completed 2/80
Completed 2/81
Completed 6/81
Completed 10/81
Completed 11/81
Completed 2/82
Completed 8/82
Completed 11/82
Completed 3/83
Completed 2/84
Computed 10/84
In Progress
In Progress
623
The types of information and data categories that may be included in a60S package today are briefly described below.
* General Features - Consists of graphically highlighted roads,buildings, transportation routes, and any geographic features ofinterest.
* Demography - Graphics primarily depicting population distributionsbut that can also include population densities, and projections ofincreases or decreases in population.
* Meteorology - Consists of seasonal and/or annual wind rose data,precipitation maps, and the networks set up to monitormeteorological conditions in the area of a given facility.
* Hydrology - Consists of surface water features including streams,creeks, rivers, surface drainage patterns, established floodzones, and wetland areas. Groundwater table maps and diagrams ofgroundwater flow are also useful.
* Vegetation - Current and potential land use mapping in some casesis important in environmental review in addition to the locationsof in-depth vegetation study sites and the locations of endangeredand threatened plant species.
* Animal Habitats - As in the vegetation category, the distributionof animal species and the locations and ranges of endangered andthreatened species may be critical tc present and/or future plantoperations.
* Geology - Includes geological features and soils mapping and thehighlighting of topographic features such as elevations and faultzones.
* Environmental Monitoring Programs - These programs are designed tomonitor both the discharges and their fate in the spectrum ofenvironmental media. The overlays for this area of concerninclude both radiological and nonradiological monitoring locationsfor pollutants and effluents. Categories can be broken down toinclude offsite and onsite programs and the illustration ofmonitoring locations that meet the requirements established byfederal, state and local regulations in addition to self-imposedoperating limits for radioactive and nonradioactive pollutants.Typically, the graphics are broken down to the elemental parts ofany monitoring program illustrating water, air, vegetation, soil,TLD and direct measurement locations. These are prepared onseparate overlays but in such a manner that the entire program canbe reviewed by displaying all the overlays in combination. Inaddition, any aerial survey work done at a site by EG&G/EM is alsodisplayed for review in conjunction with established monitoringprograms.
624
Effluent Release and Discharge Points - Due to the nature ofoperations at DOE facilities, several potential effluent releaseand discharge points exist. These points, which are monitored ona continuing basis, include both radiological and nonradiologicalreleases that may be atmospheric, gaseous, particulate, or liquidin nature. These locations are displayed and can be reviewed inconcert with facility monitoring programs. Sewer systems andfacility drainage patterns can also be displayed in additions toNPDES discharges and the locations of discharges that arefederally, state, and locally regulated.
Site Planning and Development - Existing facilities can bedisplayed as well as the features of future planning and sitedevelopment. Locations of new construction areas and anillustrator's rendering of the completed project can also bedisplayed.
Emergency Response Networks and Planning - In the area ofemergency response the GOS provides readily available maps, on acommon scale, that are handy and easily transported. In addition,emergency response plans can be illustrated on any scale and mayinclude established evacuation routes, the locations ofcontainment facilities, first aid stations and hospitals, expandedmonitoring networks, established grid location systems, and thelocations of available resources in the event of an emergency on aregional, local, or site level.
Waste Management Programs - This could include the locations oftreatment and storage facilities, decontamination areas andretention facilities, burial grounds, landfills, and disposal pitsof any radiological, hazardous, toxic, or sanitary materials suchas scrap metal.
Security and Communications - Controlled areas, guard stations andbarricades, and fence lines can be illustrated in addition tocommunication networks.
Historical Information - In some cases illustrations of historicalprograms and operations give a perspective on current plantconditions. The major portion of the work done for the NevadaTest Site package included overlays of fallout patterns related topast testing activities because of the numerous studies andresearch efforts going on in this area as well as courtlitigation. These overlays offered the perspective of looking atnumerous fallout patterns on a common scale instead of comparingdocuments of different scales. Many facilities have had more thanone EG&G/EM-conducted aerial radiological survey. These surveyresults can be illustrated and comparisons made as to theeffectiveness of cleanup operations, for example.
Other Data Sources - Special survey? and/or special environmentalstudies, the results of which contain a broad overview of theenvironmental conditions at a DOE site are often useful forinclusion in the Graphic Overview System.
625
The above is a list of the potential information for inclusion in a GOSpackage for a DOE facility. It is important to remember that each packageis site-specific in that it is designed to meet the needs and requirementsof the particular facility. To date no one package includes all the datalisted above. This breakdown of data and information provides a base fromwhich to identify the components of importance for an individual facility.
METHODS
The methods chosen for implementing the Graphic Overview System includecompiling a series of maps, photos, and colored overlays that display keyenvironmental data and information.
Maps, Photos, and Overlays
To display the information for maximum usefulness to management, thedata are presented in at least three levels of detail. The first level ofdisplay would be the regional area surrounding a specific site. Typicallya U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map serves as the base mapfor this level. Overlays include population distributions, wind rose dataand offsite monitoring locations around the site.
A second level of display could include the local vicinity for a smallsite, or the site Itself to at least the site boundaries for a largerfacility such as the Hanford Site or the Savannah River Plant. The basefor this level is a USGS map and/or a photograph. The overlays typicallyconsist of general features describing the site, monitoring locations,effluent release points, onsite storage locations, aerial survey data and,in some cases, a surface runoff map and a geological map. The size of thearea covered for this base varies from site to sita.
The third level of display may include a specific facility or area ofinterest. For the Savannah River Plant, 50 specific areas were chosen fordisplay. These include all the, major facilities, the major drainage basinsof the plant, and the detailed areas covered by aerial radiologicalsurveys. For Mound Laboratory only one area was chosen. The size of eacharea covered is variable. Overlays at this level generally consist of amore detailed picture of the environmental monitoring locations, effluentreleases, onsite storage points, aerial survey results, facility layouts,street maps, and drainage areas.
Because the information is displayed in colored overlays it is easy tocompare one set of information with another for a given base. For example,one can quickly see the relationship between onsite discharge locations,liquid release points, stream monitoring locations, and aerial surveyresults.
Products
The distribution of the packages is limited and includes DOEHeadquarters, the 00E area and field offices, the site contractor(s) andEG&G/EM. The packages will be updated periodically to assure that currentmonitoring program components are included. Three products are produced
626
when all the data gathering, graphics, and site and DOE reviews arecompleted. These include: (1) a set of large-scale maps 20 inches by 24inches in size with correspondingly sized colored overlays. This productis typically used in smaN briefings (six to eight people) or planning andreview sessions by an individual; (2) an 8-inch by 10-inch package ofviewfoils and overlays that can be used for overhead projection, typicallyin large briefings; and (3) a hard copy lithoprint that is used as a handydesktop reference of all the components of a specific DOE facility's GOSpackage. In addition, the lithoprints can be assembled for use as aspecific briefing subject handout for later reference. These lithoprintshave also been reproduced for inclusion in a facility's annualenvironmental monitoring report to 00E Headquarters as in the case of FermiLab's 1983 report.
Anticipated Uses
The Graphic Overview System was designed to provide an overview of theenvironmental programs at each DOE site. The system permits a visualpresentation of key aspect's of all effluent and environmental monitoringprograms and the related data useful for management review and evaluationof operations at DOE sites. For example, a completed package was used in abriefing of the Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety (DOE).The package has also been used in litigation and public hearings related toa specific DOE site. DOE personnel use the system for both in-depthfamiliarization and input into formal reviews of environmental programs atspecific sites. The systems or portions thereof have been used inconjunction with the annual environmental monitoring reports. In addition,the GOS packages give a graphic picture of any potential or realenvironmental impact; they have been used in press conferences as a publicinformation tool to provide an excellent picture of a facility and itsoperations. They can also be used as a base for site planning anddevelopment personnel on all levels. They are used in training newpersonnel. Finally, they provide an excellent data base and source ofinformation in the event of a serious accident or pollutant release at afacility or site by providing rapid access to sufficient information forresponsive action. The Graphic Overview System is a dynamic program withunlimited potential.
627
8F: A MOBILE LABORATORY FOR NEAR REAL-TIME MEASUREMENTSOF VERT LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVITY
R. A. SiggE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, South Carolina
ABSTRACT
The Tracking Radioactive Atmospheric Contaminants(TRAC) System is a mobile laboratory, developed bySavannah River Laboratory (SRL) to improve emergencyresponse and environmental research capabilities at theSavannah River Plant (SRP). In the event of an atmo-spheric release, the TRAC laboratory can confirm thelocation and radionuclide composition of the downwindcloud by analyzing samples in near real-time in thefield. Specialized monitoring systems were developedto analyze most radionuclides produced in SRP's diverseoperations. Sensitivities are radionuclide dependentand can be 10*5 of maximum permissable concentration(MPC) values.
INTRODUCTION
The Savannah River Laboratory has undertaken several projectsto improve emergency response and environmental research capabil-ities at the Savannah River Plant. The Tracking RadioactiveAtmospheric Contaminants mobile laboratory improves these capabil-ities by monitoring radionuclides in the field. The TRAC labora-tory can confirm the location and radionuclide composition of thedownwind cloud in the event of an atmospheric release.
For earlier releases at the Savannah River site (Evans 1984),field teams were deployed to collect environmental samples. Thesamples were returned either to SRL's Environmental TechnologyDivision or to SRP's Health Protection Department laboratories foranalysis. Typically, results were not available for one to twoday8. Generally, surveys made in the field were not radionuclidespecific and were not able to monitor low radionuclide concentra-tions. The TRAC laboratory's results are usually available withinone hour of its arrival at a sampling site; the results give theactivities of specific radionuclides at low levels.
629
LABORATORY PLATFORM
A continuous truck chassis (Figure 1) rather than a tractortrailer is used for the laboratory platform so personnel can worksafely in.the laboratory while the vehicle is in motion. Thenumerous analytical and support systems require a large vehicle;its forty foot length is the maximum permitted by most states.Radionuclide measurement sensitivity is enhanced by approximately 4metric tons of shielding; the chassis's rated capacity of greaterthan 20 metric tons makes carrying shielding and other heavy equip-ment possible. Computer equipment is housed in shock resistantcabinets, although the air suspension system gives a relativelysmooth ride. A 70 kW, fast-response, engine generator provideselectrical power in transit. Local external power is used tomaintain equipment in a continuous standby mode when the vehicle isparked at SRL. Uninterruptible power supplies assure clean, con-tinuous power for instruments.
The laboratory is insulated, and four roof-mounted air condi-tioners and heaters maintain stable temperatures. Low air flowrates through HEPA and charcoal filters help prevent contaminationof the laboratory.
PLUME LOCATION
Meteorology and Communications
Initially, the mobile laboratory locates plumes using forecasttrajectories from the SRL Weather Center's Weather Information andDisplay (WIND) System (Garrett 1983). SRL transmits forecasttrajectories and concentrations to the TRAC laboratory by singleside band radio (Figure 2); reliable voice and data communicationscan be established at distances up to 800 kilometers. Shorterrange scrambled VHF communications are also available. TRAC usesthe same communications equipment to send observed concentrationand location data to the SRL Weather Center and the SRP EmergencyOperating Center.
Plume Monitor
A gamma monitor (Figure 3), consisting of twelve large Nal(Tl)detectors, pinpoints sampling positions for the laboratory's othermonitors. It can also give warning of concentrations that mightcause excessive contamination of the laboratory. The plume monitoris divided into quadrants by passive shielding to provide direc-tional ly sensitive plume location data. The array is shielded fromthe ground to minimize interferences from naturally occuring radio-nuclides. The monitor is housed at roof-top level to minimize
630
shadowing of the array by laboratory equipment. The monitor candetect argon-41 at the site boundary during normal SRP operations.Argon-41 ia produced by neutron activation of argon in the aircirculated through the annular cavity of each reactor.
Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer Gas
The mobile laboratory can measure sulfur hexafluoride tracergas to locate plumes not containing gamma-ray emitters. The tracergas could be intentionally released at the source with an inadver-tent radioactive release. The monitor uses an electron capturesource to detect the tracer gas. Oxygen gas is removed by cata-lytic reaction with hydrogen to avoid interference with electroncapture detection.
COLLECTION AMD ANALYSIS SYSTEMS
Specialized monitoring systems to collect and measure radio-nuclides from large volumes of air were developed. The systems cananalyze most radionuclides produced in diverse operations at SRP.Specifically, monitoring systems were developed for tritium forms(HT and HTO), gamma-ray emitting aerosols, transuranic aerosols,radioiodine, and noble gases. Each monitoring system indentifiesthe radionuclides in its samples. Concentrations 10~5 of MPClimits can be detected for some radionuclides. Sensitivities areless for monitoring other radionuclides but activities can bedetected at or below MPC limits for all radionuclides of interest.The low-level and radionuclide specific capability is a significantimprovement over previous field capabilities.
Tritiui forma
A tritium forms monitor (Figure 4) collects and analyzes fortritium either as moisture (HTO) or as elemental gas (HT)a. Thetritium, air, and hydrogen gas pass through several molecular sievetraps. The first trap adsorbs atmospheric moisture. The secondtrap contains a palladium-coated sieve that catalytically oxidizesthe hydrogen gas and adsorbs the resulting moisture. Air is sam-pled for approximately 10 minutes at a flowrate of 300 liters/minute.After sampling is complete, the sieve is automatically transferredto a microwave oven for vacuum bakeout. Desorbed moisture is frozen
a HT is used as a generic term for tritium gas which can also havethe form IT or DT,
631
downstream, where it is subsequently melted. Analysis is by liquidscintillation counting. The complete process takes about fortyminutes. Sensitivities are sufficient to observe tritium on site,downwind from SRP's normal operations.
Gamma-Ray Aerosols
The gamma-ray aerosol monitor (Figure 5) collects aerosolsfrom air flowing through a filter paper at twenty-five cubic meters/minute. The filter is viewed on-line by a Nal(Tl) detector tosense the buildup of activity. Following collection for about tenminutes, the filter is removed, compressed, and counted for aboutten minutes by germanium gamma-ray spectrometry. The monitor'ssensitivity permits detection of radionuclides at concentrationsranging from 1/15 to 10"^ of MPC. MPCs used for the comparisonare those for uncontrolled areas and for a suitable sample of thepopulation.
Radioiodine
A canister filled with 5% TEDA activated charcoal removes vol-atile radioiodine from the air (Kovach 1981). Air flow rates arelimited to one cubic meter/minute to assure efficient adsorption.The canister is monitored by an on-line Nal(Tl) detector; followinga ten minute sample collection, the canister is evaluated by germa-nium gamma-ray spectrometry. The sensitivity for iodine-131 is 1/3of the MPC limit.
Transuranict
A Teflon®-based filter medium (Liu 1976) removes transuranicaerosols from the air (Figure 6). The aerosols remain at the sur-face of the filter, allowing alpha spectrometry by ion-implantedsilicon detectors to distinguish transuranics from radon daughters(Kordas 1978). Samples are collected for approximately thirtyminutes at 1000 liters/minute. The filters are subsequentlycounted for about thirty minutes to give detection limits equal tothe plutonium-239 MPC.
Noble Case*
A monitor for noble gases is being developed. It will consistof a germanium spectrometer in the annulus of a pressure vessel foranalysis of filtered whole air.
632
SUPPORTING SYSTEMS
The laboratory's emergency response efforts are supported byan on-board Gould/SEL 32/27 real-time computer and a Loran-Cnavigation system. Meteorological measurement support is beingadded.
OTHER APPLICATIONS
The TRAC laboratory supports meteorological transport modelvalidation studies through tracer gas release experiments, and bymonitoring radionuclides released in SRP's routine operations.
At the St. Lucie Federal Field Exercise, the TRAC laboratoryanalyzed field-collected samples such as milk in Marinelli break-ers, charcoal filters, and fruit and vegetation samples. One ofthe laboratory's germanium detectors and multichannel analyzers isfield portable for in situ gamma-ray measurements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information contained in this article was developed duringthe course of work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with theU.S. Department of Energy.
REFERENCES
Evans, A. G., D. D. Hoel, and M. V. Kantelo. 1984. EnvironmentalAspects of a Tritium Release from the Savannah River Plant onMarch 23, 1984. DP-1695, Savannah River Laboratory. Aiken, S.C.
Garrett, A. J., M. R. Buckner, and R. A. Mueller. 1983. "TheWeather Information and Display Emergency Response System".Nucl. Tech. 60(l):50-59.
Kordas, J. F., and P. L. Phelps. 1978. A review of MeasurementTechniques for Stack Monitoring of Long-Lived Alpha Emitters.UCRL-81780, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Kovach, J. L., 1981. "The Evolution and Current State of Radio-Iodine Control". CONF-801038 1:417-436.
Liu, B. Y. H., and K. W. Lee. 1976. "Efficiency of Membrane andNucleopore Filters for Submicron Aerosols". Env. Sci. Tech.10(4):345-350.
08tland, H.G. and A. S. Mason. 1974. "Atmospheric HT and HTO".TelluB 26(1-2), 91-102.
633
FIGURE 1. TRAC System Platform
EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMDATA SOURCES
KTEOROLMKM.MTATO SHU VIAPHONE LINES
EOCSTACK MONITORT O W . VIAPHONE LINES
FIGURE 2 . Communications
634
FIGURK 3. Plume Monitor
REAL-TIME TRITIUM FORMS MONITORTRAC SYSTEM
I ) CONCENTRATION FROM AIR STREAM 41 ANALYSIS LIQUID SCINTILLATION COUNTING
-Mil1
<h"j[>HyOQDH
FIGURE 4. Tritium Forms Monitor
635
AEROSOL AND RADIQIODINE MONITORS
SAMPLE COLLECTIONSAEROSOL - FILTERIODINE - CHARCOAL
ACTIVITY DETECTIONON THE
REAl .1MI
RADIONUCUM SPECIFICNtAR REAt TIMILOW lEVtl
FIGURE 5. Gamma Aerosol and Radioiodins Monitors
TRANSURANICS MONITOR
SAMPLECOLLECTION
ALPHASPECTROMETRY
n
o
. FLUOROPOR6FILTER —
(lOcmx 10 cm)
IT
— ION IMPLANTEDSILICON >-
SPECTROMETERS §
4 DETECTORS. °1700 mm2 at.
i
ii
Bi-2
12
-
. 7
! C
! £
AIR FLOW(1000 LITERS/MINI
VACUUM(20 TORRI
5 6 7ENERGY (M.V)
MINIMUM Pu-23> DETECTABLE ACTIVITY 0.02 pC./m3
(~30 min. collKlion. - 30 min. countl
FIGURE 6. Transuranics Monitor
636
8G: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY'S ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ANDRADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND THE CO-6O INCIDENT
D. M. Van Etten, A. J. Ahiquist, and W. R. HansenLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, New Mexico 87545
ABSTRACT
A 4-wheel drive van has been outfitted at Los Alamos forenvironmental surveillance and radiological emergencies. Thevan's capabilities were described at this conference In 1982. . Therapid gamma search and spectral analysis capabilities were utilizedin conjunction with the cobalt-60 (£°Co) teletherapy sourceincident in Juarez, Mexico. Assistance was requested by the Stateof New Mexico (through DOE/Albuquerque Area Office) in January 1984to perform initial 1n-s1tu Isotopic Identification of thecontaminated steel that was first discovered In the United Statesby Los Alamos. The van's capabilities were again called upon inMarch 1984 to survey the New Mexico highways using the highlysensitive delta count rate monitoring system for 60Co pellets thatmay have been tracked Into the state. This paper provides 1) setupand results of the surveys conducted with the van, 2) interactionswith the press, and 3) an evaluation of the van's usefulness insuch an emergency response.
INTRODUCTION
On January 16, 1984, a gate monitor at Los Alamos National Laboratoryuncovered what was to become a major radiation incident. A truck carryingcontaminated reinforcing steel bar (rebar) triggered the gate monitor and along International (US and Mexico) investigation. Subsequent investigationseventually found that be'sides rebar, table bases and small pellets containing6oco from the same source might be present in the US and potentially exposingmembers of the public. The investigation was conducted by state radiationprotection programs, principally New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, and Involvedthe US Department of Energy (DOE), US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), USCustoms Service, and other federal and state agencies. The EnvironmentalSurveillance and Radiological Emergency Van at Los Alamos National Laboratorywas used to assist in Identifying the contamination and later to search se-lected New Mexico highways for any further contamination.
637
LOS ALAMOS VAN
The van project was started In 1978 for use In the Laboratory's environ-mental programs. The diverse range of field investigations and possibleradiological emergencies required a versatile design (Van Etten 1982). Itwas equipped with 4-wheel drive for rugged off-road terrain and a 6.5 kilo-watt generator for ample instrument power. The van's present operationcenters on two main instrument systems. The first system is an in-situspectrum system for qualitative and quantitative analyses of gamma emittingisotopes (Fig. 1). The system components are Intrinsic germanium detectors,multichannel analyzers, and a computer for spectrum analysis/storage.
Figure 1. Instrument Racks and Detector
The other system is a sensitive delta count-rate monitoring system forgross gamma searches (Van Etten 1983). This system consists of two 4 in. x 4in. x 16 in. Nal detectors mounted upright in the rear corners of the van,single channel analyzer, delta rate meter, stripchart recorder, and a dashread-out. Other instruments Include hand-held survey and field-portabledetectors.
6QCo INCIDENT
The Incident started when the source wheel from a eoco teletherapy unitwas removed from a Juarez, Mexico warehouse and sold to a local junkyard.Apparently the source broke open In transit to the yard. The 450 curie (CD60Co source in the form of small pellets (Fig. 2) (approximately 7000 0.04In. long by 0.04 In. diam) was scattered 1n the back of the transport truck,junkyard, and local area. Contaminated salvage steel from the junkyard wastransferred to foundries In Juarez and Chihuahua. The steel was smelted into
638
Figure 2. Example of the soco Pellets
rebar and table bases and sold to US suppliers. Part of an early shipment ofrebar was trucked past the gate monitor at Los Alamos and was discovered.
6QC0 IDENTIFICATION
On January 18, 1984. the Los Alamos van performed an in situ gamma spec-trum analysis of the rebar at the request of the New Mexico Radiation Protec-tion Bureau (NMRPB) through the DOE/DOD Joint Nuclear Accident CoordinationCenter (JNACC). The rebar that set off the alarm had been delivered to acontractor in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The NMRPB had confirmed that the rebarwas contaminated and had an external radiation reading of 6 milliroentgensper hour (roR/h) on contact.
The van's intrinsic germanium detector was set on a tripod 20 feet (ft)from the rebar looking at the bundle lying on the ground (Fig. 3). The rebarprovided a text-book spectrum of 6°Co in a very short time. The only otherphoton peaks found in the spectrum were from naturally occurring radio-activity and fallout In the soil and buildings near the bundle of rebar. TheState of New Mexico Scientific Laboratory (NMSL) simultaneously identifiedsoCo in a small rebar samples that had been cut off and counted in the labor-atory.
Swipe tests were then performed for surface contamination. The swipeswere counted later, when the van was away from the field of the rebar, forgross alpha, beta, and gamma activity and results indicated no removablesurface contamination.
The major advantage of the in situ measurement is that it Integrates thewhole sample population. A small sample may not be representative If the
639
Figure 3. In situ Environmental Gamma Spectrum Measurement
area of interest Is not uniformly contaminated. Counting times of many hour;;are required for small samples because of the low total activity. The largeractivity seen by in situ counting reduces the count time to seconds or min-utes. In other possible field situations, real time qualitative and possiblequantitative Information from In situ counting may be very important in mak-ing fast field judgments.
Because of unknown mass and geometry problems, concentrations were notcalculated on the rebar bundle in the field. Concentrations in the rebai*were measured later by the NMSL and other agencies, and found to range from afew to several hundred nanocuries per gram (nC1/g).
Identification of soco as the contaminant was an important step in de-termining the source of the contamination. The fact that only soco was pre-sent suggested that the rebar was not from reactor waste or one of many otherpossible sources. The contaminant was fixed in the steel so it must havebeen smelted Into the steel. This gave the KMRPB information in tracing the60Co to a foundry 1n Chihuahua from which It was traced to the source InJuarez, Mexico by Mexican authorities. Finding that the 6«Co had a foreignorigin, federal and state officials Immediately alerted the US Customs Ser-vice to new incoming shipments. The same day they were notified, the CustomsService stopped four large truck loads of rebar with readings as high as 700niR/h.
SEARCH FOR 6OC0 PELLETS
The small cobalt pellets had been In the Juarez area for over a uonthand there was a possibility that some may have been tracked Into the US
640
through El Paso, Texas. As state and federal agencies searched for the re-maining contaminated rebar and table bases, they also began surveys for pel-lets In the US. At the request of the states of Texas and New Mexico, anaerial survey of El Paso and adjoining areas of New Mexico was performed bythe DOE/EG&G Aerial Radiological Monitoring team.
New Mexico also requested through JNACC that the Los Alamos van surveythe major highways leading into New Mexico from El Paso (Fig. 4). The surveywas performed using the van's delta count rate monitoring system. The delta
Figure 4. Route of Mew Mexico Highway Search
rate meter sounds an alarm should the radiation level exceed the stored back-ground and a count setting (delta) for the prescribed counting time (Fig.5). The gross count rate is displayed on a stripchart and a digital panelmeter visible to the driver and passenger.
For the &0Co search the single channel analyzer was tuned for the twophoton (1173 keV and 1332 keV) peaks. This increased the effectivesensitivity of the system, because most all natural background radiation isabove or below this range. In sensitivity tests the van could spot a 0.1 mCisource placed 15 ft off the road. This check was near the lower detectionlimits for passing a 6°Co source at 50 mph. The pellets of interest werearound 70 mC1 or about 700 times stronger. No pellets were found In the USout of all the surveys performed by all the different agencies.
641
Figure 5. Dashmeter and Recorder by the Seat
Prior to starting the search, a press conference was held in Albuquer-que, NM to explain what was Intended in the search and to demonstrate thedelta count rate monitor's capability. The media reaction was quite favor-able.
CONCLUSIONS
The ability to search for and identify photon emitting radionuclideswith high sensitivity and resolution can greatly help in evaluating a radio-active incident. In this case the van provided a small but significant partof the evaluation. When the NMRPB press release went out on January 18,1984, the state had a better understanding of the problem. The news nediawas well Informed and presented a positive reaction of this incident to thepublic. Searches of the highways gave reassurance to the public that pelletswere not tracked into New Mexico.
REFERENCES
Van Etten, D., 0. Talley, T. Buhl, and W. Hansen. 1982. Capabilities of theLos Alamos National Laboratory's Environmental Emergency Response vehicle.Proceedings of the Fourth DOE Environmental Protection Information Meeting.
Van Etten, D. and W. 01 sen. 1983. Delta Count Rate Monitoring Systew.Alamos National Laboratory report LA-9855-M.
642
LOS
8H: CONTINUOUS VENT SAMPLER FOR MONITORINGRAMONUCLIDE EMISSIONS
Michael J. OrlettGoodyear Atomic Corporation
Piketon, Ohio
ABSTRACT
Substantially more restrictive regulatory lirrits than those nowin effect for airborne radioactive discharges are possible in thefuture. The principal contributors to such discharges at thePortsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant are uranium isotopes - mainlyuranium-234 - and technetium-99, both of which are present in very lowconcentrations in the vent gases discharged to the atmosphere from thediffusion process. If proposed stricter regulations are enacted,monitoring of vent gases for compliance would require detection limitsof 0.001 ppm for uranium and technetium -- an order of magnitude lowerthan present requirements.
The conventional method at Portsmouth for sampling airbornedischarges utilizes "grab" samples which are taken manually severaltimes each day and then analyzed for uranium and technetium. Thisprocedure, however, 1s impractical for meeting the limits of uraniumdetection that may be required by possible future regulations, nordoes it provide continuous monitoring of the emissions. A prototypevent gas sampler which overcomes these limitations has been designed,constructed, placed 1n operation, and evaluated for accuracy andreliability. A small, automatically measured flow of vent gas 1scontinuously withdrawn and passed through three snail traps in seriescontaining activated alumina, which quantitatively collects theuranium and tectinetium. The sample flow is maintained until asufficient quantity of the radionuclides 1s collected to allowdetection within the requisite limits using established laboratorymethods.
Based upon test results and its performance in field use, theprototype sampler which has been developed provides the capability tomeet present as well as possible future requirements for continuousmonitoring of radionuciide emissions in plant vent gases accuratelyand reliably. Other advantages of the continuous sampler compared to"grab" sampling Include lower costs.
The engineering of continuous samplers for permanent Installation1s In progress based upon the design and operational criteria whichhave been developed.
643
INTRODUCTION
The Goodyear Atonic Corporation operates a gaseous diffusion plant for theDepartment of Energy at Portsmouth, Ohio, which produces uranium enriched inthe uranium-?35 isotope for nuclear power reactor fuel. Uranium hexafluoride(UF6) is the process gas. However, lower molecular weight gases or "lights",chiefly air, and also some corrosive gases, are present in the process andaccumulate in the upper portion of the diffusion plant. A section of theprocess system known as the purge cascades is specifically designed toseparate the "lights" from UF6. By operational control of the purge cascades,the UF6 content of the gas stream is reduced to about 1 ppm. The light gasesare then drawn by an air-jet ejector through activated alumina traps which,acting as secondary controls, reduce the residual uranium content further andare then discharged to the atmosphere. A simplified diagram of the purgesystem is shown in Figure 1.
PROCESSCASCADE
-DIFFUSION EQUIPMENT FORURANIUM ISOTOPE SEPARATION
>»»% UF, 100* UF-
SPECIAL DIFFUSION EQUIPMENTFOR UOHTS/UF, SEPARATION
LIGHTS VENT RATE MEASUREMENTAND CONTROL
REMOML OF HOST OF I I |*™OSPHERE
RESIDUAL IU0I0NUCUDES [I-VENT STACK
Figure 1. L1ghts/UF6 Separation System
The principal contributors to radioactive emissions at Portsmouth are theuranium-234 and technetium-99 Isotopes, which are emitted in the vent gasesfrom the purge cascades. Uranium-234 Is the predominant alpha-emittinguranium Isotope and technet1um-99 1s a weak beta emitter which enters thecascade as a trace Impurity 1n feed consisting of reprocessed nuclear reactor"returns". These radionuclide emissions are monitored to assure compliancewith regulatory limits which, at present, restrict the average concentrationsof uranium and of technetium In the vent gases to approximately 0.01 ppm(volume basis) of each.
644
Monitoring of radionuclides 1n the gases vented from the diffusion plantto the atmosphere has been based on "grab" samples, which are taken manuallyat periodic intervals and then analyzed for uraniun and technetium. However,this method of sampling cannot provide continuous monitoring nor 1s itpractical for meeting the lower limits of detection which would be necessaryshould stricter regulatory controls be enacted. The Federal EPA has proposedregulations1 which would require detection limits of 0.001 ppm each foruranium and technetium -- an order of magnitude lower than presentrequirements. It is now uncertain that such regulations will be enacted sincethe EPA has very recently disclosed plans to drop their earlier proposals.2
A prototype vent gas sampler which overcomes the inherent limitations of"grab" sampling has been designed, constructed, placed in operation, andevaluated for accuracy and reliability. The prototype embodies features whichare the cumulative result of several years of development and testing, both inthe laboratory and in the plant. The purpose of this paper is to present themethodology, sampler design, and operational criteria for continuousmonitoring of radionudide emissions in vent gases and the results of fieldexperience with the prototype system which has subsequently evolved.
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTINUOUS SAMPLER
Certain criteria must be met to provide an acceptable method of ventmonitoring. These include a high degree of accuracy, adequate sensitivity,and operational reliability. A number of factors are involved and must beproperly Implemented to satisfy each of these criteria.
Basic Considerations
• Accuracy - Quantifying the amount of contaminant that Is emittedrequires knowing the concentration of the contaminant 1n the streamand the flow rate of the stream which 1s being monitored. Accuratedetermination of the concentration, in turn, requires obtaining ameasured volume of gas sample which is representative of thecomposition of the stream over the entire period of sampling. Thecontaminant in the gas sample must be quantitatively collected withknown efficiency, and reliable analytical methods must be appliedto measure the quantity of contaminant derived from the sample.
• Sensitivity - The detection limit for the concentration of acontaminant present in a flowing stream is determined by the sizeof the sample volume obtained and the detection limit of theanalytical method applied to measure the quantity of thecontaminant. An acceptable continuous vent-monitoring methodshould provide an ample margin of sensitivity not only £t thedetection limits of 0.01 ppm each for uranium and technetiumrequired to monitor compliance with current regulations, but alsoat detection limits of 0.001 ppm for each which may becomenecessary under future, stricter regulations.
645
• Reliability - A sampler system for continuous vent monitoring mustbe capable of operating unattended for sustained periods withminimal maintenance under the demanding conditions of plantoperation.
Continuous Sampler Design
With these considerations in mind, sampler design efforts were initiatedwhich are based on the concept of continuously and quantitatively collectingfrom a measured flow of vent gases, over a reasonable period of time, enoughof the radionuclides of concern so that their concentrations can be determinedwith the requisite accuracy using existing analytical procedures.3
Initial Studies
At first, a sampling system was designed and tested which was basedon collection of the radionuclides using a liquid caustic scrubber.Further development of this approach was discontinued due toprecipitation problems and gas flow restrictions caused by insolublefluorides which were produced as reaction products of the vent gases withthe scrubber solution.
Next, a sampling system based on collection of the radionuclides bysorption on activated alumina was tested. Although other sorbents wereconsidered, activated alumina was chosen primarily because of provencapability for uranium and technetium uptake and the existence ofestablished procedures for the analysis of alumina for uranium andtechnetium. This system consisted of a bellows pump to remove the gassample, a needle valve to control flow, a mass fiowmeter to measure flow,and a series of small traps containing activated alumina to retain theuranium and technetium. Five traps were used initially to assurequantitative collection of the radionuclides. The gas stream was sampledat the location between the plant alumina traps and the air-jet ejectorwhere "grab" samples are taken (see Figure ! ) .
In order to obtain a more representative sample, the system wasmodified so that the total vent flow signal was continuously monitoredand a stepper-motor operator was added to the needle valve tocontinuously adjust the sample flow to make ft proportional to totalflow. The number of traps was reduced to three since operatingexperience showed no detectable uranium or technetium penetration beyondthe second trap. This modified system was operated for several monthsand performed fairly well mechanically and electrically. However, theaccuracy of the results became suspect when it was realized that thesample flow was not tracking In a proportional mode at low vent flows.Also, the continuous adjustment of the needle valve and the presence ofcorrosive gases led to premature component failures.
Present Design
Calculations suggested that If samples of the vent gases were takenat a location after the air ejector, detection requirements could be metby an appropriate combination of sample flow and sampling time despite
646
the great dilution of the gas stream with air. There are a number ofadvantages to sampling the vent gases after the ejector rather thanbefore as was done in the initial studies:
• The air flow through the ejector is constant and alwayscomprises more than 90% of the total flow to atmosphere.Therefore, a controlled constant rate sample would beproportional to the total vent flow, eliminating the needfor tracking vent flow by continuous rate adjustment of thesampling.
• Because of the relatively high flow rate and pressure atthis location, inexpensive but highly reliable flow sensorequipment could be used. This would enable reliabledetermination of total vent volume.
• The molecular weight of the vent gas is nearly the same asthe molecular weight of air and is essentially constant.Mass flowneter corrections/calibrations for the varyingaverage molecular weight of the gas can thus be ignored withnegligible error, and accurate determination of large samplevolumes is achievable.
• Sample withdrawal is facilitated at this location becausethe pressure is close to atmospheric. A high-volume sampleflow may be obtained with a relatively inexpensive pump.
• The dilution of corrosive gases by air from the ejectorminimizes their effect on system components and operation.
To realize the advantages cited, a sampler (Figure 2) wasconsequently designed and constructed for operation at the samplinglocation after the air ejector. The gas sample from the vent stack 1scontinuously withdrawn and passed sequentially through (a) a series ofthree small traps (2" 0D x 18" deep), each containing 600 grams of 28-48mesh activated alumina, which collect the uranium and technetium, (b) a10-micron sintered metal filter to retain any elutriated powder from thealumina, (c) a mass flowmeter to measure the sample flow rate, and (d) astepper-motor positioned needle valve to maintain constant flow of thegas sample. A Teflon diaphragm pump located as shown in Figure 2 movesthe sample gas. After leaving the pump, the gas sample is passed througha caustic solution (2% potassium hydroxide) which is periodicallyanalyzed to verify quantitative collection of uranium and technetium bythe traps. The gas sample 1s then vented to the atmosphere. Alsoincluded In the system is a rotameter placed so that the flowmetercalibration may be conveniently field-checked. The mass flowmeterreading 1s totalized on the meter and also by a data acquisition systemIn the nearby plant control room to obtain sample volume. The vent stackflow Is measured by a primary flow-sensor probe installed in the stackclose to the sampling point.
647
•OFFEREMTUL PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
-TOTAL VENT FLOWMETERAND TOTALIZER
FLOW PROBE FOR HEADER
•SAMPLE FLOWMETER
SAMPLE GAS FLOWCONTROLLER
VENT
-VENT SUCKHEADER
ROTAMETER
TO CAUSTICBUBBLER
Figure 2. Present Sample Design
The adequacy of this design for satisfying vent monitoringrequirements has been verified by means of fierd testing at the processvent:
• Accuracy - The total vent flow rate is measured by anindustry-recognized primary flow sensor. This flow rate iscontinuously monitored and totalized by a dedicatedmicroprocessor to establish the total volume of gasdischarged to the atmosphere. The system wasfactory-calibrated and the output of the differentialpressure transmitter recalibrated in-place. System accuracy1s rated at +1%.
A representative sample is obtained by an accuratelymeasured, continuous, constant-rate How withdrawn from thevent stream that is constant to +5%. The sample fiowmeterwas factory-calibrated, checked Tn our laboratory, and 1sfield-checked weekly against a rotameter mounted on thesampler cabinet. The flow 1s totalized on the meter.
The sample is ordinarily withdrawn from the vent st^ckthrough a line connected to the vent stack at right anglesto the direction of flow of the vent gases (side armwithdrawal). Tests were made to compare this method ofsample withdrawal with that using a probe designed toapproximate Isokinetic conditions which was inserted intothe vent gas stream. Statistical analysis showed no
648
significant difference In the test results obtained usingthese two methods of sample withdrawal (see Table 1). Thissuggests that the uranium and technstium are either entirelyIn gaseous form or that, if they are in particulate form,the particulates are extremely small. In either case, basedupon the test results, the use of an isokinetic design forsample withdrawal does not appear necessary under normalconditions of plant operation.
TARLE 1. Results With "Isokinetic" and Side Arm
Sanpling Method
IsokineticSide Withdrawal
IsoMneticSide Withdrawal
HokinetUSide Withdrawal
IsokineticSide Withdrawal
IsokineticSide Withdrawal
Mean ConcentrationIsokineticS1ds Withdrawal
Sampling Methods
Sampling Period
8/29/8«-9/5/8«
9/5/84-9/12/84
9/12/84-9/19/84
9/19/84-9/26/84
9/26/84-10/3/84
T «t SI Risk LevelCalculated Value of T( Average DifferenceL1»1t of Error Per Analysis
Average Vent Concentration (ppm)U
.0050
.0067
.0070
.0064
.00106
.00066
.0101
.0108
.0098
.0097
.00659.00685
2.7760.6153.80.0017
U-235
.0024
.0028
.0027
.0024
.00041
.00020
.0039
.0040
.0036
.0035
.00260
.00258
2.7760.1760.850.0005
Tc-99
.000060
.000070
.000313
.00025
.00015
.00019
.000026
.000021
,000012.000011
.000052
.000063
2.7761.421
17.70.00003
After the system 1s operated for the desired period ofsampling, the alumina in each trap 1s removed andrepresentative samples are taken for analysis. Establishedradi©chemical and fluorometric analytical methods of knownsensitivity are used to determine the amounts of totaluranium, uran1um-235, and technetium collected by thealumina.
Quantitative collection of the radionuclides by thecontinuous sampler is demonstrated by the fact that morethan 98X of the uranium and technetium has been found in thefirst sampler trap, less than 2% in the second trap, andnone above background In the third trap. Also, periodicanalysis has shown the absence of uranium and technetium inthe caustic bubbler solution after as much as four months ofcontinued use. Furthermore, no detectable amounts ofuranium and technetium were found 1n acid wash solutions ofthe system lines or filter after four months' operation.
649
Sensitivity - Sensitivity to the desired low levels Isachieved by collecting the radionuciides on alumina 1nsufficient quantity from a sample of adequate volume so thatthe usual analytical methods yield results which meet thetarget of 0.001 ppm each for uranium and technetium. Usinga continuous sample flow of 3 SLM and based on the limits ofdetection of the analytical method for uranium on alumina(0.04 nvicrograms/g), a sampling period of one week 1srequired to achieve a uranium detection limit of 0.0001 ppmor approximately a factor of 10 below discharge limits basedon possible stricter regulatory requirements. Table 2summarizes the calculation of the detection limit of thesampler for uranium based on sampler operating parametersand the limits of detection of the analytical methodemployed. Due to the greater sensitivity of the analyticalmethod for determination of technetium, the correspondingdetection limit for technetium-99 is 0.00001 ppm.
TABLE 2. Calculation of Detection Limit forUranium Using Continuous Sampler
Simple Flow Mtc 3 l/MinS*np1e Ttae 1 HeckStaple Volu*. 1 Meek 30240 L
Malt Of Detection Of Analysis 0.04 RicrogrM U/Srw MuMni
Height Alwiru/Trtp 600 6
Unit Of Oetectton/Tr«p. 24 McrogrM U
1 Mcrmioie/ltole 1 PM24 Nfcrogrws U O.I HIcrsaolM 030.240 Tcis 1350 Halts0.1/1350 <0.0001 M l UU»1t Of Detection .0001 MM U In D * Vented Sis
Reliabi l i ty - The prototype sampler has operated as designedfor 10 months without fai lure of any components. However,to provide redundancy 1n the event of fa i lure , a second,Ident ical , Independently powered sampler has been Installedwhich is designed to start operating automatically shouldthe sample flew to the primary sampler be significantlyaffected by power or component fa i lure , plugging of l ines,or other reasons.
RADIONUCLIDE EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM
System Flow Chart - The Integrated system for radionuclide emissionsmonitoring Incorporating the prototype continuous sampler designed asdescribed previously 1s depicted In Figure 3. When enough sample has been
650
collected to meet detection limits required by the objectives for anyparticular monitoring effort, the sampler traps are removed and replaced withfresh traps. The alumina from each trap is placed 1n separate plasticcontainers, thoroughly mixed, and then subsampled and submitted for analysis.The remainder of the sample 1s stored for archival purposes. Under normalcircumstances, the analytical results are available in less than a week andweekly totals are calculated and reported. For shorter-term environmentaldata, the sampler traps may be removed at any time, quickly analyzed, andtotal emissions determined in less than a day. On the other hand, ifmonitoring of extremely low emissions is required, sampling can be extendedfor up to one month before traps are changed. Operating procedures for thecontinuous sampler and the calculations required to obtain the pertinentradionuclide emissions data from sampler operating parameters and analyticalresults are contained in the Appendix.
PROCESSVENT
wW
CONTINUOUSSAMPLER
WITHALUMINA TRAPS
SUB SAMPLINGOF
TRAPS
r
ANALYSISFOR U-235
TOTAL UANDTc
\ r
CALCULATIONOF
RAOIONUCLIDEEMISSIONS
LONG-TERMSAMPLESTORAGE
Figure 3. Flow Chart for Determination of Radionuclide Emissions
Monitoring Results - In early 1984, the prototype continuous samplerwhich had evolved from development and testing efforts was placed in operationsampling the vent gases from the plant. Table 3 shows uranium and technetiumconcentrations based on sampler operation for the period from March throughSeptember 1984, during which the continuous sampler operated with 100%on-stream availability.
651
TABLE 3. Uranium and Technetium Concentrations of Purge Vent Gases
Continuous Sanpler Results
Date ppn Uranium
3/14-3/223/22-3/303/30-4/114/11-4/184/18-4/254/25-5/25/2-5/95/9-5/165/16-5/235/23-6/305/30-6/66/6-6/136/13-6/296/29-7/97/9-7/187/18-7/277/27-8/18/1-8/68/8-B/158/15-8/228/22-8/298/29-9/59/5-9/129/12-9/199/19-9/269/26-10/3
CONCLUSIONS
.0033
.0014
.0095
.0146
.0107
.0121
.0206
.009b
.0195• 0013.0104.0048.0015.0064.0119.0030.0059.00fi2.0061.0093.0018.0067.0064.0010.0118.0098
ppn Uranium-235
.0013
.0006
.0035
.0054
.0045
.0065
.0093
.0057
.0093
.0004
.0043
.0020
.0006
.0025
.0048
.(1013
.0027
.0029
.0021
.0035
.0006
.0028
.0025
.0004
.0040
.0035
ppw Technetiuw
.00007
.000)5
.00004
.00012
.00042
.00005
.00011
.00007
.00019
.01023
.00014
.00031
.00098
.00014
.00003
.000?4
.00021
.00041
.00023
.00005
.00016
.00008
.00003
.00019
.00002
.00001
A prototype continuous vent gas sampler for monitoring uranium andtechnetium emissions from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant has beendeveloped and extensively tested. Based on the results of laboratory testsand f ie ld use, a sampler of the prototype design will provide:
• Acceptable accuracy for the continuous and automatic sampling ofradionuclide emissions for vent monitoring purposes.
• Capability to significantly extend detection limits for uranium andtechnetium-99 concentrations in plant vent gases using exist ing,well-established analytical methods.
• Reliable operation and minimal maintenance.
In addition, the continuous ^sampler is an attractive alternative to replace"grab" sampling since i t :
• Offers a potential cost savings estimated at 200K/year.
• Allows more convenient storage of samples for archival purposes andret r ieva l , 1f necessary.
• Is a more flexible means of meeting alternative monitoring needswith the requisite accuracy and frequency of results.
652
Design criteria have been established by this work and are being used forengineering continuous samplers for permanent installations.
REFERENCES
i-Code of Federal Regulations. 1983. Vol. 40, Part 61 (National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.)
2-Pasztor, A. October 18, 1984. "EPA Plans to Scrap Proposals to TightenRules Governing Low Level Radiation." The Wall Street J. Page 14.
3-Works Laboratory Procedures Manual. GAT-115, Rev. 3, Vol. II, GoodyearAtomic Corporation, Piketon, Ohio.
APPENDIX
Operating Procedure For The Continuous Sampler
The specific steps for operating the continuous sampler are:
lc With reference to the system 1n Figure 2, the three traps are each filledwith 600 g of 28-48 mesh F-l activated alumina and connected in series tothe sampler. The system is checked for leaks by evacuating the traps withthe Teflon diaphragm pump and measurement of the leak rate using the massflowmeter.
2. The valve isolating the sampler from the vent stack header (Figure 2) isopened to Initiate gas sampling. The sampler system 1s checked everyeight hours to confirm proper operation.
3. The sampler is allowed to operate for a period of 7-8 days under normalprocedures. If necessary, the sampling period can be shortened to providemonitoring information for shorter time intervals.
4. At the end of the sampling period, the sampler Isolation valve Is closedand the traps are evacuated by the system pump to remove any residualgases. The traps are then removed and replacement traps containing freshalumina are installed.
Periodic checks of the sampler system are made as Indicated:
(a) Mass Flowmeter AccuracyRctameter check of the calibration Is done 1n the field on a weeklybasis. Laboratory recalibration Is done every six months.
(b) Vent Stack Header Flow Sensor AccuracyWater manometer is employed to confirm accuracy of pressure drop
653
indication every six months or sooner if sudden change occurs in thetotal vent rate reading.
(c) Sintered Metal Line FilterRemoved and inspected for buildup of deposits every six months.
(d) Inlet Lines to Alumina TrapRemoved and inspected for buildup of deposits every six months.
(e) Other Systen ComponentsWet-chemically decontaminated for determination of significant buildupof deposits every year, or i f system is replaced.
( f ) Caustic ScrubberSampled weekly and analyzed for uraniun and technetium. Fresh 2%potassium hydroxide solution added to replace evaporation losses.Scrubber solution replaced after three months or sooner, i f fluorideprecipitation occurs.
Analytical Procedures and Calculation of Results
1. The spent alumina from each trap of the sampler 1s placed in a plasticcontainer and homogenized by mechanically tumbling the containerovernight. The alumina is then subsampled and duplicate samples areanalyzed in the laboratory for uranium and technetium. Unused alumina 1sused as a blank.
2, The concentration of uranium emissions for each sampling period iscalculated as follows:
ppm U (by volume)moles U
ugl
moles of gas sampled
gU/g A1203Mt. of U x grams A12OS x 22.4 1/mole
volume of gas sampled (std. 1)
A similar calculation 1s performed for technetium.
3. The radionuclides contributing to radioactive emissions are chief lyuranium-234 and technetium-99. The technetium-99 is measured directly bybeta scintillation counting of aqueous leach solutions from which uraniumhas been removed. However, the uranium-234 Is calculated from totaluranium and uranium-235 measurements, using ratios of uranium-234 touranium-235 which have been established by mass spectrometry analyses ofprocess samples over many years of operation. Total uranium anduranium-235 are determined by fluoMmetry and gamma spectroscopy methods,respectively.
654
81: AMBIENT KRYPTON-85 AIR SAMPLING AT HANFORD
M. S. Trevathan # »Pacific Northwest Laboratory^ J
Richland, Washington 99352
K. R. PricePacific Northwest LaboratoryRichland, Washington 99352
ABSTRACT
In the fall of 1982, the Environmental Evaluations Section ofPacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) initiated a network of continuous85Kr air samplers located on and around the Hanford Site. Thiseffort was in response to the resumption of operations at a nuclearfuel reprocessing plant located onsite where fe5Kr was to be releasedduring fuel dissolution. Preoperational data were collected usingnoble gas samplers designed by the Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas (EPA-LV). The samplers functioned erratically resultingin excessive maintenance costs afid prompted a search for a newsampling system. State-of-the-art 85Kr sampling methods werereviewed and found to be too costly, too complex and inappropriatefor field application, so a simple bag collection system wasdesigned and field tested. The system is composed of a reinforced,heavy plastic bag, connected to a variable flow pump and housed in aweatherproof enclosure. At the end of the four week sampling periodthe air in the bag is transferred by a compressor into a pressuretank for easy transport to the laboratory for analysis. Afterseveral months of operation, the air sampling system has proven itsreliability and sensitivity to ambient levels of 85Kr.
INTRODUCTION
Established in 1943, the Hanford Site was originally built and operatedfor the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Since then all of theproduction reactors, with the exception of the N Reactor, have been deac-tivated and activities on the site have diversified. Fuel fabrication,nuclear waste management, plutonium production, advanced reactor development,and laboratory research are a few of the major activities. The recent
U ) Pacific Northwest Laboratory is operated by Battelle Memorial Institutefor the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC06-76RL0 1830.
655
interest in 85Kr at Hanford is a result of the resumption of operations atPUREX, a fuel reprocessing plant, located onsite in an area known as the200 Area (Figure 1). PUREX was operated from 1956 to 1972 to chemicallyprocess irradiated fuel produced by the production reactors. When most ofthe production reactors were shutdown in 1972, PUREX was placed in a standbymode.
Anticipating the restart of the PUREX plant, the Environmental Evalua-tions Section of Pacific Northwest Laboratory began monitoring for 85Kr in1982. Frequent equipment failure was experienced during preoperationalconditions using a sampler developed by EPA-LV. This prompted the design ofa new system to be operated continuously over a four week sample period,followed by delivery of the sample to the laboratory for analysis.
SAMPLING CRITERIA
Designing a 85Kr sampling system involved a number of tradeoffs in orderto obtain adequate measurement sensitivity with minimal cost. With ambient85Kr concentrations predicted to range from background (19 pCi/m3) to two orthree orders of magnitude greater (DOE 1983) sensitivity over the expectedrange of 85Kr concentrations was essential. Sampling at several locations
Miles 10
0 Kilometers 16•Sampling Locations
Figure 1. Krypton-85 Sampling Locations
656
implied that the system had to be cost-effective, but also simple to operatewith minimum maintenance requirements. The system also had to be capable ofoperating in extreme temperatures over extended periods of time.
Because we wanted to determine concentrations over long sampling periodsa grab-se.nple system was not considered, even though it is portable, simpleand relatively inexpensive. Direct radiation measurements using thermolumi-nescent dosimeters are economically feasible, but their sensitivity is poorand they are not nuclide specific. Cryogenic collectors are described in theliterature as having good sensitivity, but the technology is new and mainte-nance requirements are high and costly. EPA-LV has designed and operated acompressed air sampler for several years on the Nevada Test Site, but theyhave found the system too complex and undependable because of excessivemaintenance requirements (EPA 1977). We experienced many of the same prob-lems with the sampler design, and, of five original samplers in use, only oneis currently operating.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Based upon our experience with the EPA samplers, we decided to design anew system that was not only sensitive and accurate, but also user friendly,required low maintenance and could be built from readily available parts.With this in mind, a system was developed that features a sampling bag con-nected to a portable laboratory pump calibrated to collect 0.3 m3 over amonth-long sampling period (Figure 2). Essentially, the system could bedescribed as an integrated grab sampler. At the end of the sampling periodthe air collected in the bag is transferred by a compressor into a pressuretank for easy transport to the laboratory.
The collection bag consists of a collapsible, rubberized container thatlays flat and assumes a "pillow" configuration when full. These bladder-typebags are used in the petroleum and chemical industry for holding gasoline,slurries, and carbon dioxide gas, as well as potable water and many otherfluids. The bags are constructed of heavy-duty polyester fabrics impregnatedwith a duPont elastomer called hypalon. A chlorosulfonated polyethylenecompound, hypalon is resistant to ozone, extreme temperatures, ultravioletlight, microbial attack and is impermeable to water and gaseous molecules.Originally the bags were placed directly on the ground, but we discoveredthat they are not resistant to rodent gnawing. The bags are now protected incommercially available "cartop carriers" constructed of fiber glass.
A small, portable piston pump was originally selected for the air moverthat was simple to operate, maintain and calibrate. After operating satis-factorily for several months the bags developed some unexplainable samplelosses. We discovered that the piston seals on several of the pumps wereloose allowing the sampled air to escape. Occasionally during the hot summermonths, the recommended operating temperatures were exceeded, which shortenedthe life of the piston seals. A routine preventative maintenance schedulefor replacing seals has been incorporated. Meanwhile, a diaphragm pump is
657
ParticleFitter Vj&JZ Tygon
Variable Flow TubingPump
ck Weight
S
,-\ Piston
Compressor
Quick-Disconnect
TransportCylinder
Figure 2. Krypton-85 Bag Sampling System
being tested in the system and so far is running smoothly. This pump hasbeen reported to operate with very low maintenance, excellent reliability andportability.
SAMPLING NETWORK AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The network consists of eight samplers whose locations were determinedby the knowledge of meteorological and demographic conditions for the siteand the nearby availability of electricity. With prevailing winds fron thenorthwest and the PUREX facility located in the center of the site, samplersare placed in a downwind direction from the PUREX and upwind of nearbypopulation areas. Three samplers are in close proximity to the plant, fourothers are on the perimeter of the site and one sampler is located upwind andover the mountains about 54 km from PUREX (Figure 1). Each sampler islocated adjacent to a particulate sampler and six locations are in closeproximity to a meteorological tower. One of the locations represents aside-by-side comparison between the one remaining EPA-type noble gas samplerand the bag sampling system and provides a means for design comparison.
The air samples are analyzed for 85Kr by a commercial laboratory usingthe cryogenic gas chromatographic method developed by EPA-LV (Johns 1973).
658
Sample volume is determined by weighing the cylinder as it enters the labo-ratory. The air sample is passed through a series of cold traps in order toseparate the 85Kr gas from the other remnant gases. The purified krypton istransferred to a liquid scintillation vial, dissolved in a cocktail andcounted in a liquid scintillation counter.
SAMPLING EXPERIENCE
Figure 3 illustrates the variation in the concentrations detected atsampling sites located at various distances from PUREX. Krypton-85concentrations in air have increased in response to the resumption of opera-tions at PUREX. Periods when the plant was temporarily not releasing 8BKrare noted by the corresponding drop in 85Kr levels at all the samplinglocations. It can be deduced from the graph that the sampling system issensitive and responds uniformly to actual emissions from PUREX. It isinteresting to note that the distant location also detected releases fromPUREX. This phenomemon confirms the sensitivity of the equipment and alsoreveals the widespread dispersion of detectable levels of B5Kr into theenvironment.
10.000
1.000
oa
I 10°
10 -
-
• £PUREX Restart
I
, \ ,
/
&
1
V &
- Background -
1 1 1
200 Area * N ^
Perimeter
_,-fr __ l l ^ 1 Onwinwinrt^ ^ x Perimeter
••-, ,-•••V
Distant 1
1 1 I IOct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug
1983 1984
Figure 3. Ambient Krypton-85 Concentrations for 1983and 1984 Since PUREX Restart
659
TABLE 1. Comparison of Monthly Krypton-85 Data Between theNoble Gas Sampler and the
Noble Gas Sampler (EPA-Type)
18 ± 5
88 ± 12
210 ± 28
260 + 34
120 ± 16
200 ± 26
96 ± 14
No Sample
No Sample
163 ± 22
Bag Sampling System
Bag Sampling System
16 ± 3.5
65 ± 9
180 ± 24
260 ± 33
No Sample
240 ± 31
98 ± 13
118 ± 16
102 ± 14
221 + 29
No Sample 50 ± 10
Comparable data exist for the test between the EPA-type sampler and thebag sampling system at the side-by-side perimeter location and are shown inTable 1. A comparison of the monthly values show no significant differencebetween sampling systems at the 5 percent level of significance.
To evaluate performance of the hypalon bladders, a mylar weather balloonwas used as a collection bag and was co-located with a bladder at a singlelocation. Analytical results from both systems were not significantlydifferent. Mylar, similar to tedlar, has only limited usage at the materialcracks easily, unlike the bladders which should be usable for many years.
In our efforts to assure good quality control and quality assurance,duplicate samples are shared with other laboratories. In addition, blindreplicate samples are submitted to the laboratory to evaluate their analyt-ical procedures and internal quality control.
CONCLUSIONS
The bag sampling system was introduced for routine use at Hanford in1983 to sample ambient air for 85Kr. After one year of operation thesampling system is judged successful. The bag system has had an 80 percentsuccess rate, with a few samples lost during collection and a few lost during
660
analysis. After incorporating the new diaphragm-style collection pump intothe system, the success rate should improve.
The new system has succeeded in meeting the sampling criteria estab-lished for the design. Specifically, the system is sensitive to ambientlevels of 85Kr, and it is inexpensive and simple to operate. Maintenancerequirements are low, parts are easily replaced and interchangeable, and thesystem is reliable.
REFERENCES
Johns, F. B., ed. 1975. Handbook of Radiochemical Analytical Methods. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1983. EIS: Operation of PUREX and UraniumOxide Plant Facilities. Richland, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Noble Gas SamplingSystem. EMSL-LV-539-7. U s Vegas, Nevada.
661
80: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WEST VALLEYDEMONSTRATION PROJECT ANO NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES
E. 0. Picazo, J. P. EnglertDames and Moore
West Valley. New York 14171-0191
T. G. AdamsU. S. Department of Energy
West Valley, New York 14171-0191
0. P. WilcoxWest Valley Nuclear Services Co., Inc,
West valley. New York 14171-0191
ABSTRACT
With The 1982 initiation of the West Valley DemonstrationProject (WV0P) and the takeover of most of the facilities at theWestern New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC) by the U. S.Department of Energy, the working relationship between the siteoperator and state regulatory agencies changed significantly.An upgrading of the environmental monitoring program by theDepartment of Energy (DOE) contractor West Valley Nuclear Ser-vices Company was concurrent with a change in New York Statedepartmental responsibility for monitoring of the site envi-rons. An agreement was reached between OOE and New York Statewhich allowed more efficient use of available manpower for col-lection of samples, such as game animals and other biologicalmedia, as well as routine air and water samples potentiallyaffected by site effluents. Splitting of samples and Inde-pendent laboratory analysis of parameters which are coincidentto both programs is an important facet of this agreement.
Additionally, the State has contributed significantly toWVDP wildlife and land-use surveys. These surveys produced val-uable data for use in preparing safety analysis reports and doseassessments for the annual environmental monitoring summaries.
663
During the past year, there were two occurrences which hadthe potential of raising public concerns about release of radio-activity to uncontrolled areas. In both cases there was excel-lent cooperation between Project personnel and state agencies inconducting a rapid Investigation.
Site Interaction with state agencies regulatingnonradiological effluents under the State Pollution DischargeElimination System (SPOES) also has been characterized by effec-tive communication and cooperation.
INTRODUCTION
In March of 1982, the Department of Energy assumed the responsibilityfor operational activities at the former nuclear fuel reprocessing plantnear West Valley, New York. Previously operated by a privately heldenergy company, the reprocessing facility consists of various process andsupport buildings, underground high-level waste storaqe tank-;, and anassociated radioactive waste disposal area. The West '/alley Demonstra-tion Project, whose major goal is to solidify thp high-level liquid wastecontained in the storage tanks, occupies a 156-acre (63-hectare) sitecentrally located in a 3,300-acre (1,335-hectare) restricted area. Thislarger area defines the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, whichalso contains an inactive commercial low-level radioactive waste burialarea adjacent to, but separate from the fuel reprocessing facility(Figure 1).
The agencies holding regulatory responsibility for the West Valleysite activities at the time of operational responsibility transferincluded more than the usual roster of officials having interest in han-dling of radioactive materials in an "NRC agreement" state. The Catta-raugus County Health Department, whose main interest was the site waterand sewage treatment system, and the New York State Department of Envi -ronmentai Conservation (NYSOEC), whose radiation section and the air andwater pollution control section were concerned with site effluents, main-tained an Inspection and sampling schedule for the facility. In additionto these agencies, two other groups having a part in site regulationswere the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA) who maintained ownership interest in the WNYNSC, particularlythe inactive commercial low-level radioactive waste burial ground, andthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who maintained control over thevarious aspects of nuclear fuel reprocessing, and the disposition of theprocess stream end products. Additionally, hydrologic research effortsutilizing U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and New York State GeologicalSurvey (NYSGS) field personnel were in process at the time of turnover(Figure 2).
664
CANADA
/
LCGEMO
) HLW FAMC tAftH
ciwrrMOCCSSIUIIOIMO
O SCWMX TRMIriCM H/MI
FIGURE 1. West Valley Demonstration Project Site
665
WVDP INTERFACES
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
CatTaraugusCountyHearth
Department
/
CountyCoooerative
Extension
FIGURE 2. Interfaces with the West Valley Demonstration Project
666
Upon assuming site control, the U. S. Department of Energy contrac-tor, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, Inc., set about to character-ize the environmental conditions of the existing facility and to reviewthe current environmental monitoring program.
INITIAL INTERFACES
The existing environmental monitoring program, although adequate forthe Inactive status of the facility, was found to require extensiveequipment upgrading and a program expansion to establish an acceptablebaseline for the planned high-level waste solidification processing, thecentral Project goal, scheduled to commence 1n the late 1980s. Addition-ally, the change of operational responsibility precipitated attendantchanges In site permits and monitoring reports.
The State Pollution Discharge Elimination System oermit Issued by theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation for release ofvarious liquid effluents were transferred to the Department of Energy, aswell as several air quality permits allowing ventinq of tankage, oper-ation of natural gas boilers, and an office waste incinerator. Thetransfer and subsequent renewal processes hav<? necessitated a consider-able amount of communication between WVDP and NYSD£C personnel.
The periodic monitoring of potable water at the '.ite facilities isaccomplished by the Cattaraugus County Department of Health personnel whoalso inspect various points in the site potable water treatment, and theextended aeration sewage plant processes. Conducting the perimeter envi-ronmental monitoring program and the radiological characterization of theWestern New York Nuclear Service Center brought WVDP personnel into aclose working relationship with the site NYSERDA and NYSGS personnel inthe course of siting new sampling equipment and groundwater monitoring.
Of the other agencies Interacting with the Project, one group whichhas contributed significantly is the Agricultural Cooperative Extensionservices in the surrounding counties. Personnel staffing these officeshave been especially cooperative during the surveys made to upgrade theland use data file for the site environs.
At the same time as the WVOP environmental program was being up-graded, reorganization of responsibilities within various New York Stateagencies resulted in the radiological environmental monitoring programfor the Project environs being shifted from the Department of Environ-mental Conservation (NYSOEC) to the Department of Health (NYSDOH). Thismove brought not only a personnel change, but also a change in scope 1nthe environmental monitoring program as conducted by the New York StateDepartment of Health. One effect on the NYSDOH was a shortage ofmanpower.
667
PRESENT INTERFACES
A major policy of the West Valley Demonstration Project 1s that of anopen Interaction with the public, especially through promotion of sitetours and Informational meetings. This concept 1s also embodied 1n theWVOP environmental monitoring program, and has played a key role inestablishing a good rapport with the New York State agencies interfacingthe Project activities. A prime example 1s the present agreement betweenthe NYSOOH and the WVDP environmental monitoring groups.
In early 1983. Informal discussions between WVDP and NYSDOH Meldpersonnel centered on mutual improvements to their respective environ-mental monitoring programs, and the degree of overlap between the Projectgoals and those of the Department of Health. A cooperative agreementprogram formalized later that year recognized an Independent samplingprogram for each organization: at certain key points however, the sampleswould be split, a portion going to the Project laboratory and a portiongoing to the state facility for analysis. This arrangement allowed col-lection of split, samples by either organization freeing State field per-sonnel from routine on-sit.e collection at points normally serviced byWVDP personnel. Conversely, NYSDOH sample collections provided a meansfor the Project to obtain duplicate r,amplps of vegetables and wildlifefrom both background and near-site locations whirh otherwise would bedifficult to obtain. A major advantage of this agreement is that thebackground radiation data from New York Ctate milk, vegetation, air par-ticulate, and gamma radiation measurements am directly correlated tovalues obtained from WVDP Laboratory analyses of duplicate samples. Thesame can be said of the perimeter and effluent samples which are pro-cessed by both the state laboratory and the WVOP facility. Close com-munication with the NYS environmental monitoring group is especially rel-evant in view of the State's future responsibility for the West Valleysite after completion of the Project.
Interfacing with the NYSDOH has in several cases been under condi-tions which presented a potential for release of radioactive material tothe environment. One such incident involved reports to the NYSDOH in thesummer of 1982 concerning some waste material within the WNYNSC which wasburied outside the designated disposal area. A request to the Project bythe State agency for more information prompted a rapid Investigation bythe WVOP environmental monitoring group. A review of past records andsubsequent field investigation revealed that the former site operatorshad utilized damaged unused containers, of the type used in radioactiveshipments, as stabilization structures in an erosion control project. Asurvey of the area showed that there was no radioactive material In-volved. The subsequent data and report was made available tc the NewYork State agency within a time frame which preceded interviews with thenews media, who had also been notified by the original informant. With-out the cooperative and perceptive actions of the NYSDOH personnel, the
668
Project would not have been aware of the potential problem, which occur-red outside the Immediate Project site area, until the media started pub-lic questioning.
Another situation, which Involved the on-s1te migration of a radio-actively contaminated solvent several metres from a 14-year old disposal,was discovered by a routine sampling of shallow wells on the perimeter ofa disposal area contained within the Project purview. In this case. Pro-ject environmental laboratory personnel provided daily monitoring of theon-site drainages and the soil cores from the area where the contaminantwas discovered. Several Initial and follow-up samples from the monitor-ing wells were provided to the NYSDOH laboratory along with duplicatesamples collected 1n drainage pathways from the area.
A reverse situation occurred several months later when an incident ina nearby urban area involving contamination with Americium 241 requiredan extensive screening process to determine the extent of the problem.The New York State 00H was the lead agency for assessing the problem, andhaving toured the environmental, laboratory, was aware of the Project1'low-background gamma counting equipment. They requested gamma scan anal-yses of several samples taken from a riverbed and an incinerator. Usinga standard prepared on-site in a similar geometry, the samples werpcounted <ind the results passed nn to the NY'^DOM. (Jn another occasionshortly afterwards, the Project environmental lab experience with we I isampling techniques was drawn upon as the Department of Health was facedwith the familiar and challenging task of providing an extensive investi-gation on a limited budget, and needed some fresh ideas.
At times nonradiological monitoring preempts the attention given nor-mally to radiation monitoring. One interesting event took place afterrecent near-record rainfall had swollen the streams to overflowing. Anoil spill was reported by the site security force to the environmentalmonitoring group, who went immediately to investigate. The source wasnot from any Project activities, but apparently originated from an oldoil pipeline break. The site DOE office contacted the other variousstate agencies responsible for pollution control of this type, culminat-ing in a joint investigative field trip represented by New York StateDepartment of Transportation, New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority,Cattaraugus County Health Department, U. S, Department of Energy, andWest Valley Nuclear Services personnel.
During the summer of 1983. a survey was made by the WVDP of land useIn the Project environs out to an eighty kilometre radius. Many varieddata categories and other general information were required to run & pop-ulation dose estimate program for the residents of the towns and country-side surrounding the site; a similar scenario is likely found each yearIn nuclear facilities throughout the nation. Using a mailed question-naire and follow-up telephcne contacts, the Cooperative Extension agents
669
for the surrounding New York counties were able to fill 1n almost allrequested data. Where they could not provide answers, the agents di-rected the questions to other New York State agencies, Including thewildlife management section of the NYSOEC, or County Health Departments.All 1n all, the response and cooperation was outstanding.
In contrast, the New York State Department of Environmental Conserv-ation 1s 1n continual communication with the Project. Besides the sec-tion which administers the pollution control permits, the Bureau of Wild-life 1s Included in this Department. On several occasions, NYSDEC biol-ogists from the Bureau have provided solicited recommendations concerningthe herd of deer resident on the WNYNSC, and also come to the site tocollect specimens for the annual deer samples taken for both NYSDOH andWVOP laboratories.
The major point of interface, however, Is with the NYSDEC divisionwhich administers the State Pollution Olscharge Elimination System(SPOES) permits. As part, of the current facility SPDES permit there is amonthly reporting requirement for several effluent streams associatedwith the Project facility. Besides the monthly reports there are theapplications for permits for the new Project processes, renewal of estab-lished permit's, and the myriad details which .accompany ~.uch matter-;. Atthis point, the "checks and balances" governing indir.triai facility im-pacts on the environment •ira f.he most evident. The permits, as oriqi •nally transferred, provided for State regulation of Department, of Energy(OOE) radioactive effluents. Subsequent conversations with NYSDEC estab-lished the DOE exemption from State regulation of radioactive effluentsper the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The agreement worked out includedsuspension of two air quality permits and modified the reporting of liq-uid radioactive effluents under the SPDES permit system to exclude theconcomitant regulation. Permit interactions have ranged from simple dis-cussion, as in the case of the Department's Atomic Energy Act exemption,to more complex negotiation of nonradiological discharge limits. Onerather complicated interchange of approaches recently concluded with amutually acceptable plan for the improvements to the facility sewagetreatment plant, which meet the legal requirements with a minimum costoutlay.
The state agency which is most closely linked to the Project activ-ities is the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority.The restricted area surrounding the Project site is administered by theNYSERDA, which has an office located at the Project. The environmentalmonitoring group sample points and instrumentation are located not onlyon the Project site, but are distributed within the WNYNSC as well as inthe surrounding towns and countryside. For example, the state low-levelradioactive waste burial area, although separate from Project activities,is by virtue of its upstream location included in the Project monitoringprogram. The data specifically dealing with the burial area monitoring
670
1s provided monthly to the NYSEROA office, which 1s responsible for main-taining that part of the WNYNSC. Sampling and analysis of the leachateholding pond water also associated with the state low-level waste burialground Is provided as needed by WvOP personnel. An unusual situationexists 1n that the site currently utilized by the West Valley Oemonstra-tion Project will revert to NYSERDA responsibility upon Project comple-tion: this will also include the environmental monitoring system. As aresult, of all the state agencies, NYSEROA especially has a vested Inter-est 1n Project activities. Some of the major improvements made to theenvironmental monitoring program for example, the computerized meteorol-ogical system recently installed, were funded in large part by statemonies.
In addition to the routine monitoring program the WVDP has providedsupport to special research efforts. A one-year extension of the sitehydrologic Investigation, originally maintained by the New York StateGeological Service personnel, was performed by the WVOP environmentalmonitoring group. These relationships have resulted in close interactionwith the NY5ERDA site office.
SUMMARY
For the past two and one-half years of the West Valley DemonstrationProject1" site activities, therp has been ample opportunity for inter-action between the Project environmental monitoring group and the serviceand regulatory agencies of New York State. With very few exceptions,these encounters have been positive on both sides. The Project goals andpolicies are part of the public record, and because of the open attitude,a reciprocal approach from the State agencies is much more likely to becooperative. This has been exemplified by both formal agreements and theinformal working towards mutual solutions to specific problems. The par-ticipation of the site office of the Department of Energy as the legalintermediate party for interactions between the state agencies and theWest Valley Nuclear Services Company has been much more than merely coop-erative, encouraging a positive approach and often taking an active rolein solving administrative snafus. As in any group of people under sepa-rate disciplines, there are honest differences of opinion. There is astrong start, however, towards a mutually beneficial and productive rela-tionship between the Project environmental monitoring group and the stateagencies which Interface this aspect of the West Valley DemonstrationProject.
671
8L: FERMILAB SOIL ACTIVATION EXPERIENCE
Samuel I. BakerFermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, Illinois
ABSTRACT
Soil borings were made at Fermilab locations of highest soilactivation and samples analyzed to determine whether or not anyleached radionuclides were moving toward the aquifer under thesite. One boring extended underneath the primary target in theNeutrino Area, a target which has received most of the protonsproduced by the accelerator. The other recent boring was adjacentto the thinly shielded abort system which received protons whichwere improperly transported through the accelerator magnets orleft in the accelerator after proton beam extraction. No evidencewas found for movement of radionuclides toward the aquifer inconcentrations approaching the community drinking water supplystandards.
673
INTRODUCTION
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) is anaccelerator facility performing basic high energy physicsresearch. The synchrotron delivered protons with 200 billionelectron volts (GeV) of energy to external targets in 1972 andoperated routinely at 400 GeV from 1976 to 1982 with more than10-" protons per acceleration cycle using conventional magnets.At that time a new ring of superconducting magnets was added andthe energy doubled while saving electrical power. This paper willcover the period of operation Msing conventional magnets.
Radiation shielding in the vicinity of targets and dumps atFermilab consists of massive amounts of steel inside concreteenclosures in most places. There are two exceptions whichresulted in significant radioactivation of the soil. One suchlocation was the main accelerator abort target and beam dump.This thinly shielded abort system was recently replaced by awell-shielded dump external to the main accelerator tunnel (MainRing). The other was the primary target in the Neutrino Area.This target was inside a steel tube surrounded by sand and gravel.The primary target has been relocated to a better-shieldedlocation 100 m away.
The two targets received protons for over ten years. Thus, aconsiderable inventory of radionuclides was built up in the soil.There were drainage systems to collect any leached radioactivitydown to a certain depth below the targets. However, below theseunderdrains there was no information on movement of radionuclides.To obtain that information soil borings were made into the regionbelow the underdrains and the samples analyzed for theradionuclides leachable from the soil.
The techniques for obtaining and assaying the samples will bedescribed and the results of the analyses will be given below. Inaddition, a comparison will be made between the amount of soilactivation observed and the amount calculated based on the numberof protons incident on the abort target.
ABORT TARGET SOIL ACTIVATION
The Main Ring Abort Target was located inside the Main Ringtunnel in the DO straight section and used from the initialoperation of the Main Ring through June 1982. It was replaced bya better-shielded abort system at CO with deflection of protonsinto a dump external to the tunnel. The target at 00 consisted ofan aluminum bar approximately 15 cm square x 274 cm long. OnMay 20, 1974 (two years after the first protons were extractedfrom the accelerator) steel, 10 to 15 cm thick, was placed aroundthe target, mainly to reduce radiation exposure to AcceleratorDivision personnel working in the tunnel. Two magnet cores each
674
approximately 6 m long were located between 25 m and 40 mdownstream from the target to stop the particles coming off atsmall angles with respect to the incident beam direction. Most ofthe soil activation occurred just downstream from the aborttarget.
The purpose of the Main Ring Abort System was to provide onelocation inside the Main Ring where a misguided proton beam couldbe directed without harming accelerator components. Also, itserved as a place where any protons left in the ring afterextraction could be sent. The total number of protons aborted was3.1 x 1018 during the lifetime of the Main Ring Abort System. Thesoil activation caused by these aborts was monitored by a systemof aluminum and copper tags placed inside the Main Ring tunnel.These were changed periodically (usually once a year) and theradioactivity in the tags assayed. The copper tags were usaful inthe early running periods when the activation was low and the tagswere changed frequently. In later running periods, the aluminumtags were used almost exclusively because the 2?Na production insoil could be directly related to ^Na production in aluminum andthe 2.6 year half-life of 22Na made the error resulting from anannual tag change acceptably small.
In addition to the monitoring tags some direct measurementswere made by coring into the soil 30 cm from the tunnel walladjacent to the abort target in 1973. The coring stopped at theabort target elevation which was 8 m below the top of the earthshielding berm (Figure 1) to avoid damaging the underdrain whichcollects water from around the tunnel footings.
The samples of soil collected were assayed for radioactivity.The assay included direct gamma-ray counting of ^Hi and leachingstudies to determine the amounts of 3H and 22Na which could beremoved by percolation of water through the soil. Direct countingof 3H was not possible because of the low beta endpoint energy(0.02 MeV). The samples were sealed and returned to the hole forfuture comparison with samples which could be leached bypercolation of rainwater.
Ten years later in July 1983 a new soil boring was made nearthe old one at the abort target. This time the hole was drilled120 cm from the tunnel wall to allow sampleJ to be collected belowthe underdrain without damaging it. Samples were retrieved to 4 mbelow the target (Figure 1). The sealed samples from the firsthole were recovered and analyzed in addition to the new samples.The results are presented in Figures 2 and 3. The soil activationand the leaching of radionuclides from the new samples wereexpected to be ten times lower than those measurements for thesealed samples provided no percolation of rainwater in situ hadremoved the radioactivity from the soil. This was tTie~ observedresult.
675
CD
O1
~ 229
LJ
LUin
oCD
226 -
223
§220t -
UJ
ill 217
TEMPORARYBERM ' "
1983 SOIL BORING
EXISTINGBERM
^ 1 9 7 3 SOIL BORING
MAIN RING TUNNEL
ABORT TARGET
UNDERDRAINS
FIGURE 1. Cross Sectional View Near Main Ring DO Abort Target
1000
DO Abort Target,Elevation: 221 m
100
bQ.
<
a:LJo
8 10
r-1
III
i
- — - T o t a l 2 2NLeachable HIn Sealed Samples
,-n
— iDISTANCE BELOW SURFACE (ml
6 7 18 9 10 11
225 224 223 222 221 220 219ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL (m)
FIGURE 2. Soil Activation Measurements30 cm from DO Tunnel Wall
218 217
677
10
bQ.
g<
LUO
oo
DO Abort TargetElevation: 221 m
I
— Total 22NLeachable HIn Sealed Samples
0.1
DISTANCE BELOW SURFACE (m)6 7 8 9 10 U
225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL (m)
FIGURE 3. Soil Activation Measurements120 cm from DO Tunnel Wall
678
217
COMPARISON WITH CALCULATIONS
The above results were compared with predictions using thecomputer program CASIM.1 This program uses a modified Monte Carlotechnique to model the hadrors cascade resulting from the protoninteractions. It calculates the density of nuclear interactionsas a function of distance from the target. If one knows thenumber and energy of the incident protons, one can calculate thenumber of stars (nuclear interactions) and from the cross sectionsand half-lives determine the concentrations of the radionuclidesin the soil.2
The prediction for the highest 22fja concentration in the soilat 30 cm from the wall agreed with the measurement ofapproximately 200 pCi/g. For the new hole at 120 cm from the wallthe prediction was 20 pCi/g while the measurement was 9 pCi/g.This discrepancy is within the uncertainty expected for CASIM at120 cm where the attenuation factors are large.3 Furthermore,leaching of "Na is at most about 20% and could not account forthe discrepancy.4
The above discussion does not preclude some leaching ofradionuclides. A water sample taken from a pocket of waterdiscovered at 2 m below the bottom of the tunnel (217.5 m abovesea level) contained a tritium concentration of 3 x 10~6 pCi/ms..Since the maximum 3 H concentration permitted in a community watersupply is 2 x 10'5 pCi/nu, this is well below the allowableconcentration without further dilution! Note that the Teachable3H concentrations in the adjacent soil samples (Figure 3) wereapproximately the same as that in the water sample. Theconcentrations are expressed in pCi per gram of wet soil ratherthan pCi per mi 11i1iter of water in the soil for comparing 22fjapresent in soil with 3H Teachable from soil and for comparingTeachable 3H with 3H present in a water sample.
Thus, no evidence has been found for leaching ofradioactivity and subsequent movement of a large inventory ofradionuclides toward the aquifer approximately 15 meters below theabort target.
NEUTRINO AREA PRIMARY TARGET SOIL ACTIVATION
The Neutrino Area primary target received a total of 1020protons, most of the protons produced by the accelerator. Thetarget was in operation from May 1972 until June 1982 inside asteel tube approximately 2 m in diameter and 2.5 cm thick,surrounded by sand and gravel. See Figure 4. The production andleaching of radionuclides was monitored by making a soil boring in1975 into the sand and gravel. The results were presented at anearlier Department of Energy conference.5 The analyses indicatedthat the clay berm was protecting the sand and gravel well except
679
1975 Soil Boring
TargetElevation. 227mabove sea level
Target Tube
N7 Line Beam Pipe
ImperviousMembrane
eno
1984 Soil Boring
Underdrain UnderdrainsElevation: 221mabove sea level
End of BoringElevation :216 mabove sea levei
FIGURE 4. Cross Sectional View at Neutrino Area Primary Target
for some channeling which removed a small fraction of theinventory of radionuclides by leaching.
The sand and gravel region has a liner (impervious membrane)with one drain inside and three underdrains (Figure 4). The innerdrain goes to a retention pit which is sampled periodically. Whenthe 3H concentration exceeds 10-3 uCi/mn, the water is evaporated,otherwise it is pumped out into a ditch. The peak concentrationobserved was 5 x 10-3 pCi/nu. Concentrations of otherradionuclides such as 22Na have remained below allowableconcentrations for release to surface waters.6
The water from the three underdrains (Figure 4) is pumpeddirectly to a ditch. It has always remained well below 10-3yCi/mJi. In 1980 the clay cap was removed temporarily forinstallation of the N7 Line beam pipe (Figure 4). Since that timethe annual release from the underdrains has been elevated. SeeFigure 5. The concentration of 3H has consistently remained belowallowable concentrations for release to surface waters, however ithas exceeded the community drinking water standard for JH. ;
Therefore, a soil boring was made to see if 3H was moving downtoward the aquifer. No accelerator-produced radioactivity hasever been detected in the aquifer.8
In order to sample the region below the underdrains withoutpuncturing the liner, a boring hole was drilled at 45° adjacent tothe liner (Figure 4). The hole was far enough away from thetarget so that it was just outside the region activated directlyby interactions of secondary particles resulting from the protonbeam. Thus, the only accelerator-produced radioactivity expectedwould be from movement of leached activity out from the soilactivation region. The boring hole sampled the soil directlybelow the region with the highest concentration of radionuclides,and the bottom of the hole was 5 m below the center underdrain(Figure 4).
The soil samples were leached and the concentration of fy atthe bottom of the hole was (3.8 + 2.1) x 10 - 6 wCi per gram of wetsoil. The concentration at the underdrains was (2.7 ± 1.1) x 10-°yCi per gram of wet soil. From the abort target results above,the expected activity in water should be approximately the same.The concentrations are far below those in the water collected bythe underdrains. Therefore, the underdrains are effective incollecting the radioactive water. Therefore, the inventory ofradioactivity heading toward the aquifer is small. Theconcentrations are well below the standard for community watersupplies.7
681
2.0 r
1.8
1.6
~ 1.4o
MJ l o
0.8
0.6
1 0.4<
0.2 -
0.0 *
TARGET REMOVED
TARGET TUBE UNCOVERED FORN7 LINE CONSTRUCTIONS
r~ PROJECTED
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
FIGURE 5. Target Tube Underdrain Releases
682
REFERENCES
1. Van Ginneken, A., and M. Awashaiom, 1975. High EnergyParticle Interactions jji Large Targets. Fermi NationalAccelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois.
2. Gollon, P. J. 1978. Soil Activation Calculations for theAnti-Proton Target Area. Technical Memorandum No. 8l67 FermiNational Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois.
3. Cossairt, J. D., and N. V. Mokhov and C. T. Murphy. 1982."Absorbed Dose Measurements External at Thick Shielding at aHigh Energy Proton Accelerator: Comparison with Monte-CarloCalculations." Nuci. Instrum. Methods. 197:465-472.
4. Borak, T. B., et al. 1972. "The Underground Migration ofRadionuclides ProdUced in Soil Near High Energy ProtonAccelerators." Health Phys. 23:679-687.
5. Baker, S. I. 1975. Soil Activation Measurements atFermi 1ab. Proceedings of tfie Third Environmental ProtectionConference, ERDA-92, U. S. Energy Research and DevelopmentAdministration, Washington, D. C.
6. Operational and Environmental Safety Division. 1981.Environmental Protection Safety, and Health ProtectionProgram for DOE Operations. DOE 0n3e> 5480.1A, Chapter XI,U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.
7. II. S. Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 141.
8. Baker, S. I. 1984. Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryEnvironmental Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 19831Fermi lab Report 84/34, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,Batavia, Illinois.
683
8M: PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN LOCAL SOIL AT AGS FAST NEUTRINO BEAK*
P. J. Gollon, M. G. Hauptmann, K. Mclntyre, R. Miltenberger, and J. NaiduBrookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, New York. 11973
ABSTRACT
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has recently decided toconstruct a new neutrino production target station at the Alternating GradientSynchrotron (AGS). To determine the environmental impact of this addition, astudy is being conducted in the vicinity of the old target area to determinethe radiological consequences of operating this experimental facility.Typical BNL soil samples were placed at two locations near an operatingtarget: at right angles to the target and behind thick shielding close to thedirection of the incident beam. These samples were used, to determineradionuclide production and leaching information. A core was taken frombeneath the concrete floor of the old target area and a monitoring well wasinstalled down-gradient of the facility. Preliminary results from all areasof the study are presented along with estimates of the potential environmentalimpact of the old and new facilities.
I. INTRODUCTION
The "product" of a high energy particle accelerator is usually a well-defined beam of high energy protons or electrons. At accelerators such as the30 GeV ACS proton accelerator at BNL, this product Is Immediately destroyed bydirecting it Into a stationary target. The result is an enormous amount ofnuclear "debris" or secondary particles flying off in all directions. A smallfraction of these secondary particles is selected for further study using verysophisticated assemblies of magnets and various types of particle detectors.This is the raison d'etre of the whole accelerator complex. The remainder ofthe particles produced In the target constitute a radiation hazard and asource of background to the * periments and must be shielded against.
This shielding can only be accomplished with large amounts (severalmeters) of bulk absorber, such as earth, concrete, or steel. This shieldingmaterial is made radioactive by the same interactions which absorb thesesecondary particles; these interactions create even more particles of lower
*This investigation was supported by the U.S. Department of Enerj^y ContractDE-AC02-76CH0016 to the Safety and Environmental Protection Division,Brookhaven National Laboratory.
685
energies in the process. Enough shielding must be placed around the target tocontain the vast majority of secondary and later generation particles.Because of the large size of the required shielding, the coat of the shieldingmaterial becomes a significant factor in the design of a new facility.
Soil 01 sand, such as we have on Long Island, is almost free. It is,therefore, a very attractive material to use when architectural or otherconsiderations do not rule it out. One of the problems with sand as a bulkshield is that it i3 porous. Water, whether from rain or subsurface flow, canpass through the sand, leach out some of the radionuclides induced in it bythe high energy particles, and carry away these radionuclides in an unknownand/or uncontrolled fashion.
This paper reports on our attempts so far at understanding theproduction, leaching, and transport of radioactivity in soil at an existing•JNL accelerator target, and describes the measures taken to control andpredict the same quantities at a new target station being built nearby. Thestudies and results reported here are only preliminary; a full report will beprepared when our studies are completed.
II. TARGET STATION GEOMETRY AND MODELING
A simplified diagram of the target station used until now to produceneutrinos for physics experiments is shown in Figure 1. The incoming 28 GeVproton beam from the AGS strikes a target. Secondary particles produced areselected by the arrangement of two magnetic "horns" and collimatorsimmediately following the target. Particles with the desired combinations ofelectric charge and momenta are focused into a parallel beam by the intensemagnetic fields produced in the horns; other particles strike the absorber orcollimators, or are defocussed and enter the surrounding shielding. Theentire assembly is in a ground-level tunnel covered with an earthen berta.Additional shielding is shown stacked around the horns inside the tunnel.
The new, but conceptually similar target station (Figure 2) is beingbuilt slightly upstream of the old one. It is intended to eventually accept aproton beam ten times more intense. The principal difference in the shieldingis that the new target station uses stacked concrete and steel shielding abovethe target area, and has a thicker steel and concrete floor underneath. Thesurrounding soil in the new target station is not as well protected by close-in steel and concrete shielding as is the old target station in the areadownstream of the second horn. This area will be seen to dominate the soilactivation problem.
Particle production in the simplified target and collimator geometry (forboth old and new configurations) was modeled using the Monte Carlo hadroncascade program CASIM (Van Ginneken 1975; Van Ginneken et al. 1975). Thisprogram simulates the production and interaction of many generations ofparticles in any geometry chosen by the user. The magnetic field wasignored. Calculations using CASIM compare well with measurements in theinstances when it has been possible to make such measurements (Awschalota 1976,Gollon 1981, Cossairt et al. 1982). CASIM has also been extensively employedat Fermilab for various shielding calculations, including soil activationcalculations similar to that reported here (Borak 1972).
686
NmlriiH)
Fig. 1. (a) Plan view Jf the neutrino target station used from 1974 to 1983 at BNL. A proton beam enters fromthe left, striking the target and producing secondary particles. The magnetic horns and steelcollimators select particles of the desired charge and momenta; some of these decay to produceneutrinos, (b) Vertical cross section at the location of the soil coring.
03
STACKED STEEL a CONCRETE ROOF
STACKED CONCRETE ROOF
JSAND
Fig. 2. Elevations (a) parallel and (b) perpendicular to the beam direction showing the new target area. A
tunnel with wall and roof made of corrogated metal extends downstream of the stacked steel and concrete
"blockhouse" shown here.
CASIM was used to calculate the number of nuclear interactions ("stars")in sand produced by particles of momenta greater than 300 MeV/c. (Forneutrons this corresponds to an energy of about 49 MeV). For the oldgeometry, we calculated that each incident proton produced a total of 4 starsin sand surrounding the target station.
For the new geometry, we calculate that, for each incident proton, 2stars will be created in the sand below the blockhouse, and 8 in the sandaround the downstream tunnel, for a total of about 10 stars per incidentproton. There is a statistical uncertainty of about 25% associated with thesenumbers. Additional uncertainties result from the physics models incorporatedinto CASIM (±30%) and the geometric simplifications and neglect of themagnetic fields (up to a factor of two).
III. RADIONUCLIDE F11UDPCTI0N AND LEACHING IN SOIL
He are, of course, interested not in stars per se, which is the best thatthe program can conveniently calculate, but in nuclear interactions leading tocertain species of radionuclides. The yield of each radionuclide per star insand depends in principle on both the elemental composition of the sand andthe energy spectrum of secondary particles (chiefly neutrons) at thatlocation. It turns out that only a very few radionuclides are of practicalconcern: the very short-lived ones decay before they can travel any distance,and the very long-livad ones are not produced in any abundance from soil(Borak et al. 1972). The radionculides of primary concern are JH(ti^ ~12.3y) and Na, (two " 2.6y) both produced via spallation of heavier nuclei.
We measured the conversion factor between high enery particle flux(itself proportional to the CASIM star density) and the macroscopic H andNa production cross section in BNL sand. Sealed cans of moist sand (n"5%
water content) taken from different locations on site were placed in each oftwo locations near an operating high energy target, as shown in Figure 3. Thelocations were chosen to represent the range of neutron spectra that one mightfind in the sand shielding around a target: a "soft" spectrum at large anglesto the incident beam direction (location "S"), and at a smaller angle a"harder" spectrum ("F") with a cascade more fully developed in the shieldingblocks. Aluminum and copper discs were placed on each can to monitor the fluxduring the month-long irradiation. We report results based on one sample fromeach location.
After the short-lived activity had decayed away, the monitor foils andsoil samples were counted for Z2Na gamma rays using a Ge(Li) system. Thereaction Al(h,x) Na, in the aluminum foils, with an effective threshold of34 MeV, was used as a flux monitor. (Here h represents any hadron, such as n,p, IT j thresholds and cro3s sections used were those measured with incidentprotons.) The copper foils were also counted for Mn, the ' Cu(h,x) Mnreactions having "n effective threshold of 80 MeV. Results are shown in Table1.
4
688
Fig. 3. Locations of sealed soil samples placed near an AGS target to beactivated by secondary particles produced in the target.
1 2 3 4NUMBER OF BATCH LEACHES
1 2 3 4NUMBER OF BATCH LEACHES
Fig. 4. Cumulative extraction of (a) Na and (b) H as a function of thenumber of batch leaches performed. The numbers on each curve referto the coring subsample.
689
Finally, 500 grams of each of two soil samples were packed in a columnfor leaching measurements. Aproximately 300 ml of distilled water were passedthrough each column once a day. The water was brought to a pH of 4 usingsulfuric acid to reproduce the pH of local rainwater (Naidu 1978). Each leachtook approximately six hours. The specific activity of leachable tritium andNa are also shown in Table 1.
IV. SOIL SAMPLING UNDER OLD NEUTRINO HORN
To measure the activation of the soil around the original neutrinotarget, we made a coring through the tunnel floor into the soil below. Thelocation, shown in Figure 1, was chosen to be in an area of low enoughresidual radiation levels to permit the slow coring process. The 100 cm longsample so obtained was split into 15 cm long subsamples, which wereindependently counted using a Ge(Li) detector.
We attempted a column leaching measurement on these samples, but waterdid not flow uniformly through the samples, because of the clay content of thesoil. Consequently, we had to resort to repeated batch leachings in atumbling apparatus. The extraction of both Na and H was slower in thesemeasurements than in the column method. Figure 4 shows the cumulativeextraction of Na and H from several subsamples. Note that nearly all thesoluble activity appears to have been removed after four leaches. Althoughthis method is not as reproducible as column leaching, we believe that bothmethods give comparable results here.
Table 2 and Figure 5 show the concentration of " N a and of leachable 2ZNaand H as a function of depth below the concrete tunnel floor. Because ofgeometric considerations the variation in radial distance of each sample fromthe beam line is only about 70 cm, rather than the 100 cm coring length, ascan be seen in Figure lb. Further, the deeper samples are not shielded fromthe beam line by as much steel as the shallower ones, so the expectedvariation in specific activity from top to bottom is only a factor of two,rather close to what is observed.
22The fact Chat the fraction of Na which is measured to be leachable isclose to that obtained for sealed samples (Section III above) suggests thatmost of the leachable Na produced here was in fact not leached away. TheCASIM calculation predicted a star density in the region of 2 x 10 stars pergm per incident protor. Using the conversion factors of Section III fromstars to H and Na, and the recorded proton beam delivered to the targetsince 1974, we obtain an anticipate! radionuclide concentration at this siteof 0.35 nCi/gm of total Na, and 1.3 nCi/gm of leachable H. These are to becompared with measured values of approximately 0.21 .and 0.04 nCi/gm,respectively. The same model predicts a present total inventory 59 mCi ofleachable Na and 4.8 Ci of leachable H in all the soil around the targetarea, allowing for radioactive decay, and ignoring migration.
The agreessant between the measured and calculated 2^Na specificactivities is extraordinary, considering the crudeness of the analysis. Thetritium results show a large discrepancy, however. In the sealed sampleirradiations, leachable tritium was produced at about twice the total specific
690
TABLE 1
Results of Soil Activation Experiment at ftGS
22Na Specific Activity, nCi/gm
22Na Leachable, nCi/gm
22Na Leached, %
H Leachable, nCi/gm
22Na in Al Foil, nCi/gm
5AMn in Cu Foil, nCi/gm
Flux*, hadrons/cm
Total 22Na/1014 Flux, nCi/gm
Leachable 3H/1014 Flux, nCi/gm
Soil Sample Location
Front
m 1.0
0.077
7.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.8 x 1013
5.7
n 9.0
Side
0.075
0.0049
6.8
0.13
0.19
0.25
2.1 x 10i2
3.6
6.3
9 7 *)*)
*Hadron flux above 30 MeV, measured via the Al(h,x) Na reaction using
a conversion factor of 1.14 x 101-5 hadrons cm /nCi gm .
691
TABLE 2
Results of Analysis of Soil Coring Taken Under Old Neutrino
Target area, and Comparison With Calculated Specific
Activities for the Same Location. The Calculated Values
are Averaged Over a Region Which Includes Segments 5 And 6.
DEPTH UNDER FLOOR
22Na
Total Specific Activity
Leachable Specific Activity
Percent Leachable
CORING SEGMENT
1 3 5 6 7
0-10 25-40 55-70 70-85 85-100 cm
0.28 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.13 nCi/gm
0.016 0.016 0.012 0.006 - nCi/gm
5.8 6.2 5.2 3.2 - %
3H Leachable Specific Activity 0.14 0.12 0.052 nCi/gm
Calculated Specific Activity
22Na, Total
3H, Leachable
0.35
1.3
nCi/gm
nCi/gm
692
activity of the 22Na. During the 10 year operating history of this targetstation, the faster decay of Na would be expected to double this ratio*we find only 4% of the tritium expected on the basis of the observed Na.Either most of the tritium produced has migrated away, or it was lost betweentaking the sample and analyzing it. The former appears less likely becausethe fraction of leachable Na remaining Is close to that found in the batchsamples, and because fully a third of the expected tritium should have beenproduced during the last run of the old system less than 10 months before thecoring. Thus the tritium migration would have to be awfully fast, while theNa remained immobilized. Loss of tritium, probably through evaporation, has
also been observed in handling other samples* In any case, we hope to makeanother coring closer to the old target location when ambient radiation levelsallow.
V. HYDROLOGICAL TRANSPORT
Radionuclides created In the soil and which remain fixed there present noenvironmental problem beyond the immediate location of the accelerator. Onlythose radionuclides which are leachable, and in fact are leached andtransported away to sources of drinking water or other pathways, can presentan environmental problem. Decay and dispersion during this transport willreduce the degree of associated hazard*
It is very difficult to deduce from first principles the amount ofleaching taking place in our complicated geometry. For the part of the oldneutrino target station the tunnel floor—the area of greatest specificactivity—clearly less than 100Z, and probably not more than 257. of theleachable Na is in fact being leached. The H probably behaves in the samefashion. The vertical transport down to the aquifer depends on unknownquantities such as rainfall penetration into the shielding berra, and thedegree of saturation of the soil directly under the tunnel floor.
We therefore attempted to directly measure the concentration ofradionuclides In the ground water at a location close to the target area. Astatistical/modeling approach, described in detail in another paper at thisconference (Hauptmann 1984) and elsewhere (Prlckett et al. 1981; Oden 1984),was used to predict the direction of underground water flow. The input dataconsisted of the synoptic water levels In a number of wells on site (Figure 6)and a quantitative description of the characteristics of local soils and thetopmost aquifer. These water.levels indicated the top of the saturatedportion of the aquifier at a number of points, and a surface was fit to thesedata points. Figure 7 shows the calculated height of the water table onsite. The model uses the gradients of the water table and the soil propertiesto determine water flow rates and directions. Horizontal transport isincluded, but vertical transport is not. Thus, the model is really twodimensional. Radioactive decay during transport is properly handled.
Figure 8 shows the calculated contours for H distribution in water after36 years of an assumed steady state input at the location of the neutrinotarget area. Obvious are the flow direction—to the southeast, and the flowrate 0.5 to 1.5 feet per day. The tritium is assumed to move with the samevelocity as the water. Based on this predicted flow, a well was located asclose as possible to the anticipated leachate plume, ;<•; thown in Figure 9.Pumping of this well produced a sample which we counted for H and Na, none
693
>
<J
ft
1 [ I 1
— ~
, .
Il
l
1-
-
22 No TOTAL
. 3H,LEACHABLE
22Nd.LEACHA8LE
10-9 -
0 25 50 75 100
DEPTH IN SOIL CORING, cm22. 22
Fig. 5. Concentration in nCi/gm of total TJa, leachaDle Na, andleachable 3H as a function of depth in the soil coring. Depthvas measured from the bottom of the concrete floor slab.
Fig. 6. Location of A6S and ground water surveillance wells at BNL. Theground water flow was modelled within the area of the rectangle.
694
Fig. 7. The calculated height of the water table surface within the rectangleof Figure 6. The general slope was determined by the general trendof measurements in wells on site; the structure results from forcingthe surface to match these measurements in the areas where theyexist.
Fig. 8. Calculated contours for H distribution in ground water after36 years of steady stace ^H input at the location of the neucrinotarget area. The coordinates are in latitude and longitude.The rectangular boundaries are those shown in Figures 6 and 7.
695
OLD TARGET/POSITION
Fig. 9. Location of monitoring well in relation to the neutrino target areas.
696
was detected above our detection limits of 2.0 x 10 y Ci/ml and 1.5 x 10PCi/ml. A careful comparison of the well location drawing and the anticipatedplume direction shows that the well may be too far to the east to be directlyin the plume* If this is the case, and if temporary heavy pumping does notshift the plume enough to produce a sample wth detectable activity, we willsee if it is possible to drill a better positioned well.
During the 36 years covered by this calculation the tritum beingtransported at the leading edge of the plums decayed by a factor of eight.Because of the low water velocity, the plume had not yet reached the siteboundary. We are working to see if this type of model can be used for a semi-quantitative estimate of specific activity in the ground water at longdistances from the source.
22The problem presented by the Na is relatively trivial becuase" of itsmuch shorter half-life. If the Na were transported at the same velocity asthe ground water, it would decay by a factor of 15,000 before leaving oursite. In fa&£s this is a gross overestimate of the transport rate andquantity of Na which would leave the site. According to data from the OSGS,the sodium ion velocity in BNL soil is expected to be only 1/20 the watervelocity. If this is in fact the case, then looking for Na in water farfrom its production source would be pointless.
VI. SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS
As stated above, we calculated that with this target configuration aboutten stars are created in sand for each incident proton, with the thinlyshielded decay tunnel clearly dominating the situation. (It may be possibleto reduce this by perhaps a factor of two by adding steel collimationshielding in the tunnel downstream of the second horn.) This is comparable tothe soil activation in the old target area. Hence we believe that the designof this area also poses no new problems with radioactive contamination of thedrinking water drawn from the shallow aquifer. We will, of course, continueto monitor this area to confirm this prediction.
Plans are being made *o eventually increase the A6S intensity by a factorof ten (Smith 1984); the ii<sw neutrino target system was designed with thisincrease in mind. With an incident beam of 2 x 10 protons per year, theresulting 2 x 10 stars per year correspond to the production of 18 Ci/y ofteachable R, according to the present model. Before such operation couldoccur, we would have to refine our calculational and transport models tobetter understand what its consequences would be.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work could not have been carried out without the interest andcooperation of A. S. Carroll and A. F. Pendzick of the BNL AGS Department, andof S. I. Baker of Fermilab.
697
REFERENCES
Awschalom, M., S. Baker, C. Moore, A. Van Ginneken,. K. Goebel, J. Ranft,1976. "Measurements and Calculations of Cascades produced by 300 GeV ProtonsIncident on a Target Inside a Magnet," Nucl. Inst. Meth. 138:521-531.
Borak, T. B., M. Awschalom, W. Fairman, F. Iwaml, and J. Sedlet, 1972."The Underground Migration of Radionuclides Produced in Soil near High EnergyProton Accelerators*" Health Physics 23;679-687.
Cossairt, J. D., N. Ve Mokhov, and C. T. Murphy 1982. "Absorbed DoseMeasurements External to Thick Shielding at a High Energy ProtonAccelerator: Comparison with Monte Carlo Calculations," Nucl. Inst. Meth.197:465.
Gollon, P. J., M. Awschalom, S. I. Baker, L. Coulson, C. Moore and S.Velen, 1981. "Measurements of Radial and Longitudinal Hadron ShowerDevelopment at 300 GeV," Nucl. Inst. Meth. 189:387-394.
Hauptmann, M. G., 1984. "A Statistical/Modeling Approach to Ground waterMonitoring at Brookhaven." To be presented at Fifth DOE EnvironmentalProtection Information Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, November 6-8.
Naidu, J. R., 1978. 1977 Environmental Monitoring Report. BNL 50813,Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
Oden, N. L., 1984. "Kriging and its Relation to Least Squares."Submitted to Technometrics.
Prickett, T. A., T. G. Naymik, and C. Lonnquist, 1981. A 'Random-Walk'Solute Transport Model for Selected Groundwater Quality Evaluations, IllinoisState Water Survey Bulletin No. 65, Champaign, IL.
Smith, G. A., Chairman, 1984. Report of the AGS II Task ForceaBrookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
Van Ginneken, A., 1971. 22Na Production Cross Section in Soil. FermilabTM-283, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL.
Van Ginneken, A,, 1975. "CASIM: Program to Simulate Transport ofHadronic Cascades in Bulk Matter." FN-272, Fermi National AcceleratorLaboratory, Batavia, IL, 60510.
Van Ginneken, A. and M. Awschalom, 1975. High Energy ParticleInteraction in Large Targets, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Bata'-ia,IL.
698
SESSION 9:
STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE I(T. D. Pflaum, Office of Director of Military Application, andA. R. Morreil, Bonneville Power Administration, Co-Chairmen)
REVIEW OF THE ICRP DOCUMENT "PRINCIPLES OF MONITORINGFOR THE RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION"
C. B. MeinholdR. P. Miltenberger
Brookhaven National Laboratory
A great deal of confusion exists over the ICRP dose limits formembers of the public. This issue, as part of a review of thecommissions recommendations on monitoring for the protection of thepopulation, will provide an update for discussions of the conceptsand quantities which will be used in international programs inenvironmental monitoring. This review will cover the relevantrecommendations of the commission, modeling and monitoring,objectives and requirements of monitoring programs, monitoring ofthe source, environment and individuals in the population, andfinally the role of quality assurance. A brief review of NCRP basicrecommendations in this area will also be presented.
The material presented is covered in its entirety in ICRPPublication 39 "Principles for Limiting Exposure of the Public toNatural Sources of Radiation" and ICRC Publication 43, "Principlesof Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the Population."
715
9C: THE NPDES PROGRAM AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
M. W. LewisEnvironment and Energy Department
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanySavannah River PlantAiken, SC 29801
ABSTRACT
On January 1, 1984 the Department of Energy - SavannahRiver was Issued a renewal NPDES permit listing 63 specificindustrial and sanitary wastewater effluent discharge points.This NPDES permit is the largest Issued by SCDHEC for a singleplant site. It took two calendar years of work by SCDHEC toreview the permit renewal application and to finalize thevarious draft permits.
The permit specifies monitoring at each of the 63 "outfalls"to determine status of compliance with permit conditions.Additionally, SCDHEC has placed requirements on SRP to developa Best Management Practices Plan for hazardous substances asprescribed by draft EPA regulations. SRP also has to determinethe amount of pollutant discharge in storm sewer systems.
Implementation of the extensive monitoring program InitiallyIdentified numerous Instances of noncompliance. In the firstquarter there were 26 exceptions to the permit limits. Majorefforts were made to identify causes and develop correctiveaction. There were only six exceptions directly related toprocess operations. The largest single cause of noncompllancewas stormwater runoff during rains which resulted 1n totalsuspended solIds carryover into the sewer systems. Correctiveaction which has Included permit revision has reduced thenumber of exceptions to seven in the second and seven 1n thethird quarters.
The NPDES program also 'includes assessment of the thermaleffects of reactor cooling water effluent on the environment.Special studies of Par Pond and the planned L-Reactor Lake arerequirements of the NPDES process.
717
INTRODUCTION
The Savannah River Plant (SRP) was Issued U s first Industrialwastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1n 1976. The permit listed25 specific point source discharge locations (outfalls); however onlyfive required routine water quality monitoring. With an expiration datein 1981, permit renewal plans were begun in 1979. The renewalapplication "Form 2CM listed 176 outfalls and contained more than BOOpages. Preparation of the application required 25 man-years of work andcost more than one million dollars.
The application to renew the NPDES permit was submitted in June,19B1 to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control(SCDHEC) who had obtained NPDES authority from the EPA 1n February,1981. It took SCDHEC 2-1/2 years to review the permit renewalapplication and to Issue the final permit effective January 1, 1984.There are 63 outfalls listed In the new permit. A Consent Order issuedsimultaneously with the permit temporarily suspended outfall temperaturelimits. Temperature limits are Imposed at the Savannah River and ParPond overflow while special cooling water studies and studies of thermalmitigation alternatives, primarily for reactor cooling water, areconducted.
DISCUSSION
Each outfall has to be sampled monthly to verify compliance withpermit water quality limits such as total suspended sol Ids (TSS), oil andgrease (O&G), pH, fecal coliform and five-day biological oxygen demand(BOO5). There are no residual chlorine limits and only a few outfallshave heavy metal limits. All limits are based on concentration ratherthan mass release rate.
During the first quarter of the calendar year there were 26Instances where the compliance sample results exceeded permit limits.Six of the twenty-six exceptions were the result of SRP operations(Figure 1). Fifteen were attributed to stormwater runoff which carriedsuspended solids and parking lot oils to the outfalls. Most SRP outfallsreceive both process wastewater and stormwater runoff. Five wereattributed to unknown or other causes.
Prior to receipt of the final NPDES permit SRP began acharacterization program to determine our ability to comply withprojected NPDES limits. The program quickly showed that many exceptionsoccurred during rainfall events and at Isolated outfalls located 1nheavily forested areas where organic matter could lower the pH. The datawere reviewed with SCDKEC and used as a basis to Initiate severalmodifications to the permit. First, sampling during rainfall waseliminated beginning 1n mid-March. Second, minor modifications wereauthorized to move sample locations upstream to reduce the contributions
718
to
en
Jan F*b ' Mar ' Apr • May * Jun J u l
PK-5lWCKSSL CALENDAR YEAR 1984
OiK-OTHtK F I G U R E x
Dec
to process wastewater of separate stormwater ditches and natural drainagefrom heavily wooded areas. Two outfalls have been deleted from thepermit by elimination of all process wastewater.
The effects of the minor modifications are visibly Illustrated InFigure 2. Figure 2 lists the total number of permit exceptions for eachmonth and subdivides the exceptions Into the specific parameterssampled. There were only seven exceptions during the second quarter andseven during the third quarter. SRP had no exceptions in August.Whereas most exceptions 1n the first quarter were caused by stormwater,all but one exception 1n the last two quarters resulted from processoperations (Figure 2). It 1s apparent that the current sampling program1s a better measure of water quality relative to SRP operations than theInitial program.
Extensive In-house characterization of water quality 1n mostoutfalls has been ongoing for almost a year. Some outfalls are sampleddally and others weekly for analyses of permit parameters. Theseprograms effectively Identify the day by day effects of SRP operations onwater quality and provide feedback to Identify Individual processvariables. SRP anticipates that the results of the characterizationprograms will be utilized to Implement projects that will allow us toachieve our goal of 100% compliance with the KPDES permit.
Part III of the NPDES permit requires SRP to develop a BestManagement Practices (BMP) Plan for hazardous and toxic substancesspecified 1n 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 122. This requirement as a minimum 1sa Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan whichcurrently only applies to oil. SRP requested SCDKEC to withdrawImplementation of the BMP criteria until the EPA Issues final guidelineson preparation of the BMP Plan. SCDKEC said that all new NPDES permitswere required by the EPA to contain the above provision. The BMP Planfor the SRP has been written and will be Implemented by January 1, 1985as required.
Part III of the NPDES permit also requires SRP to develop astormwater monitoring program. We have to determine 1f stormwater runofffrom waste treatment, storage, or disposal sites contains pollutants. Adraft plan has been submitted to SCDHEC which Identifies five disposalsites where specific conveyances carry stormwater to onsite streams. Inaddition the plan lists ten storm sewers randomly selected to bemonitored for pollutants during rain events.
720
§8
1 M * v * Jun
1111 Hll||it on
— TSS^ ^ "^T
f*b ' Mar * Apr' ' K*y * Jun * J u l ' Au* Sci>
CALENDAR YEAR 1984
FIGURE 2
9D: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND BIOLOGICALSTUDIES AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
R. R. FlemingSavannah River LaboratoryAiken, South Carolina
ABSTRACT
Federal facilities are required to comply with applicablewater quality standards, effluent limitations, and permit require-ments established by the EPA or agreement state pursuant to pro-vision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in1977 (P.L. 95-217). Production reactors and a large fossil-fueled powerplant at the Savannah River Plant (SRP) use eitheronce-through water from the Savannah River or recirculatingwater from a 2,700-acre reservoir to remove waste heat. Once-through cooling water is discharged directly to streams whoseheadwaters originate on the plant. The thermal load carried bythese streams is largely dissipated by the time the streams re-enter the river. However, effluent discharge temperatures tothe streams and reservoir do not meet current criteria specifiedby the State of South Carolina for a National Pollutant Dis-charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Less stringenteffluent limitations can be approved by the State if DOE candemonstrate that current or mitigated thermal discharges willensure the protection and propagation of a balanced biologicalcommunity within the receiving waters. Following informationprovided in the EPA 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual, biologicalstudies were designed and implemented that will identify anddetermine the significance of impacts on waters receivingthermal effluents. Sampling is being conducted along the lengthof each thermal stream, in the cooling water reservoir, andalong a 160-mile stretch of the Savannah River and in the mouthsof 33 of its tributaries. Preliminary results of the 316(a)type studies and how they are being used to achieve compliancewith State water quality regulations will be discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Production fac i l i t ies at the Savannah River PI i t (SRP) that currently ularge volumes of cooling water to remove waste heat elude three nuclear reators (C, K, and P) and a coal-fired powerplant in D Area. A fourth reactor(L), on standby since 1968, is being readied for resumed operation. Once-through cooling water for the C and K Reactors and the D-Area powerplant iswithdrawn from the nearby Savannah River. When restarted, L Reactor w i l l aluse once-through cooling water from the river. P Reactor primarily usesrecirculated cooling water from a 2,700-acre reservoir (Par Pond)5 with somemakeup water provided from the river. Each of the reactors require about 11m /s of water for cooling purposes; the powerplant uses about 2.8 m3/s.
723
Thermal effluents are discharged from the reactors and powerplant at annu-al average temperatures of about 65°C and 27°C, respectively. The C and KReactor and D-Area effluents are discharged directly to onsite streams thattraverse the site for several miles and flow through the river swamp beforereaching their confluence with the Savannah River. O-Area powerplant effluentis discharged to Beaver Dam Creek, C Reactor to Four Mile Creek, and K Reactorto Pen Branch (Figure 1). When L Reactor resumes operation, its discharge willbe to Steel Creek via a 1,000-acre cooling lake. Prior to construction of theSRP, the streams to which the thermal effluents are discharged were shallow,low-flow waterways whose headwaters oriqinate onsite. SRP cooling watereffluent increases the average flow of each stream by at least one order ofmagnitude. The streams dissipate most of the SRP-contributed heat load as theytraverse the site and relatively little of the thermal load is carried into theriver.
P-Reactor thermal effluent is carried, via an engineered canal and aseries of small impoundments, to the 140-acre precooler impoundment, Pond C(Figure 2). From Pond C, the effluent is piped under an embankment and dis-charged to the middle arm of the Par Pond reservoir. The remainder of theeffluent heat load is then dissipated as the water moves from the middle arm ofthe reservoir around to the north arm. Cooled water is pumped from the northarm back to P Reactor.
When the SRP was built in the 1950's, direct discharge of thermal efflu-ents was purposely selected because it was economical and relatively little ofthe heat load reached the Savannah River. With issuance of the Plant's firstNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in 1976, the EPArecognized use of the onsite waterways as conveyors of thermal effluents. Dis-charge compliance monitoring for C and K Reactors and the D-Area powerplant wasestablished at the confluence of each effluent stream with the Savannah River.A thermal mixing zone of specified dimensions was established in the riverdownstream of the mouths of Beaver Dam, Four Mile, and Steel Creeks. Compli-ance monitoring for P Reactor was located at the overflow dam built acrossLower Three Runs Creek.
In 1981, pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in1977 (P.L. 95-217), the State of South Carolina assumed, from the EPA, NPDESpermit-issuing authority for industrial waste water discharges to State waters.The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) be-came the permitting agency for the State. During permit renewal discussionsbetween DOE and SCDHEC in 1983, SCDHEC indicated that it regarded all of theSRP onsite streams and the Par Pond reservoir as waters of South Carolina andsubject to the regulatory effluent limitations of the State. SCDHEC alsospecified that monitoring to confirm permit compliance was to be done at thefacility cooling water discharge pipe. Per State regulations (SCDHEC, 1981),an effluent discharge cannot at any time cause State waters to exceed a maximumtemperature of 32.2 C (90*F) or experience a maximum temperature rise of morethan 2.8*C (5*F). Effluents from C, K, and P Reactors and the D-Areapowerhouse are out of compliance with one or bcth of these temperaturelimitations now that the compliance monitoring points have been moved to thedischarge pipes. The proposed direct discharge of thermal effluent from LReactor to Steel Creek could not be Dermitted bj SCDHEC for similar reasons.
724
N
4-
Lower ThreeRuns Creek
Figure 1. Nap Showing Locations of Onsite Streams and Facilities that useCooling Water
725
In January 1984, a Consent Order (DOE, 1984) was signed by DOE and SCDHECthat allowed the temporary continued operation of C, K, and P Reactors and thepowerplant under less stringent effluent limitations. SCDHEC is allowingcompliance monitoring to be performed at the locations specified under the oldpermit. In return, DOE agreed to conduct studies of the effects of all thermaleffluents at SRP upon aquatic biology communities in the receiving waters, andto submit the preliminary results of the studies to SCDHEC within one year ofsigning the Consent Order. Concurrent with the biological studies, it wasagreed that work would be initiated to identify and evaluate methods to miti-gate biological impacts associated with the thermal effluents.
BIOLOGICAL STUDY FLAN
Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act provides that the regulatory agencyimposing an effluent limitation can allow a discharqer a less stringent thermallimitation on an industrial effluent if the discharger can demonstrate thatimposed limits are more stringent than is necessary to ensure the protectionand propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, andwildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made. TheEPA, in its 316(a) Technical Guidelines Manual (EPA, 1977) provides a rationaleto guide a discharger in developing such a demonstration. This manual was usedto develop a study plan to provide data needed to evaluate the effects of SRPthermal effluents on biological communities in the onsite streams and swamp,Par Pond, and the Savannah River. Major biological categories chosen for studyincluded zooplankton, habitat formers, macroinvertebrates, fish, and othervertebrate wildlife. Studies of the last cateqory are being conducted by theSavannah River Ecology Laboratory and will not be discussed here. New studiesnecessitated by the NPDES permit considerations were integrated with aquaticbiology programs already being conducted. In addition, provision was made toinclude the results of numerous previous studies, especially from Par Pond, inthe report to be submitted to SCDHEC.
Study Areas
The Section 316(a) type demonstrations were desiqned to include near andfar field study areas. Near field study sites include the onsite streams, ParPond, onsite swamp, and that portion of the Savannah River adjacent to SRP.Far field areas include sections of the river upstream and downstream of theSRP and the mouths of 28 offsite tributaries to the river.
Near Field Studies
Study results from the near field areas are being used to help identifyand quantify the impacts of thermal effluents on a variety of biotic categor-ies. Zooplankton (microscopic animal organisms), habitat formers (primarilyaquatic vegetation), macroinvertebrates (insects, worms, etc.), and fish (egqs,larvae, and adults) are the main categories being studied. Sampling sites aredistributed in the streams, swamp, Par Pond, and river so that biological
726
samples are collected over a range of temperatures and aquatic habitats. Inthis manner, biological impacts associated with high, moderate, and negligibleSRP-contributed thermal loading can be determined. Data are being collectedfrom sites where communities are known to be adversely impacted by the thermal *input, and also from areas where the communities potentially benefit from ther-mal enrichment. Each effluent drainage system is being looked at in both adiscrete and holistic manner to determine the impacts associated with individ-ual portions of the system and with the system as a whole. In this way, infor-mation will be available to help make cost-effective decisions on the amount ofthermal mitigation needed to ensure preservation of a balanced biologicalcommunity.
Approximately 50 sampling stations are located in the near field studyarea (Figure 3). Not all biotic categories are monitored at each site andsampling frequencies vary according to the community being sampled. Detaileddescriptions of the sampling methodologies and frequencies are provided in pro-gram documentation (Paller, et al., 1984). Ichthyoplankton samples are col-lected weekly during the main spawning season while sampling of the othar cate-gories is conducted year round. Typical information being derived from themonitoring data for each category is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Typical Information Derived From Aquatic Biology Samples
Biotic Categories
Habitat formers
Information
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
BiomassFood valueDistributionNursery ground value
Taxonomic compositionRelative abundanceColonization characteristicsDriftUtility as food source
Taxonomic compositionRelative abundanceThermal preferencesTemporal and spatial spawning
trendsFeeding characteristicsGrowth and developmentMortality
727
Far Field Studies
The far field studies were designed to provide perspective on fish spawn-ing occurring in the Savannah River adjacent to the SRP and in the mouths ofonsite tributaries compared to that occurrinq in the river upstream and down-stream of SRP and in the mouths of offsite tributaries. It is not expectedthat SRP- contributed thermal efficients have any significant impacts on thefishes of the Savannah River. However, historical quantitative information onspawning activity along the length of the river is minimal. Ichthyoplanktonsampling transects were established in the river at 10-mile intervals fromAugusta, Georgia to near Savannah, Georgia, a distance of 160 miles (Figure 4 ) ,and in 28 offsite tributaries located on the South Carolina and Georqia sidesof the river. Offsite tributaries were selected to reflect flow and habitatcharacteristics similar to each of the onsite tributaries. Weekly sampling isconducted from the first of February through the end of July.
Of special interest in the far field studies are the spawning activitiesof anadromous fishes like the blueback herring, American shad, and stripedbass. Data are needed to demonstrate that adequate zones of river passageadjacent to the site are maintained for these species and to indicate the valueof onsite wetland areas as spawning, feeding, and nursery grounds for anadro-mous as well as other fish.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Data from the onsite stream/swamp stations represent just 6 months ofsampling while that from the river and creek mouths represent two years ofsampling. Consequently, some data bases are still relatively small and dataanalyses incomplete. As a result, only limited conclusions about the findingsto date can be made.
Onsite Stream/Swamp Areas
Both macrophyte biomass production and species composition in the onsitestream/swamp areas are affected by thermal effluents. Although seasonal sampl-ing indicates that macrophyte biomass may be higher in the thermal than in thenonthermal areas during the winter, subsequent sampling in the spring indicateda retardation of new growth in the thermal areas. As shown in Table 2, fewertaxa were found in thermal stream and swamp areas than at nonthermal sites.Periphyton biomass was significantly higher at the thermal sites in both winterand spring sampling, but it consisted primarily of blue-green algae, the typeof algae generally considered least valuable as a food resource.
728
LowerThree RunsCreek
To Savannah River
Figure 2. P-Reactor Cooling Water Flow and Location of Biological SamplingTransects (A)
729
TABLE 2. Number of Macrophyte Taxa at Thermaland Nonthermal OnsIte Stream/SwampSampling Locations (from Kondratieff &Kondratieff, 1984)
Thermal Stream
Beaver FourDam Mile
21 17-22
PenBranch
13
Nonthermal Stream
MeyersBranch
24-33
Thermal Swamp
Pen Branch
9-14
Nonthermal Swamp
Steel
22-32
Macroinvertebrate populations in the stream/swamp system are alsoadversely impacted by thermal effluents. Communities at the nonthermal sitesincluded thermally sensitive species of the mayfly, caddisfly, and stoneflygroups generally absent from the thermal sites. At sites where temperaturesexceeded 45°C, species richness and numerical abundance were minimal. Astemperatures become more moderate, species richness and total abundanceincrease. The number of taxa at thermal and nonthermal locations is shown inTable 3.
TABLE 3. Number of Macroinvertebrate Taxa At Thermal andNonthermal Onsite Stream/Swamp Sampling LocatioKondratieff & Kondratieff, 1984)
Location
StreamBeaver DamFour Mile No. 1Four Mile, No. 2Pen BranchSteelMeyers Branch
SwampPen BranchSteel
MaximumTemperature,*C
24>4542-2020
39-4414-17
No. of Taxa
341629255986
38-4482-93
Limited sampling of adult fish in Steel Creek, Meyers Branch, and theambient temperature upper reaches of Pen Branch indicates these areas support
730
self-maintaining fish populations typical of southeastern coastal plain streamsof comparable size. The number of species collected in two censuses (Table 4)ranged from 10 to 18, and depended on the site sampled and the time of year.Communities in the three streams were quite similar and were, in all cases,dominated by yellowfin shiners. In comparison, the fish community structure inthe lower portions of Four Mile Creek is depauperate. Species richnessdeclined to a maximum of eight species, with the thermally tolerant mosquito-fish dominating the collections. Data indicate that only during reactoroutages do fish move from the swamp and other refuge areas into the thermalstream corridors.
TABLE 4. Number Of Fish Species Collected in Two Censusesof Thermal and Nonthermal Stream Sections
Location Number of species
NonthermalMeyers Branch 16-18Steel 10-14Pen Branch 15-16
ThermalFour Mile 3-8
Preliminary patterns in stream/swamp ichthyoplankton data are comparableto those fcr adult fish (Paller, 1984). Densities in thermal streams are lowrelative to nonthermal areas and are believed to represent eggs and larvaetransported into the thermal sites from refuge areas.
Stream Mouths and Savannah River
Trends in ichthyoplankton transport in the onsite stream mouths werecompared with trends in offsite streams of similar size and flow. One factreadily apparent from the data is that anadromous and resident fishes exten-sively utilize the area around the mouth of the nonthermal Steel Creek. Forexample, during the 1983 spawning season Steel Creek contributed approximately77 x 106 larvae to the river. This resulted in Steel Creek being the ninthlargest contributor of the 33 creek mouths sampled. All of the streamsexceeding Steel Creek in ichthyoplankton production are located downstream ofthe SRP. Dominant taxa of larvae collected at the Steel Creek mouth includedyellow perch, minnows, sunfish, and blueback herring.
Compared to offsite streams, little spawning activity takes place in theswamp area immediately upstream of the mouths of Four Mile and Beaver DamCreeks when thermal effluents are being discharged and the river is below floodstage. The elevated temperatures at the mouths of these streams, especiallyFour Mile Creek, preclude significant spawning. It is only when the river
731
floods reversing the flow of water at the stream mouths, that fish apparentlyenter Four Mile and Beaver Dam Creeks to spawn. When the river levels recede,ichthyoplankton then drain from the spawning areas via the mouths of the twothermal creeks. If at that time the stream temperature is elevated, the eqgs/larvae are likely to be destroyed.
Pronounced temporal and spatial trends are evident in ichthyoplankton datacollected from the river. Egg/larvae transport in the river is highest down-stream of SRP durinq the first few months of the spawning season, highestadjacent to SRP during midseason, and highest upstream of the site near the endof the season. This trend is due to the fact that the lower river warms tosuitable spawning temperatures before the upper river. Data from samplingtransects established immediately upstream and downstream of each SRP thermalstream mouth do not indicate that the thermal effluents significantly impactspawning activity in the river itself. Adequate zones of passages exist in theriver around the SRP thermal plumes throughout the spawning season,
STUDY BENEFITS
Results from the ongoing aquatic biological studies have already greatlybenefitted the handling of environmental issues and related process operationsat the Savannah River Plant. For example, data recently obtained from thestudies were used with historic Par Pond thermal effects data to preparepreliminary predictive 316(a) demonstrations for the proposed 1,000-acre L-Lakeand for the Steel Creek ecosystem downstream of the lake. Submittal of thedocuments was required by SCDHEC in order for the L-Reactor NPDES permitprocess to continue. Their timely issuance prevented costly project delays.Information contained in the documents indicated that reactor operations willnot have a significant impact on fish spawning in the late winter - earlyspring period and, therefore, operations will not need to be curtailed.Substantial cost savings will result from this information.
Data from the current Par Pond study verify the belief that the reservoirpresently supports a balanced biological community. This recent informationprovides the regulatory guide-type data missing from previous studies and thecombined new and historic data bases are expected to show that the expenditureof funds to mitigate the P-Reactor effluent is unnecessary.
When the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endangered species, wasfound to spawn in the Savannah River adjacent to and upstream of the SRP, datafrom the study was used to prepare a biological assessment (Muska and Matthews,1983) for this species. The assessment concluded that existing and proposedoperations of the SRP will not affect the continued existence of the shortnosesturgeon in the Savannah River. The federal agency concurred with that conclu-sion and no additional action was required.
Preliminary data on the biological impacts of thermal effluents from C andK Reactors and the powerhouse have already been used to help evaluate proposedmitigation alternatives for those three facilities. Additional results will beused to refine the initial evaluations of mitiqation alternatives to ensurethat balanced biological communities are maintained in a cost-effective manner.
732
N
Figure 3. Locations of Aquatic Biology Near Field Sampling Stations
733
Clarks HillReservoir
Augusta^.RM187
[SAVANNAHRIVER
RM30
Savannah
Figure 4. Location of the Aquatic Biology Far Field Study Area
734
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information contained in this article was developed during the courseof work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with the U.S. Department of Enerqj
REFERENCES
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1984. Consent Order Between the SouthCarolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the U.S.Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SouthCarolina.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a) TechnicaGuidance Manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear FacilitiEnvironmental Impact Statements, Office of Water Enforcement, PermitsDivision, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, O.C.
Kondratieff, P. and B. C. Kondratieff. 1984. A Lower Food Chain Community Study:Thermal Effects and Post-Thermal Recovery in the Streams and Swamps of theSavannah River PlanTI November 1983 - May 1984. Report No. ECS-SR-15 toT~. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken,South Carolina.
Muska, Carl F. and Robin A. Matthews. 1983. Biological Assessment For the Short-nose Sturgeon, Ac ipenser Brevirostrum Lesuer 1818 The Savannah River PlantUSDOE Report DPST-83-754, Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. du Pont deNemours and Company, Aiken, South Carolina 29808.
Paller, M. 1984. Summary of the Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data from the Creeksand Swamps of the Savannah River Plant. Interim Report No. ECS-SR-10, toE. I. du Pont and de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory,Aiken, SC.
Paller, M., J. O.'Hara, V. Osteen, W. Specht, and H. Kania. 1984. Annual Reporton the Savannah Riyer Aquatic Ecology Program September 1982 - August 1983Volume I. Report No. ECS-SR-8, to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC.
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 1981.Water Classification Standards System for the State of South Carolina,TTegulation 61-68, Industrial and Agricultural Wastewater Division, Bureauof Water Pollution Control, Columbia, S.C.
735
9E: AGENCY INTERACTION AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANTUNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Halkard E. Mickey, Jr.Savannah River Laboratory
Alken, SC 29808
ABSTRACT
The 300 square mile Savannah River Plant (SRP) offers avariety of protected habitats for endangered species Including thealligator (resident), red-cockaded woodpecker (resident), short-nose sturgeon (migratory), and wood stork (fish-forager). The mostrecent of these four species to be listed by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (US FWS) is the wood stork. It had been observedprior to 1983 as an infrequent forager fn the SRP Savannah Riverswamp which adjoins SRP on the south and southwest. In anticipa-tion of its listing as an endangered species, DOE-SR requested 1nthe spring of 1983 thai the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,University of Georgia, conduct field surveys and studies of thenearest colony of wood storks to SRP (the Birdsville colony innorth-central Georgia). The objective of these studies was todetermine potential effects of the flooding of the Steel Creekswamp area with cooling water from L-Reactor. L-Reactor, which isproposed for restart, has not been operated since 1968. The surveyfound that wood storks forage in the Steel Creek delta swamp areaof the Savannah River at SRP. Based on the numbers of storks atvarious foraging locations, sites at SRP ranked higher than non-SRPsites during the pre-fledging phase of the colony. Cold flowtesting of L-Reactor also demonstrated that foraging sites In theSteel Creek delta would be unavailable during L-Reactor operationbecause of Increased water levels.
Following these surveys, a "may affect" determination was madeby DOE-SR and transmitted to US FWS in March 1984. Consultationmeetings under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act between DOE-SR and US FWS In April 1984, resulted In an agreement between thetwo agencies to develop alternative foraging habitat for the woodstork to replace potential losses 1n the Steel Creek delta area. Asuitable habitat was located on the National Audubon Society'sSilver Bluff Plantation Sanctuary just west of SRP. This locationwill be developed by the US Soil Conservation Service through aninteragency agreement with DOE-SR. These cooperative actions bygovernment agencies and the private sector have resulted In benefitto an endangered species and assured compliance with the EndangeredSpecies Act.
737
INTRODUCTION
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires thatFederal agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE) consultwith the Department of Interior (DOI) and/or the Department ofCommerce (DOC) to
• Utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of theAct by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangeredand threatened species, and
• Ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continuedexistence of endangered or threatened species or result in thedestruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment must be prepared by the Federal agency ifDOI or DOC indicate that an endangered or threatened species islikely to be affected by the agency actions. The BiologicalAssessment discusses the potential effects to the species, providesa determination of whether or not populations of endangered/threatened species would be adversely impacted, and evaluatesalternatives to the action which could reduce or mitigate adverseimpacts (DOE, 1982). Those Federally endangered species whichoccur on the Savannah River Plant (SRP) include the
• American all igator (Alligator siississippiensis)
• Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides boreal is)
• Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and
• Wood stork (Mycteria americana).
THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT AND WOOD STORK SURVEYS
During the last f i f t y years the wood stork population hasdecreased from an estimated 20,000 breeding pairs in the early1930's to 4,800 pairs in 1980 and 3,650 pairs in 1983. This popu-lation decline prompted the United States F1sh and Wildlife Service(US FWS) to l i s t the wood stork as an endangered species(DOI, 1984).
Twenty-three colonies of wood storks were identified inFlorida and Georgia by the DOI. The most northern and inland woodstork colony is located at "Big Dukes Pond," a 567 ha cypressswamp, 12.6 km (7.9 mi) northwest of Millen, Jenkins County,Georgia. This wood stork colony, referred to as the Birdsvil leColony (Figure 1), was thought to be the source of storks observed
738
BARNWELL
* Bornwtll
( ^JENKINS/ SCREVF.NEMAMUEL"~\ >MIIUn
\ / / LFigure 1. Location of the Birdsviiie Wood Stork Colony (A) and the
Savannah River Plant (B and C are Wood stork ForagingAreas on the SRP)
225
BEAVER DAM CREEK
MoKimum Number of Storksrvtd ot :tour Dom Crtsk
f*~l Stttl CrteKB
120SURVEY DAYS:
I3Q 140 ISO 160
2 I I
DAYS AFTER MARCH I, 1983(STARTING JUNE 27, 19S3)
Figure 2. Flow Patterns and Nuabers of Wood Storks ObservedNear Beaver Dan Creek and Steel Creek
739
at Steel Creek delta in the Savannah River swamp on SRP during1980-82. The SRP Savannah River swamp is 45 km (28 mi) from theBirdsville colony, a distance well within the 60 to 70 km radiusthat wood storks can travel during daily feeding flights. In 1983,studies were initiated by the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory ofthe University of Georgia at the request of DOE-SR. The studieswere to provide an assessment of the potential impacts of theoperation of the SRP on the wood stork (Meyers, 1984) and todetermine if the planned restart of L-Reactor with once-throughcooling water discharge to Steel Creek on the SRP would affect woodstork foraging areas.
Results of the Surveys and Studies
The Birdsville Colony produced over two wood storks per nestin 1983 (Table 1). Productivity of 1.7 storks per nest is con-sidered adequate to maintain stable stork population levels. In1983 many of the nests at Birdsville contained three young (onecontained four young) which indicates that food resources wereabundant. During 1984 about 100 nests were established and most ofthe nests contained 2 or more chicks (Table 1).
Many of the wood stork foraging sites were observed to bewithin 10 km of the Birdsville colony in the 1983 and 1984 surveys.Surveys indicated that only a few sites were found greater than50 km from the Birdsville Colony. Five habitat types :(black gumswamp, cypress swamp, shrub swamp, open marsh, and man-made ponds)were used as feeding sites. Storks feed in shallow pools with anaverage area of 2.5 ha and depths between 10 and 32 cm. They feedon vertebrates (mostly fish) greater than 24 mm long. The averagesize fish returned to the Birdsville colony was 100 mm long andweighed 16 grams. This size fish (or vertebrate) was considerablylarger than the average size available at feeding sites (41 mm .longand 1.91 grams). These foraging results are similar to those ob-served from studies in Florida (Kahl, 1964, and Ogden, et al.,1978).
Aerial tracking of flights of wood storks leaving theBirdsyille Colony and of overflights of SRP also revealed that twoprincipal areas of SRP were used by wood storks. The first areawas south of the D-Area powerhouse in that portion of the SavannahRiver swamp known as the Beaver Dam Creek area (shown as "C" inFigure 1). The second area was the Steel Creek swamp area (shownas "B" in Figure 1). Storks have also occassionaily been observedforaging in other areas of the SRP Savannah River swamp. Table 2summarizes the foraging observations at SRP from 1980 to 1984.Foraging sites in 1983 in the SRP Savannah River swamp rankedstatistically higher than other sites when comparing the meannumber of storks observed at all SRP sites (29.3) with those
740
TABLE 1. Results of Hood Stork Nest Survey, Birdsville, 6eorg1a
Year
19801981
1982
1983
1984t
NumberActive
-100**
Failed~6Q**
113***
-100
ofNests
Mean Numberof YoungPer Nest*
-2**
0
No Data2.19***
1 to 3
* Young at least 5 weeks old.** Estimated from ground or aerial surveys.*** Actual count from 26 nest trees.
f Surveys are incomplete, approximate data from March throughmid-July, 1984.
TABLE 2. Hood Stork Breeding Adults at Birdsville, Georgia, andSavannah River Plant Sightings
Birdsville Savannah River Plant
Year
1980
1981
19821983**1984t
BreedingAdults
200
None120226
-186
Number ofSightings
1
2
14
33**9
Total Numberof StorksObserved
20*
2
53414**»***
109
* No survey conducted; observation of I. L. Brisbin.** Data from 21 June to 29 September 1983 only.*** A total of 147 wood storks was seen at four locations in the
swamps surrounding Beaver Dam Creek at 2000 hr on 13 July 1983.t Surveys are incomplete, approximate data from late May throughmid-July, 1984.
741
observed at other sites (8.4) before fledging of juveniles.Although only 33.3% of the prefledging sites were located on theSRP, almost twice that percentage (64%) of the total number ofstorks observed were found at SRP sites in 1983 (Meyers, 1984).
After July 12, 1983, wood storks were not recorded in SteelCreek delta even though they were present at other SRP sites. OnJuly 12, 1983 or soon thereafter, water depth in the Steel Creekdelta increased from 18 cm to 48 cm due to an increase in flow tothe creek (Figure 2). Depths remained at 44 to 48 cm throughSeptember 1983. Wood storks abandoned feeding sites in the SteelCreek delta during the times of high water resulting from L-Reactorcold-flow testing. During these water conditions, fish which wereoriginally concentrated in shallow pools probably dispersedthroughout the Steel Creek delta (Meyers, 1984). The Steel Creekdelta area was an important foraging site for wood storks duringlate June and early July 1983. It ranked in the top 5 sites fordensity of vertebrate biomass. It also ranked first among thssites in the number of aquatic vertebrate species collected.After water levels increased in the Steel Creek delta on or aboutJuly 12, 1983, the density of wet biomass of vertebrates >24 mmdecreased from 62.5 g/m2 to 0.7 g/m2. At the same time, wood storkforaging in the Steel Creek delta stopped (Meyers, 1984)=
CONSULTATION HISTORY
The wood stork was proposed for listing as an endangeredspecies in February 1983 (DOI, 1983). DOE-SR directed SREL toinitiate studies on wood stork use of the SRP and potential impactsof SRP and L-Reactor operation on the species. Informal consulta-tion on the L-Reactor project was initiated in July 1983, when theUS FWS and DOE-SR met to review and discuss the study design of thewood stork surveys. Preliminary results (Meyers, 1984) of the 1983SREL data were presented to the US FWS in March 1984. DOE-SRnotified the US FWS that the results of the 1983 studies indicatedthat the restart of L-Reactor with a once-through cooling alter-native "may affect" the wood stork under the ESA. DOE-SR and theUS FWS agreed following a meeting in April 1984, to investigate thepossibility of developing alternative foraging habitat for the woodstork to replace potential lose of foraging areas in the SteelCreek area. DOE-SR committed in June 1984, to construct and main-tain replacement habitat for the storks at a site or sites agree-able to both agencies. One potential site identified was theFederal Fish Hatchery near Millen, Georgia, about 8 kilometers fromthe Birdsville Colony.
Subsequent to this agreement, a second site, referred to as"Kathwood Lake" was identified as a potential foraging site fordevelopment. The Kathwood Lake site has an area of ~84 ha. It is
742
located west of SRP and about 45 km north of the Birdsville WoodStork Colony,(Figure 1). The lake is owned by the National AudubonSociety as part of the Silver Bluff Plantation Sanctuary. The lakewas originally formed for operation of a mill by diking a swallowdepression and diverting water via a canal from Hollow Creek(Figure 3). Kathwpod Lake drained in May 1977, when the woodencontrol structure at the lower end of the lake failed. Thisstructure has not been replaced. Wood storks (about 24) wereobserved foraging in pools of water left in the lake bed inSeptember 1977. A few wood storks have been observed during aerialsurveys at Kathwood Lake in late July and early August 1984.
Both DOE-SR and the US\FWS agreed following a meeting atSilver Bluff Plantation on August 10, 1984, with representatives ofthe Auclubon Society that Kathwood Lake is a suitable site at whichto develop replacement forage habitat for the wood stork. Follow-ing the August 10th meeting, DOE*SR, using the technical expertiseof the National Audubon Society, SREL, the Savannah RiverLaboratory, and special consultants,, developed criteria for modify-ing Kathwood Lake. Wa*-,er control structures will be added tocontrol flow and assist in fish rearing and to lower the waterlevels to make subdivisions of the lake-.avail able during theforaging season of the stork (Figure 4 ) . \ Engineering design andconstruction activities at the site will fee conducted by the USSoil Conservation Service through an intera*gency agreement withDOE-SR. Monitoring of the Birdsville Colony, as well as managementof the foraging ponds at Kathwood Lake will Continue through theSavannah River Ecology Laboratory with the cooperation of theAudubon Society.
CONCLUSION AND SUWARY
Basic ecological information and surveys by SREL were used byDOE-SR to develop a mitigation plan in consultation with the US FWSto assure that ongoing operations at SRP, including the restart ofL-Reactor, are conducted in accordance with the Endangered SpeciesAct. DOE-SR and the US FWS agreed to develop in cooperation withthe National Audubon Society a suitable, alternative foraging sitefor the endangered wood stork. The construction phase of theproject will be carried out through an interagency agreementbetween DOE-SR and the US Soil Conservation Service. The SavannahRiver Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, will! contirsMe tostudy the colony and use of Kathwood Lake for at least five yearsto determine the success of this mitigation actton. DOE-SR plansto have the Kathwood Lake operational prior to the 1985 breedingseason. This project is a good example of cooperative effortbetween government agencies and the private sector to benefit anendat.g^red species and advance government programs.
743
DEPRESSION
RAILWAY ANDRI3HT OF WAY
Figure 3. Location of Kathwood Lake and Hollow Creek
DAM AND, WATER CONTROLSTRUCTURE
OVERFLOW,LEVEE
DEPRESSIONS
Figure 4. Longitudinal Section Through Kathwood LakeShowing General Features of the Subimpoundmentsand Water Levels
744
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information contained in this art ic le was developed duringthe course of work under Contract No. DE-AC09-76SR00001 with theU.S. Department of Energy and from biology studies conducted by theSavannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia.
REFERENCES
Department of Energy (DOE). 1982. Environmental Compliance Guide.Guidance Manual for Department of~Energy Compliance with theEndangered Species Act. Assistant Secretary for EnvironmentalProtection, Office of Environmental Compliance, Washington, DC20585. DOE/EP-0058.
Department of Interior (DOI). February 28, 1983. "Endangered andThreatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status forthe U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork." FederalRegister 48(40):8402-8403.
Department of Interior (DOI). February 28, 1984. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife andPlants; U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork Determined tobe Endangered." Federal Register 49(40):7332-7335.
M. P. Kahl, Jr. 1964. "Food Ecology of the Wood Stork (Mycteriaamericana) in Florida." Ecol. Monographs 34:97-117.
J. M. Meyers, 1984. Wood Storks of the Birdsville Colony andSwamps of the Savannah River Plant. SREL - 15. Savannah RiverEcology Laboratory, Aiken, SC.
J. C. Ogden, J. A. Kushlan, and J. T. Tilmant. 1978. The FoodHabits and Nesting Success of Wood Storks in Everglades NationalPark 1974. U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service Nat.Res. Report No. 16:1-25.
745
9F: LOS ALAMQS NATIONAL LABORATORY COMPLIANCE WITH CULTURALRESOURCE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION
Colleen E. Olinger and Kenneth H. ReaLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, New Mexico 87545
ABSTRACT
Cultural resources management is one aspect of NEPA-inducedlegislation increasingly affecting federal land managers. A numberof regulations, some of them recent, outline management criteria forprotecting cultural resources on federal land. Nearly allconstruction projects at the 11,135 hectare Los Alamos NationalLaboratory in northern New Mexico are affected by cultural resourcemanagement requirements. A substantial prehistoric Puebloanpopulation occupied the Laboratory area from the 13th to the early16th centuries. Grazing, timbering, and homesteading followedIndian occupation. Therefore, archaeological and historical ruinsand artifacts are abundant.
The Laboratory has developed a cultural resources managementprogram which meets both legal and project planning requirements.The program operates in coordination with the New Mexico StateHistorical Preservation Office. Major elements of the Laboratoryprogram are illustrated by a current project involving relocation ofa homesteader's cabin located on land required for a major newfacility. The Laboratory cultural resource management programcouples routine oversight of all engineering design projects withonsite resource surveys and necessary mitigation prior toconstruction. The Laboratory has successfully protected majorarchaeological and historical ruins, although some problems remain.The cultural resource program is intended to be adjustable to newneeds. A cultural resource management plan will provide long-termmanagement guidance.
SITUATION
A "cultural resource" derives from human activity. To receive pro-tection, a resource must be at least 50 years old or of significant historical
747
consequence. A cultural resource is by definition fragile, that is non-renewable.
Since 1906, federal law has attempted to protect cultural resourceslocated on federal land. Until recently most legislation, although wellintended, did not promote rigorous management. Additional laws enacted duringthe 1960s and the 1970s provide the necessary criteria for protecting culturalresources. An important aspect of recent regulations is the oversightauthority accorded state historical preservation officers and the NationalAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation. Federal actions impacting culturalresources must be approved by not only the land manager, but also theHistorical Preservation Officer and Advisory Council.
Cultural resource management requirements affect nearly all newconstruction projects at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Laboratorycovers 11,135 hectares (27,500 acres) on the Pajarito Plateau in Northern NewMexico. The Pajarito Plateau is typified by a series of hardened volcanic ash(tuff) mesas separated by several-hundred-meter-deep canyons. The mesas andcanyons are bounded by the Jemez Mountains on the west and the Rio Grande onthe east. Ponderosa pine grow at higher elevations, yielding to pinon/juniperwoodland at about 2100 m (7000 ft). Below about 1970 m (6400 ft), rabbitbushand associated shrubs are dominant over large areas.
Evidence exists of long, but not necessarily continuous, pre-ColumbianIndian occupation of the Pajarito Plateau. A Folsom Point fragment, possibly10,000 years old, indicates some pre-Archaic use. A number of archaicprojectile points, dating from about 1000 BC to 700 AD, have also been foundon the Plateau. However, the major influx of pre-historic peoples occurred inthe late 13th century. Puebloan Indians occupied the Pajarito Plateaucontinuously from the 13th until the 16th centuries. Hundreds of ruins fromthis period are found in the area. Most are small, date from betweenapproximately 1250 and 1350, and are fairly evenly spread over the mesa tops.By the late 14th century, settlements were generally larger and at lowerelevations. Much of the 15th century population concentrated in largesettlements and villages centered around plaza sites. The unique cavateswhich dot the north walls of the canyon cliffs apparently date from thisclassical period.
The Pajarito Plateau was abandoned during the early 16th century forreasons largely unknown. Occasional Spanish grazing and farming followed, butthe area remained essentially empty for the next two hundred years.Human activity revived in the late 19th century. Timbering gave way to home-steading, homesteading to the World War II Manhattan Engineering District andthe Los Alamos Laboratory. Those who peopled these enterprises lefthistorical resources scattered among the Indian ruins: roadways, cabins,fences, fields, and World War II structures. It is not unusual for newLaboratory projects to encounter these remains.
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Charged to protect its many historically important resources, theLaboratory has developed a management program which addresses both legal andLaboratory planning requirements. The program combines routine oversight of
748
construction projects, field investigation, and where necessary, mitigation ofpotentially adverse effects. A staff member operating out of the Laboratory'sEnvironmental Surveillance Group (HSE-8) reviews all construction plans forpossible impact to cultural resources. This person may investigate a site orassign the Laboratory Contract Archaeologist, on call for one-day response, todo a field survey. If a cultural resource is present, the preferredmanagement option is always avoidance, preservation in place. Usually aproject can be sited to avoid the resource. If resiting is impossible, theContract Archaeologist develops a plan to mitigate adverse impact. Adverseimpact mitigation must meet the concurrence of the New Mexico State HistoricalPreservation Officer and must be completed prior to project construction.
AN EXAMPLE
The Laboratory cultural resource management process can be illustrated bya current Laboratory project involving construction of a major new facility,the Nuclear Materials Storage Building. Siting options were limited to onearea optimally suitable for the facility's function. Laboratory EnvironmentalEvaluation Coordination personnel routinely reviewed early engineering designplans for potential environmental problems. The selected area was known to bethe site of a homesteading cabin (the "Romero Cabin") and a recorded lithicscatter. Both of these cultural resources had New Mexico Laboratory ofAnthropology site designation (LA) numbers. A subsequent archaeologicalsurvey revealed, in addition, a collapsed smaller log structure, a dugout, acircular cement-lined cistern, a log corral, a burned animal shed, andscattered household and farming debris.
Environmental Evaluation Coordination personnel recorded the presence ofthese artifacts in the environmental remark -prepared for the Nuclear MaterialsStorage Facility. This document is called an Action Description Memorandum(ADM). The ADM noted the presence of cultural resources, the need to mitigateadverse effects, and the legal requirement for consultation with the StateHistoric Preservation Office. Archaeological findings and mitigationrequirements were subsequently included in the Nuclear Materials StorageFacility Design Criteria, a more comprehensive and detailed engineering reviewof the project.
The first construction phase of this project requires relocating anexisting highway and utility corridor. The Romero cabin and other artifactsare in the path of construction. All resources are being evaluated andsalvaged or excavated; an extensive data analysis program, includinginterviewing former occupants of the site, is underway. However, in theinterest of brevity, we will concentrate on the process used to mitigateadverse impacts to the standing cabin.
The process was initiated when the Laboratory and Department of Energy(DOE) approached the local Los Alamos Historical Society and Los Alamos CountyMuseum. Could the cabin be incorporated into the Los Alamos County HistoricalMuseum interpretative program? The construction project would fund the moveas well as cabin restoration. The answer was an emphatic yes! The Laboratoryand the DOE consider Historical Society Museum ownership crucial to effectivemitigation. Not only will the cabin be adequately curated, but it will beopen to the public, a feature the Laboratory cannot provide. The Laboratory
749
and DOE began a process of formal correspondance with the Historical Societyto transfer cabin ownership. Ownership will change hands when the cabin isrelocated at the new site and restored to the conditions of its occupancyduring the 1930s. To oversee the move and cabin restoration, the Laboratoryobtained the services of a historic preservationist, an architect experiencedin the removal of historical structures.
The County Historical Museum, consulting informally with the StateHistorical Officer, the Laboratory Contract Archaeologist, the historicpreservationist, and a representative of the Los Alamos Historical Society,selected a site for the cabin. The site is next to the Museum and provideseasy curative access. The Historical Society could now submit siting plansto the Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission for review andapproval.
In the meantime, the Laboratory Contract Archaeologist prepared aformal adverse impact mitigation plan. The plan included moving the cabin,collecting artifacts and data, and analyzing the material. The archaeologistalso prepared an initial budget. The New Mexico State Historic PreservationOfficer visited the cabin site and informally approved of plans as they v ereproceeding. Necessary personnel contracts were negotiated and finalized. Themitigation plan and budget were reviewed by project, DOE, and Laboratorypersonnel and refined. The DOE then submitted the mitigation plan to theState Historical Preservation Officer; he gave it formal approval. The DOEsent the mitigation plan and evidence of ownership transferral to the Denver-based Western Regional Office of the National Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation for expected final approval.
The foregoing proceedings required the collaboration, or at leastapproval, of many people: Laboratory environmental surveillance personnel(who handled the paperwork of the project and coordinated the input of thevarious respondants); Laboratory construction project personnel; Laboratorypurchasing and contract personnel; DOE construction and environmentalpersonnel; technical personnel—surveyors, mappers, botanists, photographers,the archaeologist, the historic preservationist; State personnel; HistoricalSociety and Museum personnel; local planning and zoning personnel. Theproceedings also required a time span of almost a year (although activity wasnot continuous), in addition to the initial four months required to preparethe ADM and receive DOE approval for the ADM.
As to the current status of the mitigation project, the National AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation, Denver, advised the DOE in mid October thatmitigation can proceed after a formal Memorandum of Agreement stipulatingmethod of mitigation is drawn up between the DOE and the Advisory Council.The MOA must be approved by the Council's Washington Headquarters. TheAdvisory Council has informed the DOE that further mitigation details arenecessary. The Laboratory is in the process of complying. We expect fieldwork to require approximately one month after we receive Advisory Councilapproval. Data analysis will continue through the spring.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
For the future, the Laboratory is completing a Cultural ResourceManagement Plan as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
750
The plan will provide the framework necessary to protect resources located onLaboratory land. It will guide efforts to accurately record the data base -an extensive, time consuming task already well underway. The plan will alsoset resource management priorities and provide a systematic schedule formeeting them. A major goal of the plan is to provide sufficient guidance foreffective management in tandem with sufficient flexibility to meet changingneeds.
751
9G: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THEDEFENSE WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
F. W. BooneEnvironment and Energy Department
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanySavannah River PlantA1ken, SC 29808
ABSTRACT
The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) 1s underconstruction on a site located 1n the central portion of theSavannah River Plant (SRP). The site 1s in a wooded, uplandarea southeast of Upper Three Runs Creek (UTRC). Constructionactivities have or will disturb approximately 200 acres offorest land in the site area which drain toward UTRC. For thisreason extensive plans were developed and Implemented forerosion and sedimentation control, Including diversion ofupland drainage and groundwater pumped from de-wateringactivities, treatment of exposed areas Including temporary andpermanent revegetation of disturbed areas, and collection ofrunoff from disturbed areas In appropriately sizedsedimentation basins. Overflow from these basins, as well asthe discharge from NPDES outfalls, are routinely monitored forselected parameters prior to discharge to UTRC. The creekItself Is the site of many studies conducted by the SavannahRiver Ecology Laboratory.
An oil spill prevention and counter-measures plan wasdeveloped and Implemented for the site Including administrativecontrols, diking of all fuel oil and waste oil storagefacilities as well as the construction vehicle maintenancearea. Storm water runoff from the primary facilities 1s routedthrough an oil separator prior to discharge to an NPDESpermitted outfall to UTRC. All waste oil 1s collected anddisposed of following sitewide hazardous waste managementprocedures.
A concrete batch plant 1s located on the site to provideconstruction grade concrete for the facilities. This plant 1sequipped with an exhaust ventilation system Including twofilter baghouses and Is permitted by the Bureau of Air QualityControl of the South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control (OHEC). A two stage decant structure 1sIncluded 1n the facility under a Bureau of Water Pollution
753
Control DHEC permit to remove solids from the washdown ofconcrete transit mixer trucks and the batch plant. Thewastewater 1s discharged through an NPDES outfall to UTRC.
Sanitary waste facilities are provided across the siteunder still another state regulated permit.
Scrap and excess material are segregated according to anestablished disposal plan with emphasis on salvage whereverpractical. Specific sites are set aside and administrativelycontrolled for disposal of those categories of such materialthat cannot be practically salvaged. Much of this material Isbeing disposed of in erosion control sites which are beingreclaimed for productive use. These activities are alsoregulated by the state of South Carolina.
INTRODUCTION
Construction of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) beganin the fall of 1983 on a site located In the central portion of theSavannah River Plant (SRP) in a wooded, upland area southeast of UpperThree Runs Creek (UTRC). Proximity to the H-Area high level waste tankfarm containing waste to be processed in the DWPF, was a primeconsideration in site selection.
The facilities to be constructed as part of the DWPF include themain process buildings and attendant service facilities, constructionmaterials laydown and work force accomodations, railroad spur line andaccess roads, and interarea transfer lines.
Soils at this site are sands with some silt and clay that exhibit ahigh Infiltration rate and relatively low erosion potential. As shown 1nFigure 1, drainage from the site area 1s to McQueen Branch Creek to theeast and to Crouch Branch Creek to the west, both of which flow northwardto UTRC which, in turn, ultimately discharges to the Savannah River.UTRC is a high quality, slightly acidic stream that contains low solidsconcentrations and has a low buffering capacity.
State permit requirements covering construction activities on thesite are summarized 1n Table 1 and discussed throughout this paper.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL*1>
Construction in the site area will ultimately disturb up toapproximately 200 acres of forest land. Thus the need for an effectiveerosion and sedimentation control plan was self evident to preventexcessive soil loss and subsequent sedimentation In UTRC and Itstributaries, with potential adverse impact on aquatic organisms therein.
754
CROUCH BRANCH-
BUR1M-'
QUEEN BRANCH
,HA1N DHPF CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 1. DWPF Construction Site Storm WaterRun-Off Receiving Streams
755
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF STATE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DWPF CONSTRUCTION SITE
Facility
Concrete Batch Plant
Domestic Water System
Sanitary Waste System
Vehicle Maintenance Area(011/Water Separator)
Erosion Control Area
Scrap Lumber Burning Area
Type Permit
A1r Pollution ControlWastewater TreatmentNPOES Discharge
T1e-1n to Existing SystemSupply WellTreatment PlantDistribution System
Sewer Collection SystemHold Tank and Disposal MethodTrsatment PlantNPDES Discharge
Wastewater TreatmentNPDES
Control Plan Approval
Control Plan Approval
756
With the vegetative ground cover which existed prior to construction,there was minimal runoff and subsequent sediment transport to UTRC;however, once the vegetative cover was removed during construction, therunoff rate was greately increased and the potential for sediment loadingof UTRC was correspondingly high. On the other hand, the chemicalcharacteristics of the soil indicated that sediment transferred to UTRCwould not have a significant chemical impact on this stream. The problemis exclusively the potential of transfer of suspended solids to the creek.
A review of federal, state and local regulatory requirementsIndicated that there were no specific federal, state, or local standardsthat mandate the degree of control or techniques to be employeed forcontrol at the SRP. Aiken County, South Carolina has a sediment controlordinance, but the SRP site is specifically excluded. Thus the SRPcommitment to preserve the water quality of UTRC became the controllingcriteria, although methodologies employed by the U. S. Department ofAgriculture, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the S. C. LandResource Conservation Commission, and others were used where applicable.
The primary elements in the control plan that was developed are:
o Diversion of upland drainage and groundwater pumped from thede-watering system.
o Treatment of exposed areas, including temporary and permanentrevegetation of disturbed areas.
o Collection of runoff from disturbed areas in four sedimentationbasins sized to handle the 10 year recurrence Interval, 24 houraveraged storm.
The locations of three of the four sedimentation basins are shown InFigure 2 with details provided in Figure 3. The specific locations ofthe basins was dictated by the topography of the site. Each of thebasins has a spillway which is terminated with riprap. Basin 4 1scurrently being designed.
Expeditious use of other erosion control facilities was made duringthe early land clearning phase of construction, such as straw bale dikesas shown 1n Figure 4. Over 1500 bales of straw were used in such dikesduring the winter of '83-'84. They proved to be effective for shortperiods of time but did require considerable maintenance. Rock pile damsalso proved to be one of the most effective means of retarding thetransport of eroded soil. These dams consisted simply in piles of largestones in the natural drainage canals.
The overall effectiveness of the erosion and sedimentation controlprogram Is demonstrated by the water quality data provided in Table 2 onMcQueen Branch and Crouch Branch Creeks.(2) The pH and dissolvedoxygen results were 1n line with South Carolina standards for Class 8streams. The turbidity and suspended solids levels were both higher thanrsorroal only during September, 1983, when major earth moving and grading
757
BORROWPIT
BASIN #1 .
FIGURE 2. Sedimentation Basin Locations
758
toCO
o
•o
759
STRAW BALE DIKE*
riov
VtBZDDING DETAIL"4" vertical face
Angle first stake towardpreviously laid bale
FlowWire or nylon
bound balesplaced on thecontour
2 re-bars, steel pickets, or2" x 2" stakes 1 1/2' to 2'in ground
ANCHORING DETAIL
Construction Specifications
1. Bales shall be placed ID a row with ends tightly abutting theadjacent bales.
2. Each bale shall be embedded in the soil a minimum of 4".3. Bales shall be securely anchored in place by stakes or re-bars
driven through the bales. The first stake in each bale shall beangled toward previously laid bale to force bales together.
4. Inspection shall be frequent and repair or replacement shall bemade promptly as needed.
5. Bales shall be removed when they have served their usefulness soas not to block or impede storm flow or drainage.
Standard Symbol
* Drainage area less than 1/2 acre.
SBD
FIGURE 4. Straw Bale Dike
760
TABLE 2
WATER
Date
8/4/839/1/8310/13/8311/3/8312/8/831/9/842/8/843/12/844/10/845/8/846/4/847/9/84
Average
StandardDeviation
OUALITY OF BRANCH CREEKS ADJACENT TO
McQueen Branch at Road
Temperature(°C)232321159968
13211922
15.8
6.5
BH
6.85.86.96.76.37.25.86.66.76.86.26.3
6.51
0.43
Turbidity(NTM
1114*
4-19
102
13192*
219
6.8
6.4
DWPF CONSTRUCTION SITE
F
D1ssoT/edOxygen(DDm)
7.28.47.87.69.6
10.411.610.1?9.09.07.57.8
8.89
1.44
SuspendedSolids(maAh
3250*
220341115726
5.8
6.2
Crouch Branch at Road 4
Date
8/4/839/1/8310/13/8311/3/8312/8/831/9/842/8/843/12/844/10/845/8/846/4/847/9/84
Average
StandardDeviation
Temperature(°C)252523157
1159
12212125
16.6
7.6
EH6.56.46.96.86.07.25.36.86.36.56.46.2
6.44
0.49
Turbidity(NTU1
5135*
1-1950*2
20352
16
10.1
11.6
DissolvedOxygen(DDm)
6.97.47.06.88.66.5
10.79.06.89.06.26.2
7.61
1.42
SuspendedSolids(IM/1)
3281*40*S21
171101013
5.3
5.4
*Not Included 1n averages. 761
activities began. No measurable affect was detected 1n Upper Three RunsCreek. The two Incidents of higher than normal turbidity with normalsuspended solids levels reflects the tendency of local clay soils torelease a soluble dye during heavy rain periods.
The Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL) has completed a one-yearbase-Hne study of benthic Invertebrates 1n the Upper Three Runs Creekwatershed to form a basis for comparison to future study results. Todate, no significant effects of the construction activities have beenIdentified, other than elevated turbidity and suspended solids 1n theheadwaters of Crouch Branch and McQueen Branch Creeks, similar to thatIndicated in Table 2.(3)
The primary lesson learned during the early phase of constructionwas the need for Installing permanent erosion control facilities prior toinitiating land clearing activities. Work on the sedimentation basinswas delayed due to an Inability to adequately compact the soil damscaused by heavy rainfall. This necessitated the use of time consumingtemporary measures (such as the straw bales) which were only partiallyeffective.
OIL SPILL PREVENTION
The main features of the oil spill prevention and countermeasuresplan developed for the site Included diking of all fuel oil and waste oilstorage facilities as well as the construction vehicle maintenancefacility, and administrative procedures for and training in Identifying,reporting and cleanup of spills beyond these areas, and disposal of wasteoil and oil contaminated soil. Sand bags, oil absorbent materials (oildry) and other required equipment are stored 1n areas of significant oilspill potential.
Stormwater runoff from the main fuel oil storage facility and fromthe construction vehicle steam cleaning and wash down area 1s routedthrough an oil/water separator. Details are provided 1n Figure 5. Theflow rate is variable but is expected to average approximately 5000gallons per day. The unit is permitted hy DHEC as a wastewater treatmentfacility. Discharge will be through an NPDES permitted outfall samplingstation through sedimentation basin 2 to McQueen Branch Creek. The unithas not yet operated awaiting public notice of the NPDES permitmodification. The permit application (Form 2C) was made in May, 1984.The delay is due to a backlog of such actions in DHEC.
Waste oil, which has been classified as a hazardous waste by DHEC,1s either burned in an onsite powerhouse or placed in storage 1n ahazardous waste permitted storage facility for future Incineration. 011contaminated soil 1s disposed of in the onsite sanitary landfill withDHEC concurrence.
762
SHELL
AOJUSrtUE CUTLET
SHEEN »AFFLE
6 TUBES
FIGURE 5. Oil/Water Separator
763
TABLE 3
NPOES DISCHARGE LIMITS
Concrete Batch Plant
PH
Total SuspendedSolids (mg/1)
Hin
6
Aye
55
Max
9
Max
110
Sanitary Mastewater Treatment Plant
PH
Total SuspendedSolids (mg/1)
BO05 (mg/1)
Fecal CoHform(#/100 ml)
Min
6
Aye
30
30
2'JO
Max
9
Max
60
60
400
764
CONCRETE BATCH PLANT
A 270 cubic yard per hour concrete batch plant was Installed on thesite in the spring of 1984 to provide construction grade concrete for thefacilities. The batch plant is owned and operated by a subcontractor.The plant 1s equipped with a 1000 cubic feet per minute exhaustventilation system and Includes two Griffen Environmental Co. filter baghouses for cement and flyash dust control. Gravel and sand feed to theunit 1s wetted as a further means of dust control. The unit 1s permittedby the Bureau of A1r Quality Control of the South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control (DHEC).
A two stage decant structure 1s Included in the facility under aBureau of Water Pollution Control DHEC Wastewater Treatment permit toremove solIds from the washdown of concrete transit mixer trucks and thebatch plant. A layout drawing 1s provided in Figure 6. Flow through thedecant structure 1s variable but averages approximately 36,000 gallonsper day. The structure 1s sized to provide an average retention time ofapproximately 17 hours to permit settling of the solIds which areperiodically removed and disposed of at an erosion control site. Materis discharged from the decant structure through a V-notched weir topermit flow measurements, Into a small sedimentation basin as shown 1nFigure 11. This outfall 1s included 1n the SRP NPOES permit. Dischargelimits are shown in Table 3. Overflow from the basin 1s directed toMcQueen Branch Creek which flows into UTRC to the Savannah River.
The decant structure has proven effective 1n controlling totalsuspended solids (TSS) in the discharge; however, experience to date hasshown that pH control is difficult if not impossible to achieve becauseof the wide variations In the Input to and flow through the unit. Plansare currently being developed to line the basin, move the NPDEScompliance monitoring point to the discharge of the basin, and use thebasin as a pH adjustment reservoir.
SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
A population of approximately 1600 construction personnel willgenerate average domestic waste flows 1n the 1984 thru 1986 time periodof 24,000 gallons per day. Bathrooms, personnel showers and a cafeteriaare the main generating sources. The treatment system consists of two12,000 gallon per day plants. Plant components Include surge, aeration,clarification, sludge holding, and chlorination tanks. Soda ash 1scontinuously fed to the aeration tank to control pH for best plantoperaton and to assure an effluent pH in the DHEC permitted range of6-9. Sodium hypochlorite 1s continuously added to plant effluents tokill pathogens. Ultimately a 11ft station will be provided to transferthe effluent discharge approximately one mile to Four Mile Creek whichempties into the Savannah River.
765
J - SEDIMENTATION BASIN!. .p.
//11 1 1 \Ll 1
FIGURE 6. Decant Structure and Sedimentation Basin
766
Although the system 1s Installed and wastewater treatment and NPDESpermits secured from OHEC, 1t 1s not yet 1n operation due to a series ofpermit related delays. The first problem encountered Involved obtainingan adequate supply of domestic water to support the system and otherwater demands. The temporary supply from an existing domestic water line1n H-Area did not meet DHEC flow/pressure requirements. The H-Area linehas been reamed and the t1e-1n has now been permitted. A potable waterwell has been permitted and 1s being constructed that will supplement theH-Area supply. In the Interim a potable water tank truck has beenpermitted and put 1rt service. The sanitary waste discharge sewer line toFour Mile Creek cannot be Immediately Installed, thus necessitating amodification of the NPDES permit to allow for temporary discharge toUTRC. In the Interim, an 18,000 gallon sewage holding tank has beenpermitted which Is emptied dally by a subcontractor and transported tothe Augusta, Georgia municipal waste treatment plant.
SCRAP AND EXCESS MATERIAL CONTROL
Scrap and excess material are segregated according to an establisheddisposal plan, approved by DHEC, with emphasis on salvage whereverpractical. A pre-requis1t to salvage 1s traceabilHy to ensure that thematerial has never entered a controlled area where radioactive material1s being processed or stored. Specific sites are set aside andadministratively controlled for disposal of those categories of materialthat cannot be practically salvaged. These sites, known as erosioncontrol sites, are being reclaimed for productive use.
During the earth moving work and other construction activities largequantities of stumps and inert material, such as concrete, brick, asphaltand spoil are produced. Stumps and Inert material are transported to anerosion control site and deposited. After the area is filled, a soilcover 1s applied and seeded much like a standard landfill operation.Access to the erosion control site 1s controlled by a locked chain acrossthe entrances. Signs are posted stating what materials are authorizedfor disposal. Routine Inspections are made of the area to ensure properoperation thereof.
Because of the projected large quantities Involved, salvaging ofscrap lumber has received special attention. Controls have beenestablished to isolate OWPF construction lumber from other siteactivities. Specifically, 1t 1s brought from offplant directly to theDMPF construction site and never leaves the site until it 1s sold assalvageable scrap wood. Wood products that cannot be sold are disposedof in an approved burning pit with DHEC notification.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSIn summary, progress 1s being made in adapting to the newly
Instituted state permit requirements but not without minor delays 1n theconstruction schedule. These delays are the result of unfamiliarity onthe part of construction companies with state permit requirements,
7G7
inadequate pre-planning for the required permits, and the heavy work loadplaced on the state permitting agencies. To avoid these types ofunexpected delays 1n the future, construction schedules are beingmodified to realistically reflect the lead time requirements associatedwith permit application preparation, review and approval.
Irrespective of the permitting problems encountered, it can beconclusively stated that no significant Impact to the environment has oris likely to occur as the result of the construction of the DWPF.
768
References
1. D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1981. Erosion andSedimentation Control Plan, Defense Waste Processing Facility. 200-SArea. Savannah River Plant. South Carolina. Project No. 76-372-101.E. I. du Pont de Nemours a Company, Wilmington, Delaware.
2. Ashley, C , P. C. Podezanin and C. C. Zeigler. 1984. EnvironmentalMonitoring at the Savannah River Plant. Annual Report - 1983.9PSPU 84-302, E. I. du Pont de Nemours a Company, Ailcen, SouthCarolina.
3. Gibbons, J. W. and W. D. HcCort. 1983 and 1984, Monthly StatusReports - DWPF. Savannah River Ecology Lab, University of Georgia,Aiken, South Carolina
769
9H: A GUIDE TO RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONSFOR SITING AND DESIGN OF DOE NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES
John C. Elder and Joseph M. GrafLos Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico
ABSTRACT
DOE Office of Nuclear Safety has sponsored preparation ofa guidance document to aid field offices and contractors intheir analyses of consequences of postulated major accidents.A summary of needs for such guidance was presented at the 4thEnvironmental Protection Conference in 1982. A guide will soonbe issued for trial use after extensive peer review. The guideaddresses the requirements of DOE Orders 5480.1A, Chapter V,and 6430.1, including the general requirement that DOE nuclearfacilities be sited, designed, and operated in accordance withstandards, codes, and guides consistent with those applied tocomparable licensed nuclear facilities.
The guide includes both philosophical and technicalinformation in the areas of:
o siting guidelines doses applied to an offsite referenceperson;
o consideration also given to an onsite reference person;
o physical parameters, models, and assumptions to be appliedwhen calculating doses for comparison to siting criteria;and
o potential accident consequences other than radiologicaldose to a reference person which might affect siting andmajor design features of the facility, such asenvironmental contamination, population dose, andassociated public health effects.
Recommendations and/or clarifications are provided wherethis could be done without adding new requirements. In thisregard, the guide is considered a valuable aid to the safetyanalyst, especially where requirements have been subject toinconsistent interpretation or where analysis methods are intransition, such as use of dose model (ICRP 2 c" ICRP 30) oruse of probabilistic methods of risk analysis in the siting anddesign of nuclear facilities.
771
INTRODUCTION
A paper presented by the authors at the 4th DOE EnvironmentalProtection Information Meeting in 1982 described the need for a guide topostulated accident analysis for site evaluation and major design featureselection for DOE nuclear facilities. This paper describes the guidewhich has since been prepared to meet this need. The guide entitled "AGuide to Radiological Accident Considerations for Siting and Design ofDOE Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities," has completed the peer-review andrevision process and is being printed. Issue is expected near December1, 1984.
The Guide will be routed through all field offices to the respectivecontractor health, safety, and environmental organizations. Many ofthese groups have reviewed and commented during the peer review of twoearlier drafts. Fourteen peer reviewers plus a large number of otherinterested personnel at DOE sites have commented on the present guide.It is expected that' the Guide will undergo a revision 1-2 years afterissue to accommodate finalization of the DOE Order 6430.1, Chapter I,revision and any other changes which are found necessary.
The need for guidance for the safety analyst stems primarily fromthe disparities between diverse operations and siting situations found inDOE nuclear facilities and the light water reactor (LWR) operations forwhich existing siting criteria were written. The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has supplemented existing siting guidance (10 CFR 100)in greater detail with Regulatory Guides, Technical InformationDocuments, and Safety Guides. Although DOE safety analysts use this NRCguidance where it can logically be applied, they desired a moregeneralized document, philosophical in principle, keyed to DOE Orders,and applicable to the diversity of DOE nuclear facilities. The Guide waswritten to provide guidance in greater detail than is possible in DOEOrders, without establishing new requirements Jigtalready stated in theDOE Orders. Flexibility is needed and is indee<T~aTft>wed; however, sometechnical aspects of postulated accident analysis should be common.These aspects are pointed out in the Guide, generally with the provisothat methods or models other than those in the Guide may be used ifjustification can be provided. This applies especially to site-specificmodels and data developed for this purpose.
The scope of the Guide has been restricted to analysis of postulatedradiological accidents for the purpose of siting and major design featureselection for DOE nonreactor nuclear facilities. The Guide does not dealwith consequences involving workers inside the facility being evaluated.It should be considered only a guide, not a regulation. Althoughbasically intended to apply only to future? facilities, portions of theGuide apply to new processes in existing facilities. An example of thelatter case is the postulated accident initiated by natural phenomena ina facility designed under old structural criteria. A new facility wouldbe designed to withstand all credible natural phenomena, therefore norelease would occur. This might not be the case for an existing facilitywhich does not meet current criteria.
772
SITING GUIDELINES
Criteria or other substantive guidance related to siting and majordesign features of DOE nonreactor nuclear facilities are contained in DOEOrders 5480.1A and 6430.1. Specific radiological dose guidelines havebeen written for inclusion in Chapter I of Order 6430.1. These arepresently in concurrence cycle. The authors of the Guide have followedthe formulation of these guidelines and are presenting them in the Guidein their expected form.
The specific requirement exists in Order 5480.1A that DOE nuclearfacilities are sited, designed, constructed, etc., in accordance withgenerally uniform standards, guides, and codes that are consistent withthose applied to comparable licensed nuclear facilities. This carries onthe generally accepted use of siting dose limits in 10 CFR 100 of 25 remwhole body or 300 rem thyroid to a person located at. the site boundaryfor two hours following the accident. Radiological dose guidelines in6430.1 as proposed are consistent with 10 CFR 100 whole body dose butconsiders other organ doses as shown in Table I..
TABLE 1. Radiological Guidelines (6430.1 proposed)^'
Organ Dose (rem)
Who! ft body 25Thyroid 300Bone surfaces 300Lung 75Effective dose equivalent 25
^a'These guidelines apply to the offsite person receiving the highestdose, assuming dose is accumulated over 50 yr from a single exposure.
Proposed guidance in 6430.1, Chapter I, initiates consideration ofconsequences other than dose to the offsite person,, Although specificnumerical guidance is not provided in any of these cases, the followingshould receive consideration:
o a reference onsite person (not in the facility under evaluation),
o environmental contamination (primarily a cleanup cost impact),
o population dose, and
o public health effects.
Any of the latter three impacts would aid decision making when severalsites are being compared for suitability. Information on deriving eachof these impacts is provided in the Guide.
773
The onsite person receives consideration because many adjacentfacilities on DOE reservations may be totally unrelated to the facilityunder evaluation, that is, administrative or support buildings with veryfew features in common with the nuclear facility. In some cases, theonly large populations near a DOE nuclear facility is an onsitepopulation which, up to now, has received no direct consideration in thesiting of nuclear facilities. The Guide attempts to aid the analyst inspecifying the location and dose of the maximally exposed onsite person.Although economic and other ramifications of the osisite dose guidelinehave not been analyzed, a generally favorable consensus was reached amongreviewers of the Guide.
ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONS
The Guide recommends that postulated design basis accidents (DBAs)be described in the general form shown in Figure 1, Accident ReleaseSteps, and Figure 2, Accident Consequences Steps, Operational accidentscaused by internal initiators such as explosion, fire, nuclearcriticality, or leaks (equipment failure or operator error) werediscussed in terms of major features, publications containing historicaldata, and other information useful to the analyst in describing potentialDBAs. Several event or incident summaries are available which contributeto available postulated accident descriptions, particularly in chemicalprocessing activities. However, such summaries are not available for allnuclear operations with radiological accident potential. The Guide citesavailable references under each of the four accident categories listedabove.
Treatment of natural phenomena as accident initiators is alsodiscussed. Recent compilation by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratoryof earthquake and tornado hazard models for a large number of DOE siteshas provided significantly improved site-specific guidance for theanalyst. Information remains limited when a damage estimate and arelease fraction are to be selected.
Offsite sources of accident initiation are discussed in less detail.These might include aircraft, explosions, and upstream dams. If a sitemight be threatened by a credible event offsite, the analyst is expectedto consider its effect. Similar guidance included in the NRC StandardReview Plan is considered generally applicable.
PARAMETERS, ASSUMPTIONS, DEFINITIONS, AND MODELS
Variation among analysts in the accident-related parameters theyselect, assumptions they make, definitions they use, and dispersion anddose models they select allows broad variation in results, sometimesseveral orders of magnitude. Also this variation might permit choicesthat lead to a preconceived or desired result rather than a result whichis conservatively overestimated. The Guide has attempted to identifyareas of major uncertainty and recommend values which have achieved alevel of acceptability through use in past analyses. Where new data areavailable but perhaps not yet reviewed sufficiently to have gainedgeneral acceptance, the Guide has cited the source as backgroundinformation without recommending its use.
774
on '
EXTERNAL INITIATOR-
NATURAL
EARTHQUAKETORNADO _FLOODOTHERS
MANMADE
AIRCRAFTEXPLOSIONSOTHERS FACILITY BOUNDARY
TOTALMATERIALIN PROCESS
RELEASEFRACTION'
Zt=3PRIMARY tf CONFINEMENT
SOURCETERM
+INTERNAL INITIATOR:
EXPLOSION, FIRE. CRITICALITY, OR LEAKS
sREDUCTION
AND REMOVAL1
X \S£CONDARY CONFINEMENT \
jf / TERTIARY CONFINEMENT / / /
IDESCRIPTION
RADIONUCLIDESQUANTITYLOCATIONINITIAL FORM
DESCRIPTION
MODEPATHWAYFRACTION
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITYFINAL FORMPARTICLE SIZESOLUBILITY
ELEVATEDRELEASE
GROUNDLEVEL
RELEASE
AQUATICRELEASE
DESCRIPTION
NATURAL REMOVALFILTRATIONTRAPPINGOTHER ESF
I
Figure 1. Postulated Accident Release Steps
FACILITY BOUNDARY
ELEVATEDRELEASE
GROUNDLEVEL
RELEASE
AQUATICRELEASE
I
ATMOSPHERICDISPERSION
AQUATICDISPERSION
MAXIMUMONSITE
DOSE
MAXIMUMOFFSITE
DOSE
ENVIRONMENTALCONTAMINATION
nPOPULATION
DOSE
PUBLICHEALTHEFFECTS
\DESCRIPTION
METEOROLOGYDIRECTION
DISTANCEMODIFICATIONS
MODELS
DESCRIPTION
DILUTIONPATHWAYMODELS
DESCRIPTION
INHALATIONIMMERSIONINGESTIONMODELS
Figure 2. Postulated Accident Consequence Steps
The Guide addresses parameters, assumptions, definitions, and modelsin each of the following steps of the dose calculation:
o source term,o release fraction,o reduction and removal factors,o release duration,o meteorological analysis and dispersion, and
o radiological dose.
These major topics are discussed briefly in the following sections.
Source TermThe radionuclides released from primary confinement in readily
dispersible form can be identified for spent fuel reprocessing, plutoniumor reactor fuel processing, and nuclear criticality accidents. Computercodes are available which provide the amounts of fission productsavailable for release after known periods of reactor operation and decaytime. Other releases such as tritium or unmixed radioisotopes arestraightforward. However, less information is available for the sourceterm of large accelerators. The Guide provides available information forsource terms of nonreactor nuclear facilities by reference.
Release Fraction
Values of the fraction of total radioactive material released fromprimary confinement in readily dispersible form are tabulated by severalauthors for a number of accident types. These values are discussed inthe Guide with the acknowledgement that the use of other values may bejustified. Particularly in question is the 50% halogen fraction assumedreleased from spent fuel; TMI-2 experience may lead to a reduced fractionin the near future.
Reduction and Removal Factors
This section deals with the reduction (natural means) and removal(engineered means) factors applied to the source term to determineestimated amounts of radioactivity released from the facility.Performance of engineered safety features (ESFs) is of primary interestand is discussed under three possible conditions accompanying anaccident: 1) the ESF is unprotected from the effects of the accident andis destroyed or severely degraded, 2) the ESF is protected to anindefinite degree from the effects of the accident and some degradationof performance should be assumed, and 3) the ESF is fully protected fromall effects of the accident and may be assuiaed to perform in accordancewith test results. The analyst must decide which case best fits thepostulated accident and assume credit (or lack of credit) appropriate tothe accident. This approach is presented in the Guide as a reasonableapproach to ESF credit which has not been uniformly applied in the past.
777
Release Duration
Postulated accidents at a DOE nonreactor nuclear facility areusually of short duration, which affects evacuation and dispersionassumptions. An effort should be made to describe the timing of therelease, since peak concentrations, although shortlived, may berelatively high at some points of exposure.
Dispersion
The Guide discusses dispersion models applicable to the accidentcase, primarily the Gaussian plume model adjusted to simulate puff orshort term plume dispersion. Ranges of applicability and expectedaccuracy are discussed, along with appropriate adjustments for specialeffects such as plume rise and building wake effects. Credit for suchrefinements has not commonly been taken in dose calculations for thesedispersion effects; however, they become more important when relativeconcentrations at onsite points are calculated.
Two meteorological categories, median and unfavorable, are definedto cover the range of dispersion conditions. Offsite dose calculationsshould be based on unfavorable dispersion conditions; that is anunfavorable sector dispersion factor is the X/Q exceeded by 0.5% of thetotal hourly observations at the site. Median conditions, those in whichthe sector X/Q is based on the X/Q exceeded by 50% of the hourlydispersion factors in that one sector, are suggested for use when theonsite dose is calculated. This method applies expected meteorology tothe controlled conditions onsite rather than the extreme conditionsassociated with the unfavorable case. This approach has not yet receivedformal approval by issuance in DOE Order 6430.1 but is recommended asreasonable in the Guide.
Dose Calculations
The Guide discusses the several models used for dose calculation,makes suggestions toward achieving greater consistency of results, andgenerally supports the apparent movement toward adoption of dose modelssimilar to ICRP 30 models. Individual organ models are either describedor presented by reference. Inhalation dose, direct dose by immersion ina radionuclide cloud, or dose by ingestion of material leaked to theaquatic environment receive emphasis as the most likely pathways of dose.Two of the major variables going into inhalation dose calculation,particle size and solubility, are discussed for their role in thecalculation of organ dose using the ICRP Task Group on Lung Dynamics(TGLD) model.
The maximally exposed person may be assumed-to be the ICRP referenceman unless the accident causes special conditions, for example,conditions under which dose to the thyroid of an infant by thecow-mi Ik-infant pathway might predominate. Other variables such asbreathing rate, quality factor of the radiation, organ mass, and the likeare recommended to add yreater uniformity to dose calculations.
778
RISK ESTIMATION
Risk estimation as a method of site evaluation and design featureselection is a fairly recent development and is still in limited use.Treatment of this subject in the Guide is limited to discussion of riskassessment methods presently in use by a few DOE contractors. Bothqualitative (informal) methods and probabilistic (formal) methods haveseen some use in accident analysis at several DOE sites. However,because the DOE has not formally adopted a risk assessment method orrequirement, the Guide acts only to encourage continued activity in thisarea, urges refinement of available risk assessment methods, and suggeststhat the DOE further investigate probabilistic criteria similar to thesafety goals proposed by NRC.
Accidents with higher probability but lower consequences than theaccident likely to be chosen as a DBA are also considered in the Guide,based on present practice at several DOE sites. If an accident isexpected to occur with higher frequency than a DBA and to produceconsequences outside the facility under evaluation, it should beevaluated against guideline doses lower than the guidelines presented inTable I.
SUMMARY
This paper describes a soon-to-be-issued guide prepared to aidsafety analysts in selecting suitable sites and major design features forDOE nonreactor nuclear facilities. Siting of a proposed nuclear facilityhas been based on radiological dose guidelines. New guidelines proposedfor inclusion in DOE Order 6430.1, Chapter I, and consideration of otherpotential consequences (environmental contamination, population dose andpublic health effects) of a major radiological accident receive specialattention in the Guide. In addition to the offsite person who mightreceive dose, the Guide discusses the requirement proposed for inclusionin DOE Order 6430.1 that onsite personnel also be considered when siteand major design features of the nuclear facility are selected.
The types of information and available sources needed to describeDBAs initiated by operational events, natural phenomena, or offsitemanmade events are presented in the Guide. The discussion of naturalphenomena applies primarily to existing facilities not designed towithstand the design basis events currently considered appropriate in DOEOrders.
Evaluation of consequences requires selection of assumptions,definitions, parameters, and models in each of the following areas:source term, release fraction, reduction and removal factors, releaseduration, meteorological dispersion, and radiological dose. The Guideprovides information in each of these areas in addition to theconsideration of environmental contamination, population dose, and publichealth effects. Of particular interest to the analyst will be thediscussions of preferred dose model, credit for ESF under emergencyconditions, credit for evacuation capability, and reporting of publichealth effects.
779
Use of risk estimation methods within the DOE complex has enhancedthe accident analysis process at several sites, although preferred methodor risk criteria have not been established. Increased effort in thisarea is encouraged although not specifically recommended in the Guide.
760
SESSION 10:
STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE II(T. G. Frangos, Chairman)
NEGOTIATING WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES
PRESENTED BY
John A.S. McGlennonERM-McGlennon A s s o c i a t e s
283 Franklin S t r e e tBoston , HA 02110
Mr. McGlennon opened h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n by d i s c u s s i n g t h echaracteristics of the process of negotiation and how theseprocedures differ from more typical alternatives to disputeresolution such as arbitration and judicial recourse.
He pointed out that the following characteristics are uniqueto the negotiation process:
the process is voluntarythere are usually more than two partiesthe issues tend to be future orientedthe parties have expressed a willingness to compromisethere are no precedents or groundrules for the conductof the negotiationssome of the parties are not interdependentnegotiations strive for win/win solutionsagreements are morally binding.
Mr. McGlennon then discussed the steps that parties tend tofollow in a generic negotiation process. They are as follows:
pre-negotiation asssessmentpre-negotiation position developmentestablishing groundruleseducationpresenting proposalsevaluating proposalsdetermining the need for additional datachecking back with your constituencyresponding to proposalsagreement/disagreement
In discussing pre-negotiation assessment, Mr. McGlennonpointed out that there are certain critical questions that needto be answered in preparation for negotiations. Some of theseare as follows:
what i s the cause of the dispute?who are the affected parties?what are there interests?what are our interests?are they willing to compromise?are we willing to compromise?
783
• what are the possible areas of agreement/disagreement• what i s the likely outcome?• should we negotiate?• who should represent us?
Hr. McGlennon then discussed the differences betweeninterests and issues. He pointed out that interests representbasic human needs and personal values. They tend to be non-negotiable, intangible, unmeasurable and apply to all situatioOn the other hand, issues tend to be negotiable, tangible,measureable and site specific. Mr. McGlennon pointed out thatis essential to differentiate between the interests of partiesand the issues of parties before beginning the negotiationprocess.
Mr. HcGlennon stressed that preparation for negotiation i;essential to protecting ones interests. He suggested the use <the worksheet shown in Figure 1 to assist parties in developinproposals or positions for discussion during the course ofnegotiations.
Mr. McGlennon concluded his remarks by describing thedynamics of the negotiation process. This included a descriptof horizontal bargaining between individual members of anegotiating team, internal team bargaining, vertical teambargaining between team members and their constituencies,unilateral unauthorized bargaining between members of opposingteams, extended table bargaining and conciliatory bargaining.
784
INTEREST ISSOB DIXTIALPOSITIOa
FALLBACKPOSITION
BOTTOMLIMB
OOMSBDOBIICBS
FIGURE 1. Posit ion Development Worksheet
785
LIST OF ATTENDEES
5TH DOE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION MEETINGAlbuquerque, New Mexico
November 6-8, 1984
Theodore G. AdamsDOE-West Valley Demonstration
Project OfficeWest Valley, NY
A. John AhlquistLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Frank M. AlmeterDOE-Defense ProgramsWashington, DC
Robert E. AndersonGoodyear Atomic CorporationPiketon, OH
Jesse AragonLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
W. John ArthurDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Beverly S. AusmesBechtel National Inc.Oak Ridge, TN
David BaggettRadiation Protection BureauState of New MexicoSanta Fe, NM
Kenneth BakerRoy F. Weston,Albuquerque, Nf
Inc.
Samuel I. BakerFermi National Accelerator LaboratoryBatavia, IL
Juris BalodisDOE - Princeton Area OfficePrinceton, NJ
Steve BarkerDOE-Naval Petroleum Shale ReserveCasper, WY
James D. BazemoreRockwell Hanford OperationsRich!and, WA
Naomi BeckerLos Alamos NationalLos Alamos, NM
Laboratory
R. G. BeckwithduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Richard W. BenjaminSavannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
James D. BergerOak Ridge Associated Universit iesOak Ridge, TN
Hoi 1 is A. BerryEG&G/EM, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
Arden E. BickerReynolds Electrical &
Engineering Co., Inc.Las Vegas, NV
Frank E. BinghamDOE - Nevada Operations OfficeLas Vegas, NV
Col. W. D. BitlerDOE-Office of Military ApplicationGermantown, MD
Leo BoberschmidtMITRE CorporationMcLean, VA
Paul R. Bo 1 tonReynolds Electrical &
Engineering Co., Inc.Las Vegas, NV
F. W. Boone ;duPont - Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
787
Leon C. BorduinLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Dr. William R. BoyleOak Ridge Associated UniversitiesOak Ridge, TN
Philip K. BoynsEG&G/EM, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
A. K. BracknellGoodyear Atomic CorporationPiketon, OH
David BradleyKnolls Atomic Power LaboratorySchenectady, NY
Robert I. BrasierLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
James BrinkmanSergent-Hanskins-BeckwithAlbuquerque, NM
George H. Brooks, Jr .Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
John B. BrownBattelle-NorthwestRichiand, WA
Thomas BuhlLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Zolin BursonEG&G/EM, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
J , H. CappsMorgantown Energy Technology CenterMorgantown, WV
Daniel C. CarfagnoMRC-Mound LaboratoryMiamisburg, OH
Judy N. CasanovaEG&G - Idaho, Inc.Idaho Fa l l s , ID
Marilyn J. CaseEG&G - Idaho, Inc.Idaho Fa l l s , ID
Joan ChaconDOE-Naval Petroleum ReserveTupman, CA
Martha CharlesDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Eddie W. ChewDOE - Idaho Operations OfficeIdaho Falls, ID
Paul ChoDOE-Office of Health and
Environmental ResearchWashington, DC
E. J . ChristensenduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Cl i f f o rd E. ClarkDOE-Idaho Operations OfficeIdaho Fa l l s , ID
Dianne ClarkDOE-Idaho Operations OfficeIdaho Fa l l s , ID
Allen W. ConklinRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Lon CooperMorgantown Energy Technology CenterMorgantown, WV
Ralph CopenhavenDOE-San Franciso Operations Off iceOakland, CA
J. P. CorleyBatteH e-NorthwestRichland, WA
738
Kenneth E. CowserMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Kenneth W. CraseduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Todd V. Crawforddupont-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
Bert L. Cr istDOE-Rocky Flats Area OfficeGolden, CO
Joseph CullenDOE-San Franciso Operations OfficeLivermore, CA
N. H. CutshaljOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, TN
Gary R. DaerWIPP ProjectCarlsbad, NM
M. Louise Dal tonDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Abdul Q. DastiDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantown, MD
Bobby Joe DavisDOE-Oak Ridge Operations OfficeOak Ridge, TN
R. J . DavisNUS CorporationGaithersburg, MD
Lawrence DayBrookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, New York
Vincent J . DeCarloDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantwon, MD
Dale H. DenhamBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Thomas DevlinSandia LaboratoriesLivermore, CA
R. L. DicksonDOE-Idaho Operations OfficeIdaho Falls, ID
Larry P. DiedikerUNC Nuclear IndustriesRichland, WA
D. A. EdlingMonsanto Research CorporationMound LaboratoryMiamisburg, OH
John C. ElderLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Robert E. ElderRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Charles E. ElderkinBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Don ElleDOE-Richland Operations OfficeRichland, WA
D. J. El l io tMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Joe G. EstradaDOE-Amarillo Area OfficeAmarillo, TX
D. N. FauverReynolds Electrical &
Engineering Co., Inc.Las Vegas, NV
789
Sharon FeiicettiSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM
Roger W. FerenbaughLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Dr. L. P. FernandezduPont-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
Robert B. F i t t sMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Leonard FleckensteinU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, D.C.
Raymond R. Flemingdupont-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
Thomas G. FrangosDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantown, MD
David M. FrenchRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Barrett R. FritzAerospace CorporationWashington, DC
J. Lynn Scholl FritzLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Raymond GardeLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Donald M. GardinerArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL
Henry K. GarsonDOE-Office of General CounselWashington, DC
James J . GeraghtyGeraghty and M i l l e r , Inc.Tampa, FL
F. C. Gi lbertDOE-Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear MaterialsGermantown, MD
Thomas L. Gi lbertArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL
R. C. GirtonExxon Nuclear ID CompanyID Fa l l s , ID
Norbert GolchertArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL
M. I. GoldmanNUS CorporationGaithersburg, MD
Don Diego GonzalezRoy F. Weston, Inc.Albuquerque, NM
Marjorie A. GonzalezLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermore, CA
Donald E. Gordondupont-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
Patricia GouldingLos Alamos TechnicalLos Alamos, NM
Associates
Helen GramLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
Donald V. GrayGeneral Electric CompanyLargo, FL
Thomas GreenguardRockwell International-Rocky
Flats PlantGolden, CO
790
Alex GriegoDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Thomas C. GundersonLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NMRobert B. HallWestinghouse Hanford CompanyRichland, WA
Wayne R. HansenLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
L. F. HaryGoodyear Atomic CorporationPiketon, OH
Michael HauptmannBrookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, NY
George A. HauquitzLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
Julie HawkinsSandia NationalAlbuquerque, NM
Laboratories
David L. HawleyEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
Kathryn A. HawleyBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
J. W. HealyLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Rita W. HeckrotteduPont Company-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
William F. HeineRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Donald E. HenningerDOE-Office of Operational SafetyWashington, DC
Clarence C. HillMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Allan HirschU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC
Tom Holm-HansenZia CompanyLos Alamos, NM
Daryl D. HornbacherRockwell International-Rocky Flats PlantGolden, CO
Fred HoytDOE - Pinellas Area Off iceSt. Petersburg, FL
Roger HuchtonLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Michael B. HughesduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Thomas HumphreyDOE-Nevada Operations OfficeLas Vegas, NV
David S. IngleDOE-Dayton Area OfficeMiamisburg, OH
Mike IrwinSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM
Donald JacobsH&R Technical Associates, Inc.Oak Ridge, TN
Richard E. JaquishBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
791
Iver W. JeterMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Rudy JezikDOE-Nevada Operations OfficeLas Vegas, NV
Joel JobstEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
Billie K. JojolaSandia LabsAlbuquerque, NM
Kirk JonesZia CompanyLos Alamos, NM
Timothy JosephDOE-Chicago Operations OfficeArgonne, IL
Jerry KatzDOE-San Franciso Operations OfficeOakland, CA
Patricia L. KennedyLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
W. E. Kennedy, Jr.Battelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
John KennerlyMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
Nic KorteBendix Field EngineeringGrand Junction, CO
Gus KosinskiMartin Marietta Energy Systems -
Y-12 PlantOak Ridge, TNKenneth R. KrivanekWestinghouse ID Nuclear Co.Idaho Falls, ID
Paul KrupinDOE-Richland Operations OfficeRichland, WA
A. J. Kuhaida, Jr.Bechtel National, Inc.Oak Ridge, TN
Jerry G. LackeyEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
Merritt E. LangstonDOE-OCRWMWashington, DC
C. A. LangtonduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Steven P. LarsonGeraghty & Mil ler , Inc.Rockville, MD
W; A. LaseterMason & Hanger-Silas Mason CompanyAmarillo, TX
Jack LeeStanford Linear Accelerator CenterMenlo Park, CA
Susan LeStrangeDOE-Oak Ridge Operations OfficeOak Ridge, TN
Barney D. LewisU.S. Geological SurveyIdaho Falls, ID
M. W. LewisduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Perry K. LovellDOE-Office of Military ApplicationGermantown, MD
Alan D. Luck ,Oak Ridge Associated UniversitiesOak Ridge, TN
792
David M. LundDOE-Albuquerque Operations Off iceAlbuquerque, NM
Halkard E. Mackey, J r .dupcnt-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
Max MaesLos Alamos National LaboratoryLivermore, CA
John W. MandlerEG&G-Idaho, Inc.Idaho Fa l l s , ID
Richard MaquezDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
James MargEarth TechnologyLong Beach, CA
Jan W. MaresDOE-Assistant Secretary for Pol icy,
Safety, and EnvironmentWashington, DC
S. P. (John) MathurDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantown, MD
Rober A. MayesDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeArgonne, IL
John A. S. McGlennonERM-McGlennon AssociatesBoston, MA
Charles P. MckayAllied Bendix AerospaceKansas City, MI
Pierre McKenzieSergent-Hanskins-BeckwithAlbuquerque, NM
J. G. McKibbindupont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Thomas J. McLaughlinBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
John H. McMenaminMason & Hanger - Silas Mason Co., Inc.Amarillo, TX
G. Gordon MeadeRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Charles B. MeinholdBrookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, NY
Will iam H. Mellor I I IDOE-Office of General CounselWashington, DC
Daryl MercerDOE-Albuquerque Operations Off iceAlbuquerque, NM
Pamela Merry-LibbyArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL
James H. MetcalfSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM
H. R. MeyerChem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.Albuquerque, NM
Gloria Mi HardSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM
Jere Mi HardNew Mexico Radiation Protection BureauSanta Fe, NM
Lowell J. MillerDOE-San Francisco Operations OfficeOakland, CA
Robert P. MiltenbergerBrookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, NY
793
Emmett MooreBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Hosea MoraDOE-Albuequerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Anthony R. MorrellBonneville Power AdministrationPortland, OR
Tim MulliganMSE, Inc.Butte, MT
Carl F. MuskaduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
David S. MyersLawrence Livermore
National LaboratoryLivermore, CA
Bruce A. NapierBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
P. E. NealBechtel-National, Inc.Oak Ridge, TN
T. S. NeedelsDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantown, MD
Richard A. NeffMonsanto Research CorporationMiamisburg, OH
David NodynsonLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
R. L. NorlandWilliams Bros. EngineeringTupman, CA
Gary R. NormanExxon Nuclear Idaho CompanyIdaho Falls, ID
Edwin R. NortonduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
J . V. Odumdupont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Colleen OlingerLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Mike Or le t tGoodyear Atomic Corp.Piketon, OH
Douglas A. OutlawSAI CorporationMcLean, VA
S. S. PapadopulosGeraghty & M i l l e r , Inc.Rockvi l le, MD
David E. PattersonDOE-Director, Office of OperationalSafety
Germantown, MD
Lois PazDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Ann PendergrassLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
Ron PetersonDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Tim PflaumDOE-Office of M i l i t a ry ApplicationGermantown, MD
Glenn PierceArgonne National LaboratoryID Fa l l s , ID
Matt PopeLos Alamos Technical AssociatesLos Alamos, NM
794
Leigh S. PraterBat ten e-NorthwestRichland, WA
John PriceSergent-Hanskins-BeckwithAlbuquerque, NM
Keith R. PriceBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Paula M. PritzMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
William PurtymunLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
J . E. PurvisCNSIAlbuquerque, NM
Richard C. RagainiLawrence Livermore
National LaboratoryLivermore, CA
James RandellDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
John RaymondBatteH e-NorthwestRichland, WA
Randy ReddickDOE-Albuquerque Operations OfficeAlbuquerque, NM
Anita ReiserDOE-Albuquerque Operations Off iceAlbuquerque, NM
Charles ReithWIPP ProjectCarlsbad, NM
Linda RencehausenWestinghouse CorporationCarlsbad, NM
George RiceSergent-Hanskins-BeckwithAlbuquerque, NM
Kim RiesJacobs EngineeringAlbuquerque, N/l
Margaret RichardsBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Ralph L. RhodesAl l ied CorporationMorristown, NJ
Carlyle J . RobertsDames & MooreWest Val ley, NY
John S. RobertsduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
William RoweRowe Research & Engineering
Associates, Inc.Falls Church, VA
C. R. RudyMonsanto Research CorporationMiamisburg, OH
Brent F. RussellEG&G-Idaho, Inc.Idaho Fa l l s , ID
Sharon SaariMITRE CorporationMcLean, VA
Col in SandersonDOE-Environmental Measurments
LaboratoryNew York, NY
J. D. SagePittsburgh Naval Reactors OfficeWest Mifflin, PA
Art SchoenSAI CorporationMcLean, VA
Robert SchoenfelderRoy F. Weston, Inc.Albuquerque, NM
R. G. SchreckhiseBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Peter J . SchreuderGeraghty & M i l l e r , Inc.Tampa, Florida
Boyd G. SchultzOak Ridge Associated Universi t iesOak Ridge, TN
Randal S. ScottDOE-Office of Defense Waste
managementWashington, DC
S. L. ShellMartin Marietta Energy SystemsPaducah, KT
R. A. SiggduPont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Ted SimmonsSandia NationalAlbuquerque, NM
Laboratories
Gordon J . SmithSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM
Melissa W. SmithDOE-Strategic Petroleum ReserveNew Orleans, LA
Thomas H. SmithEG&G-Idaho, Inc.Idaho Fa l l s , ID
Connie SodenDOE-Aibuquerque Operations Off iceAlbuquerque, NM
J. K. SoldatBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Dwayne SpeerRockwell Hanford OperationsRichland, WA
Conard StairMartin Marietta Energy SystemsOak Ridge, TN
John L. Steeledupont-Savannah River PlantAiken, SC
Brian L. SteelmanBattel le-NorthwestRichland, WA
Joe Stenci lPrinceton LaboratoryPrinceton, NJ
Robert D. StennerBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Robert S t i ck le rDOE-WDCWashington, DC
Stanley S t ie fDOE-Oak Ridge Operations Off iceOak Ridge, TN
Alan K. StokerLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Terry SuplesArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL
Robert E. TapscottNew Mexico Engineering
Research InstituteAlbuquerque, NM
B. M. ThomsonUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque, NM
Larry R. TinneyEG&G Energy Measurements, Inc.Las Vegas, NV
796
R. E. T i l l e rDOE-Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety and HealthWashington, DC
Craig ToussaintRoy F. Weston, Inc.Frederick, MD
Oscar A, TowlerduPont-Savannah River LaboratoryAiken, SC
M. Sue IrevathanBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Tom TuffeyRoy F. Weston, Inc.West Chester, PA
H. Loyd TurnerMonsanto Research CorporationMiamisburg, OH
Sally S. TurnerDOE-Savannah River Operations OfficeAiken, SC
Robert J . Tut t leRockwell InternationalCanoga Park, CA
Carl M. UnruhBatteHe-NorthwestRichland, WA
Allen ValentineLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Don Van EttenLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos, NM
Frank Van LoockeRMI CompanyAshtabula, OH
Joe VirgonaDOE-Naval Petroleum & Oil
Shale ReservesGrand Junction, CO
Milo D. VossIowa State University-Ames LaboratoryAmes, IA
Sandy WagnerBendix Field EngineeringGrand Junction, CO
Robert WallerN.U.S. CorporationColumbia, MD
Robert B. WebsterPittsburgh Energy
Technology CenterPittsburgh, PA
Robert B. WeidnerNLO, Inc.Cincinnati, OH
Carl G. WeltyDOE-Office of Operational SafetyGermantown, Maryland
E. E. Westbrook, J r .duPont Fairview Atomic
Engineering SectionCharlot te, NC
Gene WhelanBattelle-NorthwestRichland, WA
Jerry WingDOE-Oak Ridge Operations OfficeOak Ridge, TN
R. P. WhitfieldDOE-Savannah River Operations OfficeAiken, SC
797
Arthur J. WhitmanDOE-Office of Terminal Waste Disposal
and Remedial ActionWashington, DC
Lida WhitakerDOE-Nuclear EnergyWashington, DC
George WolfAS IAlbuquerque, NM
Margaret WongStanford Linear Accelerator LaboratoryHenlo Park, CA
Stephen R. WrightDOE-Savannah River Operations OfficeAiken, SC
R. E. YoderRockwell InternationalRocky F la ts , CO
Charles D. YoungAerospace CorporationWashington, DC
* U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOEil985- 461 -209O0010
798
